Here’s why your gas bills are so much higher right now
Source: SiliconValley.com | By Teri Sforza
THE PAIN IS REAL.
None of us lives in Hearst Castle. Yet my natural gas bill shot from $44 to nearly $300 in the span of two months. Kay Kearney’s is projected to hit $368 in January — more than three times what she paid this time last year. And Burl Estes is staring down a $397 tab for having the audacity to keep warm.
Katy Morsony, staff attorney with The Utility Reform Network, which keeps a critical eye on the PUC, agrees.
“No one should have to choose between making dinner and heating the house,” she said. “We’re calling on the CPUC and the utilities to use all the tools they have to help maximize the ability of customers to pay their bills. And we certainly would call on the CPUC to investigate exactly what is driving these spikes and how we can prevent them.”
The group Consumer Watchdog isn’t buying the explanations we’re being fed.
“I am calling on you to launch an investigation into Southern California Gas’s role in the recent dramatic increases in the costs of natural gas and its parent company SEMPRA’s role in the cost increases,” the group wrote to the state Attorney General.
“The doubling of natural gas prices is unique to California. While the utility has made natural gas available to its customers as it is required to do, it has purchased gas at unreasonably high prices, with higher profits for SoCalGas’s parent company SEMPRA, that sells natural gas to So Cal Gas through its other subsidiaries. Most importantly, Southern Gas has deceived its customers about the fact that it is profiting from the increase in natural gas costs.
“So Cal Gas widely stated that ‘SoCalGas and SDG&E do not profit from gas commodity prices going up.’ In fact, SEMPRA, the parent company of both utilities, and its other subsidiaries, profits greatly from the increase in natural gas prices ….”
Source: Communications Daily | By Philip Athey
However, the Utility Reform Network (TURN) urged the CPUC to reject NaLA’s proposal to allow providers to set prices because it “would essentially guarantee that the [specific support amount] would be locked at the highest amount the Commission allows, regardless of the competitiveness of providers’ offerings.”
Industry commenters said a proposed update to California Lifeline’s minimum-service standards and subsidy levels would pose logistical challenges for service providers that could push them out of the program if the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) adopts the plan without any changes.
Source: Canary Media | By Jeff St. John
Newsom’s move drew praise from consumer advocates, clean energy trade groups, and environmental organizations. “I’d say we saw today a lot of evidence that Gov. Newsom has really prioritized affordability and accountability to an increased extent,” said Mark Toney, executive director of The Utility Reform Network, a ratepayer advocacy group that sponsored seven bills this legislative session, all of which were passed into law.
California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) defied political expectations on Wednesday and signed into law a slate of energy-affordability legislation aimed at containing the utility spending that is driving up electricity costs in the Golden State.
Source: Communications Daily | By Philip Athey
The Utility Reform Network said the monitoring period in the proposal is too long and could subject California Lifeline customers to two years of price increases before a higher subsidy level is introduced. The group instead recommended an eight-month monitoring period with an updated subsidy level presented in 12 months.
Nearly all industry and public advocacy organizations said they support a proposed decision from the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to increase the subsidy level and minimum service requirements for the state's Lifeline program, suggesting only minor changes and clarifications. But one, Assurance Wireless, said the changes in the proposal were so significant that they potentially overstep the CPUC’s legislative mandate and raise the question of federal preemption.
Source: Capitol Weekly | By Opinion by Mark Toney, Executive Director of TURN
SB 905 would help ensure utilities don’t get overpaid for work that already benefits the company by requiring the California Public Utilities Commission to examine whether the profit margins utilities earn on wildfire-related spending — like undergrounding power lines — are justified. This work already protects utilities from costly wildfire lawsuits, and that protection shouldn’t come with an extra reward: outsized profit margins billed to customers who are struggling to keep the lights on.
Electricity bills have skyrocketed over the past few years for residential and business customers of Pacific Gas & Electric, SoCal Edison and San Diego Gas & Electric — in large part because of the $40 billion customers have paid to cover California’s wildfire costs.
