This is a rhetorical question, right?

Feature, not a bug.

It's who they are. It's what they do.

Amy, like you, I live in a coastal area. I live pay higher rent to live here, but the perk is, my gas and electricity bills are never more than $40 at any given time. I rarely run the heater in winter months, and I don't have A/C for those 10-12 days a year that I wissh I did. But this...this pisses me off! This is basically a penalty tax on those of use living in cooler climates.

F*@& Jerry Brown - he ran California into the ground last time he was governor. It astounds me that he was able to dupe a whole new generation into putting him back in the Governor's office. And for what? His stupid policies are bankrupting California.

It's the same everywhere. Here on the East coast, the utility companies were all over us: conserve, recycle, use energy efficient appliances, the whole nine yards. And we did. So what did they do?? They raised the rates!! Their poor shareholders and CEOs weren't raking it in as much since everyone started conserving, so yeah! raise the rates! They've got the money because they conserve!

Well done, assholes.

Play me

(It takes a minute to load.)

> Does Jerry Brown not understand what happens to
> the tax base when he chases all the people who
> pay taxes out of the state?

So, you'll be packing your bags and leaving over this?

The logical next step is for gasoline subsidies for people who live far away from where they work.

I mean, why should someone have to pay $150/week in gas just because he lives 75 miles from his job?

The term for this, as well as Obamacare, and a hundred other do gooder government programs at the local, state, and federal level is "creeping socialism"

It is slower and more effective than revolutionary style socialism, and it starts with government taking over as much of the economy as they can get their mitts on, to the detriment of all of us who actually work for a living.

The problem is that most Public Utility Commissions have been perverted from the original idea of rural electrification/phone/other services into a market regulation scheme to the individual dime.

The state should not be involved beyond the point that to hookup to a house 50 miles out on an individual line should cost $X per mile max. If a company can hookup to the the major carrier at $x-.10 then they will probably get the contract.

It should not be able to dictate rates to the companies.

Hmm... this could have legal ramifications at the federal level. The ONLY one of the contiguous states off the hook for having their electric grids regulated by the federal government is Texas (a small portion is, but the rest of it's power grid exists ONLY in Texas so no interstate commerce).

By having the PUC charge a formula such as that (as opposed to a volume based formula with, say, a "connection" or "billing" fee, could adversely impact other states on the same grid (think basically everything West of the Mississippi - if I recall the boundary of that grid).

Now, there ARE separate formulae for "commercial" and "industrial" entities. These are basically bulk discounts. If one billing entity/address uses a lot of electricity, it is cheaper than lots of them using the same amount, since there is only one account/bill/etc to handle. You can see this in the Electric Power Monthly or the Electric Power Annual (publications produced by the Energy Information Administration - an independent statistical agency of the Department of Energy).

Anyway, having that turned upside down in the residential rates could cause higher consumption by those being subsidized. This could adversely impact users in other states (since electrons don't follow state boundaries on the electric grid.

If you want to fight this, I would contact FERC (Federal Energy Regulation Commission, I believe). They are the ones who are basically the energy lawyers and regulators.

Actually, if I lived in CA, I would submit a comment to the PUC (they are responsible for balancing corporate returns with reasonable rates within the state for utilities - since they basically have a monopoly), and CC or co-address it to the appropriate person(s) at FERC asking if this is legal under federal regulations or if it would require approval etc. from FERC. I would specifically cite the potential impact on interstate commerce. Heck, I'd also give the governors and PUCs of neighboring states a shout-out. It can't hurt and it might help.

Make them check the legalities of it now, because that's MUCH easier than after it's enacted!

Hate to say it but this makes perfect sense. What you are really paying for is more infrastructure. The same amounts of lines and transformers still have to be built whether you use them to the fullest 10 days a year or 180 days or 365 days. And in fact it gets even worse, since most people live on the coast this loads the grid even worse for those ten days.