Democrats in the state legislature have announced the introduction of a bill to repeal part of Assembly Bill 205 from 2022 that requires investor-owned utility companies to charge a monthly fixed rate for electricity based on the customer’s household income along with separate rates for usage.
“Our constituents have had enough and so have we,” Assemblywoman Jacqui Irwin said during a press conference last week. “It’s time to put some reasoning back into how we charge for electricity in California.”
The only problem is, she voted for AB 205. In fact, every Democrat in the Assembly at the time voted for it and all but four Democrats in the Senate did too. So, why the change of heart? Well, if you believe them, they imply that they simply missed what AB 205 was all about.
“AB 205 should have had a very robust conversation,” said Irwin, noting that it was “part of a huge trailer bill” and she did not think that was the appropriate place for it.
Trailer bills, which we have often criticized, are dense and rushed through in days or even hours at the end of legislative sessions. It would be understandable for ordinary citizens, even those who are well educated and informed, to miss a key detail buried within its fine print. But for our state legislators to assert that excuse doesn’t pass the smell test.
The reality is that they did know, or at least should have. It was not hidden in the fine print. It was the second bullet point of their own legislative analysis. Here is what it said: “[…] The bill requires the fixed charge to be established on an income-graduated basis with no fewer than three income thresholds, such that a low-income ratepayer would realize lower average monthly bill without making any [changes] in usage, as specified.”
So, it is hard to believe that Assemblymembers Chris Ward, Marc Berman, Alex Lee, Sharon Quirk-Silva, Rebecca Bauer-Kahan, Phil Ting, Senator Scott Wiener, and the others who were huddled around Irwin did not know. That is especially true of Ting, as he was the Assembly budget chair at the time, and the bill was “authored” by his committee.
The change in tune from this group of mostly coastal Democrats appears attributable to the blowback they are receiving from their affluent constituents in an election year. Unfortunately, their new-found outrage over the legislation (again, that they voted for) is a lame attempt to secure political cover which is unlikely to result in any changes. In fact, Gov. Gavin Newsom said in response that “he looks forward to seeing a [California Public Utilities] Commission proposal that is consistent with AB 205 when it is released.”
So, what is the point? There are no repercussions for bad votes and bad bills when the Democrats have a supermajority, and few legislative districts are competitive. If they have the backing of the party and their major donors, they win. They answer only to themselves and special interests that could spend money against them. Placating those special-interest donors, not good governance, is their only real concern.
The minimum wage increase for health care workers mandated by Senate Bill 525 is another recent example of this. The state’s own Department of Finance opposed it out of concern for “significant economic impacts” and the bill analysis stated that its fiscal impact was “unknown.” The Legislature passed it anyway because health care worker unions are a powerful lobby in Sacramento. Now we know that SB 525 will cost $4 billion in the 2024-25 fiscal year alone.
The ink was barely dry on the bill before the governor announced in early January that it needed to be renegotiated because of “the significant fiscal impact.”
We would laugh if this were not all so serious because in the lawsuit filed by the state Legislature and the governor against the Taxpayer Protection Act, they have the nerve to argue that allowing the voters to have a say in statewide tax increases “would have sobering implications for the future of governance.”
The governor and the Legislature claim that “[t]axation is both highly complex and essential to the adequate functioning of the State” and that “[s]ound tax policy therefore requires time and expertise.”
Who has that expertise might you ask? Well, call the Legislature biased but they claim that “California’s full-time Legislature has the capacity to implement tax policy because legislators can spend weeks in committees reviewing a law and debating its impact, all while being advised by professional legislative staff.” They say that the voters “have neither the time nor resources at their disposal to comprehensively study their crowded ballots.”
They pass bills they have not read with fiscal impacts they do not know, and they say you lack the expertise? Remember that when you go to the polls.
Jon Coupal is president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association.
