Source: Bay Area News Group | By George Avalos

“PG&E’s claim to care about affordability would ring more true if it decided to withdraw its 10 rate increase requests currently pending at the CPUC, rather than trumpet temporary decreases brought about because customers have finally paid for some of PG&E’s overspending on tree trimming projects,” said Mark Toney, executive director of The Utility Reform Network, a consumer group. “Claims of lower bills are little more than smoke and mirrors.”

After years of steep increases, PG&E customers are expected to see modestly lower electric and gas bills starting in January 2026, according to a new regulatory filing by the utility.  The typical residential customer who receives both electric and natural gas service from PG&E would pay an average of $285 a month beginning with the January 2026 billing cycle — about $10 less than the average bill in January 2025, or a 3.4% decrease, the company said.

Source: CalMatters | By Alejandro Lazo

It amounts to a “toothless” measure, directing the utility regulator to study an issue it already has the authority to investigate, said Matthew Freedman, a staff attorney with The Utility Reform Network, a ratepayer advocate.  The report could help shape future debates as lawmakers revisit tougher rules and the CPUC considers new policies on what data centers pay for power – a discussion gaining urgency as scrutiny of their rising electricity costs grows, he said.

Tools that power artificial intelligence devour energy. But attempts to shield regular Californians from footing the bill in 2025 ended with a law requiring regulators to write a report about the issue by 2027.  If that sounds pretty watered down, it is. Efforts to regulate the energy usage of data centers — the beating heart of AI — ran headlong into Big Tech, business groups and the governor. 

Source: The Mercury News | By George Avalos

The Utility Reform Network also disagreed with the decision because the PUC didn’t sufficiently reduce PG&E’s rate of return.  “Revising the decision in favor of utility shareholders is more than just buckling under pressure from PG&E and other major utilities,” TURN Executive Director Mark Toney said. “It is part of a disturbing pattern of commissioners disregarding proposals to address the affordability crisis.” Toney urged state politicians to step in and help utility customers.  “This is a clear sign that the Legislature needs to take more action to address the affordability crisis, because the CPUC has failed to do so,” Toney said.

State regulators Thursday reined in the profit returns that shareholders of PG&E and other utility providers can harvest, a decision that failed to quell a debate over whether customers can easily afford to pay their monthly electric and gas bills.  The state Public Utilities Commission voted 4-1 to approve slightly lower rates of return for shareholders starting in 2026 compared to current levels.

Source: The San Diego Union Tribune | By Rob Nikolewski

“Revising the cost of capital decision in favor of utility shareholders is more than just buckling under pressure from PG&E and other major utilities,” TURN executive director Mark Toney said.  “It is part of a disturbing pattern of commissioners disregarding proposals to address the affordability crisis issued by their own judges and staff, based upon evidence presented by all parties in ratemaking cases. This is a clear sign that the Legislature needs to take more action to address the affordability crisis, because the CPUC has failed to do so."

The California Public Utilities Commission on Thursday trimmed the rates of profit that investor-owned utilities such as San Diego Gas & Electric will make on their energy infrastructure projects — although consumer and environmental groups said the CPUC’s reductions should have cut deeper.  

Source: NRDC | By Jordan Brinn

NRDC and The Utility Reform Network submitted an electric rate design proposal to the California Public Utilities Commission to promote equity and encourage beneficial electrification. This is the first stage in a regulatory process to implement income-based fixed charges.  This proposal helped California regulators figure out how to confidently plan and pay for grid upgrades when the future is inherently uncertain, providing other states with a road map. Although the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) gets some things right with this decision, the ways in which it deviates from the NRDC proposal increases the risk of imprudent utility spending.

Planning the electric grid used to be much easier because utilities had a reasonable idea of where electricity demand would grow, when it would grow, and by how much. Electrification, a key strategy to decarbonizing California’s economy, has made distribution grid planning much more complicated because it is now harder to accurately predict how electricity demand will grow and what investments are necessary to support a reliable grid. 

