The income-based electricity bill provision is a mistake. The middle class will be hurt the most. Low-income discounts were implemented a long time ago. A real solution is control your usage and quit raising the rates because you can.

Thank you for bringing this topic into discussion and I do agree with all you say.

I would go further though and say it is discrimination against those who earn a certain amount and may even stop those who say are offered a promotion as it may put them into the next category.

Also, I would say this adds to the list of why wealthy people are leaving the state and I think we need to keep the wealthy here as they are the leaders in their fields and are more likely to be running the businesses that are providing employment for the lower and middle incomes. There are plenty of instances of high tech and other leaders moving their businesses out of state.

Lastly, and I fall into this category, I do not want to declare my income to whoever provides my electricity and other utilities. It is a big concern as they are not likely to be able to treat this information confidentially. As present we get letters about once a month comparing our water usage compared to neighbors and it takes nothing into consideration as to why one family may need to use more water than another, number of people in family, size of lot, number of people who work at home v those who spend most of the day away from home, etc. This information is not something that we want to disclose to utility providers and most definitely we don't want to disclose income information because it is confidential information that they cannot be trusted with.

[Portion removed.]

Are you two proposing to work for rent stabilization or better more rent subsidies for those earning under 50K - 100K a year . The low-income threshold at family of four of 150K a year? Really? Poverty in Calif has risen 30% Web Link . Families are working harder than ever. So give us poor hard working people some hope. If rents/housing are out of reach, eggs, milk, bread and fuel — what are some other solutions to the massive wage/housing imbalance??? I am fast becoming a alien native to California. Priced out no matter how hard I work to keep up is just that a dream of equality and access!

I am in favor of running PGE out of Calif & business and all their price gauging, rolling black outs and mistreatment of paying customers . Yet I feel that Marc & Josh might drill down better about the real poverty numbers in SMC SSC , cost of rents, the tripling up under scanty roofs.

"Incomes between $28,000-$69,000 would pay an additional $120-$288 per year..."

So who DOESN'T end up paying more under this proposal which even includes most seniors collecting Social Security?

We already have progressive taxation on income, and several other taxes based on *value* such as vehicle registration, property tax, etc. The state even had too much revenue a couple years ago and issued "rebates" to those below a certain income threshold.

Why on earth are we allowing utilities to charge yet another progressive taxation scheme? Either have fixed fees for all, or use our existing income tax for such schemes. This is nothing more than an income redistribution shell game where politicians hope we don't notice how much this state taxes high income earners.

All that said I'm happy to pay my share, but the system should be honest about the rates and not nickel and dime us. What's next? Progressive tax on gas? Progressive tax on groceries?

If I read this article correctly, Senator Becker and Assemblymember Berman voted for a bill last year, and are now objecting to a provision "tucked into" it which they don't like.

If they thought the provision was so bad, why didn't they lobby last year to change it, and when that didn't happen, why didn't they vote against the bill? Why are they complaining now when it's already state law?

Looking online, it appears the answer is that someone tucked the provision into the bill at the last minute with no debate, and the politicians who passed it didn't even know it was there.

Web Link

Apparently it's common for California legislators to pass bills without much debate or knowing everything that's in them:

Web Link

"Apparently it's common for California legislators to pass bills without much debate or knowing everything that's in them:"

Berman used that as an excuse at a Zoom attended with 200+ people on the proposed housing bills every time he was asked about a specific provision even when the text of that provision was read aloud to him.

"I don't know. There are too many bills for me to pay attention to all of them."

"Get in touch with my legislative assistant who knows the details" but who's equally unresponsive.

Miraculously, one day after the Zoom he voted for all the housing bills.

“ The low-income threshold at family of four of 150K a year? Really?”

Yes. Very typical for modest housing to be 30-50% of gross income in that range. (For us, it’s 50.) Very typical for out-of-pocket medical to be 11% (FAFSA number) or higher (studies show the middle class are currently hit hardest by out of pocket medical). For us last year it was 30%, higher than the typical 25%.

Let’s assume income taxes are at least effectively 15-20%. That leaves 44% to as little as 5% of that for everything else: food, clothing, utilities, insurance, communications, household effects, education, saving for higher education, retirement savings, travel to care for aging relatives, professional fees (like setting up wills, power of attorney for healthcare), repairs, things that go wrong, transportation, etc. In our household, it’s around 10% left after modest roof over heads, out of pocket medical, and income tax. It doesn’t leave a lot to live on in the Bay Area.

