Our History

PCF associated as a group of volunteers joined together in opposition to the SDG&E Sunrise Powerlink 500 kV transmission line which was originally proposed through the Anza Borrego State Park. Although the CPUC ultimately approved SDG&E’s transmission line project, PCF’s work in coalition with other environmental and local advocates led to an improved route that decreased the impact on wildlife and the environment.

PCF incorporated and became a 501(c)(3) public charity, and expanded its efforts to protect ratepayers and the biologically diverse backcountry in San Diego and Southern California. For example, PCF provided evidence establishing the financial waste in the wood-to-steel pole conversion debacle (substituting completely functional wooden utility poles for steel poles at huge cost) that to this day has not been justified.  

Since then, PCF has been fighting to protect communities from the natural consequences of an antiquated monopoly utility system designed well over one hundred years ago.

PCF began to push for community choice energy in San Diego, becoming a leading advocate for the first community choice aggregators (CCAs) until they became a reality throughout California.

We began participating more holistically at the CPUC to fight unnecessary utility costs and fossil fuel infrastructure by providing legal analysis and technical expertise. PCF worked to fight the power procurement decisions and expensive infrastructure projects that are designed to increase utility profits and keep the fossil-fueled utility system in place for decades. 

We participated in the Long Term Procurement Plan proceedings that became the Integrated Resource Plan proceeding, advocating for clean resources at least ratepayer cost.

In other proceedings, we provided evidence showing that expensive, fossil-fueled infrastructure is not needed: for example, we established the Aliso Canyon storage facility is unnecessary in order to keep the lights on in Southern California, that a brand new gas pipeline running through San Diego County was entirely unnecessary, and we fought against specific power plants in San Diego and Southern California, including the Otay Mesa Energy Center, Pio Pico Energy Center, LADWP gas-fired power plants, and Carlsbad Energy Center. 

PCF advocated for an equitable Power Charge Indifference Adjustment (PCIA) to facilitate the ability of the then-newly established CCAs to focus on local renewable power. The Court of Appeal declined to consider PCF’s appeal of the CPUC decision. The PCIA continues to plague ratepayers and the CCAs.

We ramped up our efforts to “follow the money.” We utilized legal, financial, and technical expertise in CPUC proceedings like the Risk Assessment Mitigation Phase, Wildfire Mitigation Plan, and Cost of Capital proceedings.  

PCF’s regulatory advocacy differs from an approach that starts with the utilities’ framing and the utilities’ world view which for too long has involved ever-increasing capital expenditures, and profits for utility shareholders and executives to the detriment of ratepayers. We take an evidence-based approach to alternatives that provide cleaner, more affordable, and more community-based solutions, compared to the utilities’ unnecessary “steel in the ground” profit-making proposals. We propose solutions that will lower ratepayers’ costs AND protect the environment. 

PCF filed a lawsuit challenging the aging natural gas-fired once-though-cooling power plants that continue to plague coastal communities and ocean life, establishing a record for history.

After advocates for better franchise agreements lost a close vote at the City Council, PCF filed a lawsuit challenging the City of San Diego’s 2021 award of gas and electric franchises to SDG&E.

PCF also broadened its expertise at the CPUC by hiring utility finance expert Mark Ellis to provide unparalleled expert testimony in the CPUC’s cost of capital proceeding. PCF’s evidence showed the utilities making different representations to the investment community than their representations to the CPUC, and that the rates of return authorized by the CPUC far exceed the utilities’ actual, market-based cost of capital. Because spending ratepayer funds on capital projects remains the primary method by which the utilities maximize their profits for shareholders and executives, the cost of capital proceeding remains one of PCF’s highest priorities.

PCF and allies filed a lawsuit challenging the CPUC’s 2022 net energy metering (NEM) decision – a devastating blow to privately funded, customer-sited generation like rooftop solar. 

PCF achieved a milestone victory in our NEM lawsuit. The California Supreme Court upheld and enforced the standard of review set forth by the Legislature that applies when courts review CPUC decisions. As a result of this success, CPUC decisions can no longer be rubber-stamped by the courts.