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.

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

Mark Toney, executive director of consumer group The Utility Reform Network, or TURN, said “there is a lot to like in this report” for consumers, “particularly in terms of identifying wildfire mitigation as being a major expense.” “The report also talks about the profit motives that the corporate-owned utilities such as PG&E vs. the motives of publicly owned utilities” such as the Sacramento Municipal Utilities District, Toney said. “The publicly owned utilities have an incentive to save money. The corporate utilities have an incentive to maximize profits,” he said. “The state legislature is going to have to develop a spine to say no to Wall Street and big investors and to say yes to safety and defending the ratepayers.”

Soaring monthly electricity bills from the likes of PG&E and its utility siblings could hobble California’s quest for an aspiring green energy future, a disquieting new state report shows.

Source:Bloomberg Law | By Titus Wu

Consumer advocate Mark Toney, executive director of The Utility Reform Network, a nonprofit based in Oakland, is skeptical that lawmakers can tackle the issue properly. “The legislative process is immune to data and evidence,” said Toney. “That’s just not how they operate. They operate throughpolitical pressure. They operate through campaign contributions. They operate through a lot of other factors.”

“Containing costs in the energy sector has been the number one priority for me since I was appointed to chair this committee,”Assemblymember Cottie Petrie-Norris (D), who runs the Assembly Utilities and Energy Committee, said. 

Source: KTVU | By Tom Vacar

Consumer group, The Utility Reform Network is hotly opposed. "It's gonna be between $12 and $20 additional each month. That's on top of the $33 that's coming January 1," said The Utility Reform Network’s Executive Director Mark Toney. Here's the kicker. "They want them to start collecting in March, even before the CPUC [California Public Utilities Commission] has held a proceeding and decided whether PG&E should get paid back by rate payers; two billion dollars for overspending," said Toney. One more kicker. "Oh, PG&E has several requests for at least another $3 billion," said Toney.

Climate change has aggravated inflation, but nowhere more than with Pacific Gas & Electric, the first major utility to deal with far more effects of extreme weather related to fire and floods. PG&E wants more money on top of the average $33 a month rate increase coming on New Year's Day.

Source: CBS News | By Tori Apodaca

The Utility Reform Network, which advocates on behalf of ratepayers, has argued that a faster and cheaper way to reduce wildfire risk is to insulate power lines instead of burying them.

It appears the commission agrees. Both of its proposals would approve rate increases sufficient to bury less than 1,000 miles (1,600 kilometers) of lines.

Still, "both proposed decisions adopt substantial and painful increases to monthly bills, far beyond the cost of inflation, which (we believe) should be a cap for bill increases," said Mark Toney, executive director of The Utility Reform Network.

Power bills for about 16 million people in Northern California will likely increase after state regulators released two rate proposals for one of the nation's largest utilities Wednesday.

The California Public Utilities Commission is finishing up its once-every-four-years review of Pacific Gas & Electric, the Oakland-based utility that provides electric and gas service to a 70,000-square-mile (181,000-square-kilometer) area in northern and central parts of the state. The commission must approve how much PG&E can charge customers and how it will spend that money.

Source: The San Joaquin Valley Sun | By Daniel Gligich

“[B]oth proposed decisions adopt substantial and painful increases to monthly bills, far beyond the cost of inflation, which (we believe) should be a cap for bill increases,” The Utility Reform Network Executive Director Mark Toney told the Associated Press.

Ratepayer advocate The Utility Reform Network has offered a different solution for PG&E to keep rates from increasing: insulating the power lines instead of moving them underground. Advocates argue that PG&E could save money and protect more lines through insulation.

Source: Caledonian Record | By Adam Beam

The Utility Reform Network, which advocates on behalf of ratepayers, said one proposal would increase the bill for a typical residential customer by $28 a month by 2026. They estimate the other proposal would increase the typical residential bill by $24 per month.

“Both proposed decisions adopt substantial and painful increases to monthly bills, far beyond the cost of inflation, which (we believe) should be a cap for bill increases,” said Mark Toney, executive director of The Utility Reform Network.

Power bills for about 16 million people in Northern California will likely increase after state regulators released two rate proposals for one of the nation's largest utilities Wednesday.

The California Public Utilities Commission is finishing up its once-every-four-years review of Pacific Gas & Electric, the Oakland-based utility that provides electric and gas service to a 70,000-square-mile (181,000-square-kilometer) area in northern and central parts of the state. The commission must approve how much PG&E can charge customers and how it will spend that money.

Source: KCRA | By Adam Beam

The Utility Reform Network, which advocates on behalf of ratepayers, has argued that a faster and cheaper way to reduce wildfire risk is to insulate power lines instead of burying them.

It appears the commission agrees. Both of its proposals would approve rate increases sufficient to bury less than 1,000 miles (1,600 kilometers) of lines.

Still, "both proposed decisions adopt substantial and painful increases to monthly bills, far beyond the cost of inflation, which (we believe) should be a cap for bill increases," said Mark Toney, executive director of The Utility Reform Network.

Power bills for about 16 million people in Northern California will likely increase after state regulators released two rate proposals for one of the nation's largest utilities Wednesday.