And someone in that income range will not be eligible for most state or federal programs aimed at someone living the reality of that economic stratum in this expensive place. Many middle class Californians weren’t even eligible for stimulus checks while relatively well off people in other states got them, for example.

But I’m actually surprised that the poverty limit has been adjusted so high here. Has the federal government somehow begun to wake up to the need to adjust income limits in policies to account for regional cost of living? I’m skeptical. That said, I hope this evident knowledge by our state lawmakers will filter into some of our state policies better.

Thank you to Becker and Berman for the wake up call on this issue. What can we do specifically to help?

This all gets back to the bigger problem. Each city was set up with a purpose in mind. Palo Alto is a suburban city supporting a university. Mountain View was set up as a military support location for Moffett Field. The housing and underground grid is based on different outcomes for all of the cities. Current activity is trying to fix what is on top of the ground with no attention to the capacity of the utility systems that are underground. East Palo Alto recognizes that problem - it cannot support huge growth without a commitment to fixing the underground processing capability.

So now they are using a social engineering tactic which still leaves us with the original problem.

Horrible idea that solves no problem except giving the ambitious politician a talking point on "equity". So far the "equity" people have no investment in the underground city functions. The "equity" people have little engineering capability - not their gig.

One neighbor has their place lit up all night. Another house is a "ghost" house that has no one living in it at this time so they are not using the grid. It is a very expensive house.

I personally resented the query on my economic status. I resent the whole idea. we have equipment that measures the usage and that is what we should be billed on.

[Portion removed.]

The first thing any state senator or assembly member should ask himself when examining a bill is:

“What might be the unintended negative consequences of this if it were enacted into law?”

Clearly neither Berman nor Becker did.

This is really outrageous and anti-democratic for all the reasons stated here. For one, disclosing household income should not be required unless absolutely necessary. As someone already said, we have meters, so this should be the only source for the charge.
More importantly though, what can we do now? The law has passed, so are we stuck with it? What is the community supposed to do with this?

Respectfully this sounds like a CYA op-ed.

Our representatives supported a bill that contained " a provision that required the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to modify a portion of electricity rates to make them dependent on a household’s income." but don't want to be blamed for the unintended consequences on our consistuancy. Hence this op-ed to try to show that they're trying to fix ...what THEY broke.

Maybe next time, our representatives should take the time to read and analyze the bills....they are approving; in other words do a better job.

"We have also fought against boondoggle programs" except last year's freebie for middle income people that bypassed ALL Californians whose income is so low, they don't file income taxes. If that's the one N is referring to, the freebie was conveniently dispersed AFTER the date to file a 0 income tax return had passed.

SRB nailed it, this is CYA just like the previous giveways. Except it is worse, and targets people who receive other state assistance like Medi-Cal and SNAP because their social security income is too low to provide basic health care and food. To raise their price for utilities is like robbing Peter AND Paul and all the horses they rode into this jacked up system on.

Basing utility rates on income seems even more problematic that using it to qualify for income-based housing under the new rules when employment and compensation are so variable and city's seem unable to maintain databases showing the number of employees for get about whether they're getting raises or getting fired.

No one's ever answered what happens to a teacher who's laid off after moving into teacher-only housing? Do they get evicted? Tracking that is just one criterion, someone's employment status.

But monitoring "income" is so much more complicated because it's constantly changing. Will PGE be monitoring the constant changes in someone's income /salary / bonuses / commissions? What about capital gains and dividends? W

What happens to a teacher in teacher housing who gets laid off?

Who thought this up? It got inserted into a legislative bill. I got a letter from an organization that wanted me to answer questions concerning my personal financial data. Signed by our City Manager. What a giant leap into a whole new category of political malfeasance. Worse - one of our PACC members made reference to this activity. So this strategy was planned out way back when. Goodby to any political advancement - overreach has occurred. On the record now.

Since this craziness was legislated, doesn't it take legislation to fix it? I skimmed the authors essay and did not see what I expected to see: the authors should say they have introduced legislation to undo the provision that was 'tucked in at the last minute' that they oppose.

