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: Office of Governor Gavin Newsom | Quotes Compiled by Governor’s Staff

Mark W. Toney, Ph.D., Executive Director, TURN—The Utility Reform Network: “TURN has long advocated for a central procurement mechanism to enable coordinated purchases of new, high-value, hard-to-develop resources. TURN welcomes working with legislative leadership and the Governor’s Office to ensure that AB 1373 language limits centralized procurement to Zero GHG renewable projects that are new resources, such as offshore wind, require robust CPUC review and approval of any new commitments, and increase transparency at DWR.”

SACRAMENTO — Last week, Governor Gavin Newsom and the Legislature reached an agreement on the Governor’s package to build more clean energy, faster and make our grid more reliable to help achieve our 100% clean electricity goal.

Since then, environmental, labor and clean energy leaders from across California have echoed their support for the Governor’s package:

Source: GV Wire | By Nancy Price

But the audit appears to be a clear signal that state officials want the PUC and Cal Advocates to sharpen their focus on how utility companies operate, claim costs, and make profits, said Mark Toney, executive director of The Utility Reform Network — TURN, an advocacy nonprofit.

“What it (the report) shows us is that the PUC has been asleep at the wheel when it comes to looking at the profit rates, when it comes to the question of duplication of costs,” Toney said.

State agencies responsible for approving rate increases for electricity and natural gas providers in California need to do a better job of monitoring utilities’ costs, questioning increases, and communicating with consumers, according to a new report from the state auditor.

Californians are paying some of the highest rates in the nation, the auditor noted.

Source: iLind | By Ian Lind

“We have a real affordability crisis for utility costs,” according to Mark Toney, executive director of a consumer group, The Utility Reform Network, or TURN. “One of the biggest cost drivers is this massive expense for burying 10,000 miles of PG&E power lines.”

TURN is promoting an alternative plan to insulate power lines rather than move them underground, similar to what is being done by Southern California Edison, which operates in the Los Angeles area.

A consumer group in California is opposing a proposal by PG&E to move 10,000 miles of its electrical transmission lines underground to avoid future wildfires caused by downed lines, according to a story on Monday in the Mercury News, formerly known as the San Jose Mercury News.

Source: SiliconValley.com | By George Avalos

“We have a real affordability crisis for utility costs,” Toney said. “One of the biggest cost drivers is this massive expense for burying 10,000 miles of PG&E power lines.” …

Toney thinks the PG&E power line burial program might provide the potential for a higher profit than the less expensive insulation option and ultimately help line the pockets of wealthy investors on Wall Street.

“PG&E’s scheme to underground power lines,” Toney said, “is the most expensive and most costly method of tackling this challenge.”

PG&E bills may hop higher if the utility lands state approval for a rate proposal that includes wide-ranging plans to bury power lines to help ward off catastrophic wildfires.

A hearing officer with the state Public Utilities Commission is expected to issue a proposed decision in the coming days on PG&E’s general rate request that could trigger an array of impacts on monthly customer bills. Among the proposals is a plan that could oblige its customers to foot the bill to bury PG&E power lines.

Source: ABC7 News | By ABC7 News Team (Video)

In the East Bay, residents say PG&E's new power line sensor system is too sensitive, causing constant power outages.

Source: ABC7 News | By Lyanne Melendez

"Right now today, there is no technology and no automotive manufacturer whose cars can actually send power beyond the home and up into the grid," said Mark Toney, of TURN (The Utility Reform Network).

It's been said before, California's power grid will have to expand in order to meet the demand for more energy. PG&E's CEO Patricia Poppe has come up with an "unconventional" idea, using electric cars to send excess power back to the grid to prevent blackouts.

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.

Source: CalMatters | By Wendy Fry

Among several alternatives, one comes from the Utility Reform Network (TURN), a nonprofit consumer advocacy organization headquartered in San Francisco.

Its proposal, filed with the regulatory agency, also calls for an income-based fixed charge, but at fixed fees much lower than what the utilities want.

The group says the utilities already profit enough from customer fees.

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

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. Their proposal is one of several state regulators received designed to accommodate a new law to make energy less costly for California’s lowest-income customers.

Source: GV Wire | By Nancy Price

“We’re worried that they’re going to get their undergrounding proposal approved. That’s why we’ve launched a social media campaign called, faster, cheaper. We’ve been doing a lot of our own messaging campaigns to try to get the word out,” he said.

This month’s run of triple-digit temperatures — seven so far, with at least a week’s worth on the way — will have many Fresnans opening their utility bills this summer with trepidation.

And, a proposed 32% rate hike for Pacific Gas and Electric that the California Public Utilities Commission is pondering would make those big bills even bigger in the future.