The California Public Utilities Commission is finishing up its once-every-four-years review of Pacific Gas & Electric, the Oakland-based utility that provides electric and gas service to a 70,000-square-mile (181,000-square-kilometer) area in northern and central parts of the state. The commission must approve how much PG&E can charge customers and how it will spend that money.

Source: The Mercury News | By George Avalos

“Both proposed decisions adopt painful increases to monthly bills, far beyond the cost of inflation cap for bill increases advocated by TURN,” said Mark Toney, TURN’s executive director. …

“This was a sound rejection of PG&E’s proposal of only insulating 320 miles of power lines and burying 2,000 miles of power lines, which would cost $5.9 billion,” TURN stated.

The proposal from the administrative law judge correlates closely with TURN’s plan to insulate 1,800 miles of power lines and bury 200 miles of power lines, at a total cost of $2.1 billion, according to Toney.

“Both proposed decisions supported TURN’s position that insulating overhead power lines is faster and cheaper for wildfire safety than burying lines,” Toney said.

This week, officials with the state Public Utilities Commission that regulates PG&E issued two proposals that would allow the utility to increase the amount of revenue it can extract from ratepayers in 2023. One proposal was fashioned by one of the five powerful commissioners with the state PUC while a second proposal was crafted by a PUC administrative law judge.

Under one of the proposals issued by state regulators, PG&E customers would face a jump of $28 a month in their utility bills, according to estimates released Thursday by The Utility Reform Network, or TURN, a consumer group.

The other proposal isn’t much better: PG&E customers would face a jump of $24 a month, TURN’s calculations show.

Source: The San Diego Union-Tribune | By Rob Nikolewski

Mark Toney, executive director at The Utility Reform Network (TURN), a ratepayer advocacy group, said the audit raised a number of red flags.

“I think the bottom line is that the utilities are simply not being held accountable by the regulators, and that the regulators need to figure out a way to do a better job,” Toney said. “If they need more resources, if they need more staff, they should ask for it in their budget because everyone who is a (utility) customer is a captive. You can’t go and choose another provider, particularly when it comes to poles and wires.”

A deep dive by the California state auditor did not find any easy fixes for the state’s sky-high utility rates but the auditor concluded the California Public Utilities Commission and its independent consumer division known as Cal Advocates need to do a better job making sure that power companies don’t overstate their costs.

Source: KTVU Fox 2 | By Tom Vacar

"The decision that the CPUC is about to make, PG&E could raise your monthly bill $50 or more a month," said Mark Toney, the executive director of The Utility Reform Network (TURN).

Over the lifetime of the decision — up to 20 years — TURN calculates that each customer's portion could be around $18,000. …

Over the past decade, TURN says that Southern California Edison has installed 5000 miles of insulated power lines overhead. Thus far, PG&E has buried roughly 300 miles of power lines, incurring a cost of about $3 million per mile.

"The insulating of those lines is way better for consumers. It's way better for wildfire safety, and it's just gonna be done safer and cheaper," said Toney.

The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) plans to unveil a proposed decision concerning PG&E's requested rate hikes.

The utility company says the increases are crucial as it aims to bury 10,000 miles of power lines as a preventative measure against wildfires in high-risk regions. This increase is substantial.

Source: Utility Dive | By Kavya Balaraman

SCE’s experience with wildfire mitigation has shown that insulating overhead power lines is a quick and cheap option to prevent utility-caused fires, according to Mark Toney, executive director of ratepayer group The Utility Reform Network.

On other hand, TURN has concerns about the revenue requirement increase that SCE is requesting as part of its general rate case application.

“We cannot solve the climate crisis exclusively on the backs of electricity customers because it’s the most regressive way to fund climate change [action]. We need to look for things like income tax, and state and federal funds, that have a more fair distribution of who pays,” Toney said.

In a general rate case application with the CPUC in May, SCE asked for a $10.3 billion base revenue requirement for 2025 — a 23% increase over its 2024 requested revenue requirement — followed by increases of roughly $600 million, $700 million and $700 million, respectively, in 2026, 2027 and 2028.

Source: Desert Sun | By Wendy Fry

“The (utility commission) has to work out all those details and the devil is in the details,” said TURN’s Executive Director Mark Toney.

California’s electric bills — already some of the highest in the nation — are rising, but regulators are debating a new plan to charge customers based on their income level.

Typically what you pay for electricity depends on how much you use. But the state’s three largest electric utilities — Southern California Edison Company, Pacific Gas and Electric Company and San Diego Gas & Electric Company — have proposed a plan to charge customers not just for how much energy they use, but also based on their household income.

Source: GV Wire| By Nancy Price

“The most important part is bill impact. What’s the bill impact going to be? And so, you know, because a lot of times people focus on how much is the charge without realizing that, you know, that’s only half the equation. The other half is that your usage charge is going down,” Toney said.

California faces a multi-pronged dilemma: the state wants to wean residents off of carbon-based fuels, including natural gas for home heating and cooking, to reach its goals of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. But that’s been a hard sell while electricity continues to cost significantly more than natural gas.