Source: The San Diego Union-Tribune | By Rob Nikolewski

“We do think (reducing the return from 10.23% to 9.88% is) a step in the right direction, but so much more needs to be done in terms of affordability,” said Mark Toney, executive director at The Utility Reform Network (TURN),  the Oakland-based organization that frequently weighs in on CPUC matters. TURN called for a return on equity of 9.5% for SDG&E. Toney emphasized that while the percentages that utilities earn are important, another crucial factor is the accumulated costs that power companies spend on expensive projects that get passed to ratepayers. And the the CPUC has final approval on whether those projects get the green light. 

Investor-owned utilities in California — including San Diego Gas & Electric — will earn smaller rates of profit on their infrastructure projects next year under a proposed decision that will soon go before the five voting members of the California Public Utilities Commission.  

In SDG&E’s case, what’s called the utility’s “return on equity” would drop from 10.23% in 2026 to 9.88% under the figures released late last week. It’s difficult to say what the lower rate would mean for the monthly bills that SDG&E customers pay, but the pending vote comes at a time when high rates have become a major concern across California and in the San Diego area in particular.

Source: Lake County News | By Little Hoover

Witnesses will include Elise Torres, energy team assistant managing attorney, The Utility Reform Network, or TURN; Liang Min, managing director of Bits & Watts Initiative, Precourt Institute for Energy [Stanford University]; Linda Taub Gordon, climate researcher and supervising attorney, UC Berkeley Human Rights Center; Masheika Allgood, founder, AllAI Consulting LLC; and Natalie Mims Frick, department leader and energy policy researcher, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. Members of the public will have the opportunity to make comment at the end of the hearing. If you would like to make a public comment please use the "raise hand" feature in Zoom or email LittleHoover@lhc.ca.gov with your question and the phone number from which you joined the hearing.

The Little Hoover Commission invites the public to join them on Thursday, Nov. 20, at 2 p.m. for a hearing on data centers and California electricity policy.  This hearing will focus on framing the landscape around data centers and California's electricity system, and will feature expert testimony from academic, technological, ratepayer, energy and environmental perspectives.

Source: CalMatters | By Alejandro Lazo

Mark Toney, who leads The Utility Reform Network and supported the transparency measure, has questioned whether data centers justify the costs they’re pushing onto ratepayers.  He warned of the centers’ “voracious consumption of energy and water, increased carbon emissions, and jacking up ratepayer bills.” 

California is a major hub for data centers — the facilities that store and transmit much of the internet. But just how much these power-hungry operations affect the state’s energy use, climate and public health remains an open question for researchers.  A new report released this week by the environmental think tank Next 10 and a UC Riverside researcher attempts to quantify that impact — but its authors say the report is only an estimate without harder data from the centers themselves.

Source: Fox26 News | By Mayra Franco

Not everyone agrees with PG&E’s optimistic outlook.  Consumer advocates say the rate increase could still hit families hard over time.  Mark Toney, with The Utility Reform Network said, "In the past six or seven years, PG&E bills have already doubled. They've already gone up 100%.” He adds," This rate case is not just about 2027. It's about 27, 28, 29, and 30. At the end of 2030, if this is approved, the bills will be $42 a month higher or $500 a year higher.”  Toney urges residents to attend the hearings saying, "It is incredibly important for you to show up and say, no on this rate increase."

PG&E is giving customers a chance to weigh in on its latest proposal to raise electricity rates by 3.6%, but the company says you might not even notice the change.  State rules require PG&E to file a General Rate Case every four years. This process determines how much customers will pay on their bills over the next several years. The company submitted it to CPUC back in May.  For the first time in a while, customers can speak directly to PG&E about the proposed changes. 

Source: Canary Media Live Berkeley | By Julian Spector

Mark: I really appreciate being invited by Canary Media and being part of this conversation.  TURN fights for the cleanest energy at the lowest prices.  I like to say we want the most green for the least green and this is important because affordability and clean energy  need to go hand in hand.  We have to resist the people that want to split them apart and say “you either have to choose affordable and dirty or clean and expensive" and at TURN we reject that.  We fight for clean and affordable together!  These are absolutely some of the most trying times that many of us have seen in our lifetimes when it comes to all the attacks on clean energy policies.  When it comes to utility bills skyrocketing, and yet there is and are many glimmers of hope.

Canary Media is a nonprofit news organization focusing on the transition to clean energy and climate challenges.  On November 6th 2025 the Canary Media Live event in Berkeley was streamed live and Executive Director of TURN Mark Toney was interviewed by host Julian Spector.

