Source: The Press Democrat | By Marisa Endicott

But at least one stakeholder, Mark Toney, the executive director of The Utility Reform Network, or TURN, a ratepayer advocacy group involved in shaping some of the language in the new legislation, made a small commitment. Toney said during the hearing that he would push for the Northern California fire victims to be considered in the report assessing the wildfire fund’s durability.

A sprawling bill passed at the eleventh hour by California lawmakers a week ago to address energy affordability included a massive infusion to the state’s wildfire restitution fund, established in 2019 to help pay damages to victims of fires sparked by investor-owned utilities.  Northern California fire survivors, whose plight inspired the fund and who have yet to be made whole for their losses in the 2017 North Bay firestorm and 2018 Camp Fire, among others, had recently been pushing lawmakers to be included in the fund, but no such provision was part of the last-minute deal, which Gov. Gavin Newsom signed into law Friday.

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: CalMatters | By Alejandro Lazo & Jeanne Kuang

Consumer advocates, led by The Utility Reform Network, warned the change could weaken California’s control over its clean energy agenda and hand more power to a federal government under Trump that is siding with fossil fuels. Some environmental and consumer groups shared that concern. The shift is important because California has spent decades building one of the cleanest grids in the world and the move to open up that system to other Western states could reshape how both renewable and fossil power move across the region.

Gov. Gavin Newsom closed out the legislative year with one of the most sweeping overhauls of California’s energy and climate policies in decades — a package that could give him a presidential debate-stage talking point on rising energy costs as the Democratic Party shifts its focus to affordability.  The six-bill deal — passed Saturday after lawmakers extended their session by an extra day because of last-minute dealmaking — was sold as a way to ease gas prices and soaring electricity bills while preserving the state’s signature climate programs. Ratepayers are expected to get some relief through measures to cut the cost of building transmission lines, and an expanded cap-and-trade energy credit aimed at blunting rising energy bills. They also will get some protection from utilities hiking rates based on the cost of wildfire-proofing their infrastructure, such as by putting power lines underground. But they’ll also continue paying $9 billion over the next decade into a fund to compensate wildfire victims.

Source: LA Times | By Melody Petersen

Mark Toney, executive director of the Utility Reform Network, a consumer group, said he was disappointed that ratepayers — who are already paying the country’s second highest electric rates — would have to pay more. But he pointed to some measures that could help reduce the upward pressure on bills.  For example, utilities would be required to finance some expensive transmission projects through a lower-cost method of public financing that legislators said could save ratepayers billions of dollars.  Toney said after reviewing the bill’s language, his group planned to support it even though it “falls short of addressing the growing affordability crisis.”

California electric customers would pay $9 billion more to shore up the state’s wildfire fund under a last-minute deal reached behind closed doors that was introduced as legislation on Wednesday.  Southern California Edison, and the state’s two other large for-profit electric companies, had been lobbying Gov. Gavin Newsom and legislative leaders, urging them to pass legislation to replenish the state’s $21-billion fund that pays for damages of utility-caused fires. State officials have warned the fund could be wiped out by damages from the Eaton fire, which killed 19 people and destroyed a large swath of Altadena on Jan. 7.  Customers of the three utilities are already on the hook for contributing $10.5 billion to the original fund through a surcharge of about $3 on their monthly bills.

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: 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: 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: Los Angeles Times | By Melody Petersen

Mark Toney, executive director of the Utility Reform Network, said Edison’s program had the potential to reduce costs that otherwise must be covered by the wildfire fund, which was established in part by a surcharge on the bills paid by customers of Edison, Pacific Gas & Electric and San Diego Gas & Electric.

Southern California Edison’s plans to compensate Eaton fire victims for damage were met with skepticism Thursday from lawyers representing Altadena residents, but drew tentative support from others who say the initiative could help shore up the state’s $21-billion wildfire fund. The utility announced its Wildfire Recovery Compensation Program this week, saying it would be used to quickly pay victims, including those who were insured, while avoiding lengthy litigation.

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: In Clear Terms with AARP CA | By Dr. Thyonne Gordon

Mark “The bills have been skyrocketing the past the past several years. You can tell when you open up your bill. We have to fix a broken system.” Mark “WE have to hold utilities accountable to stopping ignitions of wildfires. The question is how to do it, the strategy, and how much it is going to cost. There is a cost effective way for wildfire safety and there is an extremely expensive way” What can we do at home to lower our utility rates? Mark “Pay attention to the time of day that you’re using appliances anything that you can do to shift things like laundry or running the dishwasher in the morning or early afternoon and try to avoid the four o’clock to nine o’clock hours when they charge more for electricity makes a difference.

Utility costs are top of mind for many Californians but there are practical steps being taken to address them. In this episode of In Clear Terms with AARP California, host Dr. Thyonne Gordon speaks with Mark Toney, Executive Director of TURN—The Utility Reform Network. Since 2008, Mark has led TURN’s efforts to advance energy affordability, broadband equity, and consumer protection throughout the state. The conversation covers the key reasons behind California’s rising utility bills, how wildfire mitigation and utility profits intersect, and potential solutions. Mark also outlines actionable tips for lowering costs at home and shares how residents can get involved in pushing for meaningful reform.

