Source: Politico| By Blanca Begert, Camille Von Kaenel, Alex Nieves

Another big Becker bill — SB 540, to pave the way to California’s participation in a West-wide grid — is also looking good to clear its Judiciary Committee hearing Tuesday. Becker will take amendments to address some of the concerns raised by groups like TURN, including ones to clarify California’s ability to withdraw from the regional energy market if Trump tries to meddle in it, although TURN’s position remains “oppose unless amended.” ON OUR RADAR: Net metering round two: Assemblymember Lisa Calderon has been amassing support from labor groups, electric utilities and TURN for her proposal, AB 942, to limit incentives for some of the state’s earliest rooftop solar owners, a measure she says will spread the costs of maintaining the grid more evenly and save average Californians money on their utility bills. 

The energy affordability bill to rule them all, Sen. Josh Becker’s sweeping SB 254 that he launched last week to tackle skyrocketing electricity rates, will likely get through its hearing Tuesday in the Energy and Utilities Committee, which Becker chairs.

Source: RTO Insider | By Henrik Nilsson

The Utility Reform Network (TURN) is finding some success in getting California state lawmakers to address the group’s concerns about what the Trump administration might do if the Golden State moves forward with plans to hand over control of CAISO’s energy markets to an independent regional organization. Democratic Sen. Josh Becker, who introduced the Pathways bill [SB 540], has said he will convene a group to address the consumer advocacy organization TURN’s concerns with the proposed legislation. In its public comments on the bill, TURN submitted a position of opposition that stands unless the bill is amended. Writing in opposition to the bill, Matthew Freedman, staff attorney for TURN, wrote that handing power over CAISO’s wholesale energy markets to an independent RO while opening the door to other market actors in the West “may expose California customers to new risks that could prove difficult to mitigate.” In an email to RTO Insider, Freedman said: “Our goal is to ensure that the scope and role of Regional Organization is clearly defined in state law and that California has the right to withdraw under a variety of circumstances. We are extremely concerned about the potential for the federal government to make changes to the regional energy markets that would undermine California’s clean energy and decarbonization goals.”

The group asked for amendments to address the following points:

• Ensure the RO’s tariffs permit California to withdraw utilities from the regional market without penalties or need for approval by FERC.

• Clarify that the RO cannot set “any requirements relating to resource adequacy, reserve margins or reliability.” Additionally, the RO should not be allowed to rely on a centralized capacity market or separate markets for dispatchable, firm and intermittent resources. This is to prevent the federal government from intervening in wholesale markets to provide incentives for coal and gas generation.

• Give the California Public Utilities Commission power to direct investor-owned utilities to withdraw from the RO if it violates any of the obligations under SB 540 or implements changes that could harm consumers.

• Require utilities to withdraw from the RO if a court rules that California resource planning policies discriminate against out-of-state resources.

• Similarly, utilities must withdraw if the federal government takes action that would lead to California consumers subsidizing fossil fuels.

• Require utilities to withdraw “if a Joint Concurrent resolution is passed by the State Assembly and State Senate.”

• Clarify that the Renewables Portfolio Standard “requirements relating to energy delivery from resources outside of a California Balancing Authority must satisfy strict standards including the use of dynamic scheduling, pseudo ties or firm transmission rights.”

Source: East Bay Times| By George Avalos

“PG&E’s monthly bills are still way too high,” said Mark Toney, executive director of consumer group The Utility Reform Network. “Monthly bills are up 70% from just a few years ago.” In January 2020, PG&E monthly bills were roughly $175 a month for combined services. Monthly bills this past January for customers who receive combined electricity and gas services from PG&E were $295. Toney argues that consumers experienced huge yearly increases because state regulators allowed PG&E to charge customers too much for wildfire mitigation work that should have been done sooner. “PG&E was allowed to overspend for wildfire mitigation,” he said.

Monthly electric bills for the typical customer averaged about $215 in March, down 3.2% from an average of $222 in March 2024, PG&E reported in a recent post about trends in bills. Despite the slight decline, current bill levels in recent years have soared far higher than customers previously experienced.

Source: Lake County News | By Lake County News Reports

“It is clear from the polling data that California residents expect their elected representatives to take action now, and pass legislation that will limit utility overspending, trim record-breaking corporate profits, support public financing to reduce long-term costs, and provide short-term ratepayer relief,” said Mark Toney, executive director of The Utility Reform Network. The Utility Reform Network, or TURN, and EnviroVoters are supporting the Campaign for Affordable Power bill package:
• AB 1167 (Berman, Addis) Prohibits utility misspending of ratepayer dollars.
• AB 1020 (Schiavo): Prevents double-charging and boosts accountability.
• SB 636 (Menjivar): Provides hardship deferments to vulnerable customers.
• SB 330 (Padilla): Promotes alternative financing for transmission to reduce costs.

