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: 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: KTUV Fox 2 News | By Tom Vacar

"And, the fact is, no one has presented a convincing argument that this is gonna save ratepayers a dime," said Mark Toney of the Utility Reform Network.

Governor Gavin Newsom wants California to join a power grid covering the western states. The governor says, "Over $1 billion in economic benefits to our state is on the line and failure to get this done will mean higher electric bills, more pollution and a less reliable power grid.” Now a bill is being considered called SB 540. But, under the original bill, there were guard rails, built-in protections to forbid price gouging as well as market manipulation by traders. Without guardrails, critics say California would also give up many of its environmental controls, power choices, the requirement that power supplies make maximum supplies and minimized prices, including coal plants of which the western states have many.     

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: 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: KRCR | By Hannah Gutierrez

The Utility Reform Network (TURN) states that the bill could lead to a 2% to 3% decrease in utility bills for the average residential customer.

Senator Josh Becker’s Senate Bill 254 would require utility companies, such as PG&E, to submit their wildfire plans for review at least every four years.  The bill would also require these companies to submit rate case proposals that prioritize cost-effectiveness, which could ultimately lead to lower bills for consumers in the long run.

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: SF Chronicle | By Jessica Roy

Lee Trotman, the communications director for The Utility Reform Network, pointed to a different explanation. “The reason your bill is so high is because of the constant rate increases,” he said. There have been numerous rate increases in recent years, he said, including six in 2024, one this past January, and another in March.

PG&E’s residential rates are more than twice the national average, and have increased by an average of 12.5% annually for the past six years. From January 2015 to April 2025, residential rates have increased by 104%. Jennifer Robison, a spokesperson for PG&E, said weather can be a major contributor.  Another reason, she said, could be a malfunctioning appliance suddenly sucking up more energy than usual.

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

“It’s hard to believe, but PG&E is on its way to a third straight year of record-breaking profits,” Toney said. Toney was skeptical that PG&E would be able to successfully keep bills flat or heading lower, considering the significant expenditures the company is planning, including $63 billion for capital projects in the coming years. “I am very concerned about this $63 billion capital spending plan,” Toney said. “We don’t see an end in sight to rate increases.”

The investor-owned utility posted a profit of $521 million during its April-through-June second quarter of 2025, up 0.2% from $520 million in profits for the same quarter a year ago, the company reported Thursday. Despite the relatively subdued increase in net income, Mark Toney, executive director with the consumer group The Utility Reform Network, believes that PG&E’s profits are too high.

Source: NBC Bay Area | By Alyssa Goard

Consumer advocacy organization TURN (The Utility Reform Network) doesn't think so. "I don’t see how PG&E is going to be lowering rates, I really question that people’s rates are actually going to go down," said Mark Toney, TURN's executive director. Toney said he is skeptical, in part, because of the spending and projects PG&E has been working on. TURN is supporting several pieces of legislation in Sacramento to limit utility spending and to keep future increases in line with inflation.

PG&E reported its second-quarter earnings on Thursday, and as part of the conversation with investors, executives also shared updates on the company's efforts to stabilize customer bills. A PG&E spokesperson also told NBC Bay Area on Thursday "[we] expect no rate increases the rest of 2025.”

Source: Los Angeles Times | By Melody Petersen

“We’re very disappointed to be at a point where there is even talk of more ratepayer money going to the wildfire fund,” said Mark Toney, executive director of the Utility Reform Network, a consumer advocacy group in San Francisco. Toney said state officials told him in 2019 that there was a 99% chance the fund would last 20 years. Six years later, it could be wiped out by damages from the Eaton fire alone.

The three utilities have been lobbying in Sacramento, asking that the fund be strengthened, since January when the Eaton fire roared through Altadena after igniting under an Edison transmission tower. But utility executives say they are opposed to their shareholders paying more. Newsom and lawmakers created the state wildfire fund in 2019 through a bill known as AB 1054 to protect the three utilities from bankruptcy in the event their electric lines sparked a catastrophic wildfire. The first $21 billion into the fund was paid half by customers and half by utility shareholders.

Source: NewsData | By People in Power Podcast

 On this edition of People in Power, California Energy Markets Associate Editor Abigail Sawyer talks with Mark Toney, executive director of The Utility Reform Network, about California's unprecedented rate increases over the past several years, the factors driving those increases, and what can be done to keep power bills from continuing to rise. Toney doesn't hold back in offering his opinions on reasonable wildfire safety measures, who should pay for them, and whether the California Public Utilities Commission is doing its job. He also discusses legislation currently before California lawmakers that TURN believes could slow the upward advance of utility rates.

Source: KGO ABC 7 News | By Lauren Martinez

We spoke with Mark Toney, executive director of The Utility Reform Network.  "We're not talking about a tree falling against the wire, we're not talking about you know, high winds, we're talking about two lines that got so close together that electricity jumped from one to the other and caused a fire," Toney said. The CPUC's report explains that PG&E had evidence of the wires not meeting minimum clearance requirements back in 2016. Yet for nearly six years, no clear action was taken to address the issue. "Inspections are good, it's good PG&E is doing inspections, but they need to follow that up for taking the action for safety," Toney said.  Toney said the $7 million fine will be paid by shareholders, not customers.

PG&E is being fined $7 million and could potentially face criminal penalties. It stems from a fire that broke out in Woodside in San Mateo County in June of 2022.  No structures were damaged, but four firefighters were injured. The California Public Utilities Commission began its investigation the day after it broke out. Through its findings, PG&E is now being cited for 10 violations. The California Public Utilities Commission began its investigation the day after it broke out. Through its findings, PG&E is now being cited for 10 violations.

Source: Legal Planet | By Ruthie Lazenby with Sylvie Ashford, Mohit Chhabra

IOUs exist to make profit first, not to provide cheap, clean, and reliable electricity. An obvious solution then, is to make private utilities public. But will a public buyout of IOUs really buy Californians cheaper, cleaner and more reliable electricity? Well, it’s complicated.

Our new paper tries to shed light on this issue by breaking down the structural characteristics that distinguish IOUs from publicly-owned utilities (POUs). We apply these characteristics, and other necessary contextual details, to help explain differences in IOU and POU performance on affordability, clean energy, and reliability.

Ultimately, the measure of success is not whether utilities are publicly- or privately-owned, but whether Californians receive safe, reliable, affordable, and clean electricity. We hope this paper will enhance public conversations about electric utility reform and ownership to those ends. California should chart a course that maximizes public benefit and prioritizes the outcomes that matter most to its residents and its climate future.

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.