Share this post:


Pacific Gas and Electric (PG;E) would like residential customers like you to pay a fixed charge of $120 per year. 


PGE wants to put an unavoidable $10 monthly charge on your electric bill. If you have rooftop solar — or would like to get it — you wouldn't be able to erase this charge. The same goes for energy efficiency upgrades to your home. It's part of a big push to undermine customer savings from clean energy. The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) should reject this proposal because it would decrease the incentive for people to go solar, do energy efficiency upgrades, and conserve electricity. 

Fortunately, we as electricity customers have an opportunity to speak out against PGE's proposal. Right now, the CPUC is looking for community input on this proposal. 

Sign our petition to the CPUC telling them to stop PG&E from increasing your energy bills while slowing down the development of clean energy options like rooftop solar.

Specifically PGE is proposing to:
Add a New $10 Fixed Monthly Charge for all its customers
Change to a Two-tier Pricing Structure which means higher bills for low-energy users and lower bills for energy hogs

With longer fire seasons and shrinking water supplies, Californians are already feeling the damage to our economy and environment brought by climate change. More roadblocks to clean energy investment like PG&E's proposed fix charge are only going to make things worse.

These changes are highly problematic and would have serious ramifications for all PG&E customers. They will increase our energy bills, and slow down further clean energy investment like rooftop solar and energy efficiency.

By stopping PG&E's proposal we can all save money and the environment.

Sincerely, 

Evan Gillespie
Sierra Club Beyond Coal Campaign

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


AGRP OPEN LETTER TO CPUC

AGRP expresses a  deep concern with the residential rate design proposal from PGE  to change how individuals pay their electric bill. PGE seems to be completely out of touch with its customers and their extremely painful financial situations. 

Rather than working to provide better access efficiency and develop cutting edge solar electric and solar hot water heating programs, their proposal is to add a $10 fixed charge and collapse tiers. 

This fee and structure change would have the impact of discouraging rooftop solar and energy efficiency measures. If successful, their proposal unfairly blames customers and punishes individuals for being clean energy leaders. 

What's worse, their proposals would raise energy costs for low and middle income customers, those who can LEAST AFFORD to pay more on their energy bill. Large energy users should pay more per KW hour, not less. The utility is punishing those who are using less power by increasing their rates, while encouraging waste and inefficiency via dropping the power cost of large power users. 

Taken to an extreme, those who waste the most power would get their power for .0001 cent per KW, while those who use very little power would pay 1 million dollars per KW. Does this make any sense? The system that they are proposing is a reverse carrot and stick, designed to reward inefficiency and waste, while punishing the opposite. 

If anything the reverse situation should be implemented. Those who can afford to waste energy and use more of it, should pay much more than those who are very energy efficient and use much less. Use the carrot and stick approach in the right way, not the wrong way. Reward efficiency and low energy use, instead of the opposite.

AGRP urges the commission to reject the fixed charge proposal, at the very least for low and middle income residents. The poor and low income residents simply can't afford to give away $120 every year just for the "pleasure" of doing business with the monopoly utility in a region. 

These residents are already struggling just to pay existing utility bills, often choosing to not to turn on the heat or AC, just to fit into the very tight budgets they have.
Reactions:
Share this post: