Connect with us

International

California’s soaring electricity rates strain consumers, impact climate goals

Published

2 months ago

6 minute read

From The Center Square

By 

While the greenhouse gas reduction programs that raise electricity rates are part of California’s climate goals, the increased prices actually discourage individuals from switching away from using fossil fuels impacting California’s ambitious climate goals.

California has completed yet another year with some of the highest electricity rates in the country – almost double the national average. The state’s electricity rates have been increasing rapidly, outpacing inflation in recent years by approximately 47% from 2019 to 2023. This is due largely to the high rates charged by the state’s three large investor-owned utilities (IOUs).

According to a report published by the California Legislative Analyst Office, the factors driving rate increases are wildfire-related costs, greenhouse gas reduction mandates, and policies and differences in utility operational structures and services territories. Ratepayers bear the brunt of these costs with those who earn lower incomes and live in hotter areas of the state the most severely affected.

The report points out that while the greenhouse gas reduction programs that raise electricity rates are part of California’s climate goals, the increased prices actually discourage individuals from switching away from using fossil fuels impacting California’s ambitious climate goals.

These programs include the Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), which requires utilities to provide a percentage of retail electricity sales from renewable sources, raising costs for ratepayers. Additionally, SB 350 directs the CPUC to authorize ratepayer-funded energy efficiency programs to meet California’s goal of doubling energy efficiency savings by 2030.

“While many other states operate ratepayer-supported energy efficiency programs, on average, we estimate that Californians contribute a notably greater share of their rates to such programs than is typical across the country,” the report notes.

Electricity rates pay for numerous costs related to the construction, maintenance and operation of electricity systems including the generation, transmission and distribution components. However, these rates also pay for costs unrelated to servicing electricity.

“Most notably, the state and IOUs use revenue generated from electricity rates to support various state-mandated public purpose programs,” the report says. “These programs have goals such as increasing energy efficiency, expediting adoption of renewable energy sources, supporting the transition to zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs), and providing lower-income customers with financial assistance.”

The largest public purpose program is the California Alternate Rates for Energy (CARE), which provides discounts for lower-income customers. However, the report notes that while CARE benefits certain customers, it shifts the costs onto other slightly higher-income customers and that the majority of Californians spend a larger portion of their income on electricity compared to other states.

 “According to data from the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics, California households in the lowest quintile of the income distribution typically spend about 6 percent of their before-tax incomes on electricity, compared to less than 1 percent for the highest-income quintile of households,” reads the report. “Notably, high electricity rates also can impose burdens on moderate-income earners, since they also pay a larger share of their household incomes toward electricity than their higher-income counterparts but typically are not able to qualify for bill assistance programs.”

Electricity bills also reflect other state and local tax charges including utility taxes that are used to support programs such as fire response and parks in addition to the state-assessed charge on electricity use that is put into the Energy Resources Programs Account (ERPA). This account is used to pay for energy programs and planning activities.

While many of the funds recovered through electricity rates are fixed costs for programs, these costs increased in 2022 following the repeal of a state law that limited fixed charges at $10, requiring the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to authorize fixed charges that vary by income. These come out to be around $24 per month for non-CARE customers and $6 per month for CARE customers.

Wildfire related costs have also been increasing. Before 2019, wildfire costs included in electricity rates charged by IOUs were negligible, but now it has grown between 7% and 13% of typical non-CARE customers. Reasons for this increase include California’s high wildfire risk and the state’s liability standard holding IOUs responsible for all costs associated with utility-caused wildfires.

“The magnitude of the damages and risks from utility-sparked wildfires have increased substantially in recent years,” reads the report. “Correspondingly, IOUs have spent unprecedented amounts in recent years on wildfire mitigation-related activities to try to reduce the likelihood of future utility-caused wildfires, with the associated costs often passed along to ratepayers. Furthermore, California IOUs and their ratepayers pay for insurance against future wildfires, including contributing to the California Wildfire Fund.”

According to the report, electricity use and rates for Claifornians are only expected to increase and the legislature will have to determine how to tackle the statewide climate goals while reducing the burden on ratepayers.

Related Topics:

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

More from this author
Censorship Industrial Complex / 7 hours ago

Welcome to Britain, Where Critical WhatsApp Messages Are a Police Matter

2025 Federal Election / 11 hours ago

Poilievre on 2025 Election Interference – Carney sill hasn’t fired Liberal MP in Chinese election interference scandal

2025 Federal Election / 11 hours ago

2025 Election Interference – CCP Bounty on Conservative Candidate – Carney Says Nothing

Censorship Industrial Complex

Welcome to Britain, Where Critical WhatsApp Messages Are a Police Matter

Published on March 30, 2025

By

logo

By Cam Wakefield

“It was just unfathomable to me that things had escalated to this degree,”

“We’d never used abusive or threatening language, even in private.”

