. Most worry that the high fixed charges will turn customers away from energy efficiency; others say it will disincentivize installation of rooftop solar.
“This proposal actually discourages conservation,” Dawson, the retired data manager, wrote to the commission. “Those that live without air conditioning and conserve electricity or who use solar energy ... will still be required to pay the monthly fees.”Curtis Benz from Vista, Calif., wrote: “I am scheduled to have solar installed on my home next month but after finding out about this proposal I will be canceling the install.
There is also the question of whether the cost of the grid infrastructure and wildfire resilience should be looped into utility bills at all. “We would prefer that these costs be paid for through income taxes,” Freedman said. But historically, the California legislature has been hesitant to take on that responsibility — and in the meantime, funds are desperately needed.
Some experts have suggested alternatives. Lazar said a better way to boost electrification is to offer special rates for consumers who get rid of natural gas. “Someone puts in a heat pump, they get 400 kilowatt-hours a month cheap in the winter,” he said as an example. “If you can target the cheap power, you can solve the electrification challenge.”could follow.
“This is a uniquely California problem now,” Fowlie said. “But I think we’re a leading indicator of where other states could be headed.”
Law Law Latest News, Law Law Headlines
Similar News:You can also read news stories similar to this one that we have collected from other news sources.
Source: cleveland19news - 🏆 70. / 68 Read more »