logo
Power bills in California have jumped nearly 50% in four years. Democrats think they have solutions

Power bills in California have jumped nearly 50% in four years. Democrats think they have solutions

Yahoo06-06-2025
SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California lawmakers this week advanced several efforts aimed at reining in utility profits and slashing electricity bills as part of their agenda to tackle the sky-high costs of living.
The proposals would make sweeping changes to how utilities fund expensive infrastructure projects like putting power lines underground to guard against wildfires. They also would add more oversight around wildfire mitigation spending and put new requirements on utility requests to increase rates. Supporters said the goal is to make the big investor-owned utilities start sharing some of the costs to fight wildfires and build new transmission infrastructure.
'This is not a set of modest tweaks that will make minor improvements at the edges of a problem without offending anyone,' said Democratic State Sen. Josh Becker, the bill's author. 'This is a big deal.'
One of the bills is part of the state Senate's package to address affordability amid growing concern about the high costs of everything from gas to groceries. Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom signed an executive order last year urging lawmakers to do something to address skyrocketing electricity rates, which rose 47% on average for residential customers between 2019 and 2023, according to the nonpartisan Legislative Analysts Office.
But Republicans, who are in the minority in both chambers, say Democrats are not meaningfully addressing high prices. They did not support the energy reform bills, saying it wouldn't lower costs, and they unsuccessfully tried to force a vote on a proposal to limit utilities from raising power rates above the rate of inflation.
Rising rates
Utility rate increases in recent years have been approved by state regulators in part to help investor-owned utilities bury power lines aimed at stopping wildfires. Some of the deadliest and most destructive fires in recent years have been sparked by power equipment. Pacific Gas & Electric, whose equipment sparked a 2018 wildfire that killed 85 people in 2024, raised its rates six times to help cover the costs of putting power lines underground and other improvement projects.
While one in every five ratepayers can't pay their power bills, utilities like PG&E raked in record-breaking profits last year, according to The Utility Reform Network, a ratepayer advocacy group. The group supports Becker's measure and has sponsored a similar effort in the Assembly.
'There are no limits to how much the utilities can ask for in rate increases. There are no limits to how many times a year they can ask,' said Mark Toney, the group's executive director. 'You can't blame them for asking for the sky.'
Under Becker's proposal, utilities would be required to use public financing to fund the first $15 billion spent on capital investment projects. The option would allow utilities to access funding with lower interest rates, and utilities also would be prohibited from collecting a return on that investment for shareholders. That would save customers $8.8 billion over the next 10 years, Becker said.
The bill would also set up a state-backed fund to reimburse utilities for wildfire projects, among other things. But the state may not have money to pay for that this year.
The bill would also increase oversight of utility budgets and their wildfire spending. Utilities would have to include at least one rate increase proposal that doesn't exceed the rate of inflation in their requests. The proposal also calls for $60 billion worth of credits to apply on bills over the years during the summer months when usage is often at its peak.
Opposition from Republicans, utilities
Senate Democrats overwhelmingly advanced Becker's measure this week. But Republicans, utilities and the California Chamber of Commerce said it would only drive up more costs. The legislation 'moves today's utility costs around without eliminating them,' the chamber said in a letter in opposition. New regulations around rate increase and shareholder returns also could halt utilities' investment in preventing wildfires or enhancing the grid, the letter said.
Republican State senators said rising power bills are caused by Democrats' policies and push for more electric vehicles and less reliance on fossil fuels. In the Assembly, meanwhile, Republicans have called for permitting reforms to make it faster and cheaper to build better utility infrastructure.
'The regulation regime that we have in this state is oppressive and definitely drives prices,' said Sen. Roger Niello, a Republican. 'Your package of affordability is rather modest in number, but it is even more modest in its potential impact.'
Lawmakers also advanced a slew of other measures aiming to provide relief to ratepayers, including one that would prohibit utilities from using rates to pay for lobbying efforts and one that would allow California to join a regional energy market with other Western states to help increase grid reliability.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Rubio declares Russia has ‘get something' from peace deal as Putin demands Ukraine's Donetsk region
Rubio declares Russia has ‘get something' from peace deal as Putin demands Ukraine's Donetsk region

New York Post

time22 minutes ago

  • New York Post

Rubio declares Russia has ‘get something' from peace deal as Putin demands Ukraine's Donetsk region