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

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: 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: Canary Media | By Jeff St. John

“Energy affordability was understood to be one of the top issues the Legislature needed to act on, due to massive rate increases and widespread customer outrage,” said Matthew Freedman, staff attorney at The Utility Reform Network, a consumer advocacy group that supported SB 254.  The amount to be financed through bonds was initially set to be $15 billion for all three utilities. But Freedman suggested that the utilities might have used their political clout last week to negotiate the final securitization requirement down to $6 billion, which is ​“a pretty big reduction,” he said.

California’s Legislature has approved a slate of policies aimed at curbing high and rising electricity costs, involving everything from short-term relief for high summertime utility bills to public financing of transmission grids — a big accomplishment in the waning days of the session.  The affordability measures emerged as part of a sprawling energy and climate package negotiated by legislative leaders and Gov. Gavin Newsom’s office last week and passed by lawmakers Saturday. Newsom, a Democrat, now has until Oct. 12 to sign the bills into law.

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.

Source: KGO ABC 7 News | By Lauren Martinez

We spoke with Mark Toney, executive director of The Utility Reform Network.  "We're not talking about a tree falling against the wire, we're not talking about you know, high winds, we're talking about two lines that got so close together that electricity jumped from one to the other and caused a fire," Toney said. The CPUC's report explains that PG&E had evidence of the wires not meeting minimum clearance requirements back in 2016. Yet for nearly six years, no clear action was taken to address the issue. "Inspections are good, it's good PG&E is doing inspections, but they need to follow that up for taking the action for safety," Toney said.  Toney said the $7 million fine will be paid by shareholders, not customers.

PG&E is being fined $7 million and could potentially face criminal penalties. It stems from a fire that broke out in Woodside in San Mateo County in June of 2022.  No structures were damaged, but four firefighters were injured. The California Public Utilities Commission began its investigation the day after it broke out. Through its findings, PG&E is now being cited for 10 violations. The California Public Utilities Commission began its investigation the day after it broke out. Through its findings, PG&E is now being cited for 10 violations.

Source: Legal Planet | By Ruthie Lazenby with Sylvie Ashford, Mohit Chhabra

IOUs exist to make profit first, not to provide cheap, clean, and reliable electricity. An obvious solution then, is to make private utilities public. But will a public buyout of IOUs really buy Californians cheaper, cleaner and more reliable electricity? Well, it’s complicated.

Our new paper tries to shed light on this issue by breaking down the structural characteristics that distinguish IOUs from publicly-owned utilities (POUs). We apply these characteristics, and other necessary contextual details, to help explain differences in IOU and POU performance on affordability, clean energy, and reliability.

Ultimately, the measure of success is not whether utilities are publicly- or privately-owned, but whether Californians receive safe, reliable, affordable, and clean electricity. We hope this paper will enhance public conversations about electric utility reform and ownership to those ends. California should chart a course that maximizes public benefit and prioritizes the outcomes that matter most to its residents and its climate future.

Source: LA Times | By Caroline Petrow-Cohen

“All rate increases have a significant effect on consumers because you’re paying more for something that you paid less for before,” said Lee Trotman, spokesman for the Utility Reform Network. “Edison is going to ask for the moon, and we’re going to say, ‘no, dial it back.’”

Southern California Edison is seeking to raise rates by 10% in order to pay for wildfire mitigation and cover “reasonable costs of its operations, facilities [and] infrastructure.”  If approved, the rate hike would mean an $18 average increase in monthly electrical bills for Edison’s 15 million customers.  The proposed rate hike has rankled victims of the Eaton fire that killed at least 18 people and burned more than 14,000 acres. Already this year, the CPUC voted to allow Edison to raise electricity rates to cover $1.6 billion in payments it made to victims of the devastating 2017 Thomas wildfire. Investigators found that the utility’s equipment sparked the blaze, one of the largest in California history.