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: 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: KCBS Radio | By Bret Burkhart

“PG&E wants to add an additional 1100 miles to the wildfire mitigation plan by 2028, but did not attach a price tag.” When asked about PG&E’s plan, Lee Trotman Communications Director with The Utility Reform Network” said “I’m a little suspicious because last year PG&E had six rate hikes.”  He also said “burying the lines is the most expensive option, and we would rather have them insulate the lines.”

Source: The New York Times| By Shawn Huber and Ivan Penn

Mark Toney, the executive director of the Utility Reform Network, which represents consumers before the California Public Utilities Commission, the utility regulator, said burying power lines underground could cost $3 million to $4 million a mile. “Everybody knows that we’ve got to rebuild the grid when it burned down the way that it did,” Mr. Toney said. “We think it’s important to look for ways to get things done the most cost-effective way possible.”

Southern California Edison, the electric utility whose equipment has been the focus of investigations into the deadly Eaton fire in Los Angeles County in January, said on Friday that it planned to bury more than 150 miles of power lines in fire-prone areas near Altadena and Malibu, Calif. In a letter to Gov. Gavin Newsom of California, company officials estimated the cost of the project at more than $650 million.

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: CalMatters| By Alejandro Lazo and Sergio Olmos

Mark Toney, executive director of consumer advocacy group The Utility Reform Network, said California should consider a major shift in how it approaches wildfire prevention and recovery. Instead of focusing only on utility-caused wildfires, the state needs a comprehensive wildfire prevention plan that addresses all fire risks — whether sparked by power lines, lightning, arson, or other causes, he said. Every state agency should be working together under a unified strategy, rather than leaving individual municipalities and utilities to figure it out on their own, he continued.

Gov. Gavin Newsom and the Legislature created a $21 billion wildfire fund paid for by Wall Street investors and California utility ratepayers to help PG&E exit bankruptcy and protect utilities from being financially threatened in the future by the wildfires they cause. Six years later, experts are warning that damages from January’s LA fires could deplete the fund, or, at the very least, raise doubts about the fund’s ability to cover future wildfire losses.

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. 

Source: LA Times| By Jenny Jarvie

Mark Toney, executive director of TURN, The Utility Reform Network, said the massive scope of the L.A. County fires raised significant questions about the fund’s ability to cover insurance liability. Even if the fund is able to bail out utility companies for the fires, it’s uncertain whether it could then cover fires that may crop up in the future. “Will the fund work right?” Toney said. “Who ends up paying?”

“This is the most profound test case that the fund [$21-billion wildfire fund, split equally between shareholders and utility customers] will potentially be up against,” said Christopher Holden, a former Democratic legislator who sponsored the bill that created the fund. “This is a new frontier,” said Holden, who lives in Pasadena and had to evacuate during the Eaton fire.

Source: Politico| By Will McCarthy and Emily Schultheis

 PG&E OVERSIGHT (2026?): After legislative efforts to supervise PG&E’s spending on wildfire mitigation failed last spring, Utility Reform Network director Mark Toney said he was “stunned by the power and influence that PG&E has regained in the state legislature.” Toney says an effort to deliver oversight via initiative is possible, a cause that could get a boost from speculation that power lines may have sparked some of L.A.’s blazes, although he noted his consumer advocacy organization would be unlikely to take a campaign leadership role.

Last November, dozens of fire-fighting measures — from wildfire prevention bonds to stopgap special taxes — appeared on ballots around the state, part of local governments’ response to the previous decade’s large wildfires that leveled entire towns and burned a quarter of the state’s forestland. Many passed, in both rural communities typically skeptical of new taxes and spending and dense urban areas where wildfire has not always been a leading public-safety concern. In Los Angeles County, voters approved Measure E, which by generating $150 million per year to raise equipment and staffing levels for county firefighters, now “couldn’t be more relevant,” as County Supervisor Kathryn Barger put it last week.

Source: Politico | By Camille Von Kaenel, Blanca Begert, Alex Nieves, and Zack Colman

Utility watchdog types are holding back for now. “We’re taking a wait-and-see position,” said Mark Toney, executive director of ratepayer advocacy group The Utility Reform Network. “There are certain questions we’re concerned about, like did they shut off the right power at the right time. … We don’t know, so we hate to jump to a conclusion, because too much is at stake.” 

Southern California Edison filed an incident report with the Public Utilities Commission last night “out of an abundance of caution,” noting that they’d received “preservation notices from counsel representing insurance companies in connection with the fires.” The filing said a preliminary analysis showed no interruptions or anomalies on their energized transmission lines in the area until an hour after the Eaton Fire that burned through Altadena and Pasadena started. The Wall Street Journal also reported today that the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power didn’t proactively shut off lines in the area burned by the Palisades Fire as windstorms swept the area, a safety protocol that every other major California power provider has in place. LADWP didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.