Source: Canary Media | By Jeff St. John

That’s why the Public Advocates Office, along with key environmental justice and ratepayer advocacy groups, have proposed much lower fixed charges instead. Those include a joint proposal filed by the Natural Resources Defense Council and ratepayer advocacy nonprofit The Utility Reform Network, as well as a compromise proposal from the California Environmental Justice Alliance. While they differ in details, all include much lower monthly fixed charges than what utilities are proposing, as the chart below shows.

Last month, California Assemblymembers Jacqui Irwin (D-Thousand Oaks) and Marc Berman (D-Menlo Park) introduced a bill that would overturn a provision of a state law passed in 2022 that orders the California Public Utilities Commission to study and institute an ​“income-graduated fixed charge” for customers of the state’s three big utilities. The newly introduced bill, AB 1999, would limit the CPUC to adding a fixed charge of no greater than $10 a month on customers’ bills to pay for the rising costs of maintaining the state’s utility grids, regardless of household income. That’s an amount far lower than what’s been proposed under several income-based rate plans.

Source: The Mercury News | By Ethan Baron

“The consequences are life threatening,” said Regina Costa, telecommunications policy director for consumer group The Utility Reform Network. Hundreds of thousands of households in the Bay Area and millions around California would lose landline service if the commission approves AT&T’s proposal, Costa estimated. AT&T declined to say how many households in the Bay Area or California would be affected.

Thanks to its earlier monopoly status and state law requiring voice communications for all who want them, AT&T is for large areas of California the “carrier of last resort” — the utility required to provide phone service to anyone wanting it in its service area. In its proposal to the utilities commission to escape that obligation, the company said it is seeking to stop landline service only in areas “where there is a demonstrated voice alternative.” Nearly all those commenting said they opposed the plan, citing a host of concerns, from medical crises to loss of communications during earthquakes, fires, floods and storms because cell phone infrastructure is damaged or power outages cut off internet service.

Source: Santa Cruz Sentinel | By George Avalos

PG&E customers could be paying $4 to $6 more a month for their utility service if the powerful five-member PUC panel agrees with the proposal issued by the PUC law judge, estimated Mark Toney, executive director of The Utility Reform Network, or TURN. Toney believes the PUC will agree to the proposal. He noted that the state PUC has approved four prior requests by PG&E for interim rate relief. “The chances are good that this will sail right through,” Toney said.

PG&E customers face the forbidding prospect of higher monthly bills — starting this spring — now that a state law judge has smoothed out a pathway to interim rate relief for the utility behemoth. An administrative law judge for the state Public Utilities Commission has issued a proposed decision that clears the way for the PUC commissioners to make a final decision in March that would authorize PG&E to extract more money from customers. Law Judge Camille Watts-Zagha issued the proposal.

Source: KMUD News | By Lisa Music

Regina Costa, the Telecommunications Policy Director for TURN, stated, “Universal telephone service is really essential for society. Being the Carrier of Last Resort means that everybody that AT&T serve[s], is entitled to have a service that will work, that you can use to communicate with your family, your friends, your job, your kids’ school, and people in Humboldt County know this very well.” The petition submitted by AT&T would relieve them of a century-old obligation to the residents within their designated territories, leaving those within their service areas without guaranteed reliable communication access, leaving AT&T free to put profit over service, Costa said. “[T]hey could stop [service] within six months, and they could do things like picking and choosing …a part of town they think is more lucrative [to] put new facilities in and start offering their more advanced services in those areas. [T]hey could focus on the more affluent neighborhoods. They can even deny people service by running credit checks.”

Throughout California, telecom companies are obligated to provide Plain Old Telephone Service (POTS) to all areas, ensuring connectivity even in remote or underserved regions. The petition by AT&T seeks to remove their obligation to their designated COLR areas, allowing the telecom company to discontinue copper-line phone service in their service areas if other voice service options are available. However, advocacy groups like The Utility Reform Network (TURN), Rural County Representatives of California (RCRC), The Center for Accessible Technology (CforAT), and the Advocates Office at the California Public Utilities Commission (Cal Advocates), to name a few, are opposing the applications.

