State regulators vote to keep utility profits high angering customers across CA

2025-12-2219:06128101www.latimes.com

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…

  • California regulators voted to keep utility profit margins near 10%, despite calls to cut them to 6% and save customers billions annually.
  • Edison’s electric rates have surged more than 40% in three years, pushing California to the nation’s second-highest rates after Hawaii.
  • Regulators approved slightly lower profit margins amid complaints from customers about rising electric bills.

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%.

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.

“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.

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.

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 50% 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.”


Read the original article

Comments

  • By benced 2025-12-230:004 reply

    California's average residential electricity rate is almost twice the US average (32 cents vs 18 cents) despite being in a state with abundant energy resources.

    Even if advocates got everything they wanted here (6% margin vs 10% margin), that would lower rates by... 1.2 cents. PG&E desperately needs to be reformed into a competent organization, something that nobody in (Newsom) or adjacent to (these advocates) power in California seems to want to do.

    https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.ph...

    • By refurb 2025-12-231:544 reply

      Indeed.

      The CA Governor is the one who selects the people on the committee that regulate PG&E.

      And the same committee approves PG&E’s budget and rate each year, all the way down to the fine details such as repairing an electrical fence at a substation.

      This problem is entirely under the control of Newsom and the CA legislature yet they seem completely uninterested in fixing it.

      • By amypetrik8 2025-12-2322:15

        I think back to every ... overly enthused student council member or student council president or HOA president I've seen in my education, a microcosm of politics. These are people with a fire inside of them to seize these positions. Speaking with them, as they were my representative to the academic leadership, they would often hear my request and provide a explanation as to why that was not feasible. A naive assessment of their explanation - often at face value reasonable in the most simplistic of ways, a slightly deeper reflection would reveal it was a convenient excuse for the truth - they had a completely different motivation, usually self-interest in nature, but hidden behind the lie to hide the ugly truth.

        The same is much true of California. So many strict laws and regulation. For the environment? For safety? Why I can't build a house? No, no - they don't want anyone building houses to keep the prices pumped up high. Same for many things. Keep PG&E rich, and PG&E will keep the people in power rich either directly or through the major supporters of said politicians

      • By mrguyorama 2025-12-240:001 reply

        A politician in the US requires immense resources to run any campaign. That means rich people control who gets to be a politician.

        Fixing this would require both public funding of campaigns, and immense limits to campaigns. Certain people, ignorant or malicious, will pitch an insane fit about trying to do that.

        It doesn't matter how much certain politicians "suck" because the way the system is built, your choices are a guy who is awful but will implement some of what you want, or a guy who is fucking bonkers and will destroy our country, and this is true regardless of your political affiliation.

        Even Bernie sucks the political party money teat. Because being the most popular senator isn't a reliable enough way to get elected!

        Our politicians spend more time on the job calling rich people and begging for cash than they do actually voting on or discussing legislation.

        This will only continue to get worse because the rich people are fully in control, and it benefits them to keep pushing the cost of a campaign higher, as the richer of the rich benefit from boxing out the "just" very rich.

        Any change requires serious moves to unseat the current supreme court.

        Currently, populism is much more effective for extremely regressive and outright hateful politicians than extremely progressive ones though, so expect things to get much much worse.

        FDR was only elected and provided the actual power to make changes after 30% of the country was jobless, and an entire generation had been raised in horrific fiscal policy, and lived in a world where a hard worker for 50 years died in the ditch because we had no retirement program or way of feeding people who no longer work.

        If we do literally everything right and the very angry and stupid people suddenly put aside their hatred of "others" for long enough to actually vote for a good idea, we might see improvements in 30 years.

        • By thijson 2025-12-2410:21

          That's because our political system according to the Greeks is called an oligarchy.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition

          Most Athenians believed sortition, not elections, to be democratic[12][page needed] and used complex procedures with purpose-built allotment machines (kleroteria) to avoid the corrupt practices used by oligarchs to buy their way into office.