California utility consumers are demanding lawmakers rein in skyrocketing rates and hold for-profit investor owned utilities accountable, according to new polling data from David Binder Research released by The Utility Reform Network and California Environmental Voters.

• 82% of California voters are concerned about the cost of their monthly electric bill.
• 79% of California voters agree the government should do more to limit price increases.
• 93% of California voters agree utilities should not charge customers for wasteful spending, including lobbying, PR, and marketing campaigns.

Source: The Mercury News/ Bay Area News Group| By Grant Stringer

The influential consumer advocacy group The Utility Reform Network supports the bill for its combination of long-term cost reductions for ratepayers and immediate relief, executive director Mark Toney said in an email.

The most influential bill introduced so far this session is Becker’s Senate Bill 254, which was released in its expanded form on Tuesday. The bill is intended to give ratepayers relief by paying for some projects with other sources of funds, expand subsidies for low-income residents and provide all customers with credits to use during summer months when bills are priciest. It would also expand oversight and transparency of rate increases and utilities’ profits.

Source: New Project Media | By Michelle France

“We strongly support AB 1260 in order to clean up the mess that the PUC has created in its flawed implementation of AB 2316,” said Matthew Freedman, an attorney for The Utility Reform Network (TURN). “The PUC’s refusal to implement AB 2316 as intended by this legislature represents a huge missed opportunity,” Freedman continued. “As of today, major elements of the PUC’s alternative approach are unclear, require further development and seem highly unlikely to lead to a successful program. AB 1260 would eliminate any ambiguities in current law by requiring all community renewable generation serving subscribers to be compensated using the Commission’s own avoided cost calculator which serves as the primary method for determining the value of exported electricity to the distribution system, and is used already to compensate customers participating in the Net Value Billing Tariff.” AB 1260 would also require all eligible projects to include four hours of energy storage at the same capacity of the renewable energy generation, but the PUC rejected that idea, Freedman said. “We strongly disagree. Energy storage provides significant value to the system—they need to be included in the community program,” Freedman said. Furthermore, Freedman argued that new residential construction must include onsite solar or an alternative compliance through participation in a community program under the Title 24 Building Code. About 400 MW a year of new community solar will be needed to serve as the compliance option. “Installing 1,000 MW of community solar under this proposal would save USD 7bn over 25 years compared to installing that same amount on the rooftop as would be required under Title 24. For those reasons we think this bill makes a lot of sense and will be a ratepayer savings measure,” Freedman said.

The California State Assembly Committee on Utilities and Energy approved a bill that would revise or retract the Community Renewable Energy Program (CREP) adopted by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) last spring. The committee voted by 13-1 in favor of Assembly Bill (AB) 1260 at an April 23 meeting. The legislation, introduced by Assemblymember Christopher Ward, D-78 will now head to the Committee on Appropriations for approval.

Source: GV Wire, Fresno| By Nancy Price

“It is clear from the polling data that California residents expect their elected representatives to take action now, and pass legislation that will limit utility overspending, trim record-breaking corporate profits, support public financing to reduce long-term costs, and provide short-term ratepayer relief,” Mark Toney, executive director of The Utility Reform Network, said in a news release Thursday. The Utility Reform Network, a Bay-Area based advocacy nonprofit, is scheduled to hold a news conference at noon Thursday in front of the state Capitol with a coalition that includes the AARP, California Large Energy Consumers Association, California Farm Bureau, and Small Business Utility Advocate urging California legislators to proceed with affordability legislation.

A new survey of California voters shows that most blame utility company spending and profit-taking for skyrocketing electricity costs. According to the survey results, there was overwhelming agreement on some key issues:

• 93% said wasteful spending by utility companies, including for lobbying, PR, and marketing campaigns, needs to be reined in.

• 90% said AI data centers need to pay their fair share.

• 90% said modernized building codes are needed to ensure energy efficiency.

• 85% supported rejecting rate increases that lead to excessive profit margins for utility companies.

Source: Fox 26 News, Fresno| By Fox 26 Newstaff

The director of the Utility Reform Network, tells FOX26 the last thing PG&E customers need is to be charged an additional fee just for paying their bills.

Some PG&E customers will be looking at a new fee next month, just for paying their bills. Starting May 9th, residential customers using a credit card will be charged a flat fee of $6.95.

