When I installed solar panels on my garage roof 3-years ago, I expected my electricity bill to drop. That expectation was not that it would reach zero dollars, but that it would be at least noticeably lower. I didn’t “set it and forget it” either after installing the 13 solar panels as I clean them once per quarter to keep output high. I also track progress and production using one app to monitor household electricity usage and another to track solar production from the manufacturer.
And still… my electric bill climbed last month and year over year. I will give it more time and maybe I need a full month to take measure. That’s the part that makes this story maddening: I didn’t just add solar. I worked hard to reduce consumption and eliminate waste.
Changes I Have Made to Save Power
I replaced my washing machine with one that’s 15 years newer and more efficient. My dryer, central heating, water heater, and stove are natural gas, so they do not impact on the electric bill. I changed my routine, so I now do laundry in the mid-mornings instead of evenings, trying to use energy when the solar panels are producing rather than pulling expensive power later during peak pricing.
I also adjusted my thermostat defaults, changes I actually feel, but made them anyway because HVAC is one of the biggest drivers of electric spend.
- 3 degrees ‘cooler’ for winter heating
- 3 degrees ‘warmer’ for summer cooling
Vampire Electrical Savings
Then I went after the “phantom loads” that quietly drain power 24/7 even when I am not using it. These I believed were going to be the biggest savings over time, so I spent particular attention on them.
- I removed two motion-sensing light-switches and replaced them with manual switches that do not draw power when switched to off.
- I replaced eight receptacles with built-in USB charging ports with standard receptacles. Because 110v AC to 12v DC converters with USB ports down not ever stop drawing power… even when nothing is plugged in.
- I put my computer speakers on a physical switch to turn them off when I am not using them. There were just on, constantly waiting for be to use them twice per week.
- I changed my PC sleep settings down to 15 minutes when it was at 60 minutes prior.
- I replaced two Wi‑Fi smart switches with manual ones, so the Wi-Fi was not always on pulling power.
- I eliminated two smart plugs that used to turn on lamps for me.
- I unplugged and gave away an Xbox Series S so there is no way it can draw power from at Cameron’s place.
- I eliminated a Nest smart camera from my garage just because it was not crucial.
- I shortened my pool pump runtime from 45- to 30-minutes a day.
- I swapped out two surge protectors with built-in USB chargers for two standard units with now built in USB.
- I replaced two smart bulbs with standard LED bulbs to avoid the always-on standby draw of the Wi-Fi.
- I turn off my work PC monitors each night when I am finished working now, as I used to allow them to go to sleep.
- I removed one of two Wi-Fi mesh points, now down to the main router and one mesh point.
So Why Would My Bill Still Go Up?
At this point, I don’t think the answer is “I’m using more electricity.” I think the answer is “the system is designed so my bill can rise even when my usage falls.”
What I Think Is Happening (and What I Found to Support It)
1) Discounts for some customers mean higher costs for others (my revenue-math theory).
One of my strongest beliefs is blunt: I’m capable of paying and willing to pay, so I’m the kind of customer utility companies can lean on to ensure their revenue and margins stay high. That’s the emotional version.
The structural version is what I wanted to sanity-check: California has major bill-discount programs (like CARE and FERA). Those discounts don’t come from thin air. They’re funded through a mechanism that spreads costs across other customers. It is a form of income, revenue, and margin redistribution.
What I found to support my theory:
- The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) states directly that CARE is funded through a rate surcharge paid by all other utility customers. [cpuc.ca.gov]
- A federal HHS/LIHEAP clearinghouse snapshot describing California’s ratepayer-funded programs explains that the funding mechanism is a “public purpose surcharge” on regulated utilities, and notes that customer classes contribute (with exemptions described for CARE customers). [liheapch.acf.gov]
- A California legislative analysis (SB 1130) explicitly says that additional costs of CARE and FERA subsidies are borne by all other utility customers, which increases costs to non-participating ratepayers. [billtexts.s3.amazonaws.com]
Read below, in the “Personal Theory and Thoughts” section, to check out my back of the napkin math here.
2) The utility moved expensive times to when solar helps me least.
The second thing I believe is that the utility’s pricing windows don’t line up with how my solar produces.
- California investor-owned utilities shifted many customers onto Time-of-Use (TOU) structures where the expensive “on-peak” period is commonly 4-9pm (and sometimes 5–8pm), which is after the strongest solar production hours for many homes. One industry explainer notes that default IOU TOU structures include a 4-9pm peak pricing window.
- Southern California Edison’s own TOU information describes TOU plans with 4–9pm or 5–8pm peak windows and explicitly frames these as “new TOU” periods.
And SCE’s public-facing explainer on TOU emphasizes that customers benefit if they can shift usage away from the 4–9 pm on-peak period.
This is the part that can feel like punishment: solar shines earlier, but prices spike later, so even if I generate plenty of electricity during the midday cycle, I still get hit with high rates when you need grid power in the evening. [energytoolbase.com] [sce.com] [energized.edison.com]
3) I don’t get meaningful credit for what I send power back to the grid, and it feels like they’re using my power and charging me anyway.
