Question #1, submitted May 16, 2025:
As a retired constituent here in Riverside County AND as a customer of Southern California Edison (SCE), several questions come to mind when it comes to surviving the ever increasing costs of electricity.
SCE continues to raise rates, which includes a “delivery fee”, which is approximately 40% – 50% of an electric bill, that may be considered price gouging since Imperial Irrigation District (IID), and other electric providers, do not have a “delivery fee”. There are currently rate increase applications pending with the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) by SCE. Applications: A.25-03-012, A.25-03-015 and A.25-04-001.
Currently electricity itself costs 11 cents/kWh, and to deliver electricity it costs 21 cents/kWh. In addition, the CPUC may also be violating Calif. Public Utilities Code (CaPUC) Section 451 by failing to ensure that customers are paying a fair and reasonable cost for electricity. SCE charges to deliver the electricity, which in their own words is for poles, wires, transformers, etc., then deducts those same costs from their tax liability. Essentially described by the CA Franchise Tax Board (FTB) as “double dipping”. This may raise an interesting question with the FTB and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). SCE deducts the costs of poles, wires, transformers, etc from their tax liability, BUT since they are actually repaid by their customers, then shouldn’t those cost deductions be passed on to each SCE customer to lower their tax liability instead?
Here in California, utility companies, such as SCE, cannot be sued as a class action due to the Filed Rate Doctrine, which has been in effect for many, many years. It says that as long as a utility has the blessing of a government agency, such as the CPUC, then a class action suit cannot be done for civil issues, BUT, according to one attorney, it does not protect them from criminal prosecution.
Additionally, it is somewhat suspicious when solar companies come to the house, the first thing they ask is, “how much is your average electric bill?”. Their estimated monthly cost for their electricity is based on what your average monthly SCE bill is, but since the SCE bill is nearly twice that of IID, then the cost for solar is overpriced due to the exaggerated SCE bill. Is there some connection with SCE and solar companies? Looking back at the “delivery fee”, I wonder why customers are paying a high rate when there are so many homeowners and businesses that have opted to install solar power. When those solar power users generate excessive electricity, it is fed back onto the grid. When considering the “electrical path of least resistance”, that excessive electricity will actually direct itself to the nearest electrical load. So the question remains, why am I paying a high amount for electricity when my neighbor(s) are generating excessive electricity, and that electricity directs itself to my home?
As Governor, what would you do to investigate these allegations and to make sure that the 5.2 million SCE customers, constituents, are paying a fair and reasonable rate for electricity? And to investigate the allegation that the CPUC may be violating CaPUC Section 451? As an additional note, I am still an active member of my union and would like to forward your comments to them as well as comments of other candidates that have already answered.
Thank you and I look forward to your response.
Answers-From-Politicians-Regarding-SCE_update4