UCLA Journal of Environmental Law and Policy

Increasing electrification is key to solving climate change. However, the current system of electricity provisioning is not equal and disproportionately burdens low-income and minority households. To avoid intensifying this inequality, the growing number of incentives aimed at electrification must be coupled with significant structural changes to the electricity system. California’s Income-Graduated Fixed Charge (IGFC) is an example of this type of needed change. First introduced as a provision in Assembly Bill 205, it promises to alter the way consumers pay for electricity by adding an income-based, monthly fixed charge to electricity. It also promises to remedy California’s currently regressive rate design, to lower electricity bills for many customers—most significantly, low- and middle-income customers—and to lower the cost of electricity which would thus incentivize beneficial electrification. However, this uncomplicated portrayal of the IGFC belies the challenges this proposed rate reform has faced. Since AB 205’s passage, the IGFC has been the subject of misinformation campaigns, repeal efforts, and significant public outcry.

This Comment first introduces a framework of energy justice and a brief history of California’s electricity system and energy equity initiatives. This Comment then attempts to offer a cohesive narrative of the IGFC’s inception. It proceeds to follow the IGFC’s development through the California Public Utilities Commission’s Rulemaking procedure and explores the relevant stakeholders involved. This Comment challenges a dominant characterization of the IGFC as rushed, opaque, and unconstitutional, revealing instead that it was the product of years of deliberation, research, and democratic processes. Finally, this Comment attempts to make sense of the implementation concerns, myths, and misaligned actors, including the solar industry, that have surrounded the IGFC. Here, two competing visions of electricity provisioning emerge: one built on the idea of a shared grid and the other built around an individualist, consumer-centric view that prioritizes the conservation ethic over beneficial electrification. Identifying and understanding these conflicting visions will be helpful to understanding and resolving bigger obstacles to achieving a just and clean energy transition.