Council members push back against SDG&E’s disinformation

San Diego residents face another round of utility rate hikes as SDG&E continues to charge some of the highest rates in the nation, sparking renewed criticism from both city officials and frustrated customers.

In a recent public forum, the disconnect between struggling ratepayers and the utility giant was put on stark display, as San Diego City Councilmembers Sean Elo-Rivera, Marni von Wilpert, and Joe LaCava publicly challenged SDG&E’s explanations for its consistently high rates. The councilmembers dismissed the company’s portrayal of itself as an “innocent bystander” to the rate increases that have burdened local consumers for years.

The anticipated 2026 rate increase has reignited the ongoing debate about utility affordability in the region. While SDG&E representatives offered technical justifications for the planned hikes, many observers noted the company’s reluctance to acknowledge its active lobbying efforts at the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to increase its profit margins.

“The contrast could not be sharper between members of the public talking about struggling to pay their bills and SDG&E’s gobbledygook,” noted University Heights resident Parke Troutman, who has been following the rate increase proceedings closely.

SDG&E, a subsidiary of energy infrastructure company Sempra, has repeatedly cited infrastructure improvements, wildfire mitigation efforts, and clean energy mandates as drivers behind rate increases. However, critics point to the utility’s profit structure as a key factor in San Diego’s exceptionally high electricity costs.

The CPUC, which regulates investor-owned utilities throughout California, has historically approved most of SDG&E’s rate increase requests, drawing scrutiny from consumer advocates who question whether the commission is properly balancing corporate interests with ratepayer protections.

The City Council’s more confrontational stance represents a shift in local government’s approach to dealing with the utility. Previously, municipal leaders had taken a more collaborative approach, but with rates continuing to climb and public outcry intensifying, elected officials appear increasingly willing to challenge SDG&E directly.

Energy affordability has become a critical issue in San Diego County, where the mild climate paradoxically hasn’t translated to lower utility bills. Instead, residents often pay significantly more than consumers in other major metropolitan areas across the country, creating particular hardship for low-income households and those on fixed incomes.

“SDG&E executives will keep squeezing us for as long as they are allowed to get away with it,” Troutman warned, echoing a sentiment shared by many residents who feel powerless against the monopoly utility.

The controversy highlights the complex regulatory framework governing California’s energy landscape, where investor-owned utilities must balance shareholder returns with public service obligations. SDG&E’s accountability to “international financial markets,” as Troutman noted, creates an inherent tension with its role as a provider of essential services.

Consumer advocates are now calling on the City Council to maintain pressure on both the CPUC and state legislators to implement more meaningful reforms that would constrain SDG&E’s ability to continuously increase rates. Potential measures could include stricter profit caps, enhanced transparency requirements, or expanded public power options.

As the 2026 rate hike approaches, the debate underscores the broader challenges facing California’s energy transition—balancing the costs of grid modernization and climate goals with the immediate financial realities of consumers. Whether the increased scrutiny from local officials will translate into substantive changes remains to be seen, but the issue shows no signs of fading from public consciousness as San Diegans brace for yet another increase to their already substantial utility bills.