Source: GV Wire | By Nancy Price

The Utility Reform Network, which advocates for ratepayers, says the proposal would hike customers’ bills on average by $4 to $6 per month. And that’s on top of the $35 average monthly increase that went into effect on Jan. 1, plus other rate hike proposals pending before the PUC. PG&E had been authorized to spend $4.7 billion on wildfire mitigation and other costs but overspent by $10 billion, Toney said. A 2019 state law apparently gave carte blanche to the utility to spend freely without prior authorization. PG&E is guaranteed a specified profit, so $14 billion would generate more profit for investors than $4 billion. AB 2154 created the California Wildfire Fund to provide insurance protections to utilities in the event of catastrophic wildfires and to prevent them from going bankrupt. It was designed to give PG&E some flexibility in spending and the ability to recover its costs later, but “I don’t think anybody imagined that they would have overspent by this magnitude, ” Toney said.

Customers of Pacific Gas & Electric could be facing yet another bill increase — possibly as early as this spring. On Thursday, the California Public Utilities Commission issued a proposed decision that would allow PG&E to start collecting $516 million in revenues for what the utility spent on wildfire safety and infrastructure upgrades several years ago.

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.

Source: Bakersfield | By John Cox

The CPUC Office of Ratepayer Advocates did not respond to requests for comment. But Regina Costa, the telecommunications policy director at The Utility Reform Network, a San Francisco-based organization that advocates on consumers' behalf, expressed skepticism with AT&T's proposal. Costa noted the VoIP service that some customers would be expected to switch to comes with vulnerabilities that landlines don't, such as susceptibility to potential cyberattacks. Rural areas could be "profoundly impacted" by AT&T's proposal, she added.

Consumers' reliance on landline phone service in places such as rural and urban parts of Kern County is being weighed against AT&T Inc.'s drive to refocus on more modern technology in a case pending before the California Public Utilities Commission. The Dallas-based telecommunications giant is asking the CPUC for permission to stop offering landline service in census-designated places where at least half local residents have cellphone coverage or other alternatives.

Source: Manteca Bulletin | By Dennis Wyatt

"Every increase that you hear about is just the tip of the iceberg,' The Utility Reform Network executive director Mark Toney said. "And every increase that gets approved by the California Public Utilities Commission stacks on top of each other. TURN noted PG&E is asking the CPUC to allow them to start collecting the additional $2 billion on an interim basis in March before the rate request completes the required regulatory review process.

PG&E’s record $13.5 million rate hike granted in mid-November was bad enough, as far as San Joaquin County Supervisor Robert Richman is concerned. But the utility’s request less than a month later for another $2 billion rate hike crossed over into being “outrageous” and is not reasonable or acceptable, according to Rickman. It is why Rickman who represents Ripon, rural south Manteca, Tracy. and Mountain House is asking his colleagues on the Board of Supervisors when they meet Tuesday to register official opposition to the proposed rate hike with the California Public Utilities Commission.

Source: ABC7 News | By Lyanne Melendez

"San Francisco is not as volatile as some of these areas that have burned recently," said Mark Toney from The Utility Reform Network, commonly known as TURN.

Undergrounding overhead utilities has a long history in California that dates back to 1967. In fact, the city of San Francisco has put roughly half of its utility lines underground. But today, PG&E says there is no money left to underground the rest of San Francisco, much to the disappointment of homeowners.

Source: Point Reyes Light | By Ben Stocking

“For over 100 years, the state, the C.P.U.C. and the federal government have promoted the idea that communities need reliable communication,” said Regina Costa of The Utility Reform Network, an Oakland-based consumer group. “AT&T is saying, ‘We don’t want to do that anymore, so goodbye, good luck and good riddance.’” Yet Ms. Costa said the upgraded broadband networks have yet to be installed in many rural regions—and they can’t be relied upon during power outages. “With your basic copper phone, it will work in a power outage, and you can guarantee it,” she said. The Utility Reform Network is one of several consumer groups that have urged the C.P.U.C. to reject AT&T’s application. Harriet Barlow, a Point Reyes Station resident who relies on a landline, hopes their challenge succeeds.

AT&T wants to stop providing traditional landline service in California, a move that could leave many customers in rural areas like West Marin with limited communications options—or perhaps none at all—during emergencies. AT&T’s request has outraged consumer advocates, who say that telephone companies should not be allowed to back out of their obligation to provide universal telecommunications service.

