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 it...).

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.

Wait, did Josh Becker and Marc Berman vote in favor of Assembly Bill 205? Looks like they did, Web Link

And now they have written this opinion piece, trying to distance themselves from it?

SRB, you nailed it. If they don't like what's in the bill, they should not have voted in favor of it.

My income consists solely of Social Security which is is $1164 a month. I would be delighted to have to pay less for my utilities.

So, the legislature required the utilities to collect an additional income tax for them? What a thinly veiled shell game that is! We know CA is a tax-the-rich state, but let's be honest about it.
But, my bigger gripe is how this dis-incentivizes energy conservation and installation of solar. On top of the NEM3.0 that went into effect this year we are making a full U-turn from trying to curb our electricity usage. NEM3.0 is a mis-nomer - it is no long a net metering rate system - they will charge and credit minute by minute. After analyzing it for installing solar, I've found my best choice will be to disconnect from the utility (to avoid the flat monthly charge), add batteries (to cover the night and cloudy days) and add a propane generator (to supplement when my solar isn't quite enough). So, if I'm rich enough, I can do that and save quite a lot, but I might produce a bit more carbon with the generator. But, that is what the sum of "incentives" are directing me to do.

Like SRB, I am disappointed in these Reps for not doing their jobs. I saw these flaws first time I read about the legislation and I don't even have staff helping me.

@Sheryl wants to pay less for utilities and presumably less for milk, rent, and gas, but the problem is this proposal is a wolf in sheep's clothing.

If you missed this point, to implement this PG&E needs to raise the prices on the rest of us by quite a lot, which are already some of the most expensive prices in the whole country. In many cases, your bill will go up by more than $1,000 a year. Yikes.

Ah - I don't know what compromises our representatives saw - but MORE COMPLEXITY to an already poor idea will not really save it. All the administrative costs (at utilities) will come out of the beneficiaries benefits. AND it does not give incentives for lower edgier energy use.

- Low income family equipment incentive - Window Heat Pump (warm air in Winter, cooler air in Summer, especially on smokey days). Low income family 'equipment'; low cost synthetic-fill bed quilts (they work!). Low income family 'equipment'; reflective window shades (like for cars). ...

Economies of state-wide SCALE / imagine a 100,000 unit window heat pump purchase!

Sheryl, you won't pay less. Only the poorest will escape an increase, EVERYONE ELSE will pay more. Did you read these bits?

"The three monopoly utilities, including PG&E, jointly proposed using this change as an opportunity to raise the overall revenue they collect from customers."

"Incomes between $28,000-$69,000 would pay an additional $120-$288 per year; incomes between $69,000-$180,000 would pay an additional $492-$876 per year; and those above $180,000 would pay an additional $1,020-$1,536 per year."

And now, after having voted yes for this bill and after it being signed into law, Josh Becker and Marc Berman write this:

"The federal low-income threshold for a family of four living in San Mateo County is $149,100, making this proposal financially burdensome for many of our low- and middle-income constituents."

Hello Jay,
Since you referred directly to me, I believe it's fair for me to say that I think you are making some assumptions about me that are unfair I am lucky to be living in Mountain View! I love living here. And if it weren't for these kinds of resources I would not be able to. I believe that people in the middle class are very fortunate even if they have to pay a little more money. Certainly more than I live on. But I understand the issue. And I understand being upset about the situation.