      • By kelnos 2025-12-2320:091 reply

        PG&E are big campaign contributors to Newsom; he is expressly interested in not fixing it.

        It's amazing that we had a governor recalled 20 years ago in no small part due to utility-related scandals, but these days, being a public servant in their pocket is just business as usual.

        • By twoodfin 2025-12-2423:57

          I’m whatever the opposite is of a devoted fan of Newsom, but I think describing the cause of this aggregate mess as PG&E buying politicians is well off the mark.

          The problem is that PG&E is just one player in a system built up over decades. The system is built on the wrong set of premises, continues to evolve based on those premises, and can only be fixed by rejecting those premises.

          This is becoming increasingly obvious, and a politician like Newsom is too smart to tie himself to the mast of a sinking ship.

      • By kyboren 2025-12-238:15

        > This problem is entirely under the control of Newsom and the CA legislature yet they seem completely uninterested in fixing it.

        "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!"

        - Upton Sinclair, I, Candidate for Governor: And How I Got Licked (1935)

        Ironically that quote came from a book about Sinclair's failed bid to win the CA governorship...

    • By nebula8804 2025-12-230:021 reply

      I guess we will have a total whitewashing effort for Newsom coming up in 2028. Same nonsense as Kamala. Its funny how we can now predict the controversies.

      • By twoodfin 2025-12-234:252 reply

        The redirect on the French Laundry thing is going to be epic.

        • By kyboren 2025-12-238:10

          It is, but you're really talking about the same thing: Gavin Newsom is corrupt and comfortably ensconced within the investor-owned utilities' pocket.

          Recall that it was so important for Newsom to attend that dinner at the height of COVID because it was Jason Kinney's 50th birthday party, a PG&E lobbyist and close advisor to Newsom.

        • By nebula8804 2025-12-2318:24

          Ha! I totally forgot about that! The only saving grace is that in 2028 new media will have increased even further than in 2024 and it already played a significant role in that election. It will be interesting to see the tactics used to bury things like the French Laundry moment because the opponents have been learning all the tricks that the Democrats like to use and plan for them.

    • By fulafel 2025-12-234:341 reply

      Fossil produced electricity is unsustainably cheap. According to https://lowcarbonpower.org/region/California only half of electricity is low-carbon there. It's imperative to ramp down fossils use and production to mitigate the climate disaster so we can't afford to believe there's "abundant energy resources" in a situation like this.

      • By benced 2025-12-237:38

        I was counting solar and offshore wind as abundant energy resources. Also, nuclear, though that’s not state specific.

    • By autoexec 2025-12-230:351 reply

      I can only assume that they've been bribed not to reform PG&E. The real question becomes who is running for office that isn't willing to take bribes so that people who are willing can be voted out of office. If the answer is nobody, than nothing will ever change.

  • By ursAxZA 2025-12-2222:195 reply

    It’s strange that in 2025 we still don’t have even a minimal, per-capita baseline tier for electricity.

    If a household uses less than the monthly per-capita average, why not cap that baseline at something like $10?

    Yes — that gap would need to be subsidized, probably through taxes. But that’s already how grid maintenance works: we socialize the fixed costs while pretending rates are purely volumetric.(and I might be overstating this slightly).

    Right now we punish low-usage consumers and reward structural inefficiency. A baseline tier would at least make the incentives coherent.

    • By themafia 2025-12-2223:192 reply

      > we socialize the fixed costs

      Then we should socialize that infrastructure as well. Otherwise if we're merely _amortizing_ the costs then a total capacity metric should apply to each user.

      A private company shouldn't be allowed to socialize important shared infrastructure simply because a weak PUC pretends to engage in oversight.

      • By ursAxZA 2025-12-2223:522 reply

        I get the intuition behind fully socializing it, but I wouldn’t go that far. Single-operator systems lose redundancy fast, and that’s dangerous for infrastructure.

        A layered mix — county-level public utilities, some private operators, and some hybrid/municipal entities — might be closer to a resilient structure.

        Not clean or elegant, but fault-tolerant.

