Connect with us

Politics

State regulators vote to keep utility profits high, angering customers across California

Published

on

State regulators vote to keep utility profits high, angering customers across California

Despite complaints from customers about rising electric bills, the California Public Utilities Commission voted 4 to 1 on Thursday to keep profits at Southern California Edison and the state’s other big investor-owned utilities at a level that consumer groups say has long been inflated.

The commission vote will slightly decrease the profit margins of Edison and three other big utilities beginning next year. Edison’s rate will fall to 10.03% from 10.3%.

Customers will see little impact in their bills from the decision. Because the utilities are continuing to spend more on wires and other infrastructure — capital costs that they earn profit on — that portion of customer bills is expected to continue to rise.

The vote angered consumer groups that had detailed in filings and hearings at the commission how the utilities’ return on equity — which sets the profit rate that the companies’ shareholders receive — had long been too high.

Among those testifying on behalf of consumers was Mark Ellis, the former chief economist for Sempra, the parent company of San Diego Gas & Electric and Southern California Gas. Ellis estimated that the companies’ profit margin should be closer to 6%.

Advertisement

He argued in a filing that the California commission had for years authorized the utilities to earn an excessive return on equity, resulting in an “unnecessary and unearned wealth transfer” from customers to the companies.

Cutting the return on equity to a little more than 6% would give Edison, Pacific Gas & Electric, SDG&E and SoCalGas a fair return, Ellis said, while saving their customers $6.1 billion a year.

The four commissioners who voted to keep the return on equity at about 10% — the percentage varies slightly for each company — said they believed they had found a balance between the 11% or higher rate that the four utilities had requested and the affordability concerns of utility customers.

Alice Reynolds, the commission’s president, said before the vote that she believed the decision “accurately reflects the evidence.”

Commissioner Darcie Houck disagreed and voted against the proposal. In her remarks, she detailed how California ratepayers were struggling to pay their bills.

Advertisement

“We have a duty to consider the consumer interest in determining what is a just and reasonable rate,” she said.

Consumer groups criticized the commission’s vote.

“For too long, utility companies have been extracting unreasonable profits from Californians just trying to heat or cool their homes or keep the lights on,” said Jenn Engstrom at CALPIRG. “As long as CPUC allows such lofty rates of return, it incentivizes power companies to overspend, increasing energy bills for everyone.”

California now has the nation’s second-highest electric rates after Hawaii.

Edison’s electric rates have risen by more than 40% in the last three years, according to a November analysis by the commission’s Public Advocates Office. More than 830,000 Edison customers are behind in paying their electric bills, the office said, each owing a balance of $835 on average.

Advertisement

The commission’s vote Thursday was in response to a March request from Edison and the three other big for-profit utilities. The companies pointed to the January wildfires in Los Angeles County, saying they needed to provide their shareholders with more profit to get them to continue to invest in their stock because of the threat of utility-caused fires in California.

In its filing, Edison asked for a return on equity of 11.75%, saying that it faced “elevated business risks,” including “the risk of extreme wildfires.”

The company told the commission that its stock had declined after the Jan. 7 Eaton fire and it needed the higher return on equity to attract investors to provide it with money for “wildfire mitigation and supporting California’s clean energy transition.”

Edison is facing hundreds of lawsuits filed by victims of the fire, which killed 19 people and destroyed thousands of homes in Altadena. The company has said the fire may have been sparked by its 100-year-old transmission line in Eaton Canyon, which it kept in place even though it hadn’t served customers since 1971.

Return on equity is crucial for utilities because it determines how much they and their shareholders earn each year on the electric lines, substations, pipelines and the rest of the system they build to serve customers.

Advertisement

Under the state’s system for setting electric rates, investors provide part of the money needed to build the infrastructure and then earn an annual return on that investment over the assets’ life, which can be 30 or 40 years.

In a January report, state legislative analyst Gabriel Petek detailed how electric rates at Edison and the state’s two other biggest investor-owned electric utilities were more than 60% higher than those charged by public utilities such as the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power. The public utilities don’t have investors or charge customers extra for profit.

Before the vote, dozens of utility customers from across the state wrote to the commission’s five members, who were appointed by Gov. Gavin Newsom, asking them to lower the utilities’ return on equity.