Source: KRCR | By Tyler Van Dyke

On Tuesday, we spoke with the Utility Reform Network (TURN) who is against the proposal to get their side of things and figure out more details on the proposal and the next steps. Telecommunications Policy Director Regina Costa explained to us the complicated process it will be.Costa explained that TURN believes that even if AT&T is denied they will then try to make it a law. "We think that their application they haven't been able to support it and we really think that their goal is to take this to the legislature to try and convince them to just put a bill through regardless of what the commission does, so you know this is kind of the preliminary round." Costa also said one of AT&T’s main arguments is that a lot of people don't use landlines these days, “One of their arguments is not as many people are using landlines but the other side of the coin is you’ve got over a million Californians using landlines,” Costa continued, “you have a situation where they have actively tried to drive people away from using landlines by not maintaining their network and then when people call in to complain it will take you a long time to fix it but if you want to switch over to this service you’ll get it right away, this is the game that they have been playing for a few years now, they’re obligated to maintain those lines and they haven’t done it.”

AT&T sent customers a letter informing them that they may no longer provide landline services in certain service areas throughout California. The letter states AT&T submitted an application to the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) that, if approved, would remove AT&T’s obligation under California law to provide traditional landline phone service in a large portion of our service territory in California. This leaves customers in rural areas, with spotty service as it is, concerned.

Source: SF Standard | By The Standard Staff

Mark Toney, a consumer advocate with The Utility Reform Network, predicts PG&E will try to increase rates by a total of $100 per customer per month this year based on shareholder documents outlining plans to recoup billions of dollars spent on wildfire-proofing its systems. Because CleanPowerSF customers rely on PG&E equipment, “every PG&E increase hits their pocketbook,” Toney said.

Pacific Gas & Electric officially became California’s most expensive power provider this January. The designation, calculated by the California Public Advocates Office, comes after the company won approval from state regulators to raise rates about $30 per month, or about $400 per year, for the average customer to cover the cost of burying power lines and other wildfire safety efforts.

Source: KRON 4 | By Rob Nesbitt

Executive Director of The Utility Reform Network (TURN) Mark Toney says many PG&E customers are having to choose between heating their homes or feeding their families. “More and more people are falling behind and are in danger of being disconnected,” Toney said. “Many of whom are going to end up on the street homeless because they are going to be evicted from their properties.” TURN is pushing for new legislation that will cap future rate increases. “At no more than the cost-of-living adjustment provided by social security on an annual basis,” Toney said.

Rate increases for PG&E customers have piled up in the last year and another could be coming in March. Even some customers doing the math say their bills just don’t add up. The start of the New Year hasn’t been easy on the wallets of PG&E customers. Despite warnings about rate increases, social media is full of posts like this.

Source: LA Times | By Sammy Roth

California lawmaker Dave Min has introduced a bill that would ban California utility companies from spending customer money to fight climate action. The state senator, a Democrat from Irvine, crafted his legislation in response to Sacramento Bee reporting showing how Southern California Gas Co. had attempted to spend ratepayer dollars to block climate and clean energy policies — a great reminder of the power of local journalism. You can check out the Bee’s earlier reporting, by Ari Plachta and Joe Rubin, here and here. Also see my own previous reporting on SoCalGas’ use of customer money.

The Biden administration has finalized approval of $1.1 billion to help Pacific Gas & Electric continue operating the Diablo Canyon nuclear plant past 2025, the Associated Press reports. No big surprises here; federal officials had been forecasting the move for months, as I’ve reported previously. The argument for keeping nuclear plants open longer is that unlike solar and wind farms, they can generate power around the clock. If it were up to many red-state lawmakers, though, we’d just keep burning coal. Just look at Utah, where the Salt Lake Tribune’s Tim Fitzpatrick reports legislators are making another effort to seize control of the coal-fired Intermountain power plant from the city of Los Angeles, which intends to stop burning coal there.

Source: Orange County Register | By Andre Mouchard

Shareholders, not consumers, should pay for any lobbying or other political speech undertaken by their local utility. That is the simple idea at the heart of SB938, a bill proposed this month by state Sen. Dave Min, D-Irvine. The pitch comes in the wake of a 2023 investigation by the Sacramento Bee and a state report, released last August, in which the Public Advocates Office said Southern California Gas Co. billed ratepayers tens of millions of dollars to pay for political efforts aimed at changing clean-air regulations in ways that would be profitable for the utility. Min’s bill, which was filed this week and is likely to change as lawmakers debate it in coming months, would apply to privately held utilities and establish specific definitions of the types of activities that can’t be billed to ratepayers. The bill also would require public reporting on the financing of a utility’s political speech, and establish a penalty system for any violations.