You all realize that the CPUC does not regulate *municipal* utilities, right?
(Web Link

Asking for a statement from CPAUtilities about whether they plan to make any rate (structure) changes would be more useful than a lot of whinging about rate structures for PG&E (and SDG&E, SoCal Edison, etc.)

The weblink in the above comment should be Web Link (the comment software should NOT include an unescaped parenthesis in the URL!)

Today. Some extremely poor in Palo Alto got 48 hour power shut off notices posted on their front door knobs . Yes today. This is troubling course of action was not part of the city Managers Up Lift Local e-blast last week nor was this in his managers report to council last evening.

Nice to know the city is acutely aware of the very destitute whose food, rent, fuel has risen a third since 2020 .

Someone should organize a ballot initiative to repeal it.

This just shows that the whole Save the Environment movement is a giant trap.

First they lure you to buy EVs with rebates. Then they ban natural gas into new houses. No gas stoves, no gas heaters or water heaters. Once everything is consolidated into electricity they start jack up electricity prices.

These days the combined cost of EV is already far more expensive than owning a ICE car. It going to get worse, much worse, once you have to use electric heat pumps, electric stove, electric water heaters, etc.

Furthermore, since California is frequently in drought, the water company will start charging water rates based on income. Perhaps garbage companies will do so as well. Once the practice becomes an accepted norm, and data becomes instantly available to any point of sales, one day they can charge sales tax based on income.

BTW, Newsom has approved a law allowing Santa Clara county to raise sales tax beyond the 10% limit. And MTC has started a discussion group to collect tolls on all lanes of all highways in Silicon Valley.

Currently Costco charges $4.99 for a rotisserie chicken. Using CPUC's logic, maybe Costco should ask me how much money I make so they can then ascertain how much to charge me for the chicken.

It seems crazy to both have progressive income tax rates AND prices based on how much one makes. If the liberals want to tax rich people more, than just increase the state income tax rates to whatever level you want. But the cost of products and services should NOT depend on your income for all the reasons mentioned above (especially the "it's none of your business" and related privacy/security risks.

Yes - we pay property taxes. Property Taxes start with the last sales price for the home, inflated yearly, and adds the bond measures for different functions. One problem there is that many of the very high price homes were bought way back when and the property tax is therefore low. On the other hand in the south side the ownership of homes is turning over in at a higher rate with many one story homes being rebuilt into two story homes and selling for a relatively high price. The city may be getting more property taxes from the south side now then the north.

Note that the city of Fremont is called the highest price location in the real estate sections of the papers - FREMONT!!!

A large property may be mostly land which does not need power. A large home may be lived in only one section and not use as much power as a home with a lot of children in every room using power. There is no one rule fits all here - too many variables.

Who ever thought this up is only applying one set of criteria and oblivious to all of the other criteria that applies. We can't let our city get twisted around from how it operated - with common sense - and let every current political rant run the city.

Love the Costco chicken analogy.

I wonder how much the various levels of government are planning to spend to create, maintain and continually update their income-tracking data bases. PA, for example, can't even count how many employees work here ignoring how much they make.

As a PG&E customer, I've read AB 205. This article makes it sound like everyone will pay more. What I'm reading elsewhere high-income earners will pay more and low-income earners will pay less because of the flat rate fee. Keeping in mind this is a progressive bill (wealth distribution) I believe what I'm reading elsewhere. Read and understand what you're voting on. It's what you're elected to do. I've also read that if this is implemented, the income portion would be held by a third party, possibly a state agency. The state knows our income. Unless you're applying for a low-income discount where a sliding scale is implemented, charging rates based on income is absurd.

Any income based tax increase must be approved by a state-wide ballot initiative.

What PG&E proposes is essentially an income-based tax increase. Therefore, although I'm not a lawyer, I think there is a good case for class-action lawsuit if the proposal is approved and implemented.

OK, stewardship in the legislature failed. Go ahead and fix it.

Principles of quality management require more than fixing one failure. What are the root causes? Berman admits openly he and his staff are overwhelmed. They are not alone.

Years ago Joe Simitian urged citizens send him suggestions for more legislation and laws. His byline was "There ought to be a law".