“A profit margin of 10% on infrastructure improvements is far too high and will only continue to increase the cost of living in California,” wrote James Ward, a Rancho Santa Margarita resident. “I just wish I could get a guaranteed profit margin of 10% on my investments.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Politics

Video: Democratic Lawmakers Say They Face New Round of Federal Inquiries

Published

on

Video: Democratic Lawmakers Say They Face New Round of Federal Inquiries

new video loaded: Democratic Lawmakers Say They Face New Round of Federal Inquiries

transcript

transcript

Democratic Lawmakers Say They Face New Round of Federal Inquiries

By Wednesday, at least five Democratic lawmakers said they received new inquiries from federal prosecutors regarding a video they published in November. In the video, they urged military service members not to follow illegal orders.

I’m Senator Elissa Slotkin. Senator Mark Kelly. Representative Chris Deluzio. Congresswoman Maggie Goodlander. Representative Chrissy Houlahan. Congressman Jason Crow. Our laws are clear. You can refuse illegal orders. You must refuse illegal orders. He’s using his political cronies in the Department of Justice to continue to threaten and intimidate us. We took an oath to the Constitution, a lifetime oath. When we joined the military. And again, as members of Congress, we are not going to back away. Our job, our duty is to make sure that the law is followed.

Advertisement
By Wednesday, at least five Democratic lawmakers said they received new inquiries from federal prosecutors regarding a video they published in November. In the video, they urged military service members not to follow illegal orders.

By Jamie Leventhal and Daniel Fetherston

January 15, 2026

Continue Reading

Politics

Noem names Charles Wall ICE deputy director following Sheahan resignation

Published

on

Noem names Charles Wall ICE deputy director following Sheahan resignation

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Kristi Noem announced Thursday via X that longtime U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) attorney Charles Wall will serve as the agency’s new deputy director as enforcement operations intensify nationwide.

“Effective immediately, Charles Wall will serve as the Deputy Director of @ICEGov,” wrote Noem. “For the last year, Mr. Wall served as ICE’s Principal Legal Advisor, playing a key role in helping us deliver historic results in arresting and removing the worst of the worst criminal illegal aliens from American neighborhoods.”

Wall replaces Madison Sheahan, who stepped down earlier Thursday to pursue a congressional run in Ohio. Her departure left ICE leadership in transition at a moment when the agency has faced increasing resistance to enforcement efforts and heightened threats against officers in the field.

The move comes as the Trump administration intensifies immigration enforcement against murderers, rapists, gang members and suspected terrorists living illegally in the U.S., even as sanctuary jurisdictions and activist groups seek to block or disrupt ICE actions.

Advertisement

DHS DEMANDS MN LEADERS HONOR ICE DETAINERS, ALLEGES HUNDREDS OF CRIMINAL ALIENS HAVE BEEN RELEASED UNDER WALZ

DHS Secretary Kristi Noem announced Thursday that Charles Wall will serve as U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) deputy director. (Getty Images/Alex Brandon)

ICE officials said Wall brings more than a decade of experience inside the agency.

“Mr. Wall has served as an ICE attorney for 14 years and is a forward-leaning, strategic thinker who understands the importance of prioritizing the removal of murderers, rapists, pedophiles, gang members, and terrorists from our country,” Noem added.

Wall most recently served as ICE’s principal legal advisor, overseeing more than 3,500 attorneys and support staff who represent the DHS in removal proceedings and provide legal counsel to senior agency leadership. 

Advertisement

He has served at ICE since 2012, previously holding senior counsel roles in New Orleans, according to DHS.

‘WORST OF THE WORST’: ICE ARRESTS CHILD PREDATOR, VIOLENT CRIMINALS AMID SURGE IN ANTI-AGENT ATTACKS

Madison Sheahan stepped down as ICE deputy director on Thursday. (Sean Gardner/Getty Images)

DHS has described the appointment as part of a broader effort to ensure ICE leadership is aligned with the Trump administration’s public safety priorities.

The leadership change comes as ICE operations have drawn national attention following protests in Minneapolis after the ICE-involved fatal shooting of 37-year-old Renee Good on Jan. 7.

Advertisement

Administration officials have repeatedly emphasized that ICE’s focus remains on what they describe as the “worst of the worst” criminal illegal aliens, warning that local resistance and political opposition increase risks for officers carrying out enforcement duties.

ICE has recently created a specific landing page where these ‘worst of the worst’ offenders can be viewed with names and nationalities attached.

DHS has described the appointment as part of a broader effort to ensure ICE leadership is aligned with the Trump administration’s public safety priorities. (Ron Jenkins/Getty Images)

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

“I look forward to working with him in his new role to make America safe again,” Noem concluded.

Advertisement

ICE did not immediately provide additional comment to Fox News Digital.

