Source: SiliconValley.com | By Teri Sforza
THE PAIN IS REAL.
None of us lives in Hearst Castle. Yet my natural gas bill shot from $44 to nearly $300 in the span of two months. Kay Kearney’s is projected to hit $368 in January — more than three times what she paid this time last year. And Burl Estes is staring down a $397 tab for having the audacity to keep warm.
Katy Morsony, staff attorney with The Utility Reform Network, which keeps a critical eye on the PUC, agrees.
“No one should have to choose between making dinner and heating the house,” she said. “We’re calling on the CPUC and the utilities to use all the tools they have to help maximize the ability of customers to pay their bills. And we certainly would call on the CPUC to investigate exactly what is driving these spikes and how we can prevent them.”
The group Consumer Watchdog isn’t buying the explanations we’re being fed.
“I am calling on you to launch an investigation into Southern California Gas’s role in the recent dramatic increases in the costs of natural gas and its parent company SEMPRA’s role in the cost increases,” the group wrote to the state Attorney General.
“The doubling of natural gas prices is unique to California. While the utility has made natural gas available to its customers as it is required to do, it has purchased gas at unreasonably high prices, with higher profits for SoCalGas’s parent company SEMPRA, that sells natural gas to So Cal Gas through its other subsidiaries. Most importantly, Southern Gas has deceived its customers about the fact that it is profiting from the increase in natural gas costs.
“So Cal Gas widely stated that ‘SoCalGas and SDG&E do not profit from gas commodity prices going up.’ In fact, SEMPRA, the parent company of both utilities, and its other subsidiaries, profits greatly from the increase in natural gas prices ….”
Source: Broadband Breakfast | By Jake Keenan
Advocacy groups Public Knowledge and The Utility Reform Network, which had pushed California Gov. Gavin Newsom not to accept the funding, said they were still happy with the CPUC’s letter.
The Trump administration isn’t giving a lot of weight to California’s concerns about conditions tied to $1.4 billion in broadband funding. The California Public Utilities Commission said Tuesday it had accepted that money, but sent a letter to the Commerce Department saying the terms of its grant agreement were vague and didn’t override state laws.
Source: KQED | By Rachael Myron
“It’s a bad deal. And this is a deliberate effort on the part of the Trump administration to tie our hands. And out of all states in this country, California has the most to lose,” said Regina Costa, who directs telecom policy for TURN, The Utility Reform Network. “We are over a 10th of the population,” Costa said of California. “We have one of the largest economies of any nation-state in the world, let alone a U.S. State. We have charted our own course on many, many important things, and telecommunications is one of those areas, and we should not just sign that away,” she told KQED.
The California Public Utilities Commission signed the Notice of Award for the state’s $1.42 billion federal broadband grant Monday, accepting the money despite the fact that it comes with a threat to California’s consumer protection laws.
Source: The Los Angeles Times | By Melody Petersen
Mark Toney, executive director of the Utilities Reform Network, called the idea of permanently capping shareholders’ liabilities for fires “completely unacceptable.” “There needs to be a cap on ratepayers’ liability,” he said.
As a criminal investigation into Southern California Edison’s actions before last year’s deadly Eaton fire continues, the state’s for-profit utilities are lobbying for legislation that would protect their shareholders from paying for future catastrophic fires they cause.
Source: PBS KVIE | By Aaron Leathley
“If we’re going to have a cap on shareholder liability, I understand that … but I also want to see a cap on ratepayer liability,” Mark Toney, executive director of The Utility Reform Network, said. “So the question of course (becomes), who pays over the cap? … That is the hard question.”
Three times in two weeks, members of the Assembly’s Utilities and Energy Committee and Insurance Committee have convened executives and experts to discuss the cost of fires. The hearings mark a reopening of the topic after a deal between the Assembly, Senate and Gov. Gavin Newsom that would’ve limited utility executives’ compensation after their company’s equipment sparks a fatal wildfire fell through at the end of the legislative session about two months ago.
Source: KQED | By Katherine Monahan
Regina Costa, who directs telecom policy for TURN, lives in rural Sonoma county and says the money the federal government is offering is not worth it. “It’s a bad deal and this is a deliberate effort on the part of the Trump administration to tie our hands. Out of all states in this country, California has the most to lose."
Governor Gavin Newsom has until tomorrow to decide whether California will take $1.42 billion in federal broadband money that comes with a catch: a Trump administration’s provision attached to the funds would bar the state from enforcing many of its own consumer protection rules for about 14 years, including a ban on throttling fire fighters’ data.
Source: Communications Daily |
In a letter Tuesday in docket 26-120, the Rural County Representatives of California, the Utility Reform Network and Communications Workers of America repeated their arguments that AT&T’s wireless service for those customers isn't as reliable as their current service. The groups also said AT&T’s reliance on the national broadband map to prove the reliability of its service ignores flaws in the map.
A coalition of consumer advocacy organizations said this week that the FCC should review its prior automatic decision to approve AT&T’s request to discontinue copper wire service to 184,000 California customers.
Source: DigWatch | By Karla Prudencio Ruiz
In a 16 October 2026 statement included in Stanford Law School’s Center for Internet and Society resource collection, the Utility Reform Network (TURN), alongside telecommunications experts, consumer advocates, and labour representatives, urged Newsom not to accept the funding unless the disputed requirement, known as Condition 50, was removed.
California Governor Gavin Newsom is facing renewed calls to reject conditions attached to $1.42 billion inUS federal broadband funding, amid concerns that accepting the money could restrict the state’s ability to enforce net neutrality, affordability, and public-safety protections.
Source: Broadband Breakfast | By Kate Keith
The Utility Reform Network (TURN), joined by telecommunications experts and consumer advocacy groups,said Oct. 21 that California should not accept $1.42 billion in federal Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) funding without removing Condition 50.
Consumer advocates say a federal grant requirement could limit California’s oversight of broadband providers. California consumer advocates are urging Gov. Gavin Newsom to reject a federal broadband funding condition they say could limit the state’s ability to enforce consumer protections for internet and phone service.
Source: PIRG | By Jenn Engstrom
At the very least, the CPUC should reduce PG&E’s gas pipeline replacement spending proposal by 60% as suggested by The Utility Reform Network.
Utility companies should provide us with energy that is clean, safe, and reasonably priced. Yet instead of making it easier for customers to choose safer, cleaner energy, Pacific Gas & Electric, the state’s biggest power company, is proposing to spend more than $3.8 billion on gas pipeline replacement over the next four years—the kind of infrastructure that, if we’re smart, California won’t need for much longer.
Source: KUCOIN |
The Utility Reform Network Executive Director Mark Toney expressed concern that remaining PG&E customers would absorb more grid maintenance costs, particularly wildfire expenses. PG&E distributes wildfire costs, including underground power lines, across the utility's entire customer base regardless of where the work occurs.
San Francisco wants to acquire Pacific Gas & Electric's electricity grid within the city and supply residents directly. PG&E provided the utility's first valuation on Tuesday, seven years after San Francisco initially offered to buy the grid. PG&E valued the assets at $13.9 billion, roughly quadruple the city's $3.4 billion estimate from April. PG&E says San Francisco should pay an additional $8.6 billion for separating the grid and preventing rate increases for customers outside the city. Those estimates would put the total expense of establishing public power above San Francisco's entire annual budget.