        • By littlecosmic 2025-12-230:462 reply

          You say this like it is a law of nature, but we can plan and build it directly if we want it. Redundancy is not something that only emerges from an indirect 4d-chess strategy of ownership mixes.

          • By gregbot 2025-12-231:00

            Good point. For example, the TVA and BPA are federal agencies that produce electricity. Clearly publicly owned utilities can be successful.

          • By ursAxZA 2025-12-231:13

            Exactly — if we want redundancy, we should plan and build it.

            That’s why I offered one possible implementation as a hypothesis, not as a law of nature.

            If you have a better non-ideal, real-world design in mind, I’d be interested to hear it — it makes the discussion much easier.

        • By RevEng 2025-12-2316:25

          I live in a province in Canada where the electrical system is owned and operated by a crown corporation. They are mandated to maintain a very high uptime and they do through several means including redundancy. Our electrical bills are cheaper than much of the US. It certainly can be done; there are other means than competition to ensure adequate service.

      • By Manuel_D 2025-12-236:222 reply

        It is essentially socialized. The government dictates the rates that utilities company is allowed to charge.

        • By themafia 2025-12-2311:52

          The reason we're all here is because the government currently is dictating those rates in representation of the utility companies needs and not the citizens. How this is essentially socialized is beyond me; yet, I do concede that the same rules applied differently would much more likely meet that standard.

          We already have an independent systems operator (ISO) to match the amount of load on the grid with the amount of generator current supplying it. I think this model could be expanded to where the state could literally own the transmission lines and equipment and use various regional contractors which would be engaged to maintain it in coordination with the ISO.

          Then we have stable infrastructure where generation _and_ maintenance are open markets which may allow customer rates to no longer be controlled by a utilities commission and instead be directly computed from the actual suppliers costs plus taxes. It may even allow for more regional electric companies to form to provide better service to peculiar areas of the state.

        • By kelseyfrog 2025-12-236:28

          Who owns Edison?

    • By nospice 2025-12-2223:073 reply

      That's more or less the system that exists today? You pay a lower rate up to a certain threshold and then a higher rate kicks in.

      The problem with PG&E isn't the rate structure, which isn't all that different from utilities anywhere else in the world. It's that their costs are exceedingly high, through a combination of regulatory pressures and grift. This is exacerbated by municipal and state regulators who are pushing consumers to be more reliant on electric power (bans on gas appliances in new construction, pushes toward EVs, etc).

      There are vast swathes of the country where people pay 5-10x less for electricity.

      • By ursAxZA 2025-12-2223:241 reply

        My point was simply that electricity has a “civilization tax” aspect to it, and lower baseline access feels closer to the kind of future-proof system we should be aiming for.

        If the floor is gentle, people can actually reduce usage without feeling punished for doing the right thing.

        At the moment the baseline tier feels… maybe a “C-rating” version of what a real baseline could be?

        • By nospice 2025-12-2223:321 reply

          So who pays the tax? I mean, California already has some of the highest income taxes, corporate taxes, extra capital gains taxes, sales taxes, etc, etc. If you want to lower the cost of electricity for tens of millions of people without addressing systemic problems that make it ridiculously expensive in the first place, you gotta tax someone.

          The effective income tax rate for many SF Bay Area techies is around 50%. Do we jack it up to 65% so that PG&E bills can go down from $400 to $100, like almost everywhere else in the country?

          • By ursAxZA 2025-12-2223:421 reply

            The long version would take us far off-topic, so here’s the short one: if the tax-paying base collapses, none of this matters.

            At that point the debate isn’t about pricing — it’s about survival of the system.

            I could outline the full methodology behind this view, but that would turn the thread into a private seminar — and that’s not what comment sections are for.

            • By lovich 2025-12-238:39

              All the majority of people heard from you is “I pay more taxes”

              We’ve become an incredibly selfish nation on average, and until these systems collapse and people get to feel the hot stove, they aren’t going to change their minds about keeping any sort of system or infrastructure in place

      • By itsdrewmiller 2025-12-2423:29

        Where do people pay 3-6 cents for electricity in the US?

