Pretty sure PG&E are [given an exception](https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press-docs/SB%20478%20FAQ%20%28B%29.pdf). They're still [proposing new fees](https://www.utilitydive.com/news/california-regulators-propose-24-dollar-monthly-fixed-fee-electric-utilities/711599/)
"Hidden fee" means a fee that isn't reflected in the advertised price of the good/service. PG&E tells you up front what you'll be paying, so it's not hidden.
Except they don't; similar to restaurants they tell you a price per kwh, and then add a 0.9% and change surcharge on top.
Go look at your bill; you'll see your kilowatt total, and then you'll see the prop C charge is just a percent of it, like the bullshit healthy SF fee.
Proc C is a payroll tax based on PG&E's total revenue and head count in SF, at 0.48% and change. It is not a per transaction tax.
The Prop C Surcharge is an estimated bucket to pay for the costs of compliance with Prop C authorized by the CPUC of 0.98%.
In the same way, the policies behind the Healthy San Francisco program is a fee on restaurants and busineses of certain size based on their total revenue and share of employees who are provided healthcare. It is also not a per transaction tax (which is why it's assessed before sales tax on your bill).
The "Healthy SF Mandate" is an arbitrary fee restaurants put on bills to, in part, pay for their required contributions to the Healthy SF Program. The amount of that charge has nothing to do with their actual costs.
Both "go to San Francisco" in the same way - they're an arbitrary bucket of money not related to the actual cost which, because money is fungible, go to San Francisco in only the vaguest sense of the word.
"you're charged a huge array of undisclosed fees."
You seem to have a misunderstanding of what this law does. If you go to a restaurant and they say "Cheeseburger: $1.00" and then when you get the bill and they say "Funky Voodoo Surchage 1%: $0.01" then ***that's*** a so called "junk charge". You're being charged *more* than the listed price.
PG&E isn't doing that. They give you a total price that includes all of those charges
https://preview.redd.it/55fa5vpqdt1d1.png?width=368&format=png&auto=webp&s=806fe5ce76892f22b252ade62c1c7af963e0766d
Edit: Meant to point out, what you're probably going to see with this new law is just the base prices at restaurants etc. *increase* to include those charges / percentages as part of the price of the items. I would expect to see probably a 5% increase across the board.
Go look at page 3 of your PG&E bill, in the second box. It'll say something like:
> Tier 1 allowance
>
> Tier 1 Usage
>
> Generation Credit
>
> Power Charge Indifference Adjustment
>
> Franchise Fee Surcharge
>
> SF Prop C Tax Surcharge.
Please explain what you see as different between the SF Mandate Fee and the SF Prop C Tax Surcharge?
This is sort of a weird take; no laws are needed for *any* line item surcharges on a bill between private parties?
> Additionally, the fees the restaurants charge all go into gross revenues, into the restaurant’s pocket. The SF Prop C assessment goes to the City of San Francisco, not into PG&E revenues. PG&E is required to pay taxes, franchise fees, etc., and those fees are then passed on to customers. PG&E collects the surcharge from us SF ratepayers, and then writes a check to the City of SF. Essentially, Prop C is a San Francisco tax paid by you. The City of SF filed a protest to PG&E’s advice letter request arguing, unsuccessfully, that this should be assessed statewide. But per precedent and law, it’s only assessed by PG&E customers in San Francisco.
This is the *exact same* justification that restaurants use, just so you know. They say "this fee covers the costs associated with San Francisco's healthcare mandate" just like PG&E says "this covers the costs associated with our increase to gross receipts taxes under Measure C."
Bonus points: PG&E's tax burden under measure C shifted *significantly* when they moved their headquarters to oakland, but as far as I'm aware that "measure C surcharge" didn't.
https://www.pgecurrents.com/articles/3789-pg-e-moves-forward-purchase-oakland-headquarters
I mean you haven't actually listed any laws that govern the matter at hand, though? Prior to the passage of 478 there were no regulations around what fees could or could not be charged. I suppose nominally one could argue that it qualifies as a violation of 17200 or 1770, but, that's a pretty significant stretch. It's not 1770(13), it's the reverse of that. It's not (20) because they're advertised.
