Source: The Mercury News | By George Avalos

The Utility Reform Network also disagreed with the decision because the PUC didn’t sufficiently reduce PG&E’s rate of return.  “Revising the decision in favor of utility shareholders is more than just buckling under pressure from PG&E and other major utilities,” TURN Executive Director Mark Toney said. “It is part of a disturbing pattern of commissioners disregarding proposals to address the affordability crisis.” Toney urged state politicians to step in and help utility customers.  “This is a clear sign that the Legislature needs to take more action to address the affordability crisis, because the CPUC has failed to do so,” Toney said.

State regulators Thursday reined in the profit returns that shareholders of PG&E and other utility providers can harvest, a decision that failed to quell a debate over whether customers can easily afford to pay their monthly electric and gas bills.  The state Public Utilities Commission voted 4-1 to approve slightly lower rates of return for shareholders starting in 2026 compared to current levels.

Source: The San Diego Union Tribune | By Rob Nikolewski

“Revising the cost of capital decision in favor of utility shareholders is more than just buckling under pressure from PG&E and other major utilities,” TURN executive director Mark Toney said.  “It is part of a disturbing pattern of commissioners disregarding proposals to address the affordability crisis issued by their own judges and staff, based upon evidence presented by all parties in ratemaking cases. This is a clear sign that the Legislature needs to take more action to address the affordability crisis, because the CPUC has failed to do so."

The California Public Utilities Commission on Thursday trimmed the rates of profit that investor-owned utilities such as San Diego Gas & Electric will make on their energy infrastructure projects — although consumer and environmental groups said the CPUC’s reductions should have cut deeper.  

Source: Politico | By Noah Baustin

Mark Toney, executive director of affordability group The Utility Reform Network, said in an interview that the small drop in the return on equity won’t make up for other major CPUC approvals of capital spending to reduce wildfire risk on the grid, which will have the overall effect of increasing ratepayer costs in the long run. “The CPUC giveth with one hand, they taketh away with another hand, and that’s what’s happening right now,” Toney said, expressing frustration with the agency’s utility-friendly decision on a recent major wildfire resilience investment decision.

THREADING THE NEEDLE: California energy regulators tried hard to capture the in-vogue affordability rhetoric as they marginally cut the profit rate that investor-owned utilities will be allowed to pass onto their shareholders in 2026. But they’re playing to a tough crowd: Everyone from investment bankers to affordability hawks ended up bashing their final decision.  

Source: The Orange County Register | By Teri Sforza

“What the CPUC giveth with one hand, they taketh away with the other,” said Mark Toney, executive director of the consumer advocacy group TURN, The Utility Reform Network.  People pay a lot of attention to the ROE percentages the utilities can collect — ooo! they’re going down! — but that misses the forest for the trees, TURN’s Toney suggested. “When you’re financing a home, you want to know, ‘What’s my monthly payment?’ ” he said. “The two things that impact that are — yes, the interest rate on your mortgage — but, much more importantly, the price of your house.”  In this analogy, the amount of money utilities borrow for capital projects equates to the price of the house. “It’s the same thing with people’s monthly bills. They’re more impacted by how much is being financed,” Toney said. “I get frustrated because there’s so much media on the percentage, while utilities are allowed to bloat their capital costs. So the reduction in the percentage — don’t get me wrong, that’s a good thing — is going to be more than offset by how much is being financed.”

As our electric bills continue their skyward ascent, a question crackles like lightning over regulators’ heads: how much profit should the big utilities be allowed to make? The California Public Utilities Commission wrestled with that lightning on Thursday. In the end, commissioners gave the utilities less than they asked for, and less than they got the year before, but way more than what consumer advocates believe they should get.

Source: Politico | By Noah Austin

That frustrated affordability advocates at The Utility Reform Network. “This is the CPUC caving to the utilities,” said TURN Executive Director Mark Toney in an interview.

California utilities scored a major victory Wednesday to the dismay of affordability advocates, with regulators stripping a key element energy companies disliked from a proposed power line undergrounding program.  

Source: The San Diego Union-Tribune | By Rob Nikolewski

“We do think (reducing the return from 10.23% to 9.88% is) a step in the right direction, but so much more needs to be done in terms of affordability,” said Mark Toney, executive director at The Utility Reform Network (TURN),  the Oakland-based organization that frequently weighs in on CPUC matters. TURN called for a return on equity of 9.5% for SDG&E. Toney emphasized that while the percentages that utilities earn are important, another crucial factor is the accumulated costs that power companies spend on expensive projects that get passed to ratepayers. And the the CPUC has final approval on whether those projects get the green light. 

Investor-owned utilities in California — including San Diego Gas & Electric — will earn smaller rates of profit on their infrastructure projects next year under a proposed decision that will soon go before the five voting members of the California Public Utilities Commission.  

In SDG&E’s case, what’s called the utility’s “return on equity” would drop from 10.23% in 2026 to 9.88% under the figures released late last week. It’s difficult to say what the lower rate would mean for the monthly bills that SDG&E customers pay, but the pending vote comes at a time when high rates have become a major concern across California and in the San Diego area in particular.

