Forum

National Proposal for Income-Based Electric Bills: Unjust Redistribution of Wealth! A controversial plan is gaining momentum nationwide to tie electric bills to personal income, under the guise of addressing energy cost inequality, but in reality this is nothing less than the redistribution of poverty!

While proponents claim it promotes fairness, this concept raises valid concerns about privacy and sets a dangerous precedent.

California, serving as the testing grounds for this misguided initiative, has hastily approved legislation, making it the first state to factor wealth into monthly electric bills.

The plan's implementation, scheduled for at least a year from now, will face scrutiny by the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) before being adopted by July 1, 2024.

It is important to note that income-based electric bills will only affect consumers receiving electricity from investor-owned utilities, such as PG&E and Southern California Edison, while public power agency customers will be exempt.

Advocates argue that the primary goal of this proposal is to establish an equitable system for all Americans.

However, Severin Borenstein, the driving force behind this idea and the faculty director at the Energy Institute of the Haas School of Business at the University of California, Berkeley, was surprised by the decision to transform his concept into law without proper consultation.

Borenstein's claim that current electricity bills operate as a form of taxation is flawed and ignores the essential role of subsidies in supporting rooftop solar installations.

While rooftop solar panels have become more accessible through utility incentives, the focus remains on benefiting homeowners, leaving lower-income individuals, who often cannot afford their own homes, to shoulder an unfair financial burden in maintaining the electric grid.

State Senator Steven Bradford's arguments about a cost shift from the wealthy to the poor overlook the complexities of energy distribution and undermine the contributions of wealthier households.

Borenstein's proposed solution of absorbing grid fortification, watershed protection, and efficiency improvement costs into the state budget fails to address the significant budget deficits and urgent needs faced by many states. Instead, this ill-conceived overhaul of utility bills, mirroring California's approach, risks setting a dangerous precedent and could lead to unintended consequences nationwide.

While some states have added costs to investor-owned utilities, resulting in electric bills that resemble taxation, public power agencies have adhered to state laws ensuring fair distribution of costs and benefits. Legislative measures have directed regulatory bodies like the PUC to establish fixed charges based on income brackets for investor-owned utilities.

Implementing this national proposal would require collaboration between utilities and authorities such as the Internal Revenue Service to determine tax brackets associated with residential addresses, a potential invasion of privacy.

It remains uncertain whether the public is prepared for this unjust and intrusive change. Effectively communicating the rationale behind this income-based system would be crucial, but the fundamental flaws and inequities inherent in this proposal cannot be easily justified.

The United States should reject this misguided push for income-based electric bills, as it represents an unjust redistribution of wealth. Rather than promoting fairness, it undermines individual privacy rights and risks hindering progress towards a sustainable and inclusive energy future.

Final Word: This outrageous attempt to fix utility bills based on income is nothing less than the redistribution of poverty. It removes all incentives to become financially security and adds a reward structure in justifying the legalization of robbery.

Steve Eichler J.D.

Minuteman/Co-Founder Tea Party