You’d think that in Britain, the worst thing that could happen to you after sending a few critical WhatsApp messages would be a passive-aggressive reply or, at most, a snooty whisper campaign. What you probably wouldn’t expect is to have six police officers show up on your doorstep like they’re hunting down a cartel. But that’s precisely what happened to Maxie Allen and Rosalind Levine — two parents whose great offense was asking some mildly inconvenient questions about how their daughter’s school planned to replace its retiring principal.
This is not an episode of Black Mirror. This is Borehamwood, Hertfordshire, 2025. And the parents in question—Maxie Allen, a Times Radio producer, and Rosalind Levine, 46, a mother of two—had the gall to inquire, via WhatsApp no less, whether Cowley Hill Primary School was being entirely above board in appointing a new principal.
What happened next should make everyone in Britain pause and consider just how overreaching their government has become. Because in the time it takes to send a meme about the school’s bake sale, you too could be staring down the barrel of a “malicious communications” charge.
The trouble started in May, shortly after the school’s principal retired. Instead of the usual round of polite emails, clumsy PowerPoints, and dreary Q&A sessions, there was… silence. Maxie Allen, who had once served as a school governor—so presumably knows his way around a budget meeting—asked the unthinkable: when was the recruitment process going to be opened up?
A fair question, right? Not in Borehamwood, apparently. The school responded not with answers, but with a sort of preemptive nuclear strike.
Jackie Spriggs, the chair of governors, issued a public warning about “inflammatory and defamatory” social media posts and hinted at disciplinary action for those who dared to cause “disharmony.” One imagines this word being uttered in the tone of a Bond villain stroking a white cat.
Parents Allen and Levine were questioned by police over their WhatsApp messages.
For the crime of “casting aspersions,” Allen and Levine were promptly banned from the school premises. That meant no parents’ evening, no Christmas concert, no chance to speak face-to-face about the specific needs of their daughter Sascha, who—just to add to the bleakness of it all—has epilepsy and is registered disabled.
So what do you do when the school shuts its doors in your face? You send emails. Lots of them. You try to get answers. And if that fails, you might—just might—vent a little on WhatsApp.
But apparently, that was enough to earn the label of harassers. Not in the figurative, overly sensitive, “Karen’s upset again” sense. No, this was the actual, legal, possibly-prison kind of harassment.
Then came January 29. Rosalind was at home sorting toys for charity—presumably a heinous act in today’s climate—when she opened the door to what can only be described as a low-budget reboot of Line of Duty. Six officers. Two cars. A van. All to arrest two middle-aged parents whose biggest vice appears to be stubborn curiosity.
“I saw six police officers standing there,” she said. “My first thought was that Sascha was dead.”
Instead, it was the prelude to an 11-hour ordeal in a police cell. Eleven hours. That’s enough time to commit actual crimes, be tried, be sentenced, and still get home in time for MasterChef.
Allen called the experience “dystopian,” and, for once, the word isn’t hyperbole. “It was just unfathomable to me that things had escalated to this degree,” he said. “We’d never used abusive or threatening language, even in private.”
Worse still, they were never even told which communications were being investigated. It’s like being detained by police for “vibes.”
One of the many delightful ironies here is that the school accused them of causing a “nuisance on school property,” despite the fact that neither of them had set foot on said property in six months.
Now, in the school’s defense—such as it is—they claim they went to the police because the sheer volume of correspondence and social media posts had become “upsetting.” Which raises an important question: when did being “upsetting” become a police matter?
What we’re witnessing is not a breakdown in communication, but a full-blown bureaucratic tantrum. Instead of engaging with concerned parents, Cowley Hill’s leadership took the nuclear option: drag them out in cuffs and let the police deal with it.
Hertfordshire Constabulary, apparently mistaking Borehamwood for Basra, decided this was a perfectly normal use of resources. “The number of officers was necessary,” said a spokesman, “to secure electronic devices and care for children at the address.”
Right. Nothing says “childcare” like watching your mom get led away in handcuffs while your toddler hides in the corner, traumatized.
After five weeks—five weeks of real police time, in a country where burglaries are basically a form of inheritance transfer—the whole thing was quietly dropped. Insufficient evidence. No charges. Not even a slap on the wrist.
So here we are. A story about a couple who dared to question how a public school was run, and ended up locked in a cell, banned from the school play, and smeared with criminal accusations for trying to advocate for their disabled child.
This is Britain in 2025. A place where public institutions behave like paranoid cults and the police are deployed like private security firms for anyone with a bruised ego. All while the rest of the population is left wondering how many other WhatsApp groups are one message away from a dawn raid.
Because if this is what happens when you ask a few inconvenient questions, what’s next? Fingerprinting people for liking the wrong Facebook post? Tactical units sent in for sarcastic TripAdvisor reviews?
It’s a warning. Ask the wrong question, speak out of turn, and you too may get a visit from half the local police force.

