Actually providing electricity consists of two parts. There is the fixed infrastructure of all the transmission lines, transformers, maintenance, and similar,

Actually providing electricity consists of two parts. There is the fixed infrastructure of all the transmission lines, transformers, maintenance, and similar, plus the preparedness of generators to provide electricity on demand even when it isn't financially worthwhile. (The latter robustness was behind Texas' problems a few years ago.) Then there is the electricity you actually consume. They were all combined into one per kwh price that was adjusted every year or so by the regulator so the utilities got to cover the costs and get a 5% return on their "investments". This is now an attempt to bill separately for those fixed costs versus the actual kwh costs. As an example someone with solar and battery completely covering their needs would have been paying $0 (there is more & fine print), despite all that fixed infrastructure being in place to provide all their needs without notice. Similarly homes with solar panels are pumping electricity back into the grid at times now when it is least needed. Commercial solar providers get curtailed and cannot do that. (See "duck curves" for more information.) People using the least amount of electricity weren't paying much. People using the most electricity were getting solar, and weren't paying much towards that fixed infrastructure. Those in the middle were paying the most. This will in theory move more of the burden onto either side of the middle. Make your own mind up if that is fair. But it gets worse. Most electricity in the state is provided via PG&E. You'll note they have been in the news over the last decade for various incidents such as exploding gas mains and neglecting maintenance leading to wildfires. That has been very expensive to address and rectify (many billions of dollars). Guess who is ultimately paying for all that? Hint: not the shareholders.