Source: The Institute for Energy Research |

According to Mark Toney, Executive Director of the Utility Reform Network, a ratepayer advocacy group, “Collectively these measures protect ratepayers from subsidizing the significant energy consumption of data centers, ensuring that the data centers pay upfront for the extra infrastructure that must be built to operate them, and pay their fair share for wildfire mitigation and other ratepayer-funded programs.”

On September 21, Governor Gavin Newsom signed seven bills regulating the data center industry in California, imposing new ​requirements on electricity costs, water use, and local oversight. The legislation requires data centers to provide information on electricity use, water consumption, land use, and workforce needs, giving local communities more information to assess proposed projects. 

Source: Communications Daily | By Philip Athey

However, the Utility Reform Network (TURN) urged the CPUC to reject NaLA’s proposal to allow providers to set prices because it “would essentially guarantee that the [specific support amount] would be locked at the highest amount the Commission allows, regardless of the competitiveness of providers’ offerings.”

Industry commenters said a proposed update to California Lifeline’s minimum-service standards and subsidy levels would pose logistical challenges for service providers that could push them out of the program if the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) adopts the plan without any changes.

Source: Communications Daily | By Philip Athey

The Utility Reform Network said the monitoring period in the proposal is too long and could subject California Lifeline customers to two years of price increases before a higher subsidy level is introduced. The group instead recommended an eight-month monitoring period with an updated subsidy level presented in 12 months.

Nearly all industry and public advocacy organizations said they support a proposed decision from the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to increase the subsidy level and minimum service requirements for the state's Lifeline program, suggesting only minor changes and clarifications. But one, Assurance Wireless, said the changes in the proposal were so significant that they potentially overstep the CPUC’s legislative mandate and raise the question of federal preemption.

Source: Bakerfield.com | By John Cox

Executive Director Mark Toney of Oakland-based The Utility Reform Network said by email he was encouraged the CPUC’s new chairman, John Reynolds, is looking at potential improvements such as requiring utilities to include more information in their rate-case applications. “TURN is urging the commission to protect ratepayers and hold utilities accountable to spending within their budgets to provide safe, clean, affordable energy by requiring utilities to: Aspire to limit (general rate case) spending to as close to inflation as possible, rein in overspending in accounts outside of the GRC, and auditing actual shareholder returns versus authorized returns,” Toney wrote.

Work began this month on a regulatory process intended to boost affordability, accountability and transparency in the way California’s investor-owned gas and electric utilities apply for permission to raise their rates.  

Source: Communications Daily | By Philip Athey

But multiple consumer advocacy groups said this week that the argument was flawed and that discontinuing copper networks in California without CPUC approval poses a severe safety risk.  The Utility Reform Network (TURN) said the CPUC should bear in mind that the FCC order is the subject of two federal lawsuits. “The Commission cannot ‘harmonize’ current or proposed COLR rules with an FCC Order that is not settled, but TURN does not object to provisions that contemplate revisiting the rules in the future, if necessary,” the group said. “The nature of these cases and their asks to determine whether the Commission has gone far enough leaves the finality of the FCC’s interpretation of the Network Modernization Order uncertain.”

Advocacy groups are calling on the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to reject industry arguments and instead fight against FCC's preemption of the state’s carrier of last resort rules, according to comment filings Thursday.  

Source: The Orange County Register | By Teri Sforza

“What we have to do is to fix the broken system where there are no limits to rate hikes, no limit to how much they can ask for or how many times a year they can ask, and no limit to how much the CPUC can grant,” said Mark Toney, executive director of The Utility Reform Network, at a cyber town hall last week.

Jaw Drop Detail No. 1: California’s big electric companies spent more than one thousand dollars for every state resident on wildfire-related costs between 2019 and 2024.  Which is to say, a cool $40 billion, divvied up between post-catastrophe liabilities ($13.6 billion) and pre-catastrophe infrastructure hardening ($26.6 billion).

Source: San Diego Tribune | By Rob Nikolewski

“By taking away telecommunications, you disrupt the foundation of all of that regulatory structure,” said Adria Tinnin, director of race equity and legislative policy, at The Utility Reform Network, commonly known as TURN, a consumer group based in Oakland.

A proposal by Assemblymember Tasha Boerner that would make major changes to the California Public Utilities Commission by amending the state’s constitution has been put on hold by the Encinitas Democrat.  Her legislation, called Assembly Constitutional Amendment 9, drew attention for its provision that would expand the number of voting members on the commission from five to nine. The proposal also calls for the CPUC to expressly consider affordability when making decisions on utility rates.

Source: Communications Daily | By Philip Athey

Adria Tinnin, director of race equity and legislative policy at The Utility Reform Network (TURN), said the lack of formal opposition was just a logistics issue.  “We didn't expect it to survive, and so we need to prioritize our limited resources on other pieces of legislation, but we're definitely very concerned about deleting the reference to telecom from the state constitution,” she said. “It’s an important Jenga piece.” While the amendment would remove telecom as a constitutionally defined public utility, it wouldn't change the state’s Public Utilities Code. It also wouldn't on its own remove telecom and broadband from the California Public Utilities Commission's (CPUC) portfolio. It would instead direct the California legislature to create a new broadband agency that could take over telecom regulation if a future legislature chose.