Source: GV Wire/Fresno| By Nancy Price

Mark Toney, executive director of The Utility Reform Network, an advocacy organization based in the Bay Area, was critical of the new fees. “It is shocking to TURN that PG&E wants to charge a customer fee for paying through a checking account, because the transaction costs are so minimal, as compared to costly credit card transaction fees of 3-5%.” he said in an email Friday. “PG&E should know better than to try to sneak in a brand-new customer fee without first filing a (California Public Utilities) Commission request for a rate increase, so that TURN, business groups, and the public can weigh in. PG&E customers, already facing an affordability crisis, shouldn’t have to pay an additional fee “just for paying their bills,” he said.

PG&E is notifying customers that they’ll have to pay transaction fees starting May 19 if they use a bank account, credit card, or debit card to pay their bills. The fee will be $1.50 for residential customers and $6.95 for business customers. It’s unclear why business customers would pay more than residential customers.

Source: KQED| By Nisa Khan

The Utility Reform Network (TURN), a consumer advocacy group based in Oakland, signed a letter with 220 other groups last week demanding that Congress reinstate the laid-off federal employees. “If there’s no one working the program, then if you apply, there’s no one going to process that application,” said Lee Trotman, a spokesperson for TURN. “This is a crisis at the federal level. And it’s going to affect Californians.”

Bay Area consumer advocates are sounding alarms after the Trump administration this month fired the entire staff running a federal program that helps low-income Americans afford to heat and cool their homes. The Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) distributes federal funds to help households with their energy needs through services such as providing one-time financial assistance to pay bills, offering emergency help when utilities are disconnected or upgrading homes to make them more energy-efficient.

Source: KCBS Radio | By Bret Burkhart

“PG&E wants to add an additional 1100 miles to the wildfire mitigation plan by 2028, but did not attach a price tag.” When asked about PG&E’s plan, Lee Trotman Communications Director with The Utility Reform Network” said “I’m a little suspicious because last year PG&E had six rate hikes.”  He also said “burying the lines is the most expensive option, and we would rather have them insulate the lines.”

Source:Inside Climate News| By Twilight Greenway

Sylvie Ashford at The Utility Reform Network (TURN) said that utilities owned by investors have a history of attempting to make money off behind-the-meter or customer-side investments and padding projects with more capital investments than necessary to increase their profits. She pointed to a recent neighborhood-scale electrification project at Cal State Monterey, where PG&E proposed paying for the retrofits with its capital budget but met resistance and ultimately backed out.

Last year, when Shreyas Sudhakar started a heat pump installation company in the San Francisco Bay Area, he realized he wouldn’t be able to find new customers by promising to bring down their utility bills. Electric heat pumps are around three times more efficient than gas appliances, and Sudhakar’s clients typically use less energy overall after making the switch. But they also use more electricity. And if they live in a part of California serviced by Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) or one of the state’s two other investor-owned utilities (IOUs), the savings they may have come to associate with the technology will likely prove elusive.

Source: The New York Times| By Shawn Huber and Ivan Penn

Mark Toney, the executive director of the Utility Reform Network, which represents consumers before the California Public Utilities Commission, the utility regulator, said burying power lines underground could cost $3 million to $4 million a mile. “Everybody knows that we’ve got to rebuild the grid when it burned down the way that it did,” Mr. Toney said. “We think it’s important to look for ways to get things done the most cost-effective way possible.”

Southern California Edison, the electric utility whose equipment has been the focus of investigations into the deadly Eaton fire in Los Angeles County in January, said on Friday that it planned to bury more than 150 miles of power lines in fire-prone areas near Altadena and Malibu, Calif. In a letter to Gov. Gavin Newsom of California, company officials estimated the cost of the project at more than $650 million.

Source: ABC30 Fresno| By Brisa Colon

The Utilities Reform Network, or 'TURN', tells Action News they are highly skeptical that prices will go down, as they claim PG&E has eight proposed new hikes on the docket.

FRESNO, Calif. (KFSN) -- PG&E CEO Patricia Poppe sat down with Mayor Jerry Dyer in downtown Fresno Thursday evening to talk about energy bills and ongoing efforts to make prices more affordable.

Source: KQED | By Matthew Green

But Lee Trotman, with The Utility Reform Network, said PG&E enjoyed record profits last year — of $2.47 billion — and shouldn’t need to raise rates to further satisfy its investors. “The overall message is that rates have gone up without fail,” he said. “They’re doing everything they can to make shareholders happy at the cost of ratepayers.”

The increasingly steep cost of keeping the lights on and the heat flowing comes as PG&E last week asked California regulators if it could increase the rate of return for its investors, to 11.3%, up a percentage point from the current limit — a move that would result in yet another rate hike.

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.