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: 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: Los Angeles Times| By Sammy Roth

“The people of California deserve better than to have their money used against them, to pay for utility lobbying,” said Mark Toney, executive director of the Utility Reform Network, in a news release supporting the bill. The Utility Reform Network, an Oakland-based consumer watchdog group, also supports SB 330 from Sen. Steve Padilla (D-Chula Vista). The bill aims to lower the cost of expanding the power grid by testing out public financing for new electric lines — instead of utility shareholder financing, with its guaranteed profit margins.

AB 1167 from Assemblymember Marc Berman (D-Menlo Park) offers a good starting point for lawmakers looking to address utility profits. The bill would make it harder for utilities to charge customers for advertising campaigns and other political activities that should be funded by shareholders — an area where PG&E has faced criticism. A similar bill failed to pass last year amid opposition from the utilities.
Utility executives, to their credit, sound open to the concept. But other proposals to limit electric rates — such as requiring utilities to pay for certain grid investments through securitization, which Newsom had hoped to achieve last summer — have faced stiff opposition from utilities, because they would cut into shareholder profits.

Source: GV Wire: Fresno| By Edward Smith

“California utilities are making record-breaking profits while hardworking people across the state struggle with skyrocketing bills,” said Mark Toney, executive director at The Utility Reform Network. “The people of California deserve better than to have their money used against them, to pay for utility lobbying and promotional advertising. It is time legislators take action to hold for-profit utilities accountable.”

Assemblymember Marc Berman (D-Menlo Park), introduced Assembly Bill 1167 on Feb. 21. The bill requires utility companies to justify rate increases. It makes “unjust” or “unreasonable” charges unlawful, according to the bill text.

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

The CPUC didn’t specify which alternative sources could fill that gap. Prior proposals to use state tax revenues or California’s cap-and-trade program could be part of the mix, said Mark Toney, executive director of The Utility Reform Network, a ratepayer-advocacy group. But even supporters of those concepts like Toney don’t see much hope of lawmakers fielding bills that would ask taxpayers to shoulder costs now borne by ratepayers. ​“It is wishful thinking that we could shift rooftop subsidies to taxpayers,” he said. ​“I’m not holding my breath here.”

The net-billing tariff the CPUC approved in late 2022 to replace its previous net-metering regime offers far lower payments for the electricity that newly installed rooftop solar systems inject onto the grid, except for a few hours per year when peak power is in dire need. That structure rewards customers who add batteries that can store and inject power during those valuable hours — a service that should reduce how much energy utilities need to secure and how much grid infrastructure they need to build to serve those peak moments.

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.