Source: Politico | By Noah Baustin and Camille Von Kaenel

“The PUC’s slow-walking of this process has likely squandered $250 million in federal support,” said Matthew Freedman, a staff attorney with The Utility Reform Network. “As of today, we have no program, no development, federal tax credits that are about to sunset, and now an announcement that Solar for All funding is going to be pulled by the Trump administration.”

The Trump administration wants to cancel solar programs that let everyday people tap into nearby panels. In California, the technology never even got off the ground. Almost none of the $250 million that California received from the Inflation Reduction Act’s Solar for All program, which the Trump administration is making plans to terminate as soon as this week, has made it out the door yet.

Source: The Mercury News/Bay Area News Group | By Ethan Baron

“Right now we have 5% of Californians still using their copper lines,” said Southern California Assembly Member Tina McKinnor, the bill’s author. “Most of that is an older population. When we no longer have them with us, like my parents, we probably won’t be 5%.” “It most definitely is an end run around the PUC,” said Regina Costa, telecom policy director at The Utility Reform Network, a San Francisco-based consumer advocacy group opposed to the bill. For customers in purportedly well-served areas who lose landlines and can’t secure an alternative, the Public Utilities Commission would have to confirm the absence of options. “There is no way that people will understand what’s going on,” Costa said, “and there’s no way that the commission has the resources to go out and verify throughout the entire state where there are verified alternative services.”

Assembly Bill 470 would allow the company, which provides the vast majority of the state’s landline service, to drop most of those customers, including nearly all of the hundreds of thousands in the Bay Area and millions around the state. It easily passed a floor vote in the Assembly in late June, and is now before the state Senate’s appropriations committee.

Source: SF Chronicle | By Jessica Roy

Lee Trotman, the communications director for The Utility Reform Network, pointed to a different explanation. “The reason your bill is so high is because of the constant rate increases,” he said. There have been numerous rate increases in recent years, he said, including six in 2024, one this past January, and another in March.

PG&E’s residential rates are more than twice the national average, and have increased by an average of 12.5% annually for the past six years. From January 2015 to April 2025, residential rates have increased by 104%. Jennifer Robison, a spokesperson for PG&E, said weather can be a major contributor.  Another reason, she said, could be a malfunctioning appliance suddenly sucking up more energy than usual.

Source: The Mercury News/Bay Area News Group | By George Avalos

“It’s hard to believe, but PG&E is on its way to a third straight year of record-breaking profits,” Toney said. Toney was skeptical that PG&E would be able to successfully keep bills flat or heading lower, considering the significant expenditures the company is planning, including $63 billion for capital projects in the coming years. “I am very concerned about this $63 billion capital spending plan,” Toney said. “We don’t see an end in sight to rate increases.”

The investor-owned utility posted a profit of $521 million during its April-through-June second quarter of 2025, up 0.2% from $520 million in profits for the same quarter a year ago, the company reported Thursday. Despite the relatively subdued increase in net income, Mark Toney, executive director with the consumer group The Utility Reform Network, believes that PG&E’s profits are too high.

Source: NBC Bay Area | By Alyssa Goard

Consumer advocacy organization TURN (The Utility Reform Network) doesn't think so. "I don’t see how PG&E is going to be lowering rates, I really question that people’s rates are actually going to go down," said Mark Toney, TURN's executive director. Toney said he is skeptical, in part, because of the spending and projects PG&E has been working on. TURN is supporting several pieces of legislation in Sacramento to limit utility spending and to keep future increases in line with inflation.

PG&E reported its second-quarter earnings on Thursday, and as part of the conversation with investors, executives also shared updates on the company's efforts to stabilize customer bills. A PG&E spokesperson also told NBC Bay Area on Thursday "[we] expect no rate increases the rest of 2025.”

Source: Los Angeles Times | By Melody Petersen

“We’re very disappointed to be at a point where there is even talk of more ratepayer money going to the wildfire fund,” said Mark Toney, executive director of the Utility Reform Network, a consumer advocacy group in San Francisco. Toney said state officials told him in 2019 that there was a 99% chance the fund would last 20 years. Six years later, it could be wiped out by damages from the Eaton fire alone.

The three utilities have been lobbying in Sacramento, asking that the fund be strengthened, since January when the Eaton fire roared through Altadena after igniting under an Edison transmission tower. But utility executives say they are opposed to their shareholders paying more. Newsom and lawmakers created the state wildfire fund in 2019 through a bill known as AB 1054 to protect the three utilities from bankruptcy in the event their electric lines sparked a catastrophic wildfire. The first $21 billion into the fund was paid half by customers and half by utility shareholders.