Source: NBC Bay Area| By Alicia Corso

Lee Trotman is the Communications Director of The Utility Reform Network (TURN) and had this to say: “PG&E can claim that customers might see slightly lower bills next year because current bills are artificially inflated due to the six rate increases last year.  One increase was for overspending by double the amount for wildfire mitigation efforts.  So a slight decrease from these inflated rates does little to help customers experiencing an affordability crisis. Only 50% of the revenue requirement  (the amount that PG&E gets to collect from customers) is part of the General Rate Case.  The other 50% of what PG&E collects comes from rate increases outside of the GRC.  Right now, PG&E has 17 rate increase requests pending at the CPUC so we can’t imagine that rates are going down if even half of the 17 increases are approved.  As always, the proof will be if customers’ bills decrease instead of increase.” 

PG&E CEO Patricia Poppe told NBC Bay Area the utility plans to keep rates flat for the next few years after a number of recent rate increases. PG&E rates have gone up 101% between 2015 and 2025, according to the Public Advocates Office of the California Public Utilities Commission. But a downward trend is projected into next year. Poppe explained that the utility is not cutting rates, but as some proposed increases take effect, others are expiring, so they offset, and customers won’t feel them.

Source:The Community Voice| By Staff

The Utility Reform Network (TURN) and the Campaign for Affordable Power (CAP) coalition gathered outside of the Capitol today to urge Governor Newsom and lawmakers to stand up against utility pressure and support the Campaign for Affordable Power (CAP) bill package and the long-promised Senate affordability package, now SB 254. The Utility Reform Network led efforts alongside coalition members AARP, the California Large Energy Consumers Association, the Agricultural Energy Consumers Association, California Farm Bureau, California Metals Coalition, California Community Choice Association, and the Small Business Utility Advocates. “SB 254 and the CAP measures together deliver both the structural reforms we need to rein in runaway utility costs and the immediate bill relief families deserve. We thank Senate leaders for moving SB 254 forward. Now it’s time for Governor Newsom and the Legislature to act so Californians see lower bills this year and beyond,” said Mark Toney, executive director of The Utility Reform Network. 

“Energy affordability isn’t just a concern for households. Farmers and ranchers are feeling the pressure too. Agricultural customers have seen similar rate increases, but with fewer options to manage or reduce those costs,” said Kevin Johnston, Director and Counsel at the California Farm Bureau. “Because farmers and ranchers can’t simply raise prices to cover these expenses, it often leads to consolidation, fewer California-grown products and less investment in on-farm improvements like electrification. That runs counter to California’s climate goals and efforts to strengthen local food security.” “The California Large Energy Consumers Association represents energy intensive industries that produce goods essential for daily life, such as critical infrastructure, oxygen for hospitals, and food distribution. To compete with companies outside California and abroad, power must be affordable; yet California’s soaring electric rates, three times higher than neighboring states, make this increasingly difficult,” said Bruce Magnani with CLECA (California Large Energy Consumers Association). “Failure to enable competitively produced essential manufactured goods in California is an abdication of our state’s leadership as the world’s fifth-largest economy, drives up global emissions due to emissions leakage, and hinders efforts to electrify and decarbonize industrial processes. California’s staggeringly high industrial electricity rates demand urgent action.

Source: Politico | By Blanca Begert

But ratepayer advocacy group The Utility Reform Network, which backs Calderon’s push to slash net metering, wholeheartedly supports Ward’s bill — precisely because it relies on the CPUC’s updated crediting formula and would also give customers a less expensive solar option to buy into. “I wouldn’t be surprised if the Legislature passed that bill all the way through, because this is them clarifying what they had already directed the commission to do,” said Matt Freedman, an attorney at TURN. “Will the governor sign the bill? That’s a different question.”

Assemblymember Lisa Calderon knew she was opening a can of worms when she introduced AB 942, a bill aimed at addressing rising electricity rates by reducing payments to rooftop solar customers. It would cut incentives when paneled homes are sold and would end cap-and-trade rebates for solar customers, saving $3.6 billion between now and 2043, she said. Assemblymember Chris Ward’s AB 1260 builds on his 2022 bill, AB 2316, which directed the CPUC to create a statewide community storage and solar program. 

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.