Source: The Los Angeles Times | By Alejandro Lazo

Many homes need new wiring, larger breakers or a full panel replacement, and some require upgrades to the service connection to the grid, said Matthew Freedman of the Utility Reform Network. Costs rise quickly when homeowners electrify more than just heating, he said.  Customers often underestimate how complex and costly that electrical work can be, he said, another uncertainty on top of the potential for long-term rate savings.

If you’re a California homeowner and you’ve been feeling chilly this winter, there are plenty of reasons to go get a heat pump.  An all-electric, energy-efficient alternative to gas-burning furnaces, heat pumps are widely seen as the climate-friendly home heater of choice.  They can do double-duty as both home heaters and AC units and are pretty good at maintaining a constant temperature inside a home without the blast-then-cool-off cycle typical of a furnace. What about a guaranteed lower monthly utility bill? Not in California.  California has built one of the most aggressive heat pump strategies in the country. The state aims to install 6 million heat pumps in homes by 2030. Lawmakers are also moving this year to boost heat pump adoption — proposing to streamline permitting, and make it easier to electrify homes. On the other hand, California’s residential electricity prices are among the highest in the country — expensive even compared with its also pricey natural gas. That makes heat pumps a tough sell to many Californians. Though the state’s temperate coast is ideal for heat pump adoption, high residential electricity prices can make swapping a gas furnace for a heat pump a pricey proposition. That’s especially true in counties where homes tend to be larger, winters are colder or electricity is costly.

Source: Christopher M. Ward Assemblymember, 78th District | By Anthony Reyes

“Despite the clear directives in AB 2316, the CPUC embraced a non-viable, noncompliant, and incomplete community renewable energy program that was designed to fail and perhaps never even meant to launch,” said Matt Freedman, Staff Attorney, Utility Reform Network (TURN).

Assembly Utilities and Energy Committee Chair Cottie Petrie-Norris (D-Orange) and Assemblymember Chris Ward (D-San Diego) yesterday convened an oversight hearing examining the implementation of Assembly Bill 2316 (Ward), legislation intended to establish a cost-effective community solar program so all Californians, particularly those unable to install rooftop systems, can benefit from distributed clean energy. The hearing was held as part of Speaker Robert Rivas’ newly launched Outcomes Review project, a first-of-its-kind legislative oversight effort focused on ensuring enacted laws are implemented effectively and deliver their intended benefits. “Yesterday’s hearing is accountability in action — and I’m grateful for Assemblymember Chris Ward’s steadfast leadership on oversight and transparency,” said Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas. “I authored AB 2316 because a successful community solar and storage program has incredible potential to reduce rates across the board, reduce net peak demand, avoid long-term transmission investment, and displace expensive gas generation,” said Assemblymember Christopher Ward. “However, I am extremely frustrated with the CPUCs rejection of its legislative intent, and instead adopted a wholly unviable program. My hope is that I can work with the CPUC, along with my colleagues in the legislature, to find an appropriate path forward that achieves the goal of  the original bill.” During the hearing, committee members raised concerns about the lack of a viable community solar program more than three years after AB 2316’s passage, including why the California Public Utilities Commission rejected a widely supported Net Value Billing Tariff backed by industry, labor, environmental organizations, and ratepayer advocates in favor of a proposal submitted after the deadline.

Source: KRON4 | By Stephanie Rothman

Mark Toney is the Executive Director of the Utility Reform Network (TURN) and says that even if the bill is passed, “it will take years to implement” and in the meantime they have introduced eight other bills to cut costs.  “That is one that, historically, has taken decades so we are saying that in the meantime there are things that people can support that have much shorter immediate impacts."

Two lines of text from beginning of article…

Source: KFI AM640 | By iHeart Radio

Mark Toney, executive director of the Utility Reform Network, a consumer group in San Francisco, noted that burying more lines could significantly increase both customer bills and Edison's profits.  "Five times the cost is equal to five times the profit," Toney said.