Source: RTO Insider | By David Krause

In comments noted in the decision, The Utility Reform Network (TURN) said SDG&E has not demonstrated any need for additional funds over the amounts it received in its GRC to meet customer energization demands. TURN said that in March, “SDG&E stated that it considered it an ‘unlikely event’ that the utility would be ‘unable to accommodate the full load amount requested by the customer because of an upstream capacity constraint.’”

In a rare split decision, the California Public Utilities Commission has approved $51.2 million in additional funds for electrification projects for San Diego Gas & Electric customers to help the state reach its carbon neutrality goal.  Under the decision (25-04-015), SDG&E will create a new electric energization memorandum account (EEMA) for energization projects that will be completed outside the utility’s approved 2024 general rate case (GRC).

Source: Bay Area News Group | By George Avalos

PG&E’s electricity and data center plans have been met with skepticism by The Utility Reform Network, a consumer group also known as TURN.  “TURN is very concerned about data centers driving up electric rates for Californians,” said Mark Toney, TURN’s executive director. “It’s essential that those costs are recovered fairly and don’t cause electric rates to increase for households who are already struggling to pay their utility bills.”

PG&E is focusing expansion and upgrade plans in the San Jose area as officials predict the South Bay’s need for electricity will far outstrip a projected jump in demand within its service territory, the investor-owned utility’s chief executive said in a wide-ranging interview.  For PG&E, San Jose offers a confluence of land and demand. The city has plenty of available open space for a tech industry whose thirst for energy has soared.

Source: Lifeline with Craig Roberts | By Craig Roberts, iHeart Radio Network

"PG&E is not even feigning embarrassment and coming straight for a 24.5% rate increase over the next five years.  Add that to what we went through over the last 21 months and it becomes a big ouch for every ratepayer’s pocketbook.  Joining me today in the studio is our friend, Executive Director of The Utility Reform Network or TURN, Mark Toney.” “What PG&E is asking for over the next four years is for your annual gas and electric bill to go up by $500 a year, $42 a month is what they’re requesting.   After all these rate increases we have had over the past few years, that is going to hurt a LOT of people” Mark Toney said. “Mark, when we include the price we pay at the pump, the price we pay at the grocery store, if you’re a homeowner did you just receive your tax bill, funny how Prop 13 limits property tax increases but at the end of the day, these customers for these rate increases might have to say ‘I don’t have it.'  Now what you’re asking me to do is to decide if I stop eating meat altogether, or choose which medications I need to have.” “I have more unwelcome news—only 50% of PG&E’s increases are within this general rate case request.  PG&# has another 10 rate increase proposals right now pending with the  Public Utilities Commission,  so each one of those is going to get stacked on top of this.  So we’re not just looking at $500 a year, we could be looking at closer to $1000 a year by the time we get to 2030.  Everybody, Craig, is looking at huge rate increases."

Source: Legal Planet | By Denise Gra

One of our three main areas of focus at the Emmett Clean Energy Law & Leadership (E-CELL) initiative is Ownership of Energy Resources: exploring how utility ownership structures affect cost, climate, and other outcomes. In June, we released a Pritzker Brief on this topic co-authored by our recent legal fellow, Ruthie Lazenby, as well as Mohit Chhabra of NRDC and Sylvie Ashford of TURN. That paper explored the theoretical underpinnings differentiating between publicly-owned utilities (POUs) and investor-owned utilities (IOUs) on the issues of affordability, clean energy, and reliability. 

Today, we’re releasing another report on this topic, delving more deeply into a case study comparing cost and climate metrics between one POU—the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP)—with one IOU—Southern California Edison (SCE)—who both operate in the same geographic region—Los Angeles County. Los Angeles County offers a unique opportunity to compare a POU and an IOU that operate in the same region with similar building types, similar state policy goals, and generally similar climates. With the geographic overlap between these two utilities, distinctions between them may be more likely attributable to the different governance models. 

Source: Stateline | By Alex Brown

“When you have a mixed market with a lot of coal plants, it creates opportunities for the Trump administration to rejigger the rules to favor coal,” said Matthew Freedman, renewables attorney with The Utility Reform Network, a California-based consumer advocacy group. “In another reality, this would have sounded like a hysterical concern, but it’s pretty obvious where [Trump’s appointees to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission] want to go.” Freedman’s group pushed California lawmakers for protections that would have given states more flexibility to withdraw from the market, while also prohibiting “resource adequacy” mandates that could be used by the feds to prop up coal. While those elements were included in a Senate version of the bill, they were stripped from the Assembly bill that ultimately was passed.

For years, Western leaders have debated the creation of a regional energy market: a coordinated grid to pool solar power in Arizona, wind in Wyoming, hydro in Washington and battery storage in California.  The shared resources would meet the demands of 11 different states, bolstering utilities’ local power plants with surplus energy from across the region.

