These reduced rates will benefit me tremendously as I am on Social Security and living on less than $1200 a month in Mountain View. I do not own my own home and I am grateful for the truly affordable housing (and not the "affordable housing " offered in most of Mountain View) where I live. I am certain that I am not the only one, either.

This amounts to a bizarre income tax where those earning less pay a higher rate than those earning much more. Earn $65,000 pay $360 per year in fixed fee to PG&E. Earn twice that at $130,000 and pay $612, so the tax rate for that income level is 15% lower. But earn $180,000 as a group of incomes in a household and pay the same $612 as the $130,000 bunch, so the tax rate is nearly 50% less than the household totaling $65,000.

Isn't this the very definition of a regressive tax?

$28,000 is a fairly arbitrary place for the first change in rate. That's not very much income for an entire household. A family of 4 with 2 wage earners and maybe 3 jobs is going to pop up into a higher bracket. So what, then their PG&E bill has a surcharge of $360 per year if they make $30K? Why isn't that more than they currently pay in state income tax????

The only way something like this makes any sense is if it is an actual income tax that covers any return over say $30K for an individual or $50K for a joint return. Then the rate should depend on income and it should go up with every bracket of higher income. It's WORSE than an income tax the way the scheme is described here now.

The current flat fee structure for PG&E payments is regressive, as it imposes the same fixed fee on all income levels, leading to a higher relative burden for those with lower incomes. However, the proposed structure, while still regressive, seems to be an improvement over the current system.

While the proposed structure is still regressive because the relative burden decreases as income increases, it does demonstrate a progression compared to the current flat fee system, where everyone pays the same amount regardless of their income level.

The current fee structure has the CARES ptogram which uses fees to subsidize bills for low income levels. It also has a baseline allowance which reduces the rate for the first number of kilowatt hours in a month. High income households tend to use much more electricity than lower income ones. The utilities have lobbied to remove additional tiering which used to charge the high users even higher rates than they currently pay now. That was a regressive change. In a large measure We Are Back to the Future.

The way things are now well to do households who have things like saunas hot tubs heated swimming pools massive Deluxe refrigerators and so forth pay a reduced rate on the energy usage for these things than they once did. The rates they paid for that excess electricity use used to allow reduced rates for the low-income households since they are also low user households.

Based on the information provided, there is no evidence to support your claim that PG&E is removing rate tiers. Your statement highlights that the current fee structure includes the CARES program, which subsidizes bills for low-income levels, and a baseline allowance that reduces the rate for the first kilowatt hours in a month. It also suggests that utilities have lobbied to remove additional tiering that used to charge high users even higher rates.

However, you do not provide any concrete evidence or specific references to back up the claim that PG&E is actually removing rate tiers. Without such evidence, it is challenging to validate the assertion that such a change is taking place or has already occurred. It's important to rely on factual information and verifiable sources before making claims about changes in the fee structure of utilities or any other services.

The rate tier change happened a few years ago. That's the point. The tariffs are filed with the PUC. It's all public record. The rate tiers were consolidated under several different tariffs. That's why this is an attempt to return things to the way they had been before, in that high users used to pay more so that lower income households with lower usages could save.

It also makes sense because some electricity sources are more expensive and are only called on when demand rises above a certain level.

While you mentioned that the rate tier change happened a few years ago and that the tariffs are filed with the PUC as public records, the provided information still lacks specific evidence or references to support the claim that rate tiers were consolidated under different tariffs. Without concrete evidence, it remains challenging to validate the assertion that such changes occurred as described.

Furthermore, although the statement suggests that returning to a system where high users pay more and lower-income households with lower usage can save makes sense, the absence of supporting evidence weakens the argument. Assertions about the motivations behind rate changes and their implications require robust evidence to be considered convincing.

As for the claim that some electricity sources are more expensive and are only called on when demand rises above a certain level, while this may be true in some cases, it is a general statement and does not directly relate to the specific rate tier changes being discussed.

In summary, without substantial evidence and verifiable sources, it is challenging to accept the claims made in the statement about the rate tier changes and their implications on electricity costs for different income levels. Relying on well-documented facts and official sources is crucial when discussing complex issues like utility rate structures.