Source: Canary Media | By Jeff St. John
Google and PG&E have been tussling with the Sierra Club, The Utility Reform Network, and others over how to allocate the cost of connecting that 250-MW “large load” to the utility transmission grid. The big issue? How much of that cost should be borne by PG&E customers at large versus by Google itself.
California has yet to take full advantage of rooftop solar, backup batteries, and other home devices to create virtual power plants (VPPs) that can help its stressed-out grid — even though it has more of those distributed energy resources than any other state. Earlier this month, utility Pacific Gas & Electric launched its latest effort to improve on that poor record via an ambitious partnership with friendly neighborhood tech giant Google and pro-electrification nonprofit Rewiring America.
Source: Politico | By Tyler Katzenberger, Chase Difeliciantonio, and Christine Mui
Mark Toney, executive director of The Utility Reform Network, a California-based nonprofit, told POLITICO he noticed ”more urgency” and “more positive signals from the governor’s office” to regulate data centers this year. He contrasted it to last year, when he said “there was not a sense that California had to be out front — and in fact, California was at risk of falling behind.”
What a difference a year makes. Last year, California Gov. Gavin Newsom vetoed legislation that would have tracked data centers’ water use and signed a pared-back study measure on their electricity rates. Just a few months ago, he was downplaying the importance of the issue altogether.
Source: From the Office of Governor Gavin Newsom |
Mark Toney, Executive Director, TURN: “Collectively these measures protect ratepayers from subsidizing the significant energy consumption of data centers, ensuring that the data centers pay upfront for the extra infrastructure that must be built to operate them, and pay their fair share for wildfire mitigation and other ratepayer-funded programs. We are grateful for the Governor’s leadership to hold these data centers accountable.”
Yesterday, Governor Gavin Newsom signed the most comprehensive data center laws in the nation, providing communities more control on water, electricity, and land use.
Source: Martin CID Magazine | By Adrian Kessler
What emerged intact was a directive for the California Public Utilities Commission to study data center energy costs by 2027 — a study of a problem regulators already have the authority to investigate. An attorney for The Utility Reform Network called it toothless, and it is hard to read it any other way.
The state was supposed to be capping AI's appetite for power and water. What actually reached the governor's desk asks data centers to open their books — and even that is one veto from vanishing. The story California has been telling about itself this year is one of a state finally putting limits on the machines eating its power and water. The version that reached the governor is quieter and more revealing: it does not cap what a data center may draw.
Source: The Los Angeles Times | By Blanca Begert, Dakota Smith, Ian James
“Collectively these measures protect ratepayers from subsidizing the significant energy consumption of data centers, ensuring that the data centers pay upfront for the extra infrastructure that must be built to operate them, and pay their fair share for wildfire mitigation and other ratepayer funded programs,” Mark Toney, executive director of the Utility Reform Network, a ratepayer advocacy group, said.
California just took its first concrete steps toward regulating its growing data center industry as public appetite builds to crack down on the massive facilities. Amid widespread concerns about environmental and economic impacts of data centers, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed seven bills Monday morning aimed at protecting consumers from growing electricity costs and tracking the centers’ immense energy and water consumption.
Source: Communications Daily | By Philip Athey
Ryan Johnston, a telecom regulatory attorney for TURN, said that beyond the Verizon/Frontier merger requirements, the condition could undermine California’s Lifeline program and possibly even its carrier of last resort (COLR) obligations and minimum service quality requirements for both phone and internet use. While the state would receive its $1.4 billion in deployment funding, “when you look across at something like the California Lifeline program, saving about 1.7 million people $20 a month for the next 14 years, that comes out to... almost $5 billion itself,” he said. “There is not an equal weight on both sides of the scale here.”
Consumer advocates in California are calling on state officials to fight a provision added to the BEAD program by the Trump administration that would require the state to stop enforcing its net neutrality law and consumer protections on BEAD subgrantees for 14 years.