Source: GV Wire | By Bill McEwen

A nonprofit watchdog, The Utility Reform Network, said the new law is a win for consumers.  “California residents are facing an unprecedented affordability crisis, and AB 1167 goes a long way to holding for-profit utility companies accountable to spending ratepayer money to benefit customers, not to fill shareholder pockets. We thank Governor Newsom for his leadership and look forward to continuing to work with him to achieve utility affordability and accountability,” said Mark Toney, executive director of TURN.

After decades of taking it on the chin from public utility companies like PG&E and Southern California Edison, ratepayers scored a victory this legislative season.  On Saturday, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed Assembly Bill 1167, which ends using ratepayer funds for political lobbying, promotion, and other shareholder expenses. The new law also beefs up enforcement against investor-owned utilities that illegally spend ratepayer monies. The California Ratepayer Protection Act goes into effect on Jan. 1, 2026.  Media investigations into California’s monopoly utilities have revealed use of ratepayer funds to cover millions of dollars in inappropriate expenses.

Source: Bay Area News Group | By George Avalos

Gov. Gavin Newsom announced Wednesday that customers of PG&E and other utilities would see a climate credit on their October bills as part of a decade-old state program. At least one consumer group stressed it’s still not enough to lessen the impact of high electricity costs. The October refunds are part of a California Climate Credit effort that began in 2015. The credits appear twice a year on state utility bills – once in April and once in October.

While the twice-a-year credits offer a welcome relief to elevated costs in California, the reductions don’t address the fundamental challenges of expensive utility rates, said Mark Toney, executive director of The Utility Reform Network, also known as TURN.  “These are refunds,” Toney said. “They don’t address electricity rates. “Any relief is great, but the rebates don’t address the fundamental problem of affordable electricity bills."

Source: Politico | By Noah Baustin

“So much more still needs to be done,” said Mark Toney, executive director of The Utility Reform Network, a customer advocacy group. “There are contributions that are on [the governor’s] desk now and there is more to be done next year.”

NOBODY’S SINGING YET: You’d be excused for thinking that the energy affordability lawmaking was done for the year after Gov. Gavin Newsom and legislative leadership celebrated the signing of their landmark energy affordability package in high style last week. You’d also be wrong.

Source: Canary Media | By Jeff St. John

“We’re strongly opposed,” said Matthew Freedman, staff attorney at The Utility Reform Network (TURN). Previous versions of the bill ​“had a bunch of provisions we thought would have protected California’s sovereignty and prevented the federal government from weaponizing its authority. Most of those protections were stripped from the bill, inexplicably.”  In particular, in May, TURN and its allies pushed to add an amendment that would have created an oversight council including California lawmakers that would have had the authority to pull the state out of the market if they determined it would raise energy costs or work against the state’s carbon-emissions goals.

After years of failed attempts, California lawmakers have cleared the way to create an electricity-trading market that would stretch across the U.S. West. Advocates say that could cut the region’s power costs by billions of dollars and support the growth of renewable energy. But opponents say it may make the state’s climate and clean-energy policies vulnerable to the Trump administration.

Source: The Press Democrat | By Marisa Endicott

But at least one stakeholder, Mark Toney, the executive director of The Utility Reform Network, or TURN, a ratepayer advocacy group involved in shaping some of the language in the new legislation, made a small commitment. Toney said during the hearing that he would push for the Northern California fire victims to be considered in the report assessing the wildfire fund’s durability.

A sprawling bill passed at the eleventh hour by California lawmakers a week ago to address energy affordability included a massive infusion to the state’s wildfire restitution fund, established in 2019 to help pay damages to victims of fires sparked by investor-owned utilities.  Northern California fire survivors, whose plight inspired the fund and who have yet to be made whole for their losses in the 2017 North Bay firestorm and 2018 Camp Fire, among others, had recently been pushing lawmakers to be included in the fund, but no such provision was part of the last-minute deal, which Gov. Gavin Newsom signed into law Friday.

Source: The Los Angeles Times | By Sammy Roth

But under SB 254, shareholders of Edison, PG&E and SDG&E won’t earn a dime on the next $6 billion the utilities spend to reduce the risk of wildfire ignitions from their infrastructure, starting in 2026. That could save customers $3 billion over 10 years, according to the Utility Reform Network, a ratepayer watchdog group.  SB 254 also lays the groundwork for government loans to fund construction of some new power lines. That would be less expensive than utility funding, because ratepayers wouldn’t need to cover shareholder profits.

