RivCo: Why Do Our Electric Bills Never Decrease?
no. 002
For residents of Corona, California, and millions across the state, a persistent question looms with every electric bill: Why does it never seem to decrease?
Despite swapping incandescent bulbs for LEDs, upgrading to Energy Star appliances, and even installing rooftop solar panels, the monthly statement from Southern California Edison (SCE) remains stubbornly high. The answer lies in a tangled web of utility-driven rate hikes, wildfire-related costs, and policies like Net Energy Metering (NEM) 3.0 that erode consumer savings.
This isn’t just a personal frustration—it’s a systemic issue where utilities, such as SCE, operating as regulated monopolies, shift the burden of their inefficiencies, legal liabilities, and infrastructure costs onto customers. For Corona residents, served by SCE, the 51% rate increase since 2021, coupled with fixed charges and reduced solar incentives, ensures that no amount of conservation or renewable energy adoption can meaningfully lower bills.
The Reality of Rising Rates
Since 2021, SCE’s residential rates have surged by 51%, reaching an average of 30.22¢ per kilowatt-hour (kWh) in 2025. This far outpaces inflation. For the average Corona household, consuming about 600 kWh per month, this translates to a monthly bill of approximately $181, up from $119 just four years ago. These increases stem from a combination of grid modernization, wildfire mitigation, and the financial fallout from utility negligence, all of which were approved by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC).
Riverside County, where Corona is located, is particularly vulnerable to wildfires, prompting SCE to invest heavily in infrastructure upgrades like burying power lines, replacing wooden poles with fire-resistant ones, and installing advanced monitoring systems. These measures, while necessary, come with a hefty price tag. SCE’s 2023-2025 general rate case included $1.8 billion for wildfire risk reduction, much of which is passed directly to consumers through higher rates. Fixed charges, which cover grid maintenance and other costs, now account for nearly 40% of the average bill, rendering energy-saving efforts, such as LED lighting or smart thermostats, less effective. Even households that cut consumption by 20% see minimal relief when fixed fees and rising per-kWh rates dominate the bill.
The Solar Paradox: Promises Broken
For Corona residents who invested in rooftop solar, the frustration is even more acute. Solar panels were sold as a way to slash bills and support California’s clean energy goals. Homeowners generate clean power, feed excess energy into the grid, and expect fair compensation through net metering. However, the introduction of NEM 3.0 in 2023 rendered these benefits obsolete.
This policy reduced the compensation rate for excess solar energy by approximately 75%, decreasing from around 30¢ per kWh to as low as 8¢ in some cases. For a Corona household with a $10,000-$20,000 solar system, this change significantly extends the payback period, often from 7-10 years to 12-15 years or more.
The irony is galling: solar adopters contribute clean energy that helps SCE meet California’s renewable energy mandates, yet they’re penalized with reduced credits and still face high fixed charges. SCE takes this low-cost solar energy, resells it at premium rates, and leaves homeowners subsidizing the grid while seeing little savings.
This dynamic undermines trust in renewable energy and discourages further adoption, slowing California’s transition to a cleaner future. For Corona residents, paying some of the nation’s highest rates while feeding the grid free or undervalued energy feels like a betrayal of the solar promise.
Wildfires and Liability: Consumers Pay
Wildfire-related costs are another major driver of high bills, rooted in utility negligence and inadequate infrastructure maintenance. Riverside County’s dry, windy conditions make it a hotspot for devastating fires, many of which are sparked by utility equipment.
The 2020 Bobcat Fire, which burned 116,000 acres and raged for over 80 days, is a prime example. SCE’s failure to properly maintain equipment contributed to the blaze, leading to an $82.5 million settlement—the largest wildfire-related payout in California’s Central District. While holding utilities accountable is critical, the costs don’t stop there. SCE recovers these expenses through rate hikes approved by the CPUC, meaning Corona residents foot the bill for the utility’s mistakes.
Wildfire mitigation efforts, while essential, further inflate costs. Burying power lines, a key strategy to reduce fire risk, costs $3-4 million per mile, and SCE plans to bury thousands of miles of lines over the coming decades. These expenses, along with other upgrades, are passed to consumers, regardless of their energy usage. For a Corona household that has diligently adopted LED lights (which use 80% less energy than incandescent bulbs) or Energy Star appliances (which cut consumption by 10-50%), these savings are dwarfed by unavoidable delivery fees and rate increases tied to wildfire costs.
The Cost Shift Myth and Policy Failures
Utilities and regulators often justify policies like NEM 3.0 by claiming they address a “cost shift” from solar adopters to non-solar customers, particularly low-income households. The argument suggests that solar users, by reducing their bills, force utilities to raise rates for others to cover the cost of grid maintenance.
However, studies, such as one from the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, show that this cost shift is negligible, accounting for less than 1% of utility revenue.
The fundamental drivers of rate hikes are utility-driven expenses: wildfire settlements, grid upgrades, and mismanagement.
For example, SCE’s $1.8 billion wildfire mitigation budget dwarfs the alleged cost shift, yet policies like NEM 3.0 unfairly target solar adopters while doing little to address affordability.
The CPUC’s failure to rein in utility spending exacerbates the problem. As regulated monopolies, utilities like SCE are guaranteed a rate of return on investments, incentivizing costly projects—whether efficient or not—because profits are tied to spending. This structure ensures that consumers bear the brunt of rising costs, with no competitive pressure to force utilities to prioritize efficiency or affordability. For Corona residents, this means paying for SCE’s bloated infrastructure projects and legal liabilities while being told their solar panels are the problem.
For Corona households, the math is disheartening. A family that cuts consumption by 20% through efficiency measures might save $20-30 per month, but a $70 fixed charge and rising rates quickly swallow those gains. Solar adopters, who invested thousands to lower bills and support sustainability, see their savings slashed by NEM 3.0’s low compensation rates. Meanwhile, SCE’s guaranteed profits ensure that every infrastructure project or legal settlement translates to higher consumer costs.
Until these reforms take hold, Corona residents will continue to face a harsh reality.
No matter how much they conserve or adopt renewable energy, the utility’s ability to raise rates will still outpace it.
Your electric bill isn’t just a power charge—it’s a reminder of a system that profits while you pay.
SOURCES | BIBLIOGRAPHY
“Edison’s Proposed Rate Hike Angers L.A. Wildfire Survivors.” Los Angeles Times. https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2025-05-22/edison-general-rate-case.
Borenstein, Severin. “How to Fix the Solar Cost Shift.” Energy Institute Blog, UC Berkeley. https://energyathaas.wordpress.com/2025/05/19/how-to-fix-the-solar-cost-shift/.
“Southern California Edison to Pay Record Settlement for Sparking Massive L.A. County Wildfire.” KTLA. https://ktla.com/news/california/wildfires/socal-edison-to-pay-record-settlement-for-sparking-massive-l-a-county-wildfire/amp/.
“State Auditor Questions Utility SoCal Edison’s Fire Risk Modeling.” Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/state-auditor-questions-utility-socal-edisons-fire-risk-modeling-2025-01-16/.