No can do, they are going to start taxing (hard to call that billing at that point) you based on your income. At least that was the plan last summer or so.
All utilities have usage based costs and large fixed costs. Historically, all utilities have charged solely on usage. The problem is when you have solar, or solar + battery, your usage goes way down. Unfortunately the grid still needs to be maintained and power plants at peak times (maybe a bit lower, but still high) still need to be paid for.
With usage based bills, people with solar pay less than their fair share for the maintenance component of a utility's cost, which means that this cost is larger for the other rate payers. On top of this California has huge subsidies to early rooftop solar adopters. This structure hurts lower income people more since lower income people are more likely to rent and apartments don't have as much space for / not as interested in rooftop solar.
So the CPUC started exploring different models for adding a bigger fixed charge to the bill and lowering the per-kwh cost. Of course the rooftop solar installers hated this as did the different "equity groups." Which is where you got the idea to adjust the fixed charge based on income.
I don't think it's a great idea but I at least understand where the CPUC is coming from. We probably need more innovation in utility pricing models.
I appreciate you writing a detailed response, btw.
The issue I have with this idea is that it basically punishes initiative or people who invested in energy efficient products. What’s the point if you can just wait and juice the other guy? Is the climate change a deadly serious issue or not?
Similarly, the part about taxation is self-inflicted wound, where they could have came up with a subsidy, that would have much less complains.
Yes, that plan was ridiculous. A highly paid worker living efficiently in a small condominium would be heavily penalized. Meanwhile someone living in a McMansion with a lower salary would effectively have a lower bill per kWh.
It is best as it is today: a consumption tax, like the gasoline tax. What justification is there for charging a higher income bracket more for electricity? You could make the "infrastructure maintenance burden" argument about anything: food, movie tickets, etc.
I paid an average of $0.31 per kWh last month with SCE (which is on the low side, because a lot of that is charging my car, which I have setup to only charge during off-peak). I see under $0.06 per kWh of Non Bypassable Charges. The word "tax" does not appear on the bill, except in a notice about raising rates which mentions a loss (with the word "after-tax" appended to the amount of the loss) incurred by SCE.