Arizona ratepayers could end up paying more for utilities if state regulators decide to change the ratemaking process.

The Arizona Corporation Commission is set to vote on a proposed policy statement today, which would allow Arizona utilities to move from a historical "test year" model to a formula rate plan. A formula rate plan is used to adjust a utility's base rates outside a general rate case, many times because of increases in the average cost of utility service.

Diane Brown, executive director, Arizona Public Interest Research Group Education Fund, called the proposed change "seismic," and is concerned ratepayers could experience "higher utility bill aftershocks on an annual basis," as a result.

"There appears to be a full-court press to approve a policy statement that essentially upends a long-standing ratemaking process without providing the necessary time and attention to details," Brown contended.

Supporters of formula rate plans said they can help stabilize a utility's rate of return without a full rate case review. Brown argued ratepayers in states using formula rate plans have experienced "higher costs alongside decreased transparency and less opportunities for public engagement." Groups are calling on the commission to grant more time for the decision, to allow experts and consumers a chance to weigh in.

Consumer groups believe the proposed policy statement, which was made public late last month, has been rushed for a vote. Brown argued there is no need to change a system that has worked well, for one lacking specificity, which could usher in unintended effects.

"The commission should slow down the significant shift in ratemaking by addressing questions and requests that stakeholders have presented to commissioners and staff," Brown asserted.

The commission countered stakeholders have had enough time to voice their opinions following workshops held in March and October of this year on the issue, all in an effort to provide Arizonans with reliable service and predictability in utility costs.

More than three years after a federal law was passed requiring phone companies to install anti-robocall technology, fewer than half of those companies are in compliance.

The latest report on scam calls and texts finds that while robocalls are down roughly 17%, Americans still endure billions of these distractions every month.

Teresa Murray, consumer watchdog director for the Massachusetts Public Interest Research Group, said not only are robocalls annoying - they add unnecessary stress to everyday life.

"If you add up however many times that happens per day and how many times that happens per week," she said, "I guarantee you it's a measurable amount of time that you and I will never get back."

Murray said signing up for a Do Not Call Registry won't prevent all unwanted calls but will offer some protection. She encouraged people to contact their phone companies to demand they do more, and ensure that required robocall technology is installed across their carriers' entire system.

The report says as the number of intrusive phone calls declined, robotexts have more than tripled, and experts have said they are far more dangerous. While a person can avoid answering a call, most people see the beginning words of a text, which often include scary or urgent messaging, prompting them to click a risky link.

Murray said any unexpected texts, emails or calls requiring urgent payment are a serious red flag.

"The bad guys are always trying to get people to act right now - don't hang up, don't tell anybody - because they figure if they can get you to act immediately, then you'll perhaps make a poor choice because you're distracted," she said. "It just takes a few seconds to make a bad choice."

Murray advised people to never give out personal information, even if a solicitor appears to already have it. She said legitimate companies also don't ask for payments via gift cards or through apps such as Venmo or Zelle.

Massachusetts residents who believe they're the victim of a scam are encouraged to contact the Federal Trade Commission or the state attorney general's office.


get more stories like this via email

Starting this year, changes to California's "lemon law" will make it harder for consumers to get a refund or a replacement vehicle.

The changes mean instead of just taking the car to the dealer for repairs, you're now going to have to formally notify the manufacturer via email or certified mail and include your name, the vehicle ID number, a summary of the problems and a demand for a refund or replacement.

Rosemary Shahan, president of the nonprofit Consumers for Auto Reliability and Safety, said if you do not take the step, you forgo lemon-law protections.

"They're going to feel like they can ignore you and refuse to fix the problem," Shahan contended. "Or just do a real, cheap, temporary Band-Aid kind of fix until the warranty expires, and then they'll tell you how much they want you to pay for the repair out of your own pocket."

Gov. Gavin Newsom said he signed Assembly Bill 1755 reluctantly in order to cut down on lemon law lawsuits clogging the courts. Shahan noted lawmakers agreed to the changes only after General Motors and Ford threatened to support a ballot initiative capping attorneys fees in consumer lawsuits, something vigorously opposed by consumer attorneys, who are big political contributors.

The governor did negotiate a new bill, soon to be introduced, to allow manufacturers to opt in or out of the new program. Supporters of the changes, including General Motors, Ford and Stellantis, are expected to opt-in, while opponents such as Honda, Toyota and Tesla may decide to uphold the old protections.

Shahan noted the new lemon law said consumers who have negative equity, meaning they owe more on the lemon car than it is worth, can be forced to come up with the difference before the manufacturer will buy it back.

"The manufacturers will say, 'Oh, we'd be happy to buy back your lemon but first you have to come up with whatever the negative equity is before you can give us clear title to the car,'" Shahan asserted. "Most people can't afford to pay out of pocket, so they're going to be stuck with a lemon car."

The new lemon law also rescinds protections after six years, making longer warranties unenforceable, and consumers will now have only one year to file a claim, down from four.

With 2025 at hand, Minnesotans might be mapping out the concerts they want to attend or things they want to buy in the new year but the presence of hidden fees could give them second thoughts.

New state laws aim to address it. A pair of statutes taking effect Jan. 1 were drafted in response to consumer complaints about so-called "junk fees." One said businesses must disclose the full price of products and services upfront, eliminating surprise charges at checkout. Policy experts said it can cover hotel stays and food deliveries. The second law has similar pricing transparency requirements for live events.

Rep. Lucy Rehm, DFL-Chanhassen, feels it is a "win-win."

"When all businesses disclose their full prices up front, consumers can make these fair and informed comparisons," Rehm explained. "I think it'll foster trust and competition. So, I think it's good for businesses as well as consumers."

State officials estimate hidden and deceptive fees cost the average Minnesota family more than $3,000 a year. There was bipartisan support for the new rules but, similar to rule-making efforts at the federal level, business voices like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce described the approach has "micromanaging" and will not do much to address transparency issues in pricing.

Rehm countered Minnesota's new laws will especially benefit small businesses, which are typically upfront about the final price. Meanwhile, she added, the changes can help ensure all Minnesotans, feeling the pinch of ticket costs, have better access to events offering cultural enrichment.

"We have a thriving arts community here," Rehm pointed out. "We want people to be able to go to concerts and enjoy the arts."

There are exemptions under Minnesota's new junk fees law, including shipping-related costs and automatic gratuities for food and beverage establishments. Vendors at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport have longer to comply, until June 1.