Source: KRCR ABC7 | By Hannah Gutierrez

Executive Director of TURN, Mark Toney, claims that although a noticeable drop was observed in 2025, the utility has 10 rate increase proposals before the CPUC. “That is strong evidence that the bills are destined to go back up. If you think your bills are too high, every time you get a bill once a month, call your assembly member, call your senator, call the governor, and say support TURN’s affordability bills" Toney told KRCR. He believes rates will eventually rise again.

PG&E announced electric rates will drop for the fourth time in two years on January 1, 2026, but The Utility Reform Network (TURN) says they don't expect the relief to be for long. PG&E said that, along with earlier reductions, residential electric rates will be 11% lower than in January 2024, resulting in savings of about $20 per month. Additionally, electric prices for CARE customers will decline by 6%. 

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: Redheaded Blackbelt | By Staff Writers

“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. 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. The legislature needs to take more action to address the affordability crisis, because the CPUC has failed to do so,” said Mark Toney, executive director of The Utility Reform Network (TURN).

The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) voted (4-1) last week to approve profit margins for the state’s utilities that consumer, environmental, and community intervenors agree are unjustifiably high. The approved profit margins range from 9.78% to 10.03% across PG&E, SoCalGas, SCE, and SDG&E. 

Source: The San Francisco Chronicle | By Julie Johnson

Mark Toney, executive director of utility customer advocate group The Utility Reform Network, or TURN, told the Chronicle on Monday that his organization wanted the commission’s investigation to examine the connection between all three fires.  “The fact that it’s happened before in the same location — absolutely there are questions that ought to be answered,” Toney said. 

Widespread blackouts hit San Francisco at the worst time. Christmas shoppers crowded commercial districts. Restaurants were buzzing and the city’s concert venues were packed for holiday shows.  Suddenly, the lights went dark in about 120,000 businesses and homes. BART trains bypassed Powell and Civic Center stations. Food went bad in warm refrigerators. 

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: Politico | By Noah Austin

That frustrated affordability advocates at The Utility Reform Network. “This is the CPUC caving to the utilities,” said TURN Executive Director Mark Toney in an interview.

California utilities scored a major victory Wednesday to the dismay of affordability advocates, with regulators stripping a key element energy companies disliked from a proposed power line undergrounding program.  

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: 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: 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: Energy and Policy Institute | By Stephanie Chase

AB 1167’s mandatory penalty should deter utilities from trying to include those expenses in the first place, the bill’s sponsors, including Earthjustice and The Utility Reform Network (TURN), have said. 

State lawmakers last week made California the seventh state to pass a bill limiting investor-owned utilities from using customer money to pay for political and lobbying costs. Assembly Bill 1167, the California Ratepayer Protection Act, authored by Assembly Member Marc Berman (D-Menlo Park), passed both chambers of the legislature and now awaits action by Governor Gavin Newsom. AB 1167 includes provisions prohibiting investor-owned utilities from using customer money to support utility political activities, promotional advertising, and dues for trade associations that conduct political activities.

Source: Politico | By Camille Von Kaenel and 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 electricity legislation “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 the state and one of his biggest political liabilities: high energy costs.  The package of bills lawmakers sent to his desk Saturday includes measures to expand oil drilling and shore up utilities against wildfire costs — all in the hopes of stabilizing spiraling electricity bills and gas prices, which, despite repeated attempts to rein them in, remain among the highest in the nation.

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: 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: Cal Matters | By Malena Carollo

“The commission is ready to throw in the towel and say they’re not interested in spending the time and resources on fighting this,” Matthew Freedman, lawyer for The Utility Reform Network, said. “They’re going to let PG&E do what it wants.” But PG&E is only required to report such categories in which the fee is used, preventing regulators from seeing the net effect on shareholders. The net effect is important, the Utility Reform Network said, because PG&E could strategically use it to give shareholders more money overall. And while PG&E would report all of those categories during its general rate case, that case only happens every four years, as opposed to the annual filing for the Diablo Canyon fee.

State utility regulators next week are slated to wrap up a three-year effort to keep open California’s only remaining nuclear plant, Diablo Canyon. One member of the California Public Utilities Commission, critical of the level of scrutiny being given to funds in the case, has twice held the matter back from a vote. Consumer and nuclear safety advocates argue that commissioners will be greenlighting an annual slush fund of hundreds of millions of dollars for the utility that could end up enriching shareholders if they approve it as  proposed.

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: LA Times | By Melody Peterson

“All these supposed accountability measures that were put into the bill are turning out to be toothless,” said Mark Toney, executive director of The Utility Reform Network, a consumer advocacy group in San Francisco. “If executives aren’t feeling a significant reduction in salary when there is a significant increase in wildfire safety incidents,” Toney said, “then the incentive is gone.” So despite the safety failures, Umanoff received a cash bonus of $717,000, or 19% higher than he was expected to receive. “If you can just make it up somewhere else,” Toney said, “the incentive is gone.” TURN has repeatedly asked regulators not to approve Edison’s compensation plans, detailing how its committee has “undue discretion” in setting goals and then determining whether they have been met.

Edison’s safety record did decline last year. The number of fires sparked by its equipment soared to 178, from 90 the year before and 39% above the five-year average. Serious injuries suffered by employees jumped by 56% over the average. Five contractors working on its electric system died. But cash bonuses for four of Edison’s top five executives actually rose last year, by as much as 17%, according to a separate March report by Edison to federal regulators. Their long-term bonuses of stock and options, which are far more valuable and not tied to safety, also rose. Consumer advocates say the fact that bonuses increased in spite of the decline in safety highlights a flaw in AB 1054, the 2019 law that reduced the liability of for-profit utility companies like Edison for damaging wildfires ignited by their equipment.

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.