So rich people who can afford their accountant fees to hide their income, like with taxes, will pay almost nothing for energy, while the essentially broke person will pay more.
If we further assume big tech companies have 5 CxO (CEO, CFO, CTO, COO, CISO, CMO; pick 5), and that there are more than 1 big tech companies headquartered in California. If we assume those officers make large incomes that aren't W2 incomes, that they live in California, and, further, live in areas serviced by PG&E (which, statistically speaking is basically all of them), and then count individuals based on the fraction of income "hidden" as non-W2 income, and sum them up, then that number is surely greater than 5.
Not a statically significant portion of the 17M employed Californians mind you, but more than 5.
I honestly think it is a mistake to allow grandfathered NEM rate structures to continue, if these other wacky plans are really attempting to compensate for that imbalance.
Maybe we need better than the NEM 3 proposal, to actually charge based on your grid connection size and usage. Something based on peak and actual power transfers as they reflect proportionate reliance on the grid infrastructure.That would be in addition to any actual energy consumption which I think should also follow the NEM 3 plan with retail rates for consumption and wholesale rates for production that vary by time of delivery.