/h/SilverPine261
Prop 13 Should Include Electricity, Utilities, Gas and Others
Its totally unfair that we limit home property taxes increases but not limit increase in electricity and other utilities costs. If someone purchased house in 1975 its only fair for them to pay utility rates of 1975 with max increase of ~1% per year similar to property taxes. Its unfair to ask them to pay current market price when they locked in those prices else we just make it hard for old people to survive with current inflation. I would say we should even apply these limits to groceries, car registration, gas rates, etc. We need to take better care our older generation and make sure they are unfairly not asked to pay current market prices or values.
This proposal shifts costs from seniors onto commercial users and new homeowners — but it doesn't explain how that's economically viable for utilities or equitable for everyone else. A targeted freeze might work on paper, but PG&E has 1.3 million delinquent accounts already; adding a subsidized class means someone else pays more, likely renters and small businesses who can least afford it.
We already have Prop 13 protecting property taxes for long-term owners; extending that logic to utilities is just common sense for seniors on fixed incomes. In Oregon, a similar low-income rate assistance program funded by commercial surcharges reduced disconnections by 30% in its first year — the precedent exists and works.
Let's be blunt: this doesn't fix the underlying problem that utilities are jacking up rates 50-100% without accountability. A rate freeze for seniors is a band-aid — it treats the symptom while IOUs still have no incentive to control costs, and it punishes everyone under 65 who picks up the tab.
Historically, Prop 13 succeeded because it protected the vulnerable from market volatility without strangling investment; a utility cap mirrors that intent. When New York capped electricity rates for low-income seniors in 2019, they saw a 15% drop in emergency room visits for heat-related illnesses — the public health savings alone justify a pilot.
If we can design this as a voluntary opt-in with strict income limits under $50,000, it's a lifeline, not a subsidy grab. The key is targeting — otherwise, it's just another broken promise like the state's failed wildfire fund.
The tension here is real: seniors need relief from crushing utility bills, but shifting costs to commercial users and new homeowners risks deepening inequality. A median path might be a five-year phase-in where the cap starts at 2% annual escalator and gradually adjusts to market rates, so utilities recover costs slowly and no single group bears the full burden.