PG&E's income-based proposal is misleading Cartoonist's take

I am writing in response to CalMatters columnist Dan

Walters. In his recent commentary (“Misused budget process led to income-based charge saga,” April 7), Walters wrote that the California Public Utilities Commission's recent electricity rate proposal promises “lower overall bills for most ratepayers.” But it is not going to turn out that way.

The proposal institutes a fixed monthly charge of $24 for all who are not designated as “low income,” along with a rate decrease of 5 to 7 cents per kilowatt-hour used. This only benefits those who consume large amounts of electricity.

A data table in the proposal shows that the overwhelming majority of Pacific Gas and Electric Co. customers will have higher monthly bills under this proposal. For example, the average user in the coastal zone will pay $9.11 more per month; customers in the zone that includes Oakland, San

Jose and Santa Rosa will pay $3.40 more per month. And anyone who uses less than the average amount of electricity will have an even larger increase in their bill.

Even in a hot inland zone, the average user's bill will decline by only $1.47 per month. In short, this proposal favors those who consume large amounts of electricity. It punishes those who conserve. It goes against everything we are trying to do to fight global warming, and it benefits the utility companies, not the average customer.

Surely, the CPUC can do better than this.

— Todd Silverstein, San Rafael