Reclaim The Net needs your help

Make a one-time donation
Continue Reading

Daily Caller

Cover up of a Department of Energy Study Might Be The Biggest Stain On Biden Admin’s Legacy

Published on March 30, 2025

By

 

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By David Blackmon

News broke last week that the Biden Department of Energy (DOE), led by former Secretary Jennifer Granholm, was so dedicated to the Biden White House’s efforts to damage the dynamic U.S. LNG export industry that it resorted to covering up a 2023 DOE study which found that growth in exports provide net benefits to the environment and economy.

“The Energy Department has learned that former Secretary Granholm and the Biden White House intentionally buried a lot of data and released a skewed study to discredit the benefits of American LNG,” one DOE source told Nick Pope of the Daily Caller News Foundation.. “[T]he administration intentionally deceived the American public to advance an agenda that harmed American energy security, the environment and American lives.”

And “deceived” is the best word to describe what happened here. When the White House issued an order signed by the administration’s very busy autopen to invoke what was supposed to be a temporary “pause” in permitting of LNG infrastructure, it was done at the behest of far-left climate czar John Podesta, with Granholm’s full buy-in. As I’ve cataloged here in past stories, this cynical “pause” was based on the flimsiest possible rationale, and the “science” supposedly underlying it was easily debunked and fell completely apart over time.

But the ploy moved ahead anyway, with Granholm and her DOE staff ordered to conduct their own study related to the advisability of allowing further growth of the domestic LNG industry. We know now that study already existed but hadn’t reached the hoped-for conclusions.

The two unfounded fears at hand were concerns that rising exports of U.S. LNG would a) cause domestic prices to rise for consumers, and b) would result in higher emissions than alternative energy sources. As the Wall Street Journal notes, a draft of that 2023 study “shows that increased U.S. LNG exports would have negligible effects on domestic prices while modestly reducing global greenhouse gas emissions. The latter is largely because U.S. LNG exports would displace coal in power production and gas exports from other countries such as Russia.”

An energy secretary and climate advisor interested in seeking truth based on science would have made that 2023 study public, and the “pause” would have been a short-lived, temporary thing. Instead, the Biden officials decided to try to bury this inconvenient truth, causing the “pause” to endure right through the final day of the Biden regime with a clear intention of turning it into permanent policy had Kamala Harris and her “summer of joy” campaign managed to prevail on Nov. 5.

Fortunately for the country, voters chose more wisely, and President Trump included ending this deceitful “pause” exercise as part of his Day One agenda. No autopen was involved.

So, the thing is resolved in favor of truth and common sense now, but it is important to understand exactly what was at stake here, exactly how important an industry these Biden officials were trying to freeze in place.

In an interview on Fox News Monday, current Energy Secretary Chris Wright did just that, pointing out that, fifteen years ago, America was “the largest importer of natural gas in the world. Today, we’re the largest exporter.”

He went onto add that, “the Biden administration put a pause on LNG exports 14 months ago, January of 2024, sending a message to the world that maybe the US isn’t going to continue to grow our exports. Think of the extra leverage that gives Russia, the extra fear that gives the Europeans or the Asians that are dying for more American energy.”

Then, Wright supplied the kicker: “They did this in spite of their own study that showed increasing LNG exports would reduce greenhouse gas emissions and have a negligible impact on price.” It was an effort, Wright concludes, to kill what he says is “America’s greatest energy advantage.”

This incident is a stain on the Biden administration and its senior leaders. The stain becomes more indelible when we remember that, when asked by Speaker Mike Johnson why he had signed that order, Joe Biden himself had no memory of doing so, telling Johnson, “I didn’t do that.”

Sadly, we know now there’s a good chance Mr. Biden was telling the speaker the truth. But someone did it, and it’s a travesty.

David Blackmon is an energy writer and consultant based in Texas. He spent 40 years in the oil and gas business, where he specialized in public policy and communications.

Continue Reading

Trending

X