Secretary of State Marco Rubio underscored that both Russia and Ukraine will have to 'get something' out of a peace deal to end the war. Rubio didn't specify what concession Ukraine will have to make in order to get Russia to end its brutality, but hinted that it will likely be a tough ask. However, Russian strongman Vladimir Putin proposed taking all of the Ukrainian region of Donetsk — even the parts Ukraine currently controls — in exchange for a deal, The Post previously reported. Ukraine's leader has flatly rejected that idea. 3 Secretary of State Marco Rubio stressed that peace negotiations are going to result in both Russia and Ukraine making tough concessions. AP 'What it's going to take to stop the fighting, if we're being honest and serious here, is both sides are going to have to give, and both sides should expect to get something from this,' Rubio told CBS News' 'Face the Nation' on Sunday. 'It's very difficult because Ukraine obviously feels, you know, harmed, and rightfully so, because they were invaded,' he added. 'And the Russian side, because they feel like they got momentum in the battlefield.' Rubio didn't delve into specifics about the territorial concessions Ukraine will have to make, which is expected to be the topic of discussion between President Volodymyr Zelensky and President Trump during their White House meeting on Monday. 3 President Trump met with Russian leader Vladimir Putin for several hours on Friday. AP On Sunday, Trump reposted a user's remark on Truth Social that Ukraine will have to make territorial concessions to Russia in order to end the war. At Friday's summit in Alaska, Putin had demanded that Ukraine surrender the remaining quarter of Donetsk, a minerals-rich, Russian-speaking region, as part of a deal to end the war. In exchange, Putin expressed a willingness to freeze up fighting in the front lines of Kherson and Zaporizhzhia, where Russia has struggled to make significant progress, Axios reported. Critics fear that, because of the heavy Ukrainian fortifications in Donetsk, if they were to surrender that to the Russians, the Kremlin could cut much further into Ukraine in the future. Former National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan, who served under the Biden administration, cautioned that ceding land to Russia 'diplomatically' could 'just set Russia up to attack Ukraine in the future.' 'We definitely should not take Russia's word for it when they say, 'Oh, we won't do this again, even if they put it in legislation in Russia,'' Sullivan told 'Fox News Sunday.' Ahead of Trump's meeting with Putin in Alaska on Friday, the US president threatened to slap crippling secondary sanctions and tariffs on countries that import Russian oil. Rubio stressed that Trump is being cautious about pulling the trigger on those sanctions out of fear that it could end peace talks for an extended period of time. 'If this morning the president woke up and said I'm putting these terrible, strong sanctions on Russia, that's fine. [It] may make people feel good for a couple hours,' Rubio told Fox News' 'Sunday Morning Futures.' 'But here's what you're basically saying. You're saying talks are over. For the foreseeable future, for the next year or year-and-a-half, there's no more talks, because there's no one else in the world that can talk to him [Putin].' 3 Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is set to meet with President Trump in the White House on Monday. Getty Images The secretary of state also indicated that while Trump pivoted away from a ceasefire push to the pursuit of a full-fledged peace deal, a ceasefire is not out of the question. 'No, it's not off the table,' Rubio told NBC's 'Meet the Press' on Sunday. 'Now, whether there needs to be a ceasefire on the way there, well, we've advocated for that. Unfortunately, the Russians as of now, have not agreed to that.' Rubio also appeared to downplay the possibility of Russia getting all of the Ukrainian territory it has conquered as part of a deal — roughly 20% of Ukraine. 'If there's going to be a peace deal, it's not going to look like that,' Rubio said, referring to a graphic about the Ukrainian territory Russia occupies. 'But he [Putin] certainly is making demands.' 'He's certainly asking for things that the Ukrainians and others are not willing to be supportive of and that we're not going to push them to give. And the Ukrainians are asking for things that the Russians are not going to give up on.'

Who's REALLY ‘destroying democracy' — after failing to win voters legitimately?
Who's REALLY ‘destroying democracy' — after failing to win voters legitimately?

New York Post

time22 minutes ago

  • New York Post

Who's REALLY ‘destroying democracy' — after failing to win voters legitimately?