Last month, I wrote that California is backsliding on climate, and that it’s mostly Gov. Gavin Newsom’s fault. I took him and his appointees to task for undermining rooftop solar, propping up the Aliso Canyon gas field and slowing implementation of a single-use plastics recycling law, among other offenses.  So, it’s only fair that I give him credit for his actions last week, at the close of the legislative session. Legislators passed several bills meant to help reduce the cost of electricity — a top priority for lawmakers looking to tackle the state’s high cost of living, and also a smart move for climate progress. People are more likely to drive electric cars, and install electric heat pumps to warm and cool their homes, if electricity is less expensive.  

Source: Boiling Point | By LA Times

Sammy Roth talks with Matt Freedman, staff attorney at the Utility Reform Network, about what California lawmakers are doing to rein in soaring electricity costs, and why it’s crucial for the state’s climate goals.

Source: Politico | By Camille Von Kaenel & Alex Nieves

As a result, even champions of the package acknowledged the electricity legislation could do more to stabilize prices than drive them down long term. Mark Toney, the executive director of the Utility Reform Network, a ratepayer advocacy group, called the measure on electric bills “a first step in the right direction.”  “Given the utility affordability crisis that residents, agriculture, industrial businesses, small businesses, and older customers face, we need lawmakers to work harder than ever in 2026,” he said.

Gov. Gavin Newsom used California’s legislative session to take a big step toward neutralizing a growing problem across his state and one of his biggest political liabilities: high energy costs.  Lawmakers on Saturday sent apackage of bills to his desk that they hope will stabilize spiraling electricity bills and gas prices, which despite several past efforts to bring them down are still among the highest in the nation. Newsom continues to battle soaring costs of living and other quality of life issues that he’s sought to neutralize. He’s deployed state law enforcement resources to help combat crime, and taken big steps to increase the state’s housing stock — in part by paring back landmark environmental regulations.

Source: CalMatters | By Alejandro Lazo & Jeanne Kuang

Consumer advocates, led by The Utility Reform Network, warned the change could weaken California’s control over its clean energy agenda and hand more power to a federal government under Trump that is siding with fossil fuels. Some environmental and consumer groups shared that concern. The shift is important because California has spent decades building one of the cleanest grids in the world and the move to open up that system to other Western states could reshape how both renewable and fossil power move across the region.

Gov. Gavin Newsom closed out the legislative year with one of the most sweeping overhauls of California’s energy and climate policies in decades — a package that could give him a presidential debate-stage talking point on rising energy costs as the Democratic Party shifts its focus to affordability.  The six-bill deal — passed Saturday after lawmakers extended their session by an extra day because of last-minute dealmaking — was sold as a way to ease gas prices and soaring electricity bills while preserving the state’s signature climate programs. Ratepayers are expected to get some relief through measures to cut the cost of building transmission lines, and an expanded cap-and-trade energy credit aimed at blunting rising energy bills. They also will get some protection from utilities hiking rates based on the cost of wildfire-proofing their infrastructure, such as by putting power lines underground. But they’ll also continue paying $9 billion over the next decade into a fund to compensate wildfire victims.

Source: Public Policy Institute of California | By Stephanie Barton

The cost to increase electrification on the grid goes into the rate base customers pay—”that [base is] the biggest part of lack of affordability,” said Adria Tinnin, director of race, equity, and legislative policy at The Utility Reform Network (TURN). Wildfire mitigation and safety make up a large portion of the base rate, which Tinnin suggested might be lowered through more cost-effective approaches such as insulating conductors rather than burying wires underground.

California has some of the highest energy costs in the nation, with a range of factors driving up utility bills at a faster pace than inflation. In a recent panel moderated by KQED climate reporter Laura Klivans, experts discussed the obstacles and solutions to achieving clean and affordable energy in California. “The primary driver of the increases in electricity bills is, frankly, climate change,” said Alice Reynolds, president of the California Public Utilities Commission, “having to adjust the system to make the infrastructure safer … as well as respond to the impacts of climate change, [which includes] repairs after wildfires, dealing with extreme heat” and providing the supply to meet higher and more volatile demand. Along with higher demand during the day, Siva Gunda, vice chair of the California Energy Commission, observed that demand has lengthened across summer and winter. To meet demand for “the median of the day [and] these long tails happening because of climate change” requires investing in additional capacity. Right now, two systems must be running to maintain reliability on the grid—the legacy oil and gas system alongside the new renewable system. “When you’re paying for two systems, the cost is going to be higher.” Gunda cited an expected rise in electricity use due to building, transportation, and data centers, which will further shift the point in the day when use goes up. That timing and usage “will drive the system you need to build,” Gunda said, and recommended stabilizing regulations as California phases out refineries.