Source: Daily Kos | By Dan Bacher

“At a time when customers are burdened with record breaking monthly utility bills, corporations need strong limits and meaningful penalties preventing spending of any ratepayer dollars on PR television commercials and lobbying the Public Utilities Commission to raise rates even higher,” said Mark Toney, Executive Director of The Utility Reform Network (TURN).

Senator Dave Min (D-Irvine) today introduced a bill, Senate Bill (SB) 938, that will prohibit political lobbying by investor-owned utilities that can be charged to ratepayers. “While federal law technically prohibits utilities from passing lobbying costs onto their ratepayers, these laws are riddled with loopholes, which has allowed utility companies across the country to effectively engage in political lobbying using ratepayer money,” according to a statement from Min’s Office.

Source: Scot Scoop | By Emi Pajarillo

“We want the most green for the least green. The cost of greening the grid should not be cutting off low-income families,” said Mark Toney, the executive director at The Utility Reform Network (TURN), a consumer advocacy organization.“The poorer you are, the more burden is placed on you, which doesn’t make sense in a society where the wealth gap keeps expanding.” “It is not right to increase a consumption tax on necessities of life such as electricity, to fund climate change initiatives, solar subsidies, and wildfire. We need to develop better, more progressive, equitable ways to generate revenue for those important priorities,” Toney said.

Facing escalating financial pressures, customers across California struggle with Pacific Gas and Electricity’s (PG&E) increased utility rates in the new year. As of Jan. 1, PG&E is increasing customers’ monthly bills by 12.8%, resulting in an average increase of $32.50. These funds will go toward wildfire mitigation initiatives, electric capacity upgrades, and clean energy goals.

Source: Earth Justice | By Matt Vespa and Katy Morsony

Californians need more transparency around expensive advertising campaigns from their utilities. The bill codifies existing policy that utility shareholders pay for public messages that tend to enhance a utility’s public image, and adds a new requirement that every utility public message or advertisement will be required to clearly disclose whether shareholders or ratepayers funded the message.

New legislation can stop utilities like SoCalGas from abusing customer money to fight climate action. When you think about what you’re paying for in your electric and gas utility bill, you probably think of the energy powering your lights, furnace, and stove. But you may also be paying for your utility to lobby against popular clean air and climate standards.

Source: The Mercury News | By George Avalos

The soaring electric utility costs in the Bay Area alarmed Mark Toney, executive director of The Utility Reform Network, a consumer group. Toney has harshly criticized PG&E for fast-rising utility costs that have far outpaced the general cost of living in the Bay Area. Toney also believes the state Public Utilities Commission has enabled PG&E’s sharply higher power cost by readily approving the bulk of the company’s rate requests. “More and more families on fixed incomes are being pushed to the brink of homelessness because of the unlimited rate increases for PG&E,” Toney said. “This is a crisis.”

Consumer prices in the Bay Area rose at a moderate pace in December in a hopeful sign that inflation is easing — but the cost of electricity provided by utilities such as PG&E rocketed higher, an official report shows. The Bay Area inflation rate, as measured by the region’s consumer price index, rose 2.6% in 2023, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported on Friday.

Source: Santa Rosa Press Democrat | By Marisa Endicott

Mark Toney, executive director of The Utility Reform Network, a utility customer advocacy group, said ratepayer representatives used to have greater insight and play a bigger role in such accountability processes, but public participation and oversight has become more limited. “It’s a new pattern, and one which we are pretty unhappy about,” Toney said. The organization also voiced concern about a 2021 settlement between the CPUC’s Safety and Enforcement Division and PG&E over the 2019 Kincade Fire, calling the deal “an abandonment of transparency and opportunities for public input.”

California Public Utilities Commission officials have again put off deciding whether to approve a controversial settlement with Pacific Gas & Electric Co. over its role in the 2021 Dixie Fire, the second largest wildfire in California history. Commissioners were set to vote on the deal Thursday after delaying a decision in late November in order to gather more information. On Monday, however, regulators again bumped a vote, this time to Jan. 25. A CPUC spokesperson said the new delay was based on a need for “further review.” The agreement reached between PG&E and the CPUC’s Safety and Enforcement Division would penalize the utility giant $45 million, with $2.5 million going to the California General Fund and $2.5 million going to Indigenous tribes affected by the Dixie Fire.