'Destroying democracy' — the latest theme of the left — can be defined in many ways. How about attempting to destroy constitutional, ancient and hallowed institutions simply to suit short-term political gains? So, who in 2020, and now once again, has boasted about packing the 156-year-old, nine-justice Supreme Court? Who talks frequently about destroying the 187-year-old Senate filibuster — though only when they hold a Senate majority? Who wants to bring in an insolvent left-wing Puerto Rico and redefine the 235-year-old District of Columbia — by altering the Constitution — as two new states solely to obtain four additional liberal senators? Who is trying to destroy the constitutionally mandated 235-year Electoral College by circumventing it with the surrogate 'The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact?' Does destroying democracy also entail weaponizing federal bureaucracies, turning them into rogue partisan arms of a president? So who ordered the CIA to concoct bogus charges of 'collusion' to sabotage Donald Trump's 2016 campaign, the 2016-2017 transition, and the first 22 months of Trump's first term? Who prompted a cabal of '51 former intelligence officials' to lie to the American people on the eve of the last debate of the 2020 election that the FBI-authenticated Hunter Biden laptop was instead the work of a 'Russian intelligence operation?' Who ordered the FBI to connive and partner with social-media conglomerates to censor accurate news deemed unhelpful to the 2020 Biden campaign? Who pulled off the greatest presidential coup in history by using surrogates in the shadows to run the cognitively debilitated Biden presidency, then by fiat canceled his reelection effort and finally anointed as his replacement the new nominee Kamala Harris, who had never won a single primary delegate? Who ordered FBI SWAT teams to invade the home of a former president because of a classification dispute over 102 files out of some 13,000 stored there? Who tried to remove an ex-president and leader of his party from at least 25 state ballots to deprive millions of Americans of the opportunity to vote for or against him? Who coordinated four local, state and federal prosecutors to destroy a former and future president by charging him with fantasy crimes that were never before, and will never again be, lodged against anyone else? Who appointed a federal prosecutor to go after the ex-president, who arranged for a high-ranking Justice Department official to step down to join a New York prosecutor's efforts to destroy an ex-president, and who met in the White House with a Georgia county prosecutor seeking to destroy an ex-president — all on the same day — a mere 72 hours after Trump announced his 2024 reelection bid? Who but the current Democrats ever impeached a president twice? Has any party ever tried an ex-president in the Senate when he was out of office and a mere private citizen? When have there ever been two near-miss assassination attempts on a major party presidential candidate during a single presidential campaign? Who destroyed the southern border and broke federal law to allow in, without criminal or health background audits, some 10 million to 12 million illegal aliens? Who created 600 'sanctuary jurisdictions' for the sole purpose of nullifying federal immigration law, in the eerie spirit of the renegade old Confederacy? Who allowed tens of thousands of rioters, arsonists and violent protesters over four months in 2020 to destroy over $2 billion in property, kill some 35 people, injure 1,500 police officers and torch a federal courthouse, a police precinct and a historic church — all with de facto legal impunity? How do the purported destroyers of democracy find themselves winning 60% to 70% approval on most of the key issues of our times, while the supposed saviors of democracy are on the losing side of popular opinion? How does a president 'destroy democracy' by his party winning the White House by both the popular and Electoral College vote, winning majorities in both the Senate and House by popular votes and enjoying a 6-3 edge in the Supreme Court through judges appointed by popularly elected presidents? So what is behind these absurd charges? Three catalysts: One, the new anguished elitist Democratic Party alienated the middle classes through its Jacobin agenda and therefore lost the Congress, the presidency and the Supreme Court, and now has no federal political power. Two, the Democratic Party is polling at record lows and yet remains hellbent on alienating the traditional sources of its power — minorities, youth and Independents. Three, Democrats cannot find any issues that the people support, nor any leaders to convince the people to embrace them. So it is no surprise that the panicked Democrats bark at the shadows — given that they know their revolutionary, neo-socialist agenda is destroying them. And yet, like all addicts, they choose destruction over abandoning their self-destructive fixations. Victor Davis Hanson is a distinguished fellow of the Center for American Greatness.

States are trying to keep disasters apolitical in the new Trump era
States are trying to keep disasters apolitical in the new Trump era

Politico

time23 minutes ago

  • Politico

States are trying to keep disasters apolitical in the new Trump era

'This decision was petty. This decision was partisan, and this decision was punishing.' Moore said. And after the Los Angeles wildfires in January, California Gov. Gavin Newsom was quick to propose that politics could play a role in Trump's approval or denial of funding for his state. 'He's done it in the past, not just here in California,' Newsom said on Pod Save America. 'The rhetoric is very familiar, it's increasingly acute, and obviously we all have reason to be concerned about it.' A review by Seattle-based public radio station KUOW in June found that FEMA denied six of the 10 major disaster requests that Democratic states filed between February and June, while denying just one of 15 requests from Republican states. Asked about the analysis, a White House official said that 'Democrat state requests were denied in the first six months because they were not disasters. In the past, states have abused the process. President Trump is right-sizing FEMA and ensuring it is serving its intended purpose to help the American people.' Democratic Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs became the rare governor to criticize the federal government's disaster management in mid-July when she called for an investigation following a destructive fire on federal land that burned down a beloved Grand Canyon lodge. Hobbs said that she does not intend her call for an investigation to be viewed as a criticism of the Trump administration. 'I don't, and I think it's really important,' Hobbs said in an interview, adding that good working relationships between officials managing tribal, federal and state land are key. 'This is not intended to undermine that collaboration, but … we need to look at what led to that decision being made.' Steve Ellis, former deputy director of the Bureau of Land Management who worked for the agency and the U.S. Forest Service under multiple administrations, said that any federal agency involved in managing a fire of the magnitude and destructiveness as the one in the Grand Canyon should be launching an investigation without a governor's need to call for it.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store