These implicit subsidies used to mostly benefit lower-income households (though not always: properties like seasonal vacation houses also benefited). Now, higher-income households are more likely to benefit from this structure because they are more likely to install rooftop solar (reducing kWh consumption) but still need the grid to work at night. Crediting solar households for grid exports makes this problem especially acute but it would also exist even if solar households were merely reducing the kWh drawn from the grid during daytime.
One remedy could be to fully separate the costs of fixed infrastructure from per-kWh unit charges and set prices directly proportional to costs. But that is probably politically unfeasible because there will be outcry that prices proportional to costs would hurt low-income, low-consumption households.
Another way to remedy it would use the previous approach but give offsetting vouchers to households that would face financial hardship as a result of the change in pricing structure. I don't know why the underlying issue has remained unaddressed in favor of patchy solar-specific changes to the law.
The things that PG&E has notably been neglecting, resulting in highly destructive wildfires?
The idea that it costs every single ratepayer $100/month to maintain the infrastructure is ludicrous. It's just attempting to deflect blame from PG&E's horrible mismanagement to environmentalists.
In places with honestly run utilities that cost is closer to $5-$10/month per household.
- Electric utility must make up to _forward_maximum_kW of electrical energy available to customer, 24x7, at _rate
- Customer may force electrical utility to accept up to _reverse_maximum_kW - without notice, at his sole discretion, and without regard for electrical utility's needs or wishes, at _rate
If so, just talk to any sane businessman about the viability of being stuck on the utility's end of such a deal.