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: 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: Lake County News | By Lake County News Reporters

“Given the utility affordability crisis that residents, agriculture, industrial businesses, small businesses and older customers face, we need to work harder than ever in 2026,” Toney said. “Voters have been crystal clear in demanding that legislators put customer affordability ahead of utility company lobbying, and TURN is expecting lawmakers to roll up their sleeves to make utility affordability a top priority in the next legislative session.”

The California Legislature passed landmark legislation on Saturday that supporters said will save utility customers billions on their electricity bills annually, while ensuring the state’s wildfire fund, an insurance policy for utilities, remains solvent in the wake of claims from the 2025 Eaton Fire.  SB 254 (Becker, D-13) will help stem the tide on electricity rate increases while replenishing the state’s wildfire fund. The legislation was backed by strong support from voters: Recent polling shows 85% of voters say it's important for their representatives to do everything possible to lower electricity bills this year.

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 & 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: San Francisco Chronicle | By Julie Johnson

“We’re adding more wildfire expenses,” said Mark Toney, executive director of The Utility Reform Network, or TURN. “We have to have limits, or else we end up worse off than we started.”

Five years ago, Pacific Gas and Electric Co. added a novel line item to utility bills: the wildfire fund charge. It was the start of a new state-run fund to help utilities pay for wildfire damage and avoid bankruptcy — while also protecting Californians from sudden price spikes in the aftermath of powerline-sparked blazes.  The modest charges of about $3 a month are slated to add up to $9 billion by 2036 for the California Wildfire Fund — to be matched by utility shareholders. 

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.

Source: Redheaded Blackbelt | By Sunstone Strategies

“California is facing a utility affordability crisis. We need lawmakers and Governor Newsom to prioritize reforms that will deliver real savings for utility customers, putting money back in the pockets of working families that would otherwise go toward shareholder profits and expensive financing,” said Lee Trotman, Communications Director,  at TURN.

Thirteen business, consumer, environmental and clean power groups sent a letter [on August 19] urging California Lawmakers and Gov. Newsom to prioritize reforms that could save utility customers just under $4 billion annually as negotiations continue on critical electricity affordability bills AB 825 (Petrie-Norris) and SB 254 (Becker). Many California families have watched their electricity rates double over the past decade, forcing difficult choices between paying for power and other basic needs. With 79% of California voters saying the government should do more to limit price increases by for-profit utility companies, the groups are pushing for reforms that would change how major infrastructure projects are financed, passing the savings directly to customers through lower monthly bills.

Source: The Sacramento Bee | By Melody Petersen

Matt Freedman, a lawyer at The Utility Reform Network, a consumer group, said the state Supreme Court ruling could lead to more lawsuits against the commission. “It has been extremely hard to challenge the commission at the Court of Appeals,” Freedman said.

The California Supreme Court sided with environmental groups in a ruling last week, saying that state lawyers were wrong in their claim that the Public Utilities Commission’s decision to slash rooftop solar incentives could not be challenged.  The unanimous decision sends the case brought by the three groups back to the appeals court. The groups argue the utilities commission violated state law in 2022 when it cut the value of the credits that panel owners receive for sending their unused power to the electric grid by as much as 80%. The rules apply to Californians installing the panels after April 14, 2023.

Source: CalMatters | By Malena Carollo

The shortfall is emerging at a time when the state’s general fund is already facing a $12 billion budget hole, and advocates, lawmakers and regulators have raised concerns about portions of the loan benefiting PG&E shareholders, which the law forbids. “It’s not a loan,” Matthew Freedman, lawyer for The Utility Reform Network, said. “It’s a gift.”

Two weeks before the 2022 legislative session ended, Gov. Gavin Newsom’s administration came to lawmakers with a big ask: authorize a $1.4 billion state loan to keep open California’s last nuclear power plant, Diablo Canyon. The money was supposed to be a stopgap that would be fully repaid by an expected federal award. There was even a fail-safe: if the award fell short, other federal funds or profits from Diablo Canyon’s final year could cover the difference. The bill passed. Despite promises from Newsom’s administration and legislators at the time, CalMatters found the state may be required to forgive as much as $588 million, about 42% of the loan. 

Source: Canary Media | By Jeff St. John

But the electricity cost crisis has made rate reform ​“a top-tier issue in California,” said Matthew Freedman, senior attorney at The Utility Reform Network (TURN), a consumer advocacy group that has joined other consumer and environmental justice groups in supporting SB 254. Different from what we’ve seen in the past — and the solutions being sought by the legislature are more ambitious than what we’ve seen in recent years,” he said. TURN is hoping these dynamics will allow the public-financing portions of the bills to secure support from Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) and remain in whatever electricity-affordability legislation emerges before the end of the state legislative session in September.  TURN’s analysis indicates that pulling $15 billion out of the rate base of California’s three big utilities, as SB 254 and AB 825 propose to do, could save about $8 billion over 30 years, with $7.5 billion of that savings coming in the first 10 years. That equates to about 2–3% of an average residential customer’s bill, or about $4–$5 a month, Freedman said. 

Utility costs have reached a boiling point in California, with customers of the state’s three biggest utilities — Pacific Gas & Electric, Southern California Edison, and San Diego Gas & Electric — now paying almost twice the U.S. average for their power. Nearly one in five customers of these utilities is behind on paying their electric bills, according to a May report from state regulators. The bills — Senate Bill 254, sponsored by Sen. Josh Becker, and Assembly Bill 825, sponsored by Assemblymember Cottie Petrie-Norris, both Democrats — aim to lower electricity costs for Californians. Both include provisions that would force the big three utilities to accept public financing for a portion of the tens of billions they plan to spend on their power grids. 

Source: Cal Matters | By Alejandro Lazo and Jeanne Kuang

The Utility Reform Network, a consumer advocate group, has taken a neutral position on the measure and threatened to oppose it unless California retains some autonomy and a strict procedure to withdraw. Before passing the bill, senators amended it to include more safeguards requested by skeptics. Those include a newly proposed oversight council, composed of some California appointees and elected officials, which would have to sign off on California’s participation in the market. The council could also direct the state and its utilities to back out in the future — if, say, federal regulation or the new market operator threatens the state’s climate goals. “It’s about creating an exit strategy,” said Matthew Freedman of The Utility Reform Network. “Given what we’re seeing at the federal level now, we cannot be too careful.”

With electricity prices rising and pressure to keep the lights on, California is racing to create an expanded power market with other Western utilities to trade vast amounts of electricity. An expanded market could include climate-aligned states such as Oregon and Washington but potentially also coal-burning ones such as Wyoming, Utah and New Mexico. 

Senate Bill 540, which paves the way, passed the state Senate earlier this summer with bipartisan support and is now before the state Assembly. Gov. Gavin Newsom wants a deal this year. 

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.