Altadena residents rebuilding after the devastating Eaton Fire are facing unexpected costs of up to $40,000 to connect their homes to Southern California Edison's newly buried power lines.  Connor Cipolla, an Eaton wildfire survivor and member of the Altadena Town Council, initially praised Edison's plan to bury more than 60 miles of electric lines in Altadena to reduce fire risk. His perspective changed dramatically when he received an estimate of $20,000 to $40,000 to connect his smoke-damaged home to the underground system.  "Residents are so angry," Cipolla told the Los Angeles Times. "We were completely blindsided.” The connection costs significantly exceed the $8,000 to $10,000 estimate Edison's CEO provided to Governor Gavin Newsom in April 2025. These expenses aren't covered by homeowner insurance, and neither the utility nor any government agency has secured funding to help offset the burden. Beyond the financial impact, residents are concerned about environmental damage. Some have tracked wooden stakes marking where Edison plans to dig, revealing dozens of locations where deep trenches will run under oak and pine trees that survived the fire. The utility company maintains that burying the lines is critical to wildfire prevention, especially in high-risk areas like Altadena where the Eaton Fire destroyed more than 9,000 structures. The project aims to protect electrical systems from extreme weather conditions that could cause power outages or wildfires. However, consumer advocates point out that undergrounding isn't the most cost-effective fire prevention measure. It can cost more than $6 million per mile, compared to about $800,000 per mile for installing insulated overhead lines.

Source: Beritaja.com | By Albert Michael

Mark Toney, executive head of the The Utility Reform Network, a consumer advocate group successful in San Francisco, said his team estimates Edison spends $4 million per mile to underground wires, compared to $800,000 per mile for installing insulated lines.  By burying much of the lines, customer bills and Edison’s profits could soar, Toney said. “Five times the costs is adjacent to 5 times the profit,” he said.

Connor Cipolla, an Eaton wildfire survivor, praised Southern California Edison’s plan to bury more than 60 miles of electrical lines.  Then he learned he would have to pay $20,000 to $40,000 to link his home, which was damaged by fumes and ash, to Edison’s underground line. An adjacent neighbour received an estimate for $30,000, he said.  “Residents are truthful angry,” Cipolla said. “We were wholly blindsided.”

The buried lines are an upgrade that will make Altadena’s electrical grid safer and much reliable, Edison says. Although placing cables underground is an occurrence prevention measure, consumer advocates say it’s not the most cost-effective measure Edison could use to trim the risk.  Undergrounding electrical wires could cost as much as $6 million per mile, according to the California Public Utilities Commission, much more than insulating wires.

Source: The Press Democrat | By George Avalos

“PG&E needs to match its outstanding performance for shareholders with reliable service for its customers, hundreds of thousands of whom have lost power unexpectedly and repeatedly over the past few months,” Toney said.  Toney also said the state Legislature needs to act to help rein in profits for California’s big utilities.

PG&E’s profits and revenues rose during 2025, but at a reduced pace compared with prior years, in a sign that the utility’s vow to rein in bill increases has begun to materialize.  The investor-owned utility posted a profit of $2.59 billion in 2025, 4.8% higher than the $2.48 billion in profit in 2024, PG&E reported Thursday as part of the release of its latest financial results. Thursday’s news came on the heels of the company’s report at the end of 2025 that monthly bills for residential customers who receive combined electricity and gas services would drop starting in January. Some critics of PG&E, however, believe that the company’s profits remain too high and that its primary regulator, the state Public Utilities Commission, has failed in its role as a watchdog.  Mark Toney, executive director of The Utility Reform Network, said PG&E’s profits have emerged at a time when customers must still wrestle with significant power failures.

Source: San Francisco Chronicle | By Quentin L. Kopp

And that’s just the beginning. As part of its general rate case, PG&E is seeking increases that could add $42 a month to customers’ bills — totaling more than $500 annually by 2030, according to The Utility Reform Network.

On Dec. 20, a third of San Francisco homes and businesses were plunged into darkness. Pacific Gas & Electric Co.’s power outage forced families to throw out hundreds of dollars’ worth of spoiled groceries. Seniors on fixed incomes sat in cold apartments, worrying about their medical devices and refrigerated medicine. On one of the busiest shopping days of the year, businesses had to close, with some losing over $100,000 in inventory and missed sales. 

Source: Politico | By Tyler Katzenberger and Nicole Norman

SPOTTED: GET TURNT — Consumer advocacy group The Utility Reform Network (TURN) hosted its annual “Legislative Champions Celebration” at Mayahuel on Monday evening in downtown Sacramento.

 Attendees included: Sens. Josh Becker, María Elena Durazo and Jerry McNerney; Assemblymembers Marc Berman, Tasha Boerner, Cottie Petrie-Norris and Avelino Valencia; TURN Executive Director Mark Toney; TURN race equity policy director Adria Tinnin; Communications Workers of America District 9 campaign lead Yvonne Melton; California Community Foundation policy lead Shayna Englin; and Assembly Communications Committee consultant Emilio Perez.