As everyone has noted for years, the Healthy SF Mandate charge is not actually a fee; this is why you pay sales tax on it. It's simply a line item on the purchase. There's no nexus to prove a 1770 violation as the grand jury report suggests because there's no regulation limiting the ability to include line item charges as long as they are disclosed prior to purchase per 20, which is the industry standard. Whether it's listed as a SF Health Mandate or a Rain Day Dining Fee is immaterial, as *neither* was precluded as a matter of law prior to 478.
In so far as PG&E goes, you are similarly simply not correct. The fact that the CPUC has approved a pass through is immaterial to 478. I can see where you're coming from visavis looking at it as "imposed by the government" but this is not a correct interpretation of the function of CPUC regulation any more than Healthy SF is. In both cases these are alleged pass throughs of costs which do not actually correspond to the costs accrued by taxes.
Evidence of this can be found with the link you helpfully provided. Firstly, as noted, CPUC approved ", PG&E’s Advice Letter 4140-G/5632-E, requesting to collect from its San Francisco customers an additional 0.986% for a business tax surcharge imposed by San Francisco’s Proposition C."
A request by a private business subject to regulatory oversight to collect money from its customers is not a "taxes or fees imposed by a government on a transaction" for the purposes of 478. There are three primary issue with your claim:
First, a request made of a regulatory agency does not equate to an imposition. Because a request is made voluntarily it is not subject to the nexus requirements under MFA, *Nollan*, *Dollan*, or most recently *Sheetz*. This lack of a nexus defeats the imposition requirement of 478's amendments to 1770(29).
Second, per the amended 1770(29), a exemption for taxes and fees only apply to "Taxes or fees imposed by a government on the transaction." That is not the basis for the prop C surcharge. Prop C, as noted in the CPUC guidance letter, collects on the basis of a payroll tax (estimated in 2019 to be approximately $10m). The CPUC authorizes PG&E to recover this via a surcharge, however, regardless of the matter in which the money is collected, it does not become a tax or fee imposed on the transaction. The tax and fee is imposed on PG&E on the basis of its payroll in San Francisco, where it was headquarted in 2019. Thus it is not shielded from 478 by the amended 1770(29).
Third, at the time the CPUC approved the surcharge, PG&E was headquartered in San Francisco and subject to a 0.425% payroll tax. CPUC authorized PG&E to collect up to a 0.986% surcharge, which does not match the amount imposed (meaning that this is not an imposed tax for the purposes of 1770(29)). However more importantly PG&E is not longer obliged to pay a 0.425% payroll tax estimated at $10m because PG&E is no longer headquarted in San Francisco for the purposes of Prop C, and has **significantly** shifted its payroll as a part of the sale of 77 Beal Street, 245 Market Street, etc, and the closure of those offices. Employees have shifted in significant numbers to their new office in Oakland at 300 Lakeside Drive.
Despite this PG&E has not modified the 0.986% Surcharge allowed by CPUC, and - as as the CACSF Grand Jury noted was the case with some restaurants - is simply pocketing the profit.
Please consider letting whoever your teacher for California Admin Law was that they did a shitty job of educating you on the subject.
> Such detail in citing legal cases,
My guy, I went into detail because you *demanded it*. I genuinely can't fathom how you could possibly read what I read as an argument *in favor* of mandate fees, since I gave you an extremely long explanation about why PG&E's pass through would be barred by 478 just like the rest of the mandate fees.
In fact, I'm curious as to why you're so devoted to the idea that PG&E should continue it's unethical pass through. Are you a PG&E employee?
Pretty sure PG&E are [given an exception](https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press-docs/SB%20478%20FAQ%20%28B%29.pdf). They're still [proposing new fees](https://www.utilitydive.com/news/california-regulators-propose-24-dollar-monthly-fixed-fee-electric-utilities/711599/)
"Hidden fee" means a fee that isn't reflected in the advertised price of the good/service. PG&E tells you up front what you'll be paying, so it's not hidden.