Source: Broadband Breakfast | By Jennifer Michel

Mark Toney, executive director of The Utility Reform Network, said AB 470 would allow providers to “pick and choose which neighborhoods they serve,” eliminating long-standing requirements for universal phone access.

Assembly Bill 470, which advanced in the state legislature Thursday after a contentious July 15 hearing, would allow providers like AT&T to withdraw from their Carrier of Last Resort (COLR) obligations in areas deemed to be “well-served” by multiple, competing service providers. At the hearing before California’s Senate Energy, Utilities and Communications Committee, proponents described AB 470 a long-overdue step to modernize California’s communications infrastructure. Critics, meanwhile, warned the bill could strand rural communities without a dependable fallback for emergency calls, repairs, or basic voice service.

Source: Communications Daily | By Gabriella Novello

"Without COLR obligations, telephone companies can pick and choose which neighborhoods they serve with copper, VoIP or fiber," said TURN Executive Director Mark Toney.

AT&T called on California lawmakers Tuesday to grant it and other carriers relief from carrier of last resort (COLR) obligations. Meanwhile, the Communications Workers of America (CWA) and The Utility Reform Network (TURN) urged the committee to maintain its nearly 30-year-old rules.

Source: KFIAM | By iHeartRadio

However, digital equity advocates and emergency responders express concerns over the potential impact on public safety. Landlines are seen as crucial during emergencies, such as wildfires or earthquakes, because they carry their own electrical charge and remain operational during power outages. Regina Costa of The Utility Reform Network (TURN) emphasized that the bill is about ensuring reliable telecom service for every Californian, regardless of technology.

A new bill in California could allow AT&T to phase out landline services, affecting hundreds of thousands of households. Assembly Bill 470 proposes to relieve AT&T of its legal obligation as a carrier of last resort, which requires the company to provide landline services to anyone who requests them. The bill aims to transition from copper landlines to more modern communication technologies, such as fiber optics and voice-over internet protocol (VoIP). AT&T argues that the transition will modernize the state's telecommunications infrastructure and improve reliability. According to LAist, Susan Santana, president of AT&T California, stated, "We’re committed to working with state leaders and community members on policies that create a thoughtful transition to bring more reliable, modern communications to all Californians."

Source: LAist | By Nereida Moreno

“ The bill is not just about copper landlines,” said Regina Costa of The Utility Reform Network or TURN, an advocacy group that has helped organize residents around the landline issue. “It's about the mandate… to make sure that every single customer in California has reliable telecom service and it doesn't matter what the technology is.”

Hundreds of thousands of California households could lose their landline service under a new state bill that would allow AT&T to be relieved of its legal obligation to be a carrier of last resort. That requires the telecom giant to offer landlines to anyone who wants one. AT&T says the bill would ensure the company’s transition from “antiquated” copper landlines to a more modern network in phases over time. But digital equity advocates say the move would be detrimental for public safety – especially in the case of a wildfire or earthquake.

Source: New York Times | By Ivan Penn

“Both of these programs are incredibly important for affordability,” said Mark Toney, executive director of The Utility Reform Network, a California organization that helps low-income energy consumers. “Zeroing out the state community energy programs will directly harm low-income families.”

The changes would cut up to 90 percent of the funding from the two fastest growing renewable energy technologies, according to the document, which details planned budget appropriations. Cuts include reducing money for wind power projects to about $30 million from $137 million, and solar power to about $42 million from $318 million. That has added an even greater burden on those who can least afford the higher costs, who now face cuts to programs like the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, and the community energy assistance dollars.

Source: NewsData | By People in Power Podcast

 On this edition of People in Power, California Energy Markets Associate Editor Abigail Sawyer talks with Mark Toney, executive director of The Utility Reform Network, about California's unprecedented rate increases over the past several years, the factors driving those increases, and what can be done to keep power bills from continuing to rise. Toney doesn't hold back in offering his opinions on reasonable wildfire safety measures, who should pay for them, and whether the California Public Utilities Commission is doing its job. He also discusses legislation currently before California lawmakers that TURN believes could slow the upward advance of utility rates.

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: Politico | By Camille Von Kanel & Tyler Katzenberger

 “Will [data centers] use clean generation and battery storage?” Matt Freedman, a staff attorney at The Utility Reform Network, asked at a Senate hearing in April. “The requirements established by the Legislature will largely determine what type of on-site generation is used by these data centers.”

Democrats in Sacramento are taking cues from lawmakers in Indiana, Ohio and West Virginia as they explore special electricity rates for data centers aimed at controlling costs for other customers. But for ratepayer and environmental advocates, it could go either way: Data centers could, if managed properly, bring down the per-customer grid costs that have been dominating the political conversation for months — or they could leave ratepayers with costly stranded assets and even outpace the growth of renewable energy on the grid.