Source: Lake County News | By Little Hoover

Witnesses will include Elise Torres, energy team assistant managing attorney, The Utility Reform Network, or TURN; Liang Min, managing director of Bits & Watts Initiative, Precourt Institute for Energy [Stanford University]; Linda Taub Gordon, climate researcher and supervising attorney, UC Berkeley Human Rights Center; Masheika Allgood, founder, AllAI Consulting LLC; and Natalie Mims Frick, department leader and energy policy researcher, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. Members of the public will have the opportunity to make comment at the end of the hearing. If you would like to make a public comment please use the "raise hand" feature in Zoom or email LittleHoover@lhc.ca.gov with your question and the phone number from which you joined the hearing.

The Little Hoover Commission invites the public to join them on Thursday, Nov. 20, at 2 p.m. for a hearing on data centers and California electricity policy.  This hearing will focus on framing the landscape around data centers and California's electricity system, and will feature expert testimony from academic, technological, ratepayer, energy and environmental perspectives.

Source: Fox26 News | By Mayra Franco

Not everyone agrees with PG&E’s optimistic outlook.  Consumer advocates say the rate increase could still hit families hard over time.  Mark Toney, with The Utility Reform Network said, "In the past six or seven years, PG&E bills have already doubled. They've already gone up 100%.” He adds," This rate case is not just about 2027. It's about 27, 28, 29, and 30. At the end of 2030, if this is approved, the bills will be $42 a month higher or $500 a year higher.”  Toney urges residents to attend the hearings saying, "It is incredibly important for you to show up and say, no on this rate increase."

PG&E is giving customers a chance to weigh in on its latest proposal to raise electricity rates by 3.6%, but the company says you might not even notice the change.  State rules require PG&E to file a General Rate Case every four years. This process determines how much customers will pay on their bills over the next several years. The company submitted it to CPUC back in May.  For the first time in a while, customers can speak directly to PG&E about the proposed changes. 

Source: Canary Media Live Berkeley | By Julian Spector

Mark: I really appreciate being invited by Canary Media and being part of this conversation.  TURN fights for the cleanest energy at the lowest prices.  I like to say we want the most green for the least green and this is important because affordability and clean energy  need to go hand in hand.  We have to resist the people that want to split them apart and say “you either have to choose affordable and dirty or clean and expensive" and at TURN we reject that.  We fight for clean and affordable together!  These are absolutely some of the most trying times that many of us have seen in our lifetimes when it comes to all the attacks on clean energy policies.  When it comes to utility bills skyrocketing, and yet there is and are many glimmers of hope.

Canary Media is a nonprofit news organization focusing on the transition to clean energy and climate challenges.  On November 6th 2025 the Canary Media Live event in Berkeley was streamed live and Executive Director of TURN Mark Toney was interviewed by host Julian Spector.

Source: RTO Insider | By David Krause

In comments noted in the decision, The Utility Reform Network (TURN) said SDG&E has not demonstrated any need for additional funds over the amounts it received in its GRC to meet customer energization demands. TURN said that in March, “SDG&E stated that it considered it an ‘unlikely event’ that the utility would be ‘unable to accommodate the full load amount requested by the customer because of an upstream capacity constraint.’”

In a rare split decision, the California Public Utilities Commission has approved $51.2 million in additional funds for electrification projects for San Diego Gas & Electric customers to help the state reach its carbon neutrality goal.  Under the decision (25-04-015), SDG&E will create a new electric energization memorandum account (EEMA) for energization projects that will be completed outside the utility’s approved 2024 general rate case (GRC).

Source: Bay Area News Group | By George Avalos

PG&E’s electricity and data center plans have been met with skepticism by The Utility Reform Network, a consumer group also known as TURN.  “TURN is very concerned about data centers driving up electric rates for Californians,” said Mark Toney, TURN’s executive director. “It’s essential that those costs are recovered fairly and don’t cause electric rates to increase for households who are already struggling to pay their utility bills.”

PG&E is focusing expansion and upgrade plans in the San Jose area as officials predict the South Bay’s need for electricity will far outstrip a projected jump in demand within its service territory, the investor-owned utility’s chief executive said in a wide-ranging interview.  For PG&E, San Jose offers a confluence of land and demand. The city has plenty of available open space for a tech industry whose thirst for energy has soared.

Source: Bay Area News Group | By George Avalos

Gov. Gavin Newsom announced Wednesday that customers of PG&E and other utilities would see a climate credit on their October bills as part of a decade-old state program. At least one consumer group stressed it’s still not enough to lessen the impact of high electricity costs. The October refunds are part of a California Climate Credit effort that began in 2015. The credits appear twice a year on state utility bills – once in April and once in October.

While the twice-a-year credits offer a welcome relief to elevated costs in California, the reductions don’t address the fundamental challenges of expensive utility rates, said Mark Toney, executive director of The Utility Reform Network, also known as TURN.  “These are refunds,” Toney said. “They don’t address electricity rates. “Any relief is great, but the rebates don’t address the fundamental problem of affordable electricity bills."

