California's hated electric bills will soon be based on our income. Will it work?

[usonian]

https://www.sacbee.com/opinion/article276451191.html
https://archive.is/J4gNw if you have a problem reading it.

Today’s way of charging for electricity is one of the most regressive taxes in California.

The concept of an electricity bill based on your tax bracket is entirely foreign to the American consumer experience. It might smack of an invasion of privacy. Big Brother even. So of course, California is going to implement one for those who get their electricity from investor-owned utilities such as PG&E and Southern California Edison.

A year ago, this idea surfaced in a budget trailer bill with little public discussion. It was hastily approved by the California Legislature. Signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom, the legislation puts California on a pioneering path to be the first state to factor wealth into this unpopular monthly bill.

Implementation of this groundbreaking plan is still at least a year away as it will be debated before the Public Utilities Commission until the PUC must adopt something by July 1, 2024. The PUC regulates the investor-owned utilities such as PG&E. (Sacramento Municipal Utility District customers and other Californians who get their electricity via public power agencies, will not be subject to income-based electric bills).

...


How does this happen? Solar panels on residential rooftops — now on about 1.3 million residences statewide — are a significant investment. The subsidies offered through the utilities have made them much more affordable. Yet only those who can afford to buy a home can benefit. So the benefits go disproportionately to wealthier Californians. These homes are given credit on their bills for the excess power they produced and sent to the grid. Meanwhile, middle- and lower-income people who often can’t afford to buy a home are getting their power from the electric grid and paying more on their bills to maintain it.

Well, isn't this interesting?

A detailed article on why the current system is highly regressive (tell me all about it) is here:
Who’s Afraid of Retail Electricity Rate Reform?
https://energyathaas.wordpress.com/2023/04/17/whos-afraid-of-retail-electricity-rate-reform/

We’ve argued here and here that these prices are too high because we’re effectively taxing grid electricity consumption to pay for costs that don’t vary with usage (e.g. rising costs of wildfire risk mitigation, compensating wildfire victims, infrastructure costs, public purpose programs). These too-high electricity prices are slowing progress on electrification and straining the pocketbooks of lower-income households.

Links are to PDF files.
Cross-posted to GD for exposure. Energy and Environment?

[Bev54]

1. I don't know how that would work as an incentive to use less electricity.

[JohnSJ]

2. +++

[oldfart73]

3. The really rich can also afford better accountants to lower their 'income' to almost zero.

The really rich can also afford better accountants to lower their 'income' to almost zero.

[usonian]

4. They can also afford to go ff-grid, with massive panels and batteries.

Enjoy the debate. It should be a fun one.
PUC already reduced solar credits (payback) IIRC. MY low-usage electric bill about doubled, to build that better grid with all the batteries.