Source: LA Times | By Sammy Roth

This story originally published in Boiling Point, a newsletter about climate change and the environment. Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

No matter how many times I write about renewable energy — about sprawling solar farms, towering wind turbines and lengthy power lines carrying clean electricity to faraway cities — there’s one question I get asked again and again and again:

Why do we need all that industrial infrastructure when we can put solar panels on rooftops and parking lots instead?

It’s a great question — and one I attempt to answer in my latest story, published this week….

Big surprise: There are no easy answers. But there are some baseline realities that I hope you’ll consider.

Source: KNEWS | By Shannon Osaka

“In the last decade, electricity prices in California have skyrocketed,” said Matthew Freedman, a staff attorney for The Utility Reform Network, a nonprofit consumer advocacy organization headquartered in San Francisco. In the past 10 years, Freedman explained, non-discounted electricity rates at PG&E have increased 84 percent; SDG&E rates have gone up 137 percent.

Supporters argue that the plan will help the state electrify by lowering costs for residents that might not otherwise afford it. Critics, including many California residents, say that it will eat into progress on energy efficiency and that it is unfair to those who are conserving energy.

Source: KVPR | By Adam Beam

“There's nothing free here, it's just a question of what's the most efficient way to develop resources,” said Matthew Freedman, staff attorney with The Utility Reform Network, a group that advocates for affordable and reliable energy. “It’s our hope that this arrangement will result in lower total costs across the state.”

Gov. Gavin Newsom wants to buy massive amounts of renewable energy to help keep the lights on. The idea is to use the state's purchasing power to convince private companies to build largescale power plants that run off of heat from underground sites and strong winds blowing off the coast — the kinds of power that utility companies have not been buying because it's too expensive and would take too long to build.

Source: The Washington Post | By Shannon Osaka

“In the last decade, electricity prices in California have skyrocketed,” said Matthew Freedman, a staff attorney for The Utility Reform Network, a nonprofit consumer advocacy organization headquartered in San Francisco. In the past 10 years, Freedman explained, non-discounted electricity rates at PG&E have increased 84 percent; SDG&E rates have gone up 137 percent.

Supporters argue that the plan will help the state electrify by lowering costs for residents that might not otherwise afford it. Critics, including many California residents, say that it will eat into progress on energy efficiency and that it is unfair to those who are conserving energy.

Source: SiliconValley.com | By George Avalos

“Christmas came early for Wall Street,” said Mark Toney, executive director of the consumer group The Utility Reform Network, also known as TURN. “PG&E is focusing far too much on profits and far too little on affordable monthly bills.”

PG&E’s profits jumped during the first three months of 2023, a rise that coincided with big increases in monthly bills that frustrated some customers reeling from a cold, wet winter. Higher costs could continue into the year even as the days lengthen and turn warmer.

Source: Inside Climate News | By Emma Foehringer Merchant

“Matthew Freedman, a staff attorney at The Utility Reform Network (TURN), a consumer advocacy group that said the commission did not go far enough to address the cost-shift for non-solar customers, said the lawsuit is premature because commissioners have not responded to the rehearing request the groups filed in January. And he expects the case will face steep odds in winning its “preferred policy outcomes.” 

“The courts have typically been very reluctant to second-guess factual determinations made by the CPUC given the complexity of the issues,” Freedman said in an email.”

The Center for Biological Diversity, the Environmental Working Group, and the Protect Our Communities Foundation allege that California utility regulators, who in December approved a policy change that would significantly lower compensation for new rooftop solar projects, erred in their decision by not properly accounting for all of the costs and benefits of those systems.

Source: GV Wire | By Brian Phelps

“Over the next four years (PG&E) is requesting a 50% increase, that is their request. This is not speculation,” Mark Toney, executive director of The Utility Reform Network, told GV Wire. “They have put billions and billions of dollars on the table… to generate enormous profits and get a rate of return of 10%.”

Fresno area ratepayers will start paying as much as 50 cents a kilowatt hour in June and could see jumps to as much as $1 kWh over the next five years…. Already burdened by some of the nation’s highest power rates, steep future hikes could deal crippling blows to Valley residents and businesses alike.

Source: NRDC.org | By Sylvie Ashford & Mohit Chhabra

Low-income Californians will start saving between $10 and $40 in electricity bills each month if our proposal is adopted.

NRDC and The Utility Reform Network submitted an electric rate design proposal to the California Public Utilities Commission to promote equity and encourage beneficial electrification. This is the first stage in a regulatory process to implement income-based fixed charges.

Source: San Francisco Chronicle | By Danielle Echeverria

“The problem is the sky’s the limit for how much PG&E can request for electricity and gas rates, and the sky’s the limit for what the PUC can approve,” Toney said. “We need to limit rate increases to the annual consumer price index.”

Northern California’s largest utility company, Pacific Gas and Electric Co., and its two Southern California counterparts are seeking to restructure how their residential electric customers are billed, potentially reducing costs for lower-income households while resulting in higher-income customers paying more.