Source: CalMatters | By Jeanne Kuang

“We’re happy to see all of them taking this issue seriously,” said Mark Toney, executive director of the consumer advocacy group The Utility Reform Network. “But a soundbite is not a proposal … It’s difficult to (lower rates) in one fell swoop, I will tell you that.”

It’s 2026, and “lowering utilities bills” is the new “housing affordability” for Democratic politicians.  In the governor’s race, self-funded billionaire candidate Tom Steyer is declaring he’ll reduce electricity bills by 25%. The environmentalist investor has featured the head-turning figure in ads promising that he’ll “introduce competition” to the electricity market.

Source: Broadband Breakfast | By Jericho Casper

The Utility Reform Networkweighed in, emphasizing that machine-readable label data was essential for research on broadband affordability and public oversight.  TURN said the FCC’s “reliance on vague industry comments that machine readability increases technical complexity and cost – without evidence of widespread use or benefit to consumers – is unfounded.”

A proposal to scale back federal disclosure requirements for Internet plans has drawn sharp criticism from accessibility organizations, consumer groups, and advocates for older adults.  Congress in 2022 directed the Federal Communications Commission to create standardized broadband“nutrition labels,” displaying prices, speeds, fees, and other key details. Under new leadership, the FCC in October asked whether it should eliminate six disclosure requirements and how else it might “streamline the label requirements.” Accessibility advocates warned Friday that the FCC’s rulemaking, which would close the agency’s inquiry into the matter indefinitely, risks “freezing requirements at a baseline” that fails to meet the needs of people who are disabled, vision or hearing impaired, or have limited English proficiency. The objections came as broadband providers urged the FCC to pare back the labels.

Source: TURN Newsroom | By Steve Padilla’s Office

The legislative package is co-sponsored by ratepayer advocacy group TURN and environmental advocacy group Net-Zero California. “California needs to take a leadership role in addressing the threats and opportunities presented by data centers” said Matthew Freedman, Staff Attorney at The Utility Reform Network. “These bills will ensure new electrical demand created by data centers helps to lower rates for all customers, improves grid reliability and accelerates the transition to clean energy resources.”

SACRAMENTO – Yesterday, Senator Steve Padilla (D-San Diego) introduced Senate Bills 886 and 887, two measures designed to protect California ratepayers from the potential increased costs and environmental damage caused by data centers. Data centers are facilities housing the digital infrastructure, crucial to artificial intelligence services. The bills set new standards incentivizing data center development that supports California’s grid and communities in which they are built.  

Source: Politico | By Noah Baustin

The Utility Reform Network is contacting state Assembly and Senate candidates urging them to take strong energy affordability positions, according to Mark Toney, the organization’s executive director. 

Energy rates have quickly emerged as California’s 2026 political punching bag. And signs are everywhere that the Sacramento class intends to keep hammering the issue this election year.  

Source: KQED | By Laura Klivans with Montecillo, Gabriela Glueck, and Jessica Karisa

Mark Toney: Maybe it will take a credible campaign to wake up PG&E to what they need to do.  I don’t want to discourage this campaign, public power campaign, and I’ll tell you why. Because if there is a real threat that they may lose the franchise, maybe that will provide the motivation to do a better job, to bring the rates down, to increase the of their facilities.

San Francisco residents are furious with Pacific Gas & Electric after nearly one third of the city was hit by a series of power outages over the holiday season. This public outrage has also revived calls for the city — or even the state — to take over the investor-owned utility.

Source: The Sacramento Bee | By Stephen Hobbs

The Utility Reform Network, an organization also known as TURN that closely watches and challenges utility filings, said the company knew the program was not cost-effective but kept doing it anyway in 2022.  The suggested decision supports that argument, saying the company acted “unreasonably and imprudently” when it continued the program in 2022 without making changes even as expenses outpaced budgets. “This proposed decision sends a clear message that ratepayers should not have to pay for unnecessary overspending that doesn’t benefit wildfire safety,” Mark Toney, TURN’s executive director. “We are hoping the commissioners will stand strong and adopt the recommendations.”

Pacific Gas and Electric Co. could be allowed to recover more than $1.4 billion from ratepayers for wildfire mitigation, vegetation management, storm response and other expenses the company had in 2022 under a proposed decision set to go in front of state utility regulators.