Continue Reading

Politics

Trump administration’s demands for California’s voter rolls, including Social Security numbers, rejected by federal judge

Published

on

Trump administration’s demands for California’s voter rolls, including Social Security numbers, rejected by federal judge

A federal judge on Thursday dismissed a U.S. Justice Department lawsuit demanding California turn over its voter rolls, calling the request “unprecedented and illegal” and accusing the federal government of trying to “abridge the right of many Americans to cast their ballots.”

U.S. District Judge David O. Carter, a Clinton appointee based in Santa Ana, questioned the Justice Department’s motivations and called its lawsuit demanding voter data from California Secretary of State Shirley Weber not just an overreach into state-run elections, but a threat to American democracy.

“The centralization of this information by the federal government would have a chilling effect on voter registration which would inevitably lead to decreasing voter turnout as voters fear that their information is being used for some inappropriate or unlawful purpose,” Carter wrote. “This risk threatens the right to vote which is the cornerstone of American democracy.”

Carter wrote that the “taking of democracy does not occur in one fell swoop; it is chipped away piece by piece until there is nothing left,” and that the Justice Department’s lawsuit was “one of these cuts that imperils all Americans.”

Advertisement

The Justice Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment late Thursday.

In a video she posted to the social media platform X earlier Thursday, Assistant Atty. Gen. Harmeet Dhillon — who heads the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division — said she was proud of her office’s efforts to “clean up the voter rolls nationally,” including by suing states for their data.

“We are going to touch every single state and finish this project,” she said.

Weber, who is California’s top elections official, said in a written statement that she is “entrusted with ensuring that California’s state election laws are enforced — including state laws that protect the privacy of California’s data.”

“I will continue to uphold my promise to Californians to protect our democracy, and I will continue to challenge this administration’s disregard for the rule of law and our right to vote,” Weber said.

Advertisement

Gov. Gavin Newsom’s office called the decision another example of “Trump and his administration losing to California” — one day after another court upheld California’s congressional redistricting plan under Proposition 50, which the Trump administration also challenged in court after state voters passed it overwhelmingly in November.

The Justice Department sued Weber in September after she refused to hand over detailed voter information for some 23 million Californians, alleging that she was unlawfully preventing federal authorities from ensuring state compliance with federal voting regulations and safeguarding federal elections against fraud.

It separately sued Weber’s counterparts in various other states who also declined the department’s requests for their states’ voter rolls.

The lawsuit followed an executive order by President Trump in March that purported to require voters to provide proof of citizenship and ordered states to disregard mail ballots not received by election day. It also followed years of allegations by Trump, made without evidence, that voting in California has been hampered by widespread fraud and voting by noncitizens — part of his broader and equally unsupported claim that the 2020 presidental election was stolen from him.

In announcing the lawsuit, Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi said in September that “clean voter rolls are the foundation of free and fair elections,” and that the Justice Department was going to ensure that they exist nationwide.

Advertisement

Weber denounced the lawsuit at the time as a “fishing expedition and pretext for partisan policy objectives,” and as “an unprecedented intrusion unsupported by law or any previous practice or policy of the U.S. Department of Justice.”

The Justice Department demanded a “current electronic copy of California’s computerized statewide voter registration list”; lists of “all duplicate registration records in Imperial, Los Angeles, Napa, Nevada, San Bernardino, Siskiyou, and Stanislaus counties”; a “list of all duplicate registrants who were removed from the statewide voter registration list”; and the dates of their removals.

It also demanded a list of all registrations that had been canceled due to voter deaths; an explanation for a recent decline in the recorded number of “inactive” voters in California; and a list of “all registrations, including date of birth, driver’s license number, and last four digits of Social Security Number, that were canceled due to non-citizenship of the registrant.”

Carter, in his ruling Thursday, took particular issue with the Justice Department’s reliance on federal civil rights laws to make its case.

“The Department of Justice seeks to use civil rights legislation which was enacted for an entirely different purpose to amass and retain an unprecedented amount of confidential voter data. This effort goes far beyond what Congress intended when it passed the underlying legislation,” Carter wrote.

Advertisement

Carter wrote that the legislation in question — including Title III of the Civil Rights Act of 1960 and the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) of 1993 — was passed to defend Black Americans’ voting rights in the face of “persistent voter suppression” and to “combat the effects of discriminatory and unfair registration laws that cheapened the right to vote.”

Carter found that the Justice Department provided “no explanation for why unredacted voter files for millions of Californians, an unprecedented request, was necessary” for the Justice Department to investigate the alleged problems it claims, and that the executive branch simply has no power to demand such data all at once without explanation.

Continue Reading

Trending