Legislators fight proposed California utility fees

California’s big utilities promise that a proposed change in customer energy bills would help low-income families. But now Democratic lawmakers are joining Republicans in saying that the move is unfair to their constituents and will set back energy conservation.

The debate centers on “fixed charges” — set fees included in your monthly electric bills that are added on top of what you’re charged based on usage. These fees go toward operating costs for the state’s electric grid.

In 2022, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a comprehensive energy bill, which included a provision requiring the California Public Utilities Commission to hammer out new fixed charges, ideally in a way where lower-income households pay less than higher-income ones.

Last April, Pacific Gas & Electric, Southern California Edison and San Diego Gas & Electric proposed an income-based pricing structure for fixed charges that they estimated would save some of their lowest-income customers as much as 21% on average.

But some lawmakers, mostly Republicans at the time, argued that the proposal would not only drive up costs, but discourage people from saving energy too. 

Tuesday, some Democrats also sounded the alarm. Assemblymember Jacqui Irwin of Thousand Oaks, joined by a handful lawmakers including Sen. Scott Wiener of San Francisco, announced legislation to roll back the fixed charge mandate, calling it “impractical.”

• Irwin: “Electricity rates have skyrocketed throughout the state…. Our constituents have had enough and so have we. It’s time to put some reasoning back into how we charge for electricity in California.”

Because “it is essential to lower our rates in order to meet our climate goals,” Irwin’s measure would also allow the commission to explore other options to pay for fixed costs and lower electricity rates.

Wiener said the proposed charges were “outrageous” and “offensive,” potentially adding as much as $830 a year for millions of middle-class people.

Meanwhile, Newsom’s office released a statement saying that the commission, whose members are appointed by the governor, “is working diligently with dozens of stakeholders” on a proposal, reported KCRA.

And what are Republican lawmakers saying? Mostly, “I told you so.”

Folsom Assemblymember Josh Hoover said Democrats are “walking back a bad policy they voted for just over a year ago,” and Senate GOP leader Brian Jones of San Diego said Democrats were wrong for supporting the law at all. On Tuesday, Senate Republicans attempted to force a floor vote to amend the law but were unsuccessful.

The commission has until July 1 to decide on the proposed new fixed charges.

Another way to help struggling Californians: Alejandra Reyes-Velarde of CalMatters’ California Divide team explores Los Angeles County’s Breathe program, one of the nation’s largest guaranteed income programs. Since June 2022, 1,000 participants, including 200 who are former foster youth, have received $1,000 a month, and will continue to do so until August 2025.

Every six months, researchers from the University of Pennsylvania are surveying the participants, as well as a control group who don’t receive funds, asking about their financial and mental well-being. It’s unclear how this program, like others before it, will impact state policy. 

For more on the program, and how it’s impacting at least one musician in Long Beach, read Alejandra’s story.

Proposition 1 proponents, led by Gov. Newsom, hold a huge cash advantage, as CalMatters reported this week. One way they can take advantage: Buying ad time to convince voters that changing California’s mental health system will pay dividends, including making a dent in homelessness.

The first spot, launched Tuesday, focuses on veterans — and for good reason. Of the $6.4 billion that would be borrowed if Prop. 1 passes in the March 5 primary, $1 billion would go to add treatment beds for veterans with mental health or addiction problems. And at last count, California has more than 10,000 homeless veterans, one-third of the national total.

Showing how much political capital the governor is investing in this measure, he narrates the ad, on camera, himself. 

• Newsom, in the 30-second ad: “California veterans have given everything for our freedom, often at extraordinary cost to themselves. Prop. 1 is for them. It’s disgraceful that we’ve left 10,000 veterans living on the streets, many suffering PTSD.”

The ad is only part of Prop. 1 supporters ramping up their efforts. This morning, Newsom and big city mayors plan a virtual event, while others rally at the state Capitol. Opponents, who say the measure would undermine local mental health programs, plan their own rally Thursday.

Mental health is high on the priority list for Californians: 81% said it’s extremely or very important to increase access, and 25% say they or someone close to them has needed treatment for serious mental illness, according to a new poll out today from the California Health Care Foundation. 