Source: The Mercury News | By Ethan Baron

But Mark Toney, executive director of watchdog group The Utility Reform Network (TURN), said PG&E’s customers “expect PG&E to walk the talk” on safety, and added, “that’s what we’re paying the bills for.”  Critics say the focus on wildfire prevention may come at a cost elsewhere, with TURN’s Toney worrying that PG&E is “not paying the same level of attention to other safety issues and other maintenance issues.” “Who’s going to pay?” Toney said. “Are ratepayers going to have to pay for it? It doesn’t seem fair.”

Two recent fires at PG&E substations cut power to thousands, drew condemnation from members of Congress, and spotlighted a year full of safety and maintenance violations at the utility giant’s substations throughout the region, from oil leaks to broken cooling fans and birds’ nests in equipment.

Source: KRCR ABC7 | By Hannah Gutierrez

Executive Director of TURN, Mark Toney, claims that although a noticeable drop was observed in 2025, the utility has 10 rate increase proposals before the CPUC. “That is strong evidence that the bills are destined to go back up. If you think your bills are too high, every time you get a bill once a month, call your assembly member, call your senator, call the governor, and say support TURN’s affordability bills" Toney told KRCR. He believes rates will eventually rise again.

PG&E announced electric rates will drop for the fourth time in two years on January 1, 2026, but The Utility Reform Network (TURN) says they don't expect the relief to be for long. PG&E said that, along with earlier reductions, residential electric rates will be 11% lower than in January 2024, resulting in savings of about $20 per month. Additionally, electric prices for CARE customers will decline by 6%. 

Source: Bay Area News Group | By George Avalos

“PG&E’s claim to care about affordability would ring more true if it decided to withdraw its 10 rate increase requests currently pending at the CPUC, rather than trumpet temporary decreases brought about because customers have finally paid for some of PG&E’s overspending on tree trimming projects,” said Mark Toney, executive director of The Utility Reform Network, a consumer group. “Claims of lower bills are little more than smoke and mirrors.”

After years of steep increases, PG&E customers are expected to see modestly lower electric and gas bills starting in January 2026, according to a new regulatory filing by the utility.  The typical residential customer who receives both electric and natural gas service from PG&E would pay an average of $285 a month beginning with the January 2026 billing cycle — about $10 less than the average bill in January 2025, or a 3.4% decrease, the company said.

Source: CalMatters | By Alejandro Lazo

It amounts to a “toothless” measure, directing the utility regulator to study an issue it already has the authority to investigate, said Matthew Freedman, a staff attorney with The Utility Reform Network, a ratepayer advocate.  The report could help shape future debates as lawmakers revisit tougher rules and the CPUC considers new policies on what data centers pay for power – a discussion gaining urgency as scrutiny of their rising electricity costs grows, he said.

Tools that power artificial intelligence devour energy. But attempts to shield regular Californians from footing the bill in 2025 ended with a law requiring regulators to write a report about the issue by 2027.  If that sounds pretty watered down, it is. Efforts to regulate the energy usage of data centers — the beating heart of AI — ran headlong into Big Tech, business groups and the governor. 

Source: Redheaded Blackbelt | By Staff Writers

“Revising the Cost of Capital decision in favor of utility shareholders is more than just buckling under pressure from PG&E and other major utilities. It is part of a disturbing pattern of Commissioners disregarding proposals to address the affordability crisis issued by their own judges and staff, based upon evidence presented by all parties in ratemaking cases. The legislature needs to take more action to address the affordability crisis, because the CPUC has failed to do so,” said Mark Toney, executive director of The Utility Reform Network (TURN).

The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) voted (4-1) last week to approve profit margins for the state’s utilities that consumer, environmental, and community intervenors agree are unjustifiably high. The approved profit margins range from 9.78% to 10.03% across PG&E, SoCalGas, SCE, and SDG&E. 

Source: The San Francisco Chronicle | By Julie Johnson

Mark Toney, executive director of utility customer advocate group The Utility Reform Network, or TURN, told the Chronicle on Monday that his organization wanted the commission’s investigation to examine the connection between all three fires.  “The fact that it’s happened before in the same location — absolutely there are questions that ought to be answered,” Toney said. 

Widespread blackouts hit San Francisco at the worst time. Christmas shoppers crowded commercial districts. Restaurants were buzzing and the city’s concert venues were packed for holiday shows.  Suddenly, the lights went dark in about 120,000 businesses and homes. BART trains bypassed Powell and Civic Center stations. Food went bad in warm refrigerators.