Sen. Becker’s folly

Apr 3, 2026
Apr 3, 2026
3

Editor,

The dear state senator is catering to an alarmed public that is fed up with high utility bills. He is not really interested or qualified in cleaning up the mess that was started by Gov. Brown Jr. during his first term.

(3) comments

Terence Y Apr 3, 2026 8:33am

Well written, Mr. van Ulden. Let’s not forget this dear state senator isn’t shy about his push to eliminate fossil fuels. We know we can’t trust that Becker will do anything to lower utility bills. If anything, he will continue to increase and advocate for higher utility bills – even as Mr. Becker continues burning fossil fuels to his heart’s content. Besides, Becker is a Democrat which means, by definition, they’re not interested in lowering costs for anyone except for criminals and terrorists who have invaded our country.

Lou Apr 3, 2026 2:39pm

For those wondering about the above-mentioned low-income rate program (CARE), I found the following on AI....."PG&E does not publish a single, public “CARE‑only” dollar‑loss figure year by year, but the CARE program effectively reduces PG&E’s revenue by several hundred million dollars annually because it gives eligible low‑income customers large discounts (about 30–38% on electricity and about 20% on gas, depending on the source).

How the loss is made up

The CARE discounts are funded through a rate surcharge that is paid by all PG&E customers, i.e., general ratepayers subsidize the program via their own bills. In other words, the “loss” from under‑charging CARE customers is not absorbed by PG&E’s shareholders; instead, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) allows PG&E to recover that revenue shortfall through overall rates.

Are other ratepayers charged more?

Yes, in effect: because the CARE‑related surcharge is spread across all PG&E customers, non‑CARE ratepayers pay a bit more in their rates to cover the discounted CARE bills. The CPUC treats this as a social‑affordability cost, similar to lifeline‑rate programs, and includes it in the overall rate‑setting process so that the utility remains financially neutral while still providing the discount.

Dirk van Ulden Apr 3, 2026 5:11pm

Lou - as a post script - the 'low income' provision is essentially not verified by anyone. PG&E never wanted to be the policeman. I attended various meetings at the CPUC in my former position, and all utilities confirmed that there was major abuse as it still is a self-reporting statement without having to provide any evidence of income level. As you said it is no problem for the utilities because the cost is spread to the other residential customers. At the time, SCE reported that almost 40% of their residential customers were enrolled. Even more galling is that many use more energy on a per capita basis and live in sumptuous housing.

Thank you for visiting the Daily Journal.

Please purchase a Premium Subscription to continue reading. To continue, please log in, or sign up for a new account.

We offer one free story view per month. If you register for an account, you will get two additional story views. After those three total views, we ask that you support us with a subscription.

A subscription to our digital content is so much more than just access to our valuable content. It means you’re helping to support a local community institution that has, from its very start, supported the betterment of our society. Thank you very much!