Source: Fox26 Fresno | By Liz Gonzales

“Absolutely the focus should be on the CPUC because they’re the decision makers,” says Mark Toney, Executive Director of The Utility Reform Network—or TURN. Toney has been working for more than a decade, advocating for changes on utility rates and changes at the CPUC. He’s calling for greater transparency from commissioners. He's asking they publicly discuss rate hikes as an Agenda Item in meetings, rather than the Consent Calendar—where items are batched together and decided with a simple yes or no vote, with no discussion.

PG&E customers have seen their rates rise four times in 2024. Each of those rate increases has been approved by the California Public Utilities Commission.

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

“Gov. Newsom’s executive order is an important first step to solving the affordability crisis facing California families, small businesses, steel and glass makers, manufacturers, and agriculture producers,” said Mark Toney, executive director of The Utility Reform Network, or TURN, a consumer group. Both PG&E and TURN said they looked forward to cooperating with the governor’s office to help tackle the utility bill woes that confront millions of California electricity and gas customers.

While it’s unclear if the executive order will have any immediate effect, it does come at a time when PG&E bills have zoomed at a pace that’s eight times faster than the Bay Area inflation rate. In 2023, PG&E’s monthly bills for residential customers soared 22.3%. Over the same 12 months, the Bay Area inflation rate rose 2.6%

Source: Courthouse News Service | By Alan Riquelmy

Mark Toney, executive director of The Utility Reform Network, in a statement called the executive order an important first step in addressing the state’s affordability crisis that families, small businesses and others face. “TURN looks forward to working with the governor’s staff on affordability strategies not in the [executive order] that will save ratepayers billions in spending, including setting limits on utility overspending, requiring least cost solutions to wildfire safety, and public financing options to reduce the cost of wildfire safety capital investments,” Toney said. 

California regulatory agencies have taken the brunt of public outcry over high utility prices for months. The state’s Public Utilities Commission regularly hears angry, even threatening, comments related to electricity prices. Newsom’s executive order seeks to assuage those concerns. The governor also ordered the Office of Energy Infrastructure Safety, and asked the utilities commission, to examine wildfire safety practices, ensuring that investments are cost effective.

Source: San Diego Union Tribune | By Rob Nikolewski

The Utility Reform Network, the San Francisco consumer group commonly known as TURN that often weighs in on utility issues, called Newsom’s executive order “an important first step to solving the affordability crisis” facing California ratepayers.

Gov. Gavin Newsom issued an executive order Wednesday aimed at finding ways to reduce rising electricity bills that beleaguered customers pay each month — although the order did not offer specific dollar figures and timetables. Newsom’s executive order calls for “smarter wildfire mitigation investments” by directing state regulators to evaluate utility oversight and ensure that spending is “focused on cost-effective” measures. The order also:

—calls on the California Public Utilities Commission to identify underperforming programs and return any unused money to utility customers through credits on their bills

—asks the utilities commission review the costs of regulations of various programs, pursue federal funding options to help lower electric bills and directs the California Energy Commission to look at cost-saving measures, and

—instructs the California Air Resources Board to find ways to increase the California Climate Credit that utility customers receive two times each year.

Source: NBC Bay Area | By Ian Cull and Kris Sanchez

Mark Toney with The Utility Reform Network, or TURN, disputes that claim. "PG&E is half true by saying that some of the money increases are due to storms, but much more of the money is due to overspending on the vegetation management," Toney said. PG&E said its investments are delivering results and officials point to some relief coming in October in the form of a $55 one-time climate credit. Meanwhile, ratepayer advocates continue their push to put a limit on rate hikes. "TURN has been fighting for a cap on utility bill increases to be no more than the cost of living adjustment provided by social security," Toney said.

PG&E customers will soon see their bills go up again. The California Public Utilities Commission on Thursday approved another PG&E rate increase, which would bring bills up about $6 a month on average. The decision marks the fourth time PG&E was granted a rate increase this year. PG&E said it needs to bump up bills in order to make back what it lost during last winter’s major storms.

Source: Canary Media | By Jeff St. John

We’re concerned that time is running out for the policymakers to do something,” said Mark Toney, executive director of The Utility Reform Network (TURN), a ratepayer advocacy group. In a Sunday statement, Toney accused the utilities of using their lobbying might to prevent securitization from making its way into law. There is overwhelming public support for reducing customer bills, holding utilities accountable for getting the most wildfire safety at the least cost to ratepayers, and making utility investors pay for overspending,” Toney told Canary Media, citing polling conducted by TURN

The state’s utilities have to expand their power grids to support the shift to carbon-free electricity, and they must harden those grids to reduce the risk that they’ll cause deadly wildfires. But these costly projects are the main driver of California’s sky-high and still-rising electricity rates, which have sparked an affordability crisis that threatens to derail the state’s energy transition.

