Loretta Lynch, former president of the CPUC, said on KQED’s Forum that a fixed rate would hurt coastal dwellers in apartments and small houses who don’t use a lot of air conditioning.
“That means virtually all low-income customers in San Francisco and Oakland, and maybe even farther than that — those people are going to pay more,” she said.
However, Cynthia Martinez, spokesperson for the Predictable Power Coalition, which includes California’s three biggest utility companies, argued that a flat rate would lower costs for families struggling to pay their bills.
“For people who live in hotter climates, who really have no choice but to run their air conditioning more often, they’re paying higher costs that go toward grid upkeep,” Martinez said. Separating electricity usage costs from the cost to maintain the grid, she added, is more equitable and “will provide fairness.”
The fixed-rate plan has vexed Democrats at the state Capitol, who have been caught between wanting to promote energy conservation and help low-income customers. When a proposal to roll back the fixed-rate plan came up in the Senate Energy, Utilities and Communications Committee last month, all 14 Democrats on the panel abstained from voting — preventing the proposal from advancing.
Questions remain over incentive to electrify
Right now, in California, if you use a lot of electricity, you pay more. If you live an energy-efficient lifestyle, you pay less. Sylvie Ashford, an energy analyst for The Utility Reform Network, or TURN, said that won’t change.
The group supports the new fixed rate, which Ashford said will incentivize people to convert to clean energy.
“Consumers report one of the biggest barriers to buying electric vehicles and electric heat pumps to be the high and rising cost of electricity,” Ashford said. “When it becomes 8% to 10% cheaper on each kilowatt hour, your operating costs on your electric vehicle or your electric heat pump become that much more competitive with polluting gas alternatives.”
Ashford said that while fixed rates are a good first step, the state must do more to address California’s skyrocketing electricity fees, like keeping utility revenue requirements and shareholder profits in check.
Nihal Shrinath, an attorney with the Sierra Club, said policies designed to make more people go electric need to be paired with an electricity rate reduction.
“It’s naive to assume that customers are so attuned to rates that a 10% reduction will all of a sudden convince a bunch of folks to electrify,” Shrinath said.
The Sierra Club described the proposal as a “mixed bag.” They would like to see the CPUC introduce a moderate-income tier and cut rates for the lowest earners to $0. As it stands now, Shrinath said the policy would charge the same $24 rate to a family making $63,000 annually and an individual who brings in millions.
A coalition of more than 240 environmental and renter organizations have fought the proposal. They worry that since there is no proposed cap on the fixed rate, nothing would prevent utilities from hiking up the price in the future.
Lynch said PG&E rates have steadily risen over the past 20 years, then shot up in the last five. At the same time, the utility company has multiple pending rate increases. She said their statement that rates will go down “sounds a little like hopes and prayers.”
The CPUC has said that this plan will not increase profits for PG&E and other utilities but will cover their rising costs, including wildfire mitigation and putting power lines underground.
A bill amended in the state Legislature on Wednesday would limit any increase in the new fixed charge to not more than the increase in inflation. It would also cap the amount of the fixed charge to a maximum of $10 beginning in 2028.
“We must do more to rein in the ever-growing cost of living in our state, not find new ways to add to it,” Republicans in the California Senate wrote in a letter urging the commission to reject the fixed charge.
The proposal is much lower than what the state’s investor-owned utility companies had asked for, which was a charge between $53 and $71 per month.
This story includes reporting from the Associated Press’ Adam Beam.