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.
The bigger thing that's overlooked in this regulatory change is the removal of caps on fees. So that $24 is going to be $50 or $80 pretty quickly.
We installed additional solar two years ago, and it's taken our net grid draw to zero, with our house providing excess power to the grid every month. We only pay the $10/month grid connect fee.
Too bad. I'd hoped never to have to pay more than that grid connect fee as a result of investing in my own power generation.
This seems kinda nuts, why would we incentivize electricity consumption? I guess there is some infra cost to connect customers to the grid but how can that be worth 8--18% of the cost of the kwh?