Except they don't; similar to restaurants they tell you a price per kwh, and then add a 0.9% and change surcharge on top. Go look at your bill; you'll see your kilowatt total, and then you'll see the prop C charge is just a percent of it, like the bullshit healthy SF fee.
Proc C is a tax, not a fee. It goes to the city.
Proc C is a payroll tax based on PG&E's total revenue and head count in SF, at 0.48% and change. It is not a per transaction tax. The Prop C Surcharge is an estimated bucket to pay for the costs of compliance with Prop C authorized by the CPUC of 0.98%. In the same way, the policies behind the Healthy San Francisco program is a fee on restaurants and busineses of certain size based on their total revenue and share of employees who are provided healthcare. It is also not a per transaction tax (which is why it's assessed before sales tax on your bill). The "Healthy SF Mandate" is an arbitrary fee restaurants put on bills to, in part, pay for their required contributions to the Healthy SF Program. The amount of that charge has nothing to do with their actual costs. Both "go to San Francisco" in the same way - they're an arbitrary bucket of money not related to the actual cost which, because money is fungible, go to San Francisco in only the vaguest sense of the word.
"you're charged a huge array of undisclosed fees." You seem to have a misunderstanding of what this law does. If you go to a restaurant and they say "Cheeseburger: $1.00" and then when you get the bill and they say "Funky Voodoo Surchage 1%: $0.01" then ***that's*** a so called "junk charge". You're being charged *more* than the listed price. PG&E isn't doing that. They give you a total price that includes all of those charges https://preview.redd.it/55fa5vpqdt1d1.png?width=368&format=png&auto=webp&s=806fe5ce76892f22b252ade62c1c7af963e0766d Edit: Meant to point out, what you're probably going to see with this new law is just the base prices at restaurants etc. *increase* to include those charges / percentages as part of the price of the items. I would expect to see probably a 5% increase across the board.
Undisclosed fees were already illegal. They had to be printed on the menu.
Can you elaborate on the difference you see between the SF Mandate fee and PG&E's "San Francisco Prop C Surcharge"?
[удалено]
Go look at page 3 of your PG&E bill, in the second box. It'll say something like: > Tier 1 allowance > > Tier 1 Usage > > Generation Credit > > Power Charge Indifference Adjustment > > Franchise Fee Surcharge > > SF Prop C Tax Surcharge. Please explain what you see as different between the SF Mandate Fee and the SF Prop C Tax Surcharge?
[удалено]
Yup. I kind of chuckled since the OP is asking if the government themselves, through CPUC, would be accountable to the law. Of course not silly!
This is sort of a weird take; no laws are needed for *any* line item surcharges on a bill between private parties? > Additionally, the fees the restaurants charge all go into gross revenues, into the restaurant’s pocket. The SF Prop C assessment goes to the City of San Francisco, not into PG&E revenues. PG&E is required to pay taxes, franchise fees, etc., and those fees are then passed on to customers. PG&E collects the surcharge from us SF ratepayers, and then writes a check to the City of SF. Essentially, Prop C is a San Francisco tax paid by you. The City of SF filed a protest to PG&E’s advice letter request arguing, unsuccessfully, that this should be assessed statewide. But per precedent and law, it’s only assessed by PG&E customers in San Francisco. This is the *exact same* justification that restaurants use, just so you know. They say "this fee covers the costs associated with San Francisco's healthcare mandate" just like PG&E says "this covers the costs associated with our increase to gross receipts taxes under Measure C." Bonus points: PG&E's tax burden under measure C shifted *significantly* when they moved their headquarters to oakland, but as far as I'm aware that "measure C surcharge" didn't. https://www.pgecurrents.com/articles/3789-pg-e-moves-forward-purchase-oakland-headquarters
[удалено]
You're not my enemy, but you're also not correct.
