They missed the point that usage is not part of the fee change. The part they want to make income based is the service charge. So your final bill will be service plus usage.
California already has CARE discounts for low-income households [0]. Why do we need this income-derived base rate? How will it even be determined without invading privacy?
At least CARE is opt-in, like SNAP benefits, where you necessarily compromise your privacy to demonstrate your low-income status.
Yep, you are correct -- this is a form of subsidies.
Other countries do this (or used to do this) with things like long distance and local telephone charges. Higher income regions (although this is not based on income but on region) would pay more, but remote places will pay almost zero.
"...
PG&E, Southern California Edison and San Diego Gas & Electric filed a joint proposal with the state Public Utilities Commission seeking to add a fixed monthly charge for services, based on household income levels.
This fixed-rate plan would reduce monthly bills for low-income customers and if electricity usage is controlled, bills would also be lowered. It would cost as little as $15 a month for low-income households and up to $85 more per month for households making more than $180,000 a year.
..."
So the marginal costs are market-based and the fixed fees (grid maintenance & grid upgrades & company bureaucracy) are income-based. Sounds okay in principle.
Is this possibly to make sure they are making money as more people turn to solar? By making a larger portion of your bill a fixed fee, they will make more from those customers despite them buying less electricity.
