Walters: California’s income-based utility charge saga began with misuse of the state budget process

A year ago, California’s three big investor-owned electric power utilities – Pacific Gas & Electric, Southern California Edison and San Diego Gas & Electric – proposed new fixed charges on their residential customers that would vary by income.

Households making less than $69,000 a year would pay $20 to $34 a month, while those earning $69,000 to $180,000 would be charged $51 to $73. The charge would be $85 to $128 on customers with incomes over $180,000.

Fixed utility charges separate from usage volume are nothing new. They offset costs for utility companies to maintain the power grid. However, basing utility charges on customer incomes would be a new step that touched off a spirited ideological debate that spread beyond the state’s borders.

It drew fire from those on the right because of its class-based underpinnings but also from those on the left who said even small charges would put more stress on low-income families struggling to pay rent and utility bills.

Click here to SUBSCRIBE to CA Political Review 

Recently, the California Public Utilities Commission offered a less contentious proposal: a flat $24.15 per month fixed charge for most customers, lower $6 or $12 charges for low-income households, and lower overall rates tied to usage.

By downplaying the income redistribution aspects and promising lower overall bills for most ratepayers, the PUC has quieted some, but not all, criticism.

Assemblywoman Jacqui Irwin of Thousand Oaks is leading a group of Democratic legislators who think the proposal is still too onerous and back a different proposal, Assembly Bill 1999, that would cap the fixed charge at $10 a month for most customers and $5 for low-income families. Irwin complained in a social media post that the PUC is “completely out of touch.”

The merits of the PUC’s plan notwithstanding, the issue is also a classic example of how the annual budget process is misused to enact major policy changes without fully airing their impacts.

A year ago, California’s three big investor-owned electric power utilities – Pacific Gas & Electric, Southern California Edison and San Diego Gas & Electric – proposed new fixed charges on their residential customers that would vary by income.

Households making less than $69,000 a year would pay $20 to $34 a month, while those earning $69,000 to $180,000 would be charged $51 to $73. The charge would be $85 to $128 on customers with incomes over $180,000.

Fixed utility charges separate from usage volume are nothing new. They offset costs for utility companies to maintain the power grid. However, basing utility charges on customer incomes would be a new step that touched off a spirited ideological debate that spread beyond the state’s borders.

It drew fire from those on the right because of its class-based underpinnings but also from those on the left who said even small charges would put more stress on low-income families struggling to pay rent and utility bills.

Recently, the California Public Utilities Commission offered a less contentious proposal: a flat $24.15 per month fixed charge for most customers, lower $6 or $12 charges for low-income households, and lower overall rates tied to usage.

By downplaying the income redistribution aspects and promising lower overall bills for most ratepayers, the PUC has quieted some, but not all, criticism.

Assemblywoman Jacqui Irwin of Thousand Oaks is leading a group of Democratic legislators who think the proposal is still too onerous and back a different proposal, Assembly Bill 1999, that would cap the fixed charge at $10 a month for most customers and $5 for low-income families. Irwin complained in a social media post that the PUC is “completely out of touch.”

The merits of the PUC’s plan notwithstanding, the issue is also a classic example of how the annual budget process is misused to enact major policy changes without fully airing their impacts.

A year ago, California’s three big investor-owned electric power utilities – Pacific Gas & Electric, Southern California Edison and San Diego Gas & Electric – proposed new fixed charges on their residential customers that would vary by income.

Households making less than $69,000 a year would pay $20 to $34 a month, while those earning $69,000 to $180,000 would be charged $51 to $73. The charge would be $85 to $128 on customers with incomes over $180,000.

Fixed utility charges separate from usage volume are nothing new. They offset costs for utility companies to maintain the power grid. However, basing utility charges on customer incomes would be a new step that touched off a spirited ideological debate that spread beyond the state’s borders.

It drew fire from those on the right because of its class-based underpinnings but also from those on the left who said even small charges would put more stress on low-income families struggling to pay rent and utility bills.

Recently, the California Public Utilities Commission offered a less contentious proposal: a flat $24.15 per month fixed charge for most customers, lower $6 or $12 charges for low-income households, and lower overall rates tied to usage.

By downplaying the income redistribution aspects and promising lower overall bills for most ratepayers, the PUC has quieted some, but not all, criticism.

Assemblywoman Jacqui Irwin of Thousand Oaks is leading a group of Democratic legislators who think the proposal is still too onerous and back a different proposal, Assembly Bill 1999, that would cap the fixed charge at $10 a month for most customers and $5 for low-income families. Irwin complained in a social media post that the PUC is “completely out of touch.”

The merits of the PUC’s plan notwithstanding, the issue is also a classic example of how the annual budget process is misused to enact major policy changes without fully airing their impacts.

Click here to read the full article in CalMatters