I would like it if California passed a law against hidden state taxes.
Most recently, state regulators are making utilities implement income based pricing for electricity. This circumnavigates the sticker shock of state income taxes and democratic approval of subsidies.
The utilities wanted to change their pricing to have a fixed charge to be connected to the grid (as in most other states) and to lower the per unit cost of consumed energy. The legislators simply required that the fixed charge also be discounted for hookups to deed-restricted affordable housing and for low-income customers. https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/news-and-updates/all-news/cut-reside...
I think my characterization is less misleading than yours. This isnt the application of existing discounts to an industry initiated desire for a fixed fee. The income based fixed charges to come into compliance with new state law AB-205 [1]
Here is a summary from the AB-205 itself: "The bill would eliminate the cap on the amount of the fixed charge that the PUC may authorize. The bill would require the fixed charge to be established on an income-graduated basis, as provided, with no fewer than 3 income thresholds so that low-income ratepayers in each baseline territory would realize a lower average monthly bill without making any changes in usage."
Either way, the law and it's predecessor require income discrimination by private companies, opposed to subsidizing low incomes from the general fund. It is absolutely a income redistribution transfer payment that doesnt go through the state taxes or the state budget. Ironically, this bill was passed as a trailer to the state budget [2].
You're still misreading the law. AB-205 does not require the utilities to have a fixed fee. It simply sets the requirement that if they do introduce a fixed fee (which was previously regulated to be capped at $10), it have discounts for lower income customers. The fee structure must be approved by the CPUC, and the $24.15 fee is lower than the $51 fee that PG&E proposed. This matches the previous program, which required that the utilities set a discounted rate for lower income customers.
> Either way, the law and it's predecessor require income discrimination by private companies, opposed to subsidizing low incomes from the general fund.
The latter would be much more expensive to administer. I don't know why you want to pay higher taxes.
> Ironically, this bill was passed as a trailer to the state budget.
The bill is about regulation of utilities and includes changes to how utilities can apply for and use assistance due to COVID-related non-payment of bills. That affects the state budget.
The fee structure part of the law really isn't that complicated. You should consider whether the news source that you got your information from is reliable.
Most recently, state regulators are making utilities implement income based pricing for electricity. This circumnavigates the sticker shock of state income taxes and democratic approval of subsidies.