In other election news: Secretary of State Shirley Weber is drawing fire for an administrative error that means millions of ballots will go out with the wrong ballot designation for Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Christina Pascucci. She’ll be listed as “no ballot designation,” though it should be “Local Television Journalist.”

Pascucci told The Sacramento Bee that while it’s “hugely distressing,” she isn’t interested in the expense of reprinting ballots, even if that were possible. Instead, she’s urging supporters to share a social media post in which she says: “I’m going to be frank: This is bad and it doesn’t just affect my campaign, it could impact the overall results of this election.”

Removing college degree requirements for state jobs may be a good way to get rid of unnecessary barriers while boosting employment. But some lawmakers and labor groups are concerned about the unintended consequences, writes CalMatters community college reporter Adam Echelman.

Since 2015, the state’s human resources department has changed the requirements for nearly 170 kinds of jobs, which represent about 27,000 positions. These changes include either removing high school, college, or graduate-level degree requirements, or detailing alternative ways to acquire the same skills.

In an executive order last year, Gov. Newsom directed the California Department of Human Resources to make re-evaluating education requirements a higher priority — not surprising given that the state’s job vacancy rate has risen from just under about 15% before the pandemic to 20% now.

But a bill proposed last year to ease college degree requirements for most state government jobs died in the suspense file. (One analysis estimated it would cost $1 million to process all the job changes.) And the Service Employees International Union raised concerns that some employers will lower wages.

For more on degree requirements for state jobs, read Adam’s story.

In other higher education news: CalMatters’ Mikhail Zinshteyn reports that the independent Legislative Analyst’s Office said Tuesday that Gov. Newsom’s promise to keep growing university funding will add $1.5 billion to California’s spiraling multi-year deficit in 2025-26.

The analyst’s office said that’s “poor fiscal practice” because normally the state defers spending to avoid cuts. In this case, the governor wants to continue to expand state funding for higher education — possibly at the expense of other state programs and at a time when the state is projected to have smaller reserves.

The California State University is counting on growing state support to afford its recent employee wage hikes — but even upcoming tuition hikes and more taxpayer dollars aren’t enough to tackle the system’s labor costs.

In more hopeful news, California’s number of residents with college degrees grew by 6% between 2010 and 2020, a research group calculated, which will lead to trillions in more worker income.

With salmon populations plummeting in the state, Gov. Newsom debuted a statewide strategy Tuesday that aims to restore the struggling species, writes CalMatters’ Rachel Becker. The plan includes dismantling dams that block migration, restoring habitat and modernizing hatcheries.

• Newsom, in a statement: “We’re doubling down to make sure this species not only adapts in the face of extreme weather but remains a fixture of California’s natural beauty and ecosystems for generations to come.”

Many of the solutions are already underway, such as the demolition of four dams on the Klamath River, the reintroduction of winter-run Chinook eggs in the Sacramento River and establishing minimum flows on the Scott and Shasta Rivers.

But some environmental groups say the strategy falls short, and argue that Newsom’s administration has enacted policies that threaten salmon as well: His waiver of water quality requirements in the Delta, his support of a controversial pact with major water suppliers and his backing of the Delta tunnel project that could put salmon at risk. 

• Jon Rosenfield, science director of San Francisco Baykeeper: “The governor has spent his entire administration resisting new protections for salmon…. And now, in the sixth year of his administration, he’s got a plan, which doesn’t include any of the fixes that the best available science says are necessary.”

To learn more about Newsom’s salmon plan, read Rachel’s story.

In other environmental news: The California Chamber of Commerce announced Tuesday it joined the U.S. Chamber’s lawsuit to stop two new state laws requiring larger corporations to disclose their carbon emissions and to detail their climate-related risks. Other plaintiffs include the Central Valley Business Federation and Western Growers Association. 

• Jennifer Barrera, CalChamber president and CEO, in a statement: “Compelling businesses to report inconsistent and inaccurate information unnecessarily places them at risk for enormous penalties.”

Sen. Wiener, who authored one of the laws, called the lawsuit “straight up climate denial” and said the lawsuit’s claim that the law violates companies’ First Amendment rights is “bizarre and frivolous.”