Experts and advocacy groups are warning that California’s ACA-9, a proposed amendment that would remove telecom as a constitutionally defined public utility, could weaken regulation of the industry in the state.  The constitutional amendment easily passed in the California Assembly last month on a 67-1 vote (see 2605200033). It had previously advanced out of two committees with unanimous votes and without any formal opposition from outside groups, according to an analysis filed with the amendment.

Source: Legal Planet | By Elias Van Emmerick

Emmett Institute's Denise Grab, a clean energy expert, wrote at the time that “when everything is a priority, nothing is a priority.” Grab, who heads UCLA Law’s E-CELL project, was not alone in this assessment: NRDC, Sierra Club, The Utility Reform Network (TURN), and Cal Advocates all pushed for a discrete cohort of priority decarbonization zones.  

Here’s something to celebrate: the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) released its proposed decision designating initial priority neighborhood decarbonization zones.  SB 1221 is a law passed last fall that allows the CPUC to support “neighborhood decarbonization zones” to transition away from natural gas toward zero-emissions alternatives. Phasing out natural gas in favor of electrified alternatives is a vital step toward California’s ambitious decarbonization goals.

Source: Sacramento Bee| By Stephen Hobbs & Kate Wolffe

“I’m absolutely stunned by the size of the increase they are requesting,” said Mark Toney, executive director of The Utility Reform Network, also known as TURN. “We have an affordability crisis, they reported record-breaking profits two years in a row.”

Pacific Gas and Electric Co. wants to increase the amount of profit its investors can make, a move that could raise bills by roughly $5.50 per month for residential customers starting in 2026. The request is likely to add even more frustration with the company among customers and legislators at the Capitol.

Source: KRON 4 Bay Area| By Rob Nesbitt

On Thursday, PG&E sent a request to California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) asking to increase customers’ bills by $5.50 a month. If approved, the rate hike would take effect in January 2026. That doesn’t sit well with Executive Director of the Utility Reform Network, Mark Toney. “I am absolutely stunned that PG&E would ask for such a huge increase in their profits for shareholders,” Toney told KRON4. Toney says the changes to your electric bills would give PG&E the highest profit rate of any utility company in the country. “The CPUC should reject the increase that PG&E is asking for,” he said. The proposed increase would come on top of the $3 a month increase that customers are experiencing this year. The Utility Reform Network wants to see changes to PG&E equipment, not monthly bills. “Insulate your overhead power lines, because it only costs one fifth of burying them underground and that’s going to save rate payers money,” Toney said. Toney says that this request for a price increase is just one of about 10 that the CPUC has on their desk from PG&E.

Pacific Gas & Electric customers could see their bills increase next year by as much as $5.50. That’s what the utility company sent to the California Utilities Commission for approval yesterday. PG&E says that prices are going up because their investors expect to be compensated when providing the utility company with funding. For many customers however, that’s a less-than-satisfactory reason for raising already high rates.

Source: ABC7 San Francisco| By Suzanne Phan

The Utility Reform Network, or TURN, advocates on behalf of ratepayers. "It's unbelievable. I'm floored that PG&E is asking for such a large increase in their rate of profit, their Cost of Capital application," TURN Executive Director Mark Toney said. "They apply every three years to the California Public Utilities Commission. It has to approve how much profit they can make on investments.” Last year, PG&E increased its rates six times. "There were five electricity increases and one natural gas increase," Toney said. The average residential customers paid about $440 more a year, compared to 2023.

Even though PG&E customers pay some of the highest energy bills in the country, even though PG&E has shattered profit records, the utility is now asking the California Public Utilities Commission to raise rates so it could pay investors more. PG&E is asking for an 11.3% return for investors, up a percentage point from the current limit.

Source: KQED| By Danielle Venton

“Here’s the problem,” said Lee Trotman, a spokesperson for the Utility Reform Network, or TURN, “PG&E also recorded record profits last year. For 2024, they recorded $2.47 billion in profits. That’s a record, and they did it by raising rates six times.” He expects the increase, if approved, will cause further distress for PG&E customers, about 20% of whom are behind on their energy bills, according to the CPUC’s Public Advocates Office (PDF). Trotman said TURN will advocate for a lower increase and ask the company about other ways to save money: “We will intervene, and we’ll say, ‘OK, that’s excessive, that’s not sustainable. So, have you tried this? Will you try that?’”

Utility giant PG&E asked California regulators this week to allow it to increase compensation for its investors, a move that would add yet another rate hike for customers. California’s largest investor-owned utility said raising the allowable rate of return for shareholders by 1 point, to 11.3%, is appropriate because of the risk involved with investing in energy in the state. That return would bring the utility more in line with other comparable energy companies, according to PG&E.