Source: Los Angeles Times | By Melody Peterson

“We think ratepayers have more than done enough,” said Mark Toney, the executive director of The Utility Reform Network, also known as TURN, a consumer group in San Francisco. “My position is that ratepayers should not pay another penny.” Among the consultants is Guggenheim Securities, the investment banking arm of Guggenheim Partners. Another subsidiary of Guggenheim Partners owns stock in the state’s three big utilities. A recommendation to tap utility customers to replenish the fund, instead of the utility companies themselves, would likely have a big impact on company share prices.  “They [Guggenheim] certainly have a vested interest in the financial success of the utilities,” Toney said.

One early estimate places fire losses from the Eaton fire at $24 billion to $45 billion. If Southern California Edison equipment is found to have sparked the blaze on Jan. 7, as dozens of lawsuits allege, the damage claims could quickly exhaust the state’s $21-billion wildfire fund. This year, the electric bill surcharge is expected to add $923 million to the fund, according to California Public Utility Commission records. If the fee were extended an additional 10 years, it would require customers of the three utilities to pay an additional $9 billion into the fund. That doesn’t sit well with consumer advocates, who point out customers are already on the hook to contribute half of the $21-billion fund, while also paying higher bills to cover costs such as undergrounding and insulated electric wires.

Source: KFI AM 640 | By iHeartRadio

An early estimate places fire losses between $24 billion and $45 billion. If the state's wildfire fund is exhausted, officials may consider extending a monthly utility bill surcharge beyond its planned expiration in 2035. This surcharge, known as the non-bypassable charge, currently adds about $3 to the average residential bill. According to the Los Angeles Times, extending the fee by an additional 10 years could require customers to contribute an extra $9 billion to the fund. Consumer advocates, however, argue that ratepayers have already contributed significantly to the fund and should not bear additional costs. Mark Toney, executive director of The Utility Reform Network, stated, "We think ratepayers have more than done enough." The state legislature is considering various options to address the issue, but no solution has been reached yet.

The devastating Eaton fire, which erupted in January, could lead to increased utility bills for over 30 million Californians. If Southern California Edison equipment is found to have sparked the blaze, as alleged in numerous lawsuits, the damage claims could deplete the state's $21-billion wildfire fund. The fire, which caused significant destruction in Altadena, killed 18 people and destroyed more than 9,000 structures.

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: AP News | By Tran Nguyen

''There are no limits to how much the utilities can ask for in rate increases. There are no limits to how many times a year they can ask,'' said Mark Toney, the group's executive director. ''You can't blame them for asking for the sky.’' Under Becker's proposal, utilities would be required to use public financing to fund the first $15 billion spent on capital investment projects. The option would allow utilities to access funding with lower interest rates, and utilities also would be prohibited from collecting a return on that investment for shareholders. That would save customers $8.8 billion over the next 10 years, Becker said.

While one in every five ratepayers can't pay their power bills, utilities like PG&E raked in record-breaking profits last year, according to The Utility Reform Network, a ratepayer advocacy group. The group supports Becker's measure and has sponsored a similar effort in the Assembly.

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

The bill is a cornerstone of Democrats’ “affordability” agenda this year. It includes a mix of short-term and long-term benefits for consumers, said Mark Toney, executive director of TURN, which supports the bill. Under the bill, the state would pour more money from its emissions Cap and Trade program into bill relief for customers. Currently, PG&E ratepayers receive $58 twice a year, according to the utilities commission. Plus, low-income customers would also receive bigger subsidies if the bill passes — though it’s unclear how much. The bill also would require utilities to finance $15 billion of spending at lower interest rates and without any profits for investors. And in a major development, the bill would create a public authority to finance transmission projects, instead of private investors. Becker’s office contends that would provide “billions in long term savings to ratepayers.” Utilities were opposed to the bill, and the California Chamber of Commerce condemned it in recent comments to a legislative committee. Toney at TURN, which supports the bills and many others this session, said he’s “feeling optimistic that the Senate and Assembly leadership are going to stand up for ratepayer affordability and will stand strong against PG&E and other utility lobbying.”

After falling short last year, lawmakers in the state Senate are advancing a flurry of bills intended to give customers relief from ever-rising electricity bills and rein in investor-owned utilities like PG&E, which is raking in record profits. The plans are central to the promise of Gov. Gavin Newsom and top Democrats to make California more affordable.

SB 254 would make structural changes to the way the California Public Utilities Commission regulates utilities and the manner of financing for pricey infrastructure projects.