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.

Source: San Francisco Chronicle | By Julie Johnson

Mark Toney, executive director of The Utility Reform Network, or TURN, said the $5 bill reduction was “cold comfort” given the unprecedented bill hikes from last year. In 2024, PG&E residential customers began paying about $440 more annually for gas and electricity compared to 2023, according to a Chronicle analysis of PG&E data. 

Pacific Gas and Electric Co. electricity bills will drop by about $5 for average households this month as charges for wildfire safety upgrades and emergency response are removed.  PG&E spokesperson Lynsey Paulo said the company has no other rate changes — up or down — planned for the rest of 2025. Combined gas and electric bills are expected to decrease again at the start of 2026, she said. That amount will be announced in late December once end-of-the year-calculations are finalized. “We are driving toward reducing prices further, and we’re making progress,” Paulo said. “You’ll see it again in 2026.” PG&E bills have changed only moderately this year, starting with a $1 increase for typical households in January and another $3 added charge to average residential bills that began in March. In both cases, new charges were partly offset by temporary charges that were removed. 

Source: The Mercury News | By Mark Toney & Michael Boccadoro

California is in the midst of a profound utility bill affordability crisis. Over the last decade, PG&E residential customers have watched their monthly electric bills skyrocket — from $88 in January 2015 to $215 a month, (a staggering 250% increase). This additional $1,600 annual burden forces families to make devastating trade-offs between utility bills and groceries, electricity and prescriptions, keeping service and even remaining housed. And it is not just residents teetering on the brink of survival.  Rising utility bills are impacting large industrial companies and local shops across the state. From steel mills and glass factories, to fruit, vegetable and dairy farmers, to neighborhood restaurants and small businesses, escalating utility bills have created an unsustainable burden. The good news is that after months of advocacy driven by a “big tent” of residential, small business, industrial and agricultural supporters, the Legislature has assembled the most significant electricity affordability package in decades. The bad news is that PG&E, SoCal Edison, Sempra, and Wall Street investment firms are actively resisting affordability legislation, because delivering savings to customers could trim utilities’ profits. Their message is clear: protecting shareholder profits is more important than providing relief for California families and businesses. Two major bills would unlock billions in customer savings and prioritize affordability over utility profit margins. State Senator Josh Becker’s SB 254 and Assemblymember Cottie Petrie-Norris’s AB 825 target three key areas where California can significantly reduce costs, while maintaining reliability and safety. Passing these bills would make an enormous difference.  First, they would save customers roughly $7.5 billion over 10 years by eliminating excessive shareholder profits on $15 billion in new grid spending, per analysis by The Utility Reform Network, or TURN. $15 billion in mandated ratepayer-backed bonds carries much lower interest costs than traditional shareholder financing, which includes guaranteed profit margins that force ratepayers to pay financing costs of 14%. Second, they would authorize public financing options for new transmission lines — infrastructure California urgently needs to meet growing electricity demand. By shifting from investor-owned utility financing to public-private partnerships, the state could save ratepayers more than $3 billion annually, totaling approximately $123 billion over 40 years. Third, they would require utilities to submit an inflation–constrained alternative, whenever they submit a rate increase that exceeds the rate of inflation. This will provide the California Public Utilities Commission the opportunity to use inflation as the starting point, placing the burden upon utilities to justify every dollar over inflation, rather than only having a sky-high starting point determined by utilities, that requires ratepayer advocates to whittle down the proposal dollar by dollar. Mark Toney is executive director of The Utility Reform Network (TURN). Michael Boccadoro is executive director of the Agricultural Energy Consumers Association (AECA).

Source: Bay Area News Group/Marin Independent Journal | By George Avalos

The Utility Reform Network consumer group, known as TURN, noted that PG&E’s current reduction in monthly bills compares poorly to the trend of recent years. “PG&E does not deserve credit for a temporary reduction in monthly bills, which is the result of customers finally paying off some of the billions in corporate overspending,” said Mark Toney, TURN’s executive director. “PG&E announcing that electricity bills will be coming down by $5 a month is cold comfort.”

PG&E bills are heading lower this month as some costs related to wildfires and emergency responses start to recede and vanish from the utility’s rate base.  Customers can expect monthly electricity costs to drop by an average of $5 for the typical residential ratepayer who uses 500 kilowatt hours a month and isn’t on a subsidized billing plan. That equates to a 2.1% decrease. Gas bills are slated to drop an average of 39 cents a month for the typical customer, which equates to a decline of 0.4%. These calculations apply to customers who use 31 therms a month.  “These reduced bills are significant because no more rate changes are expected in 2025,” said PG&E spokesperson Mike Gazda. “Bills are expected to go down in 2026.”

Source: SSBCrack News | By News Desk

Mark Toney, executive director of the Utility Reform Network (TURN), criticized PG&E, suggesting that the temporary reduction in monthly bills stems from customers finally absorbing some of the company’s significant overspending. He remarked that the announcement of a $5 decrease in electricity bills feels more like a minimal consolation.

Customers of Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) can look forward to lower utility bills this month as the utility begins to phase out certain costs associated with wildfire management and emergency responses from its rate base. The average residential electricity charge is expected to decrease by approximately $5 for users consuming 500 kilowatt-hours per month, marking a 2.1% reduction. Similarly, gas bills will see an average decline of 39 cents monthly for those using 31 therms. PG&E spokesperson Mike Gazda noted the significance of the changes, indicating that no further rate adjustments are anticipated for 2025, with expectations for continued drops in 2026. In a previous statement in April 2024, PG&E CEO Patricia Poppe expressed optimism for a future where customers might experience declining bills.

Source: RTO Insider | By David Krause

While PG&E said the increased cost cap would translate into a 1.8% rate increase for an average residential customer, the CPUC countered that the “evidence does not support” this projected amount. The Utility Reform Network (TURN) estimates proposed cost cap increases would cost $72.50/year for a residential customer that uses 500 kWh/month. 

The California Public Utilities Commission approved a plan to increase Pacific Gas and Electric’s cost cap for customer energization projects in 2025 and 2026 by more than $1.5 billion, despite acknowledging the utility did not provide data to support its forecast growth in energization applications during those years.  The increased cap amounts are mountainous: PG&E can now seek to recover costs for up to about $1.1 billion in 2025 and $1.7 billion in 2026 for certain customer energization projects, according to the decision. In a 2024 decision, the CPUC approved cost caps of about $619 million in 2025 and $669 million in 2026 for these types of projects. 

Source: The Sacramento Bee | By Mark Toney and Kat Taylor

Carrier of Last Resort (COLR) obligations are legal requirements that ensure every household and business has access to basic telephone service, regardless of location remoteness, unprofitability or access challenges.