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
Power company's Darling
UT (surprisingly) and our own Don Bauder at the Reader (not surprisingly) have kept on top of this 3.7 billion-dollar rip off of ratepayers. If a taxicab company hires a mechanic to work on the cab, and does some of the work itself, should I pay full fair if the cab breaks down? Should I pay full fair while the cab company sues its own mechanic? That squabble is between the cab company and its mechanic. I am concerned that the passenger in the cab was endangered because the cab had no brakes and was driving at 90 miles per hour. The cab regulatory agency did nothing, and the judge was overruling questions about the brakes as "irrelevant" while emailing with the cab company. They wanted a big multi-million dollar tip to spread around to their favorite charities. Political campaign contributions help grease the wheels - not just the wheels of the cab. Here is corporate welfare - they take massive risks, including endangering public safety, and get bailed out by taxpayers and ratepayers. The shareholders win either way. This encourages the CEO to take more risks. Heads we lose, tails they win.— June 1, 2015 8:09 a.m.
Power company's Darling
Good information. Do not request paper copies or they will charge 25 cents per page. Request copies by sent by email or burned down onto a CD ROM. Or just request an appointment to inspect and/or copy the records. Get a scanner app for your smartphone. Request texts. Request emails relating to public records that were sent on personal electronic devices. Be persistent.— May 28, 2015 7:31 p.m.
Power company's Darling
The CPUC hearings about SONGS were a disgusting charade designed to mislead the ratepayers and conceal the dangerous operation of a nuclear power station. If replacement pressure steam tubes could be designed to create vibrations leading to failure, and that failure could propagate throughout the facility, the public needs to have a bright light shined on the myriad of failure modes possible at such power plants. Allocation of the losses is important, too. Only by paying the losses can a message be sent to the Board of Directors by the shareholders. Otherwise there is moral hazard in the operation of a nuclear power plant. Maximization of profits rather than public safety will continue until a massive mishap. The CPUC decided to pass the losses on to ratepayers and evade judicial inquiry into the lack of prudence by the operator and their contractors that caused the failure of the replacement steam pressure tubes. It is well-known that no escape plan exists to evacuate the general population of Southern California in the event of a loss of coolant event leading to meltdown. No plans exist to safely store spent fuel rods. The tsunami wall was not sufficient to protect against a large tsunami. A large earthquake or a terrorist attack, a mass coronal projection, or any of a number of other events could trigger a meltdown. The nuclear cartel in all of its many manifestations, including nuclear energy generation, is a clear and present danger to the environment and human populations. To have a smug Administrative Law Judge and a Chairman such as Michael Peevey in charge of the truth-finding in such an important proceeding as this is an outrage.It needs to be reopened, all the dirty laundry aired in public, with discovery of documents and cross-examination of the authors of those documents under penalty of perjury. One meltdown in Southern California would finish off the economy of the state of California. I hope that these wrongdoers see the inside of a prison cell. Judge Darling does not recall discussing anything but procedural matters. But she does not recall not discussing the cause of the accident and the damages either. That is unacceptable for a judge. Without a record of her *ex parte* contacts, we are left with her memory, which seems more than convenient under the circumstances. We have a factual dispute between a judge and a party without any actual record. The appearance of impropriety is overwhelming under these circumstances. Senator Boxer's Committee was having difficulty in obtaining documents. The CPUC and the NRC are designed to protect the operators of nuclear power plants at the expense of public safety. Nothing could demonstrate this more than the SONGS settlement.— May 26, 2015 8:10 a.m.
Power company's Darling
CaptD, The public meeting in Costa Mesa a year ago in May with the CPUC was claimed to be a "kangeroo court" by protesters, yourself included. When I spoke my piece before the Commission, I looked each Commissioner in the eye. Not one could look 'ole Diogenes in the eye. I had not found an honest person. I lowered my lamp. I am very effective in detecting dishonesty by observing facial micro-expressions. I have training in the method from Paul Ekman, one of the originators. My encounter with the Commissioners was videotapped. It can be run in slow motion. I could point out who were the most dishonest. Regarding ALJ Darling, it would seem that she.tried to shut down Mr. Aguirre from making a record by sustaining objections. In retrospect, this appears to have been intended to conceal her contacts with private utility executives and further the behind-the-scenes settlement that favored private utility shareholders over ratepayers. I stated that the settlement was premature without producing all documents and questioning the authors under penalty of perjury. You can imagine how nervous they were. The secret meetings in Poland resulted in handwritten notes that Commissioner Peevey would brandish. The UT story from yesterday's edition lays this out. As I recall, search warrants executed at Peevey"s home revealed the "cocktail napkin notes" from the meeting in Poland. If the deal was already concluded in advance of public hearings, that is a violation due process and constitutes a "taking." The federal judge should set aside the settlement as requested by Aguirre and Severson's lawsuit and refer the matter to the U.S Attorney's office for prosecution.— May 25, 2015 4:08 p.m.
What will One Paseo look like?
Six years of fighting by determined residents was necessary just to prevent overreaching by a greedy developer. Kilroy learned that it could not push people in Carmel Valley around. As time went on, thousands of residents joined the battle. Politicians witnessed a growing activism throughout San Diego. Carmel Valley is desirable precisely because activists protected the community from Baldwin and Pardee in the past twenty years. These activists opposed over-development of the Del Mar Highlands Center. 40 million dollars and six years later, Kilroy learned their lesson - Carmel Valley residents will stand their ground. Other communities will stand up against over development as a result of this struggle. Kilroy thought they could go ten stories and create super-density. Just hire the right lobbyist who had the revolving door! The politicians are basically in fear of tarnishing their environmental credentials by approving "Dumb Growth". They will have to pony up for public transit and face three new Supreme Court Justices who are pro-environment. Residents are ready for the next round if Kilroy tries to overreach.— May 21, 2015 6:06 p.m.
It's Kilroy, from L.A. We're suing again.
Water! We don't need no stinkin' water! We need more people and more CO2!— May 21, 2015 9:03 a.m.
Carmel Valley residents displeased with limbo
Dorian, You left out the other Petition for a Writ of Mandate by three resident groups. Residents, not