Source: CBS 13 Sacramento| By Brady Halblieb

"They will tell investors, 'Hey if you give us the money for essential energy projects, we will guarantee you a return on equity,'" said Lee Trotman, a spokesperson for The Utility Reform Network, a consumer advocacy group. If approved, the rate hike would add approximately $5.50 more per month to the average PG&E customer's bill. That may not seem like much, but customers are already paying $60 more per month than last year, and PG&E bills have increased 56% over the past three years. “Every rate increase, especially from PG&E, is devastating to customers. You have literally millions of customers, who can’t afford to pay their bills,” said Trotman.

AUBURN – The utility company has announced it is requesting an increase, not for infrastructure or safety improvements, but to boost returns for its investors. Currently, PG&E investors earn a 10.2% return on investment. If approved, the new rate would rise to 11.3%, a 1.1% increase.

Source: Manteca/Ripon Bulletin| By Dennis Wyatt

The Utility Reform Network (TURN) is urging the CPUC to reject the request. “California utilities are driving an affordability crisis, with families paying billions in excessive costs while investor profits soar,” said Lee Trotman, Communications Director of TURN.

PG&E wants yet another rate increase. And this time its to make sure its investors are kept whole against risks the for-profit utility may incur. The filing Thursday with the California Public Utilities Commission pencils out to roughly $5.50 a month or $66 a year for residential customers.

Source: San Joaquin Valley Sun| By Daniel Gligich

The Utility Reform Network (TURN), a consumer advocacy group, is pushing back against PG&E and urging the state to reject the request for an increase. 

TURN is asking the CPUC to decrease the 10.6% rate of profit that California utilities are currently receiving. 

TURN is also asking the CPUC to stop approving costly infrastructure projects that inflate rates and is urging the Legislature to change the system to eliminate profits from essential infrastructure investments. 

“California utilities are driving an affordability crisis, with families paying billions in excessive costs while investor profits soar,” said TURN communications director Lee Trotman. “As PG&E, SoCal Edison, and SDG&E submit their cost of capital proposals today, the California Public Utilities Commission must take bold action to lower bills by tackling the root cause of skyrocketing rates: guaranteed profits that reward utilities for spending more, not spending wisely.” 

Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) is asking California regulators to raise its rates in order to pay more money back to the utility’s investors. PG&E submitted its 2026 Cost of Capital application to the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) on Thursday to raise rates starting next year. PG&E has requested an increase of around $5.50 per month for residential customers. That would set an 11.3% return on equity for investors. 

Source: Los Angeles Times| By Sammy Roth

“Not having any risk from ignition requires an insane amount of spending,” said Matthew Freedman, an attorney for the Utility Reform Network, a ratepayer watchdog group, in an interview.

From 2019 through 2023, Edison, PG&E and SDG&E were collectively authorized to add $27 billion in wildfire-related costs to customer rates, according to the California Public Utilities Commission — 18% of overall system costs for PG&E, 12% for Edison and 9% for SDG&E. And even if state officials want some Californians to pay more for fire prevention, electric rates are a terrible way to divvy up the costs. High utility bills disproportionately burden low-income and middle-class families, eating up a bigger chunk of their monthly budgets

Source: Canary Media | By Jeff St. John

“There’s agreement that record-breaking shareholder earnings make no sense along with skyrocketing costs,” said Mark Toney, executive director of The Utility Reform Network (TURN), a ratepayer advocacy group, and that ​“utilities need to be held more accountable for their spending.” TURN is supporting a list of bills being introduced in this year’s legislative session that take aim at utility costs. Some would increase state regulator oversight on utility grid spending. Others seek to forbid utilities from spending ratepayer funds on lobbying and advertising and strengthen CPUC oversight of potential ​“double recovery,” or utilities collecting funds for projects already financed via other means.

Everyone agrees that California’s major utilities are charging too much for electricity. But as in previous years, state lawmakers, regulators, and consumer advocates are at odds over what to do about it. With the state’s three biggest utilities reporting record profits even as customers’ rates have skyrocketed, critics say the time is right to pass laws that will force regulators to more tightly control key utility costs — or even outright curb utility spending and profits.

Source: The Cool Down| By Amy Bolyington

"Regulators need to shield residential and small business customers from shouldering the brunt of these new data center costs," Sylvie Ashford, an energy and policy analyst at The Utility Reform Network, told CalMatters.

Data centers and crypto mines demand a lot of energy. A recent report from Energy Futures Group on behalf of Earthjustice revealed how electricity tariffs and contracts for these large facilities can impact the power grid and energy costs. 

Source: San Francisco Chronicle | By Julie Johnson

Mark Toney, executive director of The Utility Reform Network, or TURN, said the commissioners are responsible for protecting utility customers from out-of-control company spending but have failed to do so. “They have more authority than they use,” Toney said. 

The typical household bill is expected to be about $299 for those with both electricity and gas service, PG&E said. That is slightly higher than the average residential bill one year ago of about $296, according to PG&E’s bill averages tracked by the Chronicle. The changes come after a historic year of PG&E bill hikes. In 2024, average residential customers paid about $440 more annually compared with 2023, prompting widespread complaints that rising bills are increasingly hard for Californians to pay.