and a large house wouldn't pay much more than someone making a third of that with a smaller house.

Yeah, that makes sense. To the rich.

Corporations as agents of economic equality. I don't see an incentive to save energy. Flat rate pricing you just freeze in the summer and broil in the winter. It's like renting a hotel room.

Consumers SHOULD make the connection between consumption and cost. Artificial subsidies based on income should be transparent and easy to understand.

Whether it's housing, utilities, food, or medical care....Wages and income ARE TOO LOW to support wage-earners, especially those working at traditionally low paid jobs. The hourly minimum wage should be about $25 had inflation adjustments been made since the 70s.

Investors have stolen ALL of the benefits of a growing economy since Milton Friedman economists started running federal policy.

Currently (no pun intended) a natural disincentive exists with tier billing: big homes using more power pay a premium for high use.

That premium is erased for homeowners who can afford a solar and or battery backup that shifts time of use and counteracts high rates, and that means it hurts the poorer ratepayers.

The Time of Use and Tiered Rate schedules notwithstanding, paying a recurring connection fee that's higher for higher incomes while dropping per KWH charges would help more people than it would hurt, I think.

Those with solar systems grandfathered in under NEM 1.0 get credited at market rates for excess electricity generation; the proposal indicates a 20 cent/KWH reduction in that credit while having those homeowners pay an income-based fixed delivery fee.