      • By bdangubic 2025-12-2423:37

        which country, UAE? :)

    • By labcomputer 2025-12-2222:291 reply

      So PG&E already has something like this. It’s called either E-1 or TOU-C, depending on whether time-of-use billing applies. The price for the baseline tier is higher than you’d expect, though.

      • By ursAxZA 2025-12-2223:06

        That makes sense — but it feels like the balance could be better.

        If we treat baseline access as a kind of ‘civilization tax,’ the pricing shouldn’t feel punitive for low-usage households.

    • By refurb 2025-12-236:022 reply

      I don't get it. A very cheap baseline tier would encourage consumption versus what we have today, not reduce it.

      Today if I build a cabin somewhere I might decide not to electrify if it costs me $50 per month. But at $10? Sure!

      • By ThePowerOfFuet 2025-12-239:291 reply

        Then if you do electrify, you'll use electricity instead of less-efficient, more-polluting alternatives.

        It's a feature, not a bug.

        • By refurb 2025-12-2311:01

          Not if you would have used solar otherwise, or just went without (like a hunting cabin which is often unheated).

      • By JumpCrisscross 2025-12-2318:551 reply

        Limit it to one use per SSN (dependents included).

        • By refurb 2025-12-241:55

          I can only imagine the bureaucrats we could hire to manage it!

          And why dependents included? Kids can’t move out? I already see ways to game it.

  • By aidenn0 2025-12-2221:044 reply

    So they are limited in their RoR on capital expenditures. Are they limited in their capital expenditures in the first place? That is, if they overspend on everything they build, do they make more profit than if they engineered things more carefully? I assume there must be some limitation here or they would use gold instead of copper in their MV transmission lines...

    • By amanaplanacanal 2025-12-2221:471 reply

      It sounds similar to the insurance industry. The more they pay for medical expenses, the more profit they are allowed to keep. Bad incentives all around.

      • By aidenn0 2025-12-2317:11

        At least with health insurance most companies purchasing insurance for their employees have at least 2 companies to choose from, which gives some incentive to keep costs down. With power companies, there seems to be little market pressure, making any benefits of being privatized minimal at best.

    • By ar0b 2025-12-2222:29

      https://legalclarity.org/what-is-a-rate-case-and-how-does-it...

      This comes down to having quality regulators on your public utility commission which is heavily state dependent.

      https://www.multistate.us/insider/2025/10/27/nine-states-fac...

    • By jeffbee 2025-12-2221:14

      No, that is the obvious problem and it happens right out in front of everyone.

    • By Rebelgecko 2025-12-2221:412 reply

      I think technically CPUC approves at least a subset of expenditures, but yes there's the weird incentive where wasting money can actually increase profits

      • By refurb 2025-12-231:56

        All the CPUC rate setting committee discussion minutes are public. You can look up what is discussed.

        The regulator gets down to relatively minor capital investments like fence replacement at substations.

      • By aidenn0 2025-12-2222:322 reply

        If the government has to approve expenditures and profit margins, there seems to be little reason for a private utility to exist?

        • By dragonwriter 2025-12-238:05

          There is very little reason for private utilities to exist in California, especially PG&E (none of them are great, but PG*E is especially bad), which keeps funding lavishly to lobby against expansion of public utility coverage areas, committing homicide, and going bankrupt only to be resurrected in an endless cycle of nonsense.

        • By danans 2025-12-2223:101 reply

          Without the private sector utility company, there wouldn't be a mechanism to raise funds from and pay profits to shareholders.

          • By xboxnolifes 2025-12-2223:161 reply

            Sure there would be; raise funds: tax, pay profits: reduce tax / tax breaks. The real differentiator is in the ability to choose who your shareholders are with less scrutiny.

            • By danans 2025-12-235:10

              I tend to agree, but that's a collective decision and action problem, which we have difficulty with as a society today.

HackerNews