Here's something you might be interested in.
Ask a Hipster — Advice you didn't know you needed
Big Screen — Movie commentary
Blurt — Music's inside track
Booze News — San Diego spirits
Classical Music — Immortal beauty
Classifieds — Free and easy
Cover Stories — Front-page features
Drinks All Around — Bartenders' drink recipes
Excerpts — Literary and spiritual excerpts
Feast! — Food & drink reviews
Feature Stories — Local news & stories
Fishing Report — What’s getting hooked from ship and shore
From the Archives — Spotlight on the past
Golden Dreams — Talk of the town
The Gonzo Report — Making the musical scene, or at least reporting from it
Letters — Our inbox
Movies@Home — Local movie buffs share favorites
Movie Reviews — Our critics' picks and pans
Musician Interviews — Up close with local artists
Neighborhood News from Stringers — Hyperlocal news
News Ticker — News & politics
Obermeyer — San Diego politics illustrated
Outdoors — Weekly changes in flora and fauna
Overheard in San Diego — Eavesdropping illustrated
Poetry — The old and the new
Reader Travel — Travel section built by travelers
Reading — The hunt for intellectuals
Roam-O-Rama — SoCal's best hiking/biking trails
San Diego Beer — Inside San Diego suds
SD on the QT — Almost factual news
Sheep and Goats — Places of worship
Special Issues — The best of
Street Style — San Diego streets have style
Surf Diego — Real stories from those braving the waves
Theater — On stage in San Diego this week
Tin Fork — Silver spoon alternative
Under the Radar — Matt Potter's undercover work
Unforgettable — Long-ago San Diego
Unreal Estate — San Diego's priciest pads
Your Week — Daily event picks
Balderdash and poppycock
Public utilities commission issues "false" press release regarding "refunds"
CPUC press release
The California Public Utilities Commission this morning (November 20) approved a deal in which ratepayers of Southern California Edison and San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) will get socked with $3.3 billion in costs resulting from San Onofre errors that led to the nuclear facility's shutdown.
CPUC press release
Then, typical of this agency, the utilities commission put out a news release claiming that consumers are getting a refund. Yes, consumers will get a $1.45 billion refund, says San Diego attorney Mike Aguirre, but they will also get hit with new costs of $3.3 billion. Before the decision, Aguirre filed a suit in federal court charging that the utilities commission was planning to take money from customers in violation of the Fifth Amendment's just compensation concept.
The Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility might appeal the decision, according to San Diegan Ray Lutz of Citizens Oversight, who attended the hearing in San Francisco. The utilities commission made last minute changes in the final document (made in red) but the voting commissioners really didn't have time to read the new document, says Lutz. The public could not comment on it.
Commissioners "voted before they could digest the changes," says Lutz, who, like many other ratepayers of San Diego Gas & Electric and Southern California Edison, believe the whole thing has been rigged all along. The public was told that the original proposal was a settlement agreement among Edison, SDG&E, the CPUC's Office of Ratepayer Advocates (which supposedly represents ratepayers) and San Francisco–based purported activist the Utility Reform Network (TURN).
Commissioner Mike Florio was a longtime lawyer for TURN. Between 2008 and 2012, TURN received $12.6 million in intervenor fees from the public utilities commission. The second biggest recipient, San Diego's Utility Consumers' Action Network (UCAN) got $3 million. (Intervenor fees are funds paid to groups that present information at commission hearings.)
Michael Peevey, president of the commission and former president of Edison, has been criticized for doling out juicy intervenor fees to groups that play ball with the commission, and little or nothing to groups that fight hard for their clients. Aguirre and Lutz believe CPUC commissioners were steering the decision along from the outset — in fact, not permitting a study to be done of the accident causing the shutdown. Such a study is necessary under commission rules, says Aguirre.
After the decision was made, the commission put out a news release with the headline: “CPUC APPROVES SAN ONOFRE SETTLEMENT THAT RETURNS $1.45 BILLION TO CONSUMERS.” There was no mention whatsoever of the $3.3 billion ratepayers would have to cough up. The CPUC's news release even claimed consumers got a better deal than utilities. Lutz, however, notes that the quick passage of the measure was "astonishing but not surprising. The utilities are in control. They got 100 percent of what they wanted."
Says Aguirre, "The federal court and not the CPUC will decide whether ratepayers have to pay. The CPUC has abandoned its duty to protect ratepayers. The news release is false."
Here's something you might be interested in.
Balderdash and poppycock
Public utilities commission issues "false" press release regarding "refunds"
Balderdash and poppycock
Public utilities commission issues "false" press release regarding "refunds"
CPUC press release
The California Public Utilities Commission this morning (November 20) approved a deal in which ratepayers of Southern California Edison and San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) will get socked with $3.3 billion in costs resulting from San Onofre errors that led to the nuclear facility's shutdown.
CPUC press release
Then, typical of this agency, the utilities commission put out a news release claiming that consumers are getting a refund. Yes, consumers will get a $1.45 billion refund, says San Diego attorney Mike Aguirre, but they will also get hit with new costs of $3.3 billion. Before the decision, Aguirre filed a suit in federal court charging that the utilities commission was planning to take money from customers in violation of the Fifth Amendment's just compensation concept.
The Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility might appeal the decision, according to San Diegan Ray Lutz of Citizens Oversight, who attended the hearing in San Francisco. The utilities commission made last minute changes in the final document (made in red) but the voting commissioners really didn't have time to read the new document, says Lutz. The public could not comment on it.
Commissioners "voted before they could digest the changes," says Lutz, who, like many other ratepayers of San Diego Gas & Electric and Southern California Edison, believe the whole thing has been rigged all along. The public was told that the original proposal was a settlement agreement among Edison, SDG&E, the CPUC's Office of Ratepayer Advocates (which supposedly represents ratepayers) and San Francisco–based purported activist the Utility Reform Network (TURN).
Commissioner Mike Florio was a longtime lawyer for TURN. Between 2008 and 2012, TURN received $12.6 million in intervenor fees from the public utilities commission. The second biggest recipient, San Diego's Utility Consumers' Action Network (UCAN) got $3 million. (Intervenor fees are funds paid to groups that present information at commission hearings.)
Michael Peevey, president of the commission and former president of Edison, has been criticized for doling out juicy intervenor fees to groups that play ball with the commission, and little or nothing to groups that fight hard for their clients. Aguirre and Lutz believe CPUC commissioners were steering the decision along from the outset — in fact, not permitting a study to be done of the accident causing the shutdown. Such a study is necessary under commission rules, says Aguirre.
After the decision was made, the commission put out a news release with the headline: “CPUC APPROVES SAN ONOFRE SETTLEMENT THAT RETURNS $1.45 BILLION TO CONSUMERS.” There was no mention whatsoever of the $3.3 billion ratepayers would have to cough up. The CPUC's news release even claimed consumers got a better deal than utilities. Lutz, however, notes that the quick passage of the measure was "astonishing but not surprising. The utilities are in control. They got 100 percent of what they wanted."
Says Aguirre, "The federal court and not the CPUC will decide whether ratepayers have to pay. The CPUC has abandoned its duty to protect ratepayers. The news release is false."
Comments