Actual criticism of real problems in California (which seems to be doing better than most states in most ways, but isn't perfect) gets buried under tribal political nonsense, where everything is an outrage.
It isn't crazy, but it is a bad idea. There should be one debate where we work out how much support successful people are expected to provide for their less successful peers, and one transfer payment to cover it. Then everyone pays for things as equals.
Setting up multiple parallel societies where everyone has a different experience and financial incentives is wasteful. It ends up in situations where the electricity provider needs to consult with someone's accountant to work out what to charge customers. That is kinda crazy. A customer's tax position has nothing to do with the services they are provided and linking them is going to have weird second order effects.
It is the same lunacy as linking paying for medical services and employment together and we have all seen how that worked out for the US. Linking parts of the system together at random is not the path to a high-functioning administrative state.
which was heavily encouraged by tax policies and government-imposed price controls on labor...
Of course, the barrier in California is the infamous Proposition 13. You're right that charging people different rates for energy based on their income is silly; if they want to let the poor off the hook they should just tax them less, or even give them money. But the state's lawmakers are operating in a constrained environment.
(It's also the case that subsidies and means-tested benefits are trendy in Democratic policy-making circles, despite being dumb and inefficient compared to simpler and less directed benefits.)
2. The “income-graduated fixed charge” is not taxation - it is paid to a corporation, not a government entity.