[удалено]
I mean you haven't actually listed any laws that govern the matter at hand, though? Prior to the passage of 478 there were no regulations around what fees could or could not be charged. I suppose nominally one could argue that it qualifies as a violation of 17200 or 1770, but, that's a pretty significant stretch. It's not 1770(13), it's the reverse of that. It's not (20) because they're advertised. As everyone has noted for years, the Healthy SF Mandate charge is not actually a fee; this is why you pay sales tax on it. It's simply a line item on the purchase. There's no nexus to prove a 1770 violation as the grand jury report suggests because there's no regulation limiting the ability to include line item charges as long as they are disclosed prior to purchase per 20, which is the industry standard. Whether it's listed as a SF Health Mandate or a Rain Day Dining Fee is immaterial, as *neither* was precluded as a matter of law prior to 478. In so far as PG&E goes, you are similarly simply not correct. The fact that the CPUC has approved a pass through is immaterial to 478. I can see where you're coming from visavis looking at it as "imposed by the government" but this is not a correct interpretation of the function of CPUC regulation any more than Healthy SF is. In both cases these are alleged pass throughs of costs which do not actually correspond to the costs accrued by taxes. Evidence of this can be found with the link you helpfully provided. Firstly, as noted, CPUC approved ", PG&E’s Advice Letter 4140-G/5632-E, requesting to collect from its San Francisco customers an additional 0.986% for a business tax surcharge imposed by San Francisco’s Proposition C." A request by a private business subject to regulatory oversight to collect money from its customers is not a "taxes or fees imposed by a government on a transaction" for the purposes of 478. There are three primary issue with your claim: First, a request made of a regulatory agency does not equate to an imposition. Because a request is made voluntarily it is not subject to the nexus requirements under MFA, *Nollan*, *Dollan*, or most recently *Sheetz*. This lack of a nexus defeats the imposition requirement of 478's amendments to 1770(29). Second, per the amended 1770(29), a exemption for taxes and fees only apply to "Taxes or fees imposed by a government on the transaction." That is not the basis for the prop C surcharge. Prop C, as noted in the CPUC guidance letter, collects on the basis of a payroll tax (estimated in 2019 to be approximately $10m). The CPUC authorizes PG&E to recover this via a surcharge, however, regardless of the matter in which the money is collected, it does not become a tax or fee imposed on the transaction. The tax and fee is imposed on PG&E on the basis of its payroll in San Francisco, where it was headquarted in 2019. Thus it is not shielded from 478 by the amended 1770(29). Third, at the time the CPUC approved the surcharge, PG&E was headquartered in San Francisco and subject to a 0.425% payroll tax. CPUC authorized PG&E to collect up to a 0.986% surcharge, which does not match the amount imposed (meaning that this is not an imposed tax for the purposes of 1770(29)). However more importantly PG&E is not longer obliged to pay a 0.425% payroll tax estimated at $10m because PG&E is no longer headquarted in San Francisco for the purposes of Prop C, and has **significantly** shifted its payroll as a part of the sale of 77 Beal Street, 245 Market Street, etc, and the closure of those offices. Employees have shifted in significant numbers to their new office in Oakland at 300 Lakeside Drive. Despite this PG&E has not modified the 0.986% Surcharge allowed by CPUC, and - as as the CACSF Grand Jury noted was the case with some restaurants - is simply pocketing the profit. Please consider letting whoever your teacher for California Admin Law was that they did a shitty job of educating you on the subject.
[удалено]
> Such detail in citing legal cases, My guy, I went into detail because you *demanded it*. I genuinely can't fathom how you could possibly read what I read as an argument *in favor* of mandate fees, since I gave you an extremely long explanation about why PG&E's pass through would be barred by 478 just like the rest of the mandate fees. In fact, I'm curious as to why you're so devoted to the idea that PG&E should continue it's unethical pass through. Are you a PG&E employee?
PG&E doesn't need to hide any fees when they can opening rob us, thanks to Gavin and CPUC.
They lobby Newsom heavily so they are exempt