Source: World Time Todays | By Rick Schindler

But Mark Toney said utility-caused wildfires are completely preventable. He is Executive Director of the tariff payers group The Utility Reform Network (TURN) in California. He is urging PG&E to isolate its lines in high-risk areas.

“We must stop the wildfires caused by utilities. We need to stop them, and the quickest and cheapest way to do that is to isolate the overhead wires,” he said.

In the early moments of the Maui fires, as high winds toppled utility poles and slammed power cords into the dry grass below, there was a reason the flames suddenly erupted in long, orderly columns — those wires were bare, uninsulated metal could produce sparks on contact.

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: Mercury News | By George Avalos

All of this, however, could squeeze PG&E customers who already must endure fast-rising monthly bills, warned Mark Toney, executive director of The Utility Reform Network, or TURN. The full state PUC is expected to make a final decision by year’s end on the rate case.

“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.”

TURN, a consumer group, has a straightforward plan for power line safety: insulate the lines.

PG&E customers could greatly benefit from the insulation of power lines rather than a program to bury them underground, in TURN’s view.

“Insulated lines are completed much more quickly than burying the lines and at a fraction of the cost,” Toney said. “You are not waiting 10 to 20 years to get the safety you need. You are doing it within a few years.”

The cost of insulation of overhead lines would be about $800,000 a mile, Toney estimated. The cost to bury 10,000 miles of PG&E power lines is roughly $3.7 million to $5.2 million a mile, he added.

Toney, however, notes that Southern California Edison, the principal provider of electricity services in sprawling Los Angeles County and nearby regions, has embarked on a quest to insulate 8,000 miles of overhead power lines, apparently preferring that approach to bury lines.

“Covered conductor is a critical tool to quickly mitigate the threat of wildfires that could be caused by debris blowing into power lines. It helps keep our communities safe,” Steve Powell, Edison’s chief executive officer, stated in July 2022 in a prepared release.

“We support wildfire safety,” Toney said. “We don’t want bare wires all over the place.”

Toney believes that the PG&E power line burial program might oblige the company’s customers to help line the pockets of wealthy investors on Wall Street.

“PG&E’s scheme to underground power lines is the most expensive and most costly method of tackling this challenge,” Toney said. “But it does provide Wall Street investors with a $60 billion gift, paid for by consumers.”

Source: ABC7 News | By Michael Finney and Renee Koury

Katy Morsony of The Utility Reform Network says PG&E should insulate power lines instead.

"This is supposed to prevent ignitions from occurring, but it's a major inconvenience on customers. And it also can be a safety issue for people that rely on their electricity for medical devices," she said.

As California braces for the peak of wildfire season, PG&E is switching strategies to avoid sparking another blaze. The utility has focused less on tree trimming and more on circuit breakers that cut power to a possibly damaged power line. But in the East Bay, residents say the system is too sensitive, causing constant power outages.

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: 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: TIME.com | By Simon Shah

“Undergrounding is an effective, but extraordinarily expensive mitigation [strategy,]” says Katy Morsony, staff attorney at the Utility Reform Network (TURN), a utility consumer advocacy organization in California. “It needs to be used strategically, so that it's providing the most risk reduction where it's deployed.” …

TURN has been advocating for cover conductors, which Morsony says provide multi-layered insulation to protect lines from accidental contact with trees and brush. Morsony says the cover conductors protect against a number of different wildfire causes and are faster to install and more cost-effective than undergrounding.

While the exact cause of the wildfire remains unknown, Hawaiian Electric is not the first electric company to find itself facing potential liability in the aftermath of climate-related disasters. As electric companies across the U.S. begin to take steps to reduce the risks of utility-fueled fires, experts tell TIME that modernizing the electric grid and planning for extreme weather events—including having power turn-off plans and preemptively updating utility equipment—needs to be a priority in an increasingly changing climate.

Source: Mercury News | By Mercury News and East Bay Times Editorial Boards

The regulators should carefully consider charges leveled by watchdog The Utility Reform Network (TURN), which contends that PG&E continues to avoid cheaper, effective alternative approaches, including insulating power lines in high-risk wildfire areas. TURN executive director Mark Toney says undergrounding power lines is too expensive and takes an inordinately long time to complete. He maintains that Southern California Edison’s and San Diego Gas and Electric’s use of insulated lines is cost-effective and reduces the need to shut off power when tree limbs fall on electric lines

State regulators must carefully scrutinize PG&E’s wildfire-safety strategy shift.

The giant utility has a long and criminal history of putting profits before safety. And the state has an equally long, ugly history of failing to perform its oversight role. This time regulators must get it right.

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: ABC7 News | By Tim Johns

Instead of the vegetation management program, PG&E plans on relying on other fire prevention tools [like burying power lines].

"That is going to cost billions and billions of dollars and take well over a decade," said Mark Toney, of The Utility Reform Network.

A shift in strategy for PG&E in their battle against wildfires. After four years and $2 billion in money spent, the company says it's moving away from its enhanced vegetation management program….

The announcement is unwelcome news to many who worry it could lead to more unnecessary wildfires.

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.

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.