Now is a good time for Berman and Becker to promote "There should not be a law". If 120 legislators want to promote legislative quality, resolve the deficiency at its lowest, most practical level. If they fail, then address legislative quality by the ballot initiative.

For every new law, the legislature could easily remove at least one, old, ineffective law. This isn't rocket science. The most basic AI can create a list for Becker and Berman to chew on.

A major problem with the legislators is that they think they need to create a bill in order to advance up to a more visible position for re-election. A lot of the bills are just crazy and have no value. Other bills keep twisting and turning current issues to make any resolution impossible. Certain legislators keep harping on a single subject and keep creating new bills on that topic. The Wiener has twisted and turned Housing in multiple directions and cities are now hamstrung by all of the qualifiers. And our reps keep voting for those bills. They have created a giant mess.

Worse - our local papers are owned by major news organizations that keep pushing a political point of view to promote dumb ideas in support of the current political rages. The current cartoon people keep focusing on one person and forget who is
suppose to be in charge of the country and failing.

Berman and Becker are now trying to advance up the chain of command and will do or say anything to keep getting political funding. But they do not produce good legislation or vote to protect the cities they represent.

The City Council and City Manager need to fucus on what is good for this city that they are paid to protect.

"Now is a good time for Berman and Becker to promote "There should not be a law". If 120 legislators want to promote legislative quality, resolve the deficiency at its lowest, most practical level. If they fail, then address legislative quality by the ballot initiative."

Absolutely but they'd have to promise to read the proposed legislation which they both, Berman especially, claim they can't do because there are too many bills -- even those they know they're going to vote for the very next day.

One of them repeatedly claimed he "couldn't wrap his head around" the pesky details which prompted a local wit to suggest we start sending them turbans to wrap around their heads as more useful than their usual "excuses" aka evasions.

When I vote for someone in a general election I look at their past performance - what value have they provided? Are they responsive to current issues with good, common sense positions? Since we are a blue state it is a blue versus a blue person so the R and D elements are less of a criteria. But look at our current big papers that are owned by national organizations? They use the opinions from the NYT - how is NY City doing now? It is a wreck. The current editor of the SFC escaped from the Dominion Sugar Factory in Baltimore harbor and pushes Cuban politics. The original sugar came from Cuba. The WEINER is from New Jersey. how is New Jersey doing now? Not good - empty factories that used to produce products. SF the city is now empty buildings that do not produce any products.

We are being driven by organizations and people who have failed in their home state and are now here trying to destroy this state. Quit voting for these people - vote for California home grown people. However, Newsome grew up in the Getty Oil group but now slams big oil. He is just a political hack.

Quit signing up for ideas which are running this state into the ground.

One of the reasons why electricity has become more costly, and will only become increasingly more costly, is the pressure put on our utilities by the state of California’s aggressive goals to greatly reduce carbon emissions.

Berman and Becker both claim that “electricity affordability is a top priority that we both support”. If they truly mean that, then instead of layering another complex law on top of the already misguided and complex AB 205 which they both supported, there is a much simpler solution. Reverse policies that effectively are forcing consumers to pay for expensive, unreliable green energy, and go back to what we had years ago in Palo Alto: a voluntary program in which households that wished to vote with their wallets could fulfill their wishes by voluntarily signing up for a more expensive 100% green offering.

If almost everyone signs up, then that’s a great endorsement of lawmakers’ green agenda. But if few sign up, then this would demonstrate that our lawmakers are out of touch with consumers. Unfortunately, given that lawmakers really like to make laws, the very idea of unmaking laws to give consumers free choice may be anathema.

" Unfortunately, given that lawmakers really like to make laws, the very idea of unmaking laws to give consumers free choice may be anathema. "

They also like to get nominated for awards, to grow their bureaucracies, to virtue signal for impractical but expensive programs, to hire consultants to advise them on those impractical but expensive programs, to hire contractors to plan traffic "calming" designs and lane reductions, to buy traffic calming devices included not limited to bollards, to hire pollsters and pr staff to tell residents that we're wrong in objecting to the gridlock created by their efforts, to marketing staff and consultants to launch campaigns telling us to get out of our cars to reduce gridlock and to never ever charge EVs during peak times because demand is already too high...

What else did I miss?

I find the writers disingenuous.