Source: Canary Media | By Jeff St. John

“We’re strongly opposed,” said Matthew Freedman, staff attorney at The Utility Reform Network (TURN). Previous versions of the bill ​“had a bunch of provisions we thought would have protected California’s sovereignty and prevented the federal government from weaponizing its authority. Most of those protections were stripped from the bill, inexplicably.”  In particular, in May, TURN and its allies pushed to add an amendment that would have created an oversight council including California lawmakers that would have had the authority to pull the state out of the market if they determined it would raise energy costs or work against the state’s carbon-emissions goals.

After years of failed attempts, California lawmakers have cleared the way to create an electricity-trading market that would stretch across the U.S. West. Advocates say that could cut the region’s power costs by billions of dollars and support the growth of renewable energy. But opponents say it may make the state’s climate and clean-energy policies vulnerable to the Trump administration.

Source: The Press Democrat | By Marisa Endicott

But at least one stakeholder, Mark Toney, the executive director of The Utility Reform Network, or TURN, a ratepayer advocacy group involved in shaping some of the language in the new legislation, made a small commitment. Toney said during the hearing that he would push for the Northern California fire victims to be considered in the report assessing the wildfire fund’s durability.

A sprawling bill passed at the eleventh hour by California lawmakers a week ago to address energy affordability included a massive infusion to the state’s wildfire restitution fund, established in 2019 to help pay damages to victims of fires sparked by investor-owned utilities.  Northern California fire survivors, whose plight inspired the fund and who have yet to be made whole for their losses in the 2017 North Bay firestorm and 2018 Camp Fire, among others, had recently been pushing lawmakers to be included in the fund, but no such provision was part of the last-minute deal, which Gov. Gavin Newsom signed into law Friday.

Source: Boiling Point | By LA Times

Sammy Roth talks with Matt Freedman, staff attorney at the Utility Reform Network, about what California lawmakers are doing to rein in soaring electricity costs, and why it’s crucial for the state’s climate goals.

Source: Lake County News | By Lake County News Reporters

“Given the utility affordability crisis that residents, agriculture, industrial businesses, small businesses and older customers face, we need to work harder than ever in 2026,” Toney said. “Voters have been crystal clear in demanding that legislators put customer affordability ahead of utility company lobbying, and TURN is expecting lawmakers to roll up their sleeves to make utility affordability a top priority in the next legislative session.”

The California Legislature passed landmark legislation on Saturday that supporters said will save utility customers billions on their electricity bills annually, while ensuring the state’s wildfire fund, an insurance policy for utilities, remains solvent in the wake of claims from the 2025 Eaton Fire.  SB 254 (Becker, D-13) will help stem the tide on electricity rate increases while replenishing the state’s wildfire fund. The legislation was backed by strong support from voters: Recent polling shows 85% of voters say it's important for their representatives to do everything possible to lower electricity bills this year.

Source: Politico | By Camille Von Kaenel and Alex Nieves

As a result, even champions of the package acknowledged the electricity legislation could do more to stabilize prices than drive them down long term. Mark Toney, the executive director of the Utility Reform Network, a ratepayer advocacy group, called the electricity legislation “a first step in the right direction.”  “Given the utility affordability crisis that residents, agriculture, industrial businesses, small businesses and older customers face, we need lawmakers to work harder than ever in 2026,” he said.

Gov. Gavin Newsom used California’s legislative session to take a big step toward neutralizing a growing problem across the state and one of his biggest political liabilities: high energy costs.  The package of bills lawmakers sent to his desk Saturday includes measures to expand oil drilling and shore up utilities against wildfire costs — all in the hopes of stabilizing spiraling electricity bills and gas prices, which, despite repeated attempts to rein them in, remain among the highest in the nation.

Source: LA Times | By Melody Petersen

Mark Toney, executive director of the Utility Reform Network, a consumer group, said he was disappointed that ratepayers — who are already paying the country’s second highest electric rates — would have to pay more. But he pointed to some measures that could help reduce the upward pressure on bills.  For example, utilities would be required to finance some expensive transmission projects through a lower-cost method of public financing that legislators said could save ratepayers billions of dollars.  Toney said after reviewing the bill’s language, his group planned to support it even though it “falls short of addressing the growing affordability crisis.”

California electric customers would pay $9 billion more to shore up the state’s wildfire fund under a last-minute deal reached behind closed doors that was introduced as legislation on Wednesday.  Southern California Edison, and the state’s two other large for-profit electric companies, had been lobbying Gov. Gavin Newsom and legislative leaders, urging them to pass legislation to replenish the state’s $21-billion fund that pays for damages of utility-caused fires. State officials have warned the fund could be wiped out by damages from the Eaton fire, which killed 19 people and destroyed a large swath of Altadena on Jan. 7.  Customers of the three utilities are already on the hook for contributing $10.5 billion to the original fund through a surcharge of about $3 on their monthly bills.

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).