Not only is it regressive (lower incomes pay more), but this data painted by CPUC does not even make sense, as it somehow suggests that the vast majority of groups will benefit, i.e. pay less than they do now. But this is supposed to be revenue-neutral zero-sum game, the $24 fixed fee will be offset by lower rates, so that the amount of revenue from the IOU's comes out to the same. So these bar charts don't really add up (to zero).

For example, for PG&E, if you look across how they divided everyone into the nine buckets (3 income brackets x 3 quartile buckets), only one bucket supposedly pays more, the low-usage, higher-income one pays $10 more. Now the buckets are not the same populations. But we know the six lower income buckets, regardless of usage, all pay from $0 to $15 less, and those six buckets are 30% of the households (CARE and FERA, as stated in other articles). So the remaining three buckets are 70% of households, as a whole must pay more. But two of the buckets pay less, and are supposed to be 3 of 4 quartiles, so another 52.5% (75% of 70%) also pay $0 to $5 less.

That means the last 17.5% (25% of 70%) of the population, paying only an average of $10 more, will somehow offset the other 82.5% paying $0 to $15 less. Even with the limited info they provide, it is just demographically and statistically impossible for all that to balance out to zero-sum.