Electricity Bill Caps for Poor Start in November

by Steve Haner

Beginning next winter, low- income customers of Dominion Energy Virginia or Appalachian Power Company will be eligible to have their monthly bills capped under a new state financial assistance program.

The income cut off to qualify for Virginia’s new Percentage of Income Payment Plan (PIPP) assisting low income households with their electric bills is the same as the threshold for the long-standing Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP). So LIHEAP beneficiaries will likely be the first enrolled in the new program later in 2023.

PIPP was authorized by the 2020 General Assembly as one aspect of the omnibus Virginia Clean Economy Act. It was then amended and clarified by a 2021 bill with an expectation it would begin providing benefits by 2023. That law set the qualification cutoff at 150% of the federal poverty level. Draft guidelines to get the process going are now posted on the Virginia Department of Social Services website.

An erroneous report on my part on June 27 that the process had stalled prompted several people to provide some details about what was happening off the radar. It was the Virginia Poverty Law Center (a former client of mine) that proposed the effort and did the basic research to come up with this approach, somewhat copied on Ohio’s program. It has been involved in the development process.

The federally funded LIHEAP program is much broader, covering various forms of energy from just about any provider. If a Dominion or APCo customer is already qualified for LIHEAP, those benefits will be counted first before any PIPP benefit is calculated.

How many customer households are we talking about? No one provided a number, but approximately 5-7% of residential customers of those two utilities qualify for LIHEAP. If those customers are paying down back bills, an arrearage, PIPP funds will also be used to reduce those balances before they start to subsidize bills going forward. If customers are in a budget payment plan, which eliminates the peaks and valleys in monthly billing, that is likely to also keep them under the threshold for PIPP.

By statute, the goal of PIPP is to keep a household from paying more than 6% of its qualifying income toward its monthly bill if it doesn’t use electricity for heat, and 10% if it does use electricity for heat. So a qualifying household with $2,500 a month in income would not have to pay more than $150 per month if not using electricity for heat, or $250 per month if using electric heating. Any additional cost is paid to the utility by PIPP.

An interesting wrinkle on this is that if the drive to eliminate natural gas stoves, water heaters and furnaces takes hold, and gasoline cars also disappear, more and more households will hit or pass those electric bill thresholds. The undisputed reality is that energy costs in any form – not just electricity – usually consume a far greater share of the incomes of lower middle- and lower-income families.

PIPP participants will be offered an energy audit if they haven’t already had one, and encouraged to participate in various existing conservation or energy efficiency programs. Whether PIPP dollars will subsidize those is not all that clear yet, but it seems not at first.

Where does the PIPP money come from? Well, from all the other customers of Dominion and APCo, and even from electricity users in those monopoly territories who have opted for competitive providers. There has been a standing charge on monthly bills to fund PIPP since late 2021, but only at a nominal amount to pay the costs for developing this plan.

Once the program gets rolling, the State Corporation Commission will be asked to increase the charge, which is collected by another of those ubiquitous rate adjustment clauses, or riders. The charge is a flat rate per kilowatt hour of usage, with all customer classes paying the same rate. This is an advantage to residential customers, since on many other bill elements the commercial and industrial users with high demand pay a lower per-kWh amount.

The 2021 legislation put a cap of $100 million per year on the PIPP funds to be collected from Dominion’s customers and $25 million per year from Appalachian’s. Again, no change in the rider is likely until after the program kicks into gear in November (and after the election that month).

This will only add to the overall trend of rising rates flowing from the 2020 Virginia Clean Economy Act, with its mandatory move away from fossil fuels and their replacement with billions invested in wind, solar and battery projects. The SCC held a hearing yesterday on APCo’s latest set of VCEA project requests, with their associated increases in utility prices.

The Dominion households who qualify for PIPP will also be exempted from having to pay the monthly bill rider funding the offshore wind construction.  That is also low now, but will explode when construction begins in earnest, and will get even larger and last even longer if the second wave of another 2.6 gigawatts of faceplate capacity is built.

If 7% of Dominion’s residential customers are paying nothing toward that every month, how much more will the rest of their ratepayers have to provide? If PIPP  by itself provides a family only a tiny benefit, they will still want to get on the list to take advantage of this exemption.

The food stamp benefits, now called SNAP, are not funded by taxing other grocery store buyers more. The current federal LIHEAP is not funded with a tax on other electricity or natural gas customers (that is reserved for the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, after all). The cost shifting underlying PIPP is not as egregious as what California is about to do, rolling out different electric rates based on income, but it remains a less than ideal funding method.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

22 responses to “Electricity Bill Caps for Poor Start in November”

  1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
    Eric the half a troll

    “The undisputed reality is that energy costs in any form – not just electricity – usually consume a far greater share of the incomes of lower middle and lower income families.”

    Electricity is far cheaper than gasoline on a per mile basis and most other household energy sources. So the conversion would actually reduce household energy costs per month most likely.

    1. Randy Huffman Avatar
      Randy Huffman

      Far cheaper? Based on what? For vehicles, Car and Driver did an evaluation and it was split. https://www.caranddriver.com/shopping-advice/a32494027/ev-vs-gas-cheaper-to-own/

      Perhaps you are using the tax credit to benefit the consumer, that is an irresponsible way of looking at this as this should be a question as to what is cheaper to the individual and society, not just the individual.

      Car and driver also looked at this based on 15,000 miles of annual driving, perhaps that is an average country wide including rural areas, but I suspect more than a lot of people drive. They also looked at it on a 3 year basis for depreciation, not sure that is accurate, but also not sure what a longer term means (I would think big ticket items hit later on with EV’s).

      Another big factor is interest, most people have to borrow, not pay cash (which has opportunity costs). I did not see this in the evaluation, and since tax credits are paid for by National Debt, there is interest on that as well.

      Personally I do not like EV’s and do not plan to buy one (but have nothing against them), but do like Hybrid’s, we have one and plan to replace our second car with a hybrid later this year.

      1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
        Eric the half a troll

        “Far cheaper? Based on what?”

        Energy use (which is what we are discussing). You’ll pay around $0.05 per mile to charge an EV compared to $0.14 to fuel a gas-powered car for a compact sedan.

        1. Randy Huffman Avatar
          Randy Huffman

          Sorry but that dog don’t hunt. Car and Driver tried to look at all factors.

          And what about the energy to build the car, mine the rare earth components, replace the batteries, install charging stations? Plus of course kwh varies for more across the country then gas prices.

          So yes, I do not disagree with that the simple act of charging a car is cheaper on average than gas, but you gotta look at all factors.

          1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            Sorry but your dog is the one not hunting here. We are comparing energy used by the customer and the price that customer pays per unit for that energy. We don’t need to consider other factors because in the context of individual household energy use (what I was addressing in my comment to Haner) they are not relevant.

          2. Randy Huffman Avatar
            Randy Huffman

            Sorry, I respectfully disagree, you have to consider up front costs. That is like saying solar power is free, just tell the poor to install solar panels and they don’t have to pay the bills any more……

  2. DJRippert Avatar
    DJRippert

    This is similar to what public colleges and universities in Virginia do. The colleges and universities know what it costs to educate a student. They overcharge all students to build a surplus which they use to subsidize some students. The unsubsidized students pay a hidden tax so that the unelected leaders of public colleges and universities can implement wealth transfer schemes.

    At least the hidden taxes on the electricity bills were passed by the legislature.

    The hidden taxes buried in overcharging student tuitions seem to be solely at the whim of unelected college administrators and their “rubber stamp” boards of visitors.

  3. AlH - Deckplates Avatar
    AlH – Deckplates

    IF the target is really low-income households, then why are the Income taxes, sales tax (not to omit gasoline tax), and all the other taxes not part of the equation? The Marginal Propensity to Consume, is an economic factor in motivating income increases for quality of life – assuming people want to have employment & work toward increasing income.
    So, IF I rent an apartment with “paid” utilities, I will have no motivation to be thrifty, as I will consume as much as I want. Then the effect of the reduced rates for the PIPP is basically negative, as I can use income to pay other taxes. As my utilities are paid by the apartment owner (“another taxpayer”). The apartment owner would then deduct from income those costs, which in the aggregate is paid by other taxpayers. And my higher rent would be a factor in qualifying for SNAP, also paid for by other taxpayers.
    My conclusion is that the “green” paid by other taxpayers will not result in a total electricity consumption benefit, which is supposedly greener for those climate alarmists. Moreover, the equity concept of taxation is manipulated, and not well explained & justified by those who use those tax dollars.

  4. Eric the half a troll Avatar
    Eric the half a troll

    “If 7% of Dominion’s residential customers are paying nothing toward that every month, how much more will the rest of their ratepayers have to provide?”

    If X is the $ increase for the rider then I believe the remaining 93% will pay approximately 1.075X so the rest of us will have to pay 7.5% of the rider more. Might want to check my math though. Always hated those word problems…

    1. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      Just a few pennies a month, right? Nothing to see here? It’s a terrible precedent, one that is likely to be repeated, and we could end up like California with income based electricity prices. As to your first comment, meaningless unless you consider what source provides the electricity. Gasoline is a very energy dense, very effective fuel, and the engines are only getting better. Its distribution costs per energy unit may also be very low compared to the cost of the electricity grid. The math is complex.

    2. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      Just a few pennies a month, right? Nothing to see here? It’s a terrible precedent, one that is likely to be repeated, and we could end up like California with income based electricity prices. As to your first comment, meaningless unless you consider what source provides the electricity. Gasoline is a very energy dense, very effective fuel, and the engines are only getting better. Its distribution costs per energy unit may also be very low compared to the cost of the electricity grid. The math is complex.

      1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
        Eric the half a troll

        The $0.11/kwH used to calculate electricity’s cost per million BTU’s includes distribution and is actually higher than what I pay in Virginia (and I suspect most Virginians pay).

        https://www.amsenergy.com/f

        I will give you that electricity is a very inefficient heating method if one is solely using resistance but heat pumps are the option most go with in Virginia.

        Also, as to “we could end up like California with income based electricity prices…” why do you want basic energy costs to be regressive?

        1. Paul Sweet Avatar
          Paul Sweet

          The $0.11 per KWH is a placeholder, to be changed to the actual cost. Their oil costs ($2.20 per gal.) are also way low.

          https://www.amsenergy.com/fuel-cost-calculator/

          Bedford gets its electricity from AEP. My rate was $0.13 per KWH in January and $0.18 for May, when my usage was lower.

        2. Stephen Haner Avatar
          Stephen Haner

          People should pay the price of what things actually cost, or else the wrong signals get sent to the market. That’s not regressive. Back to Econ 101.

          My last Dom bill worked out to 15.6c per kWh. My usage was low in the lovely spring weather. Just take the final bill and divide by the kWh…

          1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            “People should pay the price of what things actually cost, or else the wrong signals get sent to the market. That’s not regressive. Back to Econ 101.”

            I suppose it depends if you consider things like energy usage an existential need or elective purchase. Also, it seems to me that essentially guaranteeing the supplier that they will get paid for their product provided to their poorest customer sends a signal of market stability. That should be a positive… no…?

          2. DJRippert Avatar
            DJRippert

            You are missing the point, I think. The legislators in Richmond seem to understand that the cost of electricity is going nowhere but up with the Virginia Clean Energy Act. In order to reduce the impact of those cost (and price) increases on poor people, they have instituted a hidden tax that will only appear on your electricity bill. That is very opaque.

            What the cowards we send to Richmond should have done was to overtly raise taxes to help subsidize poor people’s electricity bills as those same politicians demand a conversion to green energy absent any concrete analysis of the economics of going green.

            Of course, overt tax increases are two things:

            a) Honest and …
            b) Politically challenging

            As usual, our legislators discarded honesty in favor of political expediency.

          3. James Kiser Avatar
            James Kiser

            no because the free money runs out.

  5. William O'Keefe Avatar
    William O’Keefe

    While a strong social case can be made for subsidies to low income people, no real case exists for a cap of electricity prices as it changes incentives and shifts costs to other users.
    Where is the case that existing federal and state subsidies are inadequate and that more is needed?

    1. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      Hate to be a cynic, but the case at the time was “how do we get to 51 and 21 to pass this bill?” I did see it as an admission plenty understood the VCEA would raise prices quite a bit.

  6. William Chambliss Avatar
    William Chambliss

    I always thought it was funny that the same legislative act that found offshore wind to be “in the public interest,” exempted large swaths of the public from enjoying those “benefits”

  7. Fred Costello Avatar
    Fred Costello

    A lower rate would be better than a cap. With a cap, there is no incentive for the user to conserve. In fact, the user might sell re-charge services that would be free for him.

  8. f/k/a_tmtfairfax Avatar
    f/k/a_tmtfairfax

    And let the fraud begin. Give the grifters some time and you will see such things as: people making more than $100K annually gaming the system; non-existent customers getting aid with the savings going to two or three grifters; and ignoring all the under the table income.

Leave a Reply