I feel like the grid takes my excess production during midday, but when I need electricity later, I just have to pay the premium prices so the electric company can get their money no matter what. When they are taking my power midday they pay me nothing, because I was too late to the game adding my solar.
California’s solar billing policies have been shifting over time. The CPUC explains that, for customers on the newer Net Billing Tariff (also called the Solar Billing Plan), exported excess generation is compensated at a rate reflecting the value of that generation to the grid, rather than simply offsetting at the retail price.
A Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory technical brief describes the defining feature of the Net Billing Tariff as lower compensation for the portion of solar generation exported to the grid.
So even without getting into the weeds of which specific tariff I’m on, it’s fair (and source-supported) to say this: under newer California billing structures, exports can be valued much less, which makes solar feel less rewarding unless I can use more of my own production in real time (or pair solar with storage). I do not have onsite battery storage, btw.
[cpuc.ca.gov] [eta-publications.lbl.gov]
Personal Theory and Thoughts
If Customer XYZ isn’t Paying, Then Customer G has to, And Customer G is Me
At some point, I stopped looking at my bill as a reflection of how much electricity I personally use and started looking at it as part of a much bigger equation.
Electric companies don’t get paid based on fairness or conservation effort. They get paid based on revenue requirements and agreements. They are allowed to, and expected to, to collect enough money to cover all of the following items.
- operations,
- infrastructure,
- debt,
- power generation,
- electrical transmission,
- insurance,
- employee pay,
- benefits,
- and a guaranteed profit margin.
That number of required revenue and agreed to profit margin doesn’t change just because some customers can’t pay or are given discounts. So, when I see programs that lower bills for people who cannot pay, or choose not to pay, I don’t see any gift of free electricity. I see math benefiting them, not me.
If the utility needs a fixed amount of revenue to stay solvent, and a portion of customers are paying less, then the remaining customers must cover the difference. There is no other source of money as it doesn’t come grow on trees. It doesn’t come from creating efficiencies or savings on their side. It comes from other ratepayers that have funds to pay.
And that’s where I land squarely in the target zone.
- I pay my bills.
- I pay them on time.
- I don’t qualify for discounts.
- I invested my own money into solar and maintenance.
- I employed efficiencies and upgrades to reduce strain on the grid.
In theory, I should be the ideal customer. In practice, that makes me the reliable one, the one the system can lean on. This isn’t personal, and it doesn’t require malicious intent. It’s simply how regulated public utilities work in this California environment. When discounts are expanded, when affordability programs grow, when unpaid balances increase, or when policy decisions suppress revenue in one area, the shortfall doesn’t disappear. It gets redistributed to other customers.
That redistribution doesn’t land evenly. It lands hardest on customers who do the following.
- Remain connected to the grid
- Do not qualify for assistance
- Continue to consume some electricity
- Reliably pay whatever shows up on the bill
In other words, customers like me.
That’s why my bill can go up even when my usage goes down. That’s why solar doesn’t insulate me from rising costs. And that’s why being responsible, efficient, and proactive doesn’t necessarily translate into lower bills anymore.
The system no longer rewards reduced consumption alone. It punishes because of the ability to absorb cost by those that pay. And right now, I’m absorbing more than my share.
The Setup: Simplified but Realistic
Assume a utility is authorized to collect:
- $1 billion per year from 1 million customers
- That averages to $1,000 per customer per year
Split customers into two groups:
- 300,000 customers receive discounts
- 700,000 customers do not
What Happens When Discounts Are Applied
- If discounted customers receive an average 40% reduction, they pay: $600 instead of $1,000
- That creates a revenue shortfall of: 300,000 × $400 = $120,000,000
That $120 million does not disappear
The utility is still allowed to (required) to collect the full $1 billion so regulators allow the shortfall to be recovered through:
- Non‑bypassable charges
- Public purpose surcharges
- Fixed grid and delivery fees
Those costs fall on the 700,000 non‑discounted customers pay the utility back.
- $120,000,000 ÷ 700,000 ≈ $171 per customer
Thoughts
So, while my “round numbers” example is simplified, the underlying concept is real. There are discount programs that are funded through add-on charges and surcharges that are recovered from the responsible and capable customer base. This means people not receiving the discount see higher costs as the system funds those subsidies.
That doesn’t prove my specific bill went up because of that (utility bills are complicated and include many components), but it does validate the idea that some affordability discounts are explicitly funded by other ratepayers.
The Bottom Line
I went solar. I maintained it. I tracked it. I upgraded appliances. I shifted usage to mornings. I cut phantom loads everywhere I could find them. And I still ended up with higher bills.
At this point, I don’t think the problem is my effort. I think the problem is that electricity billing has evolved into something where rates can rise even if usage falls. I am also punished by discount programs that exist and are funded through surcharges on my bill. Time-of-use (TOU) pricing also shifted the most expensive hours to late afternoon and evening when my solar contributes less.
So yeah: I feel like I’m being punished for trying to do the “right thing.”