Source: NBC Bay Area | By Velena Jones

The Utility Reform Network (TURN) opposes PG&E's rate hike request, arguing that it places an increased burden on ratepayers. The watchdog group noted this is the fourth rate hike this year. "PG&E customers were hit with a $34 increase at the beginning of the year," TURN Executive Director Mark Toney said. "Customers were hit with another $4 increase in March. Customers were hit with another increase of at least $6, and there is going to be more before the end of the year.” "As soon as it goes down, they come in with another request so that the bill goes back up," Toney said. "The fact is even with the decrease they are talking about, temporary decrease, customers are still paying far more today and later in the year than before the beginning of the year."

PG&E officials also noted that a temporary 9% rate decrease that began in July means that ultimately more customers should still be paying less even if the new hike is approved. Utility critics said all those reductions and credits are only temporary relief to what feels like an ongoing problem of repeated rate hikes.

Source: Cal Matters | By Alejandro Lazo, Julie Cart, and Alejandra Reyes-Velarde

But Mark Toney, executive director of The Utility Reform Network, supported the measures, saying they are “an important first step towards affordable energy for all California residents.” He has called lowering ratepayers’ costs an urgent priority because the state could lose public support for clean energy.

Two other major bills died: SB 1272, which would have fast-tracked renewable energy projects, and SB 1003, which would have increased oversight of utilities’ wildfire costs. Only three of the six energy bills were sent to the governor:  AB 3264, which which will study transmission capacity costs, SB 1420, which streamlines hydrogen facilities, and SB 1142, which prevents power shutoffs for ratepayers with payment plans. 

Source: Los Angeles Times | By Sammy Roth

Matt Freedman, an attorney for TURN, said he was “bummed” to see the utilities commission “doubling down” on a bad outcome for community solar, after several weeks during which it looked like Newsom might be hammering out a compromise. Freedman told me he attended several meetings with staffers from the governor’s office, who were “very locked in” on drafting a community solar plan. Unfortunately, he said, the revised incentive program released by the commission two days before the vote included mostly minor changes — nothing that will help community solar gain much of a foothold in California, even as it plays an increasingly important role in helping other states chase their climate and renewable energy targets. The biggest change, Freedman said, involved a provision that would have rejected the incentive program pitched by community solar advocates as illegal under federal law — a bizarre claim that could have been used to undermine existing community solar programs in other states. Under pressure from bipartisan critics — including New York Gov. Kathy Hochul and Neil Chatterjee, a top energy official in the Trump administration — Newsom’s utilities commission struck that provision.

After months of outcry, the California Public Utilities Commission voted Thursday to approve a solar energy program that critics are sure will fail spectacularly, making it impossible for many people to access an innovative global warming solution. The 3-1 vote by Gov. Gavin Newsom’s appointees was the latest stain on the governor’s climate record — and a reminder, as Earth shatters temperature records, that it’s easier to talk about the urgency of the climate crisis than it is to act with urgency.

Source: The OC Register | By Teri Sforza

The largest group getting intervenor comp, by far, is TURN. It requested $26.4 million between 2020 and early 2024, and was awarded $24.8 million. Over that time, it has saved Californians hundreds of millions of dollars, its accounting shows. In a typical year, its legal staff of 12 attorneys and five policy analysts work on about 100 proceedings at the PUC. For example, TURN recently: Helped win a ruling preventing SDG&E from recovering $514 million from customers that it spent on wildfire mitigation before a reasonableness review by the PUC. Helped win a ruling preventing Edison from recovering $85 million from customers that it spent on tree trimming in non–high fire risk areas. Helped win $400 million in savings for PG&E, SCE, SoCal Gas and SDG&E ratepayers by getting PUC to reduce “Cost of Capital” profit rates (more on that in a minute)…

Electric rates, gas rates, water rates — they go up. And up. And up. Policing these regularly scheduled consumer agonies — or rubber-stamping them, as critics often charge — is the job of the California Public Utilities Commission. This powerful regulator is charged with ensuring that rate hikes and policy decisions are fair and justified

Source: CalMatters | By Julie Lynem

Legislative maneuvering aside, affordable energy and climate advocates like Mark Toney, executive director of The Utility Reform Network, believe that placing a cap on utility rate hikes is just one part of the solution. Regulators should also require utilities to exercise fiscal discipline on spending, he said. Utilities, Toney explained, should not be given a “credit card with no limit and a guarantee that someone else is going to pay.” TURN is backing the Utility Accountability Act, a sensible bill that would prohibit utilities from using funds collected from ratepayers to pay for advertisements, political activities or membership dues of trade associations engaged in lobbying. It would also require utilities to document and disclose their spending. By increasing the cost for using electricity, “that’s not rewarding people for good behavior,” Toney said.

Unaffordable housing, high transportation and health care costs – it’s hard enough to get by in California without also worrying about cranking up the air, turning on the stove or simply keeping the lights on. But that’s what concerns many Pacific Gas & Electric Co. customers who cannot afford to pay their soaring utility bills. As of February, more than 1 million of them were behind on payments.

Source: Los Angeles Daily News | By Brooke Staggs

Ever-increasing rates are why Mark Toney, executive director of The Utility Reform Network, or TURN, said most people likely haven’t even noticed the climate credits they’ve received on their gas and electric bills over the past decade. The utility reform group TURN is backing a bill from Assemblymember Al Muratsuchi, D-Torrance, that would use revenue from cap-and-trade to create a Climate Equity Trust Fund. The idea, Toney said, is to have utilities use money from that fund to help, say, build out electric charging stations for trucks in Ontario rather than having Edison pass those costs along to all ratepayers on their monthly bills. Something’s gotta give when it comes to utility prices. So Toney said building on the successes of the cap-and-trade program just makes sense.

In April, Southern California Edison customers will see an $86 credit automatically appear on their monthly bill, while Southern California Gas customers will get a credit of $73. Then, in October, Edison customers will see their bills drop by another $86. Similar rebates are being doled out this year to customers of investor-owned utilities throughout California, with more than $1.6 billion due back to electric customers, $1 billion to natural gas customers and $160 million to small businesses.

Source: ABC 7 News | By Tim Johns

The Utility Reform Network, or TURN, says it's a move that would likely reduce the rates customers pay for power by anywhere from 5 to 7 cents per kilowatt hour. "It's going to make utility bills more affordable for low-income households and reduce the volatility of month-to-month bills. And it will promote electrification," said TURN's Matthew Freedman. A welcome response for people like Freedman, who says regulators have a lot more work to do to make bills more affordable. "PG&E is spending too much money. Collecting too much in profits and not being held accountable for its mismanagement of the system," he said.

At the historic Orinda Theatre, the past few weeks have been anything but business as usual. Owner Derek Zemrak says he made the decision to close the theater on Mondays and Tuesday after receiving a PG&E bill for nearly $6,300, almost double what he normally pays. "I was shocked. I knew PG&E had raised rates for commercial properties. I just didn't realize it was going to be that high," Zemrak said. The skyrocketing bills aren't just hitting Zemrak. To tackle the issue, the California Public Utilities Commission is proposing a new $24 fixed charge on monthly electric bills.

Source: CBS News | By Kayla Moeller

The Utility Reform Network, a consumer advocacy group, says the proposal is a step in the right direction. "First of all, the rate people pay for usage would be reduced," said Matthew Freedman of the Utility Reform Network. If passed, customers would see a separate line on their bill for $24.15. However, that doesn't mean your bill would go up. That's because the flat rate would restructure your bill. The CPUC says customers' usage rates would be reduced by 5 cents per kilowatt hour. "For example, a PG&E customer that lives in the Sacramento area, the average customer would see about $1.50 a month net savings on their bills," Freedman said.

The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) has a new proposal to lower the cost of your utility bill, but it's causing controversy as opponents are worried it could do the opposite. What's being proposed is a restructuring of how customers pay utility bills.

Source: San Francisco Chronicle | By Julie Johnson

Matthew Freedman, a staff attorney with ratepayer advocate nonprofit The Utility Reform Network, said his organization supports the commission’s plan but said the state needs to do more to make energy more affordable. “Much more needs to be done to address California’s skyrocketing electricity rates,” Freedman said.

Millions of Californians could see a new $24 fixed charge on their monthly utility bills in coming years if state regulators approve a plan that would reduce how much customers pay per kilowatt hour of electricity. The California Public Utilities Commission estimates the new flat fee would allow companies like Pacific Gas and Electric to reduce electricity prices by about 5 to 7 cents per kilowatt hour, easing the expense for customers already paying some of the highest electricity prices in the country.

Source: KGTV ABC 10 San Diego | By Jeff Lasky

“That’s what makes people upset," said Mark Toney, executive director of the watchdog group TURN (The Utility Reform Network). "Right now, it feels like customers are bearing all the pain. And SDGE investors and executives get all the gain.” TURN calls for CPUC to investigate the wildfire projects to ensure SDGE did not pad the projects to increase profit and “to make sure that the right measures were taken in the right locations with the right results and at the most cost-effective manner for the ratepayers.”

Power bills in San Diego are going up. Effective Mar. 1, San Diego Gas & Electric is implementing a new rate increase. The company expects the increase to work out to a little more than $8 per month for the average customer. SDGE points out that even with the rate increase, customers are still paying less now than they did at this time in 2023, due to an 11% rate cut that took effect in January. However, critics say SDGE should not be raising rates at all, considering its announcement this week that it broke its all-time record for earnings for a second consecutive year, leading to record performance for stockholders.

Source: CBS News | By Kristine Lazar

Mark Toney with The Utility Reform Network or TURN, a consumer advocacy group, says its problematic that utilities get to decide if they are liable for damage. "The challenge is, they get to decide whether they're at fault or whether you're at fault, or whether a third party or the weather, or things out of their control," Toney said. "So what that means is, they decide whether they're at fault. I will tell you most of the time they do not find themselves at fault, not surprisingly." Toney explained small claims court is an option, with the limit for individuals at $12,500 and for businesses, it's half of that at $6,250. "It's almost not worth the effort," Toney said.

Some Long Beach small businesses are blaming SoCal Edison after a power outage and subsequent surge fried their pricey equipment, begging the question of who is responsible for it all. A dental office and veterinary clinic both lost equipment worth tens of thousands of dollars following an October 2023 power surge.

Source: The Sacramento Bee | By Ari Plachta

“When I read this, I was like, ‘Holy crap, they’re using ratepayer money,’” said Sen. Dave Min, an Orange County Democrat who authored the bill. “I’m a SoCalGas customer. They’re using my money to lobby against climate regulations, and that is really messed up.”

A state senator introduced a bill Wednesday to strengthen laws that prevent energy utilities in California from passing on the costs of political lobbying to their customers.

Source: Grist | By Akielly Hu

It’s not uncommon for state regulators to fine utility companies for charging ratepayers for lobbying efforts. In 2022, for instance, the California Public Utilities Commission fined SoCalGas $10 million for using ratepayer money to lobby against local gas bans, federal energy efficiency standards, and building electrification policies. But according to Katy Morsony, a staff attorney at the consumer advocacy group The Utility Reform Network, writing those penalties and detailed annual reporting into law will make it much easier to hold utilities accountable. Morsony also clarified that the bills wouldn’t prevent utilities from engaging in lobbying — they would simply be forced to fund that advocacy work exclusively with money from shareholders. But as households face rising energy costs, she added that any policy to prevent utilities from unlawfully extracting more money from consumers will make a tangible difference. “It’s common sense ratepayer protections,” Morsony said. “When you’re in the energy affordability crisis that we’re in, every dollar counts.”

When households in the United States pay their gas and electric bills, they’re paying for energy, the wires and pipelines it takes to get that energy into their home, and the costs of maintaining that infrastructure. But those monthly payments could also be funding efforts by utilities to lobby against climate policies. While federal law prohibits utilities from recovering lobbying expenses from customers, consumer advocates say that those rules lack teeth and aren’t sufficiently enforced. Now, states are taking the lead to ban the practice. According to the utility watchdog group Energy and Policy Institute, lawmakers in eight states, including California and Maryland, have introduced bills this year that would block utilities from charging customers for the costs of lobbying, advertising, trade association dues, and other political activities. The measures build on a growing trend in state policy: Last year, Colorado, Connecticut, and Maine became the first states in the nation to pass comprehensive laws preventing utilities from passing on the costs of lobbying to ratepayers.

Source: Canary Media | By Jeff St. John

Toney of The Utility Reform Network agrees with the Sierra Club and NRDC that California needs to find ways to help its residents meet the state’s aggressive electrification goals. ​“We’re absolutely joined at the hip when it comes to leadership on climate policy,” he said. ​“Where we differ is on the revenue streams to pay for that.” So far, ratepayers have largely borne the costs of the gigawatts of solar power the state’s major utilities have signed contracts for over the past decade and a half, as well as for the roughly $1.5 billion in utility electric-vehicle charging programs launched in the past half-decade. Toney says he’d like to see state lawmakers direct more taxpayer dollars to fund these programs instead. Nor does Toney think that SCE should be allowed to add new building-electrification costs to its customers’ bills until it can explain how that doesn’t just duplicate other sources of funding.

When SoCal Edison first announced its plan to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to help 250,000 customers install heat pumps back in 2021, some building-electrification advocates saw it as the kind of proactive step utilities need to be taking to transition their customers off of fossil fuels and help California meet its ambitious climate targets. Others saw it as an unproven building-electrification strategy that could add new charges to already-expensive electric bills, without clear evidence of long-term cost reductions and climate benefits.