Insurance premiums have gone up a lot and according to a new report, Arizona is one of the states where homeowners are being hit hardest.

The Consumer Federation of America's latest report found from 2021 to 2024, annual insurance premiums for a typical Arizona homeowner increased by more than $700.

Diane Brown, executive director of the Arizona Public Interest Research Group, called the situation dire and fears the severity and increasing frequency of wildfires plaguing the state could only exacerbate the problem. She called the report "a wake-up call for consumers and policymakers across the nation."

"Policymakers should recognize it is no accident that wildfires are contributing to increased insurance costs," Brown urged. "And should not accept claims by the utilities that they should be left off the hook for basic legal responsibility."

Arizona lawmakers are currently debating a bill to protect utilities from wildfire-related lawsuits and could have the unintended consequence of shifting the burden of wildfire claims from utilities onto homeowners' insurers.

Brown argued the approach is wrong and if found negligent, utilities should have to cover costs to those affected. Many Arizonans have seen their rates skyrocket this year or have been dropped from coverage altogether as insurance companies try to recover losses.

Doug Heller, director of insurance for the Consumer Federation of America, pointed out there is not a "strong culture of rate review in Arizona." He said insurance companies will take advantage of the places in which advantage is allowed.

"Arizona needs to step up and be more aggressive in its inspection of the insurance companies' rates," Heller emphasized. "In Arizona, as in other parts of the West, to be honest, it's all around the country, the wildfire risk has increased with climate change, there is no question about that."

Heller added it is going to take a "concerted effort" to get things on the right track. The report recommended requiring insurance companies to release data on pricing, coverage and claims annually, for federal and state governments to expand grant-based and loan risk mitigation programs as well as the creation of a "reinsurance program" to stabilize the market.

Experts advised homeowners to shop around for the best rates and also maintain homes by utilizing vital fire-reduction measures.


get more stories like this via email

A new bill to make car shopping more transparent goes before the California Senate Transportation Committee Tuesday.

Senate Bill 766 would require dealers to disclose the full "out-the-door" price before a purchase. The legislation is meant to prevent people from getting tricked by offers that require certain add-ons.

Sen. Ben Allen, D-Santa Monica, is its sponsor.

"People need to be able to really understand what they're spending," Allen contended. "Some car dealers, you walk in and you're basically upsold - folks, they've ended up spending a lot more than they thought they were going to spend when they walked into the dealership."

The bill would require car dealers to tell consumers when an add-on is optional and it would require them to get customer approval before any add-ons. The Biden administration tried to put the rule in place nationally last December but a judge invalidated the attempt. The Trump administration is not expected to revive it.

The California Chamber of Commerce opposes new regulations on dealerships, saying they would lead to more lawsuits against car dealers and increased costs for consumers. Allen stressed he hopes the bill will do the opposite.

"By giving consumers some extra time and having greater transparency about what exactly they're spending, it'll reduce the likelihood for folks to file litigation to remedy the issue," Allen argued.

The bill would also give customers who bought a used car three days to return a vehicle for a full refund, with a small restocking fee.


get more stories like this via email

Arizona lawmakers are considering a bill to prevent cryptocurrency scams and regulate what are known as "crypto kiosks."

Brendon Blake, AARP Arizona's director of advocacy, said these kiosks, often found inside businesses or malls, allow folks to convert cash into Bitcoin or other cryptocurrencies. Blake said the scams often start over the phone, when scammers pressure people to get cash and then deposit the money at a kiosk.

Blake said crypto's decentralized nature makes it difficult to track where the deposit ends up.

"The majority of experts believe the money is being sent overseas to large criminal enterprises or just to scammers that are overseas," he said. "We are seeing people lose tons of money. Last year, we saw $189 million be moved via cryptocurrency ATMs that were as a result of scams."

Blake said House Bill 2387 focuses on prevention, restitution and security. He added that the majority of victims are people older than 60 - likely because the demographic has easier access to larger amounts of savings, and scammers exploit a lack of awareness of how cryptocurrency works.

For those who think they've fallen victim to a crypto scam, he said, it's vital to report it to local authorities. He added that sometimes, refunds are possible.

Blake added the state is fighting for a daily limit on how much money can be deposited into a "crypto kiosk." The bill also aims to make warning signs at kiosks mandatory.

"We believe that these machines and these companies have a responsibility to do fraud prevention," he said, "and so, we do have warnings and disclosures in the bill that they have to display."

Blake said the bill has had little opposition and that some in the crypto industry are supporting it. He called HB 2387 the "opening attempt" at trying to protect Arizonans from crypto scams.

"And if we've got to come back and figure out more, 'Hey this didn't exactly work, we've got to tweak this,' AARP is endlessly committed to making sure that we got something right," he said.

Blake said the bill still needs a Senate floor vote before heading back to the House. If it passes, it would head to Gov. Katie Hobbs' desk.

People gathered outside Rocky Mountain Power headquarters in Salt Lake City on Tuesday, calling out the company for what they describe as "a strategy to keep Utah locked into high-cost, polluting fossil fuels."

The utility just released a new Integrated Resource Plan, which outlines how it will meet the state's energy demands.

Jonathan Whitesides, spokesperson for Rocky Mountain Power, acknowledged previous plans included more renewable resources but said the company tries to plan 20 years into the future and changes are almost inevitable. Electric rates could soon increase by more than 15% for residential customers if the Utah Public Service Commission approves a rate-hike request later this month.

"The commission has to determine, were we prudent in what we spent on behalf of the customers?" Whitesides explained. "Even though it is a 15.5%, the commission will determine whether that is reasonable and prudent."

Whitesides pointed out the rate increase would help cover costs associated with maintenance as well as energy projects, like the Rock Creek Wind Project in Wyoming. The company's latest plan also extends, rather than shortens, the life of coal operations in the state.

Stan Holmes, volunteer for the group Utah Needs Clean Energy, was at Tuesday's Salt Lake City event. He thinks costs will be passed onto Utahns if Rocky Mountain Power moves forward with its latest plan.

"It's not just the environmental community and the business community that's saying, 'What's going on here?' It's folks that have been tracking Rocky Mountain Power for a long time, saying, 'something smells wrong here,'" Holmes emphasized. "We're hoping the commissioners do now what they did 10 years ago, when they stopped Rocky Mountain Power from slapping a monthly surcharge on its rooftop solar customers."

Holmes called the utility's latest plan "terrible," but added he and others feel optimistic their message will be heard.

"When you take a look from an economic standpoint at what the future holds for Utah if we shift to clean renewables -- like geothermal, for example, which is given short shrift in this 20-year plan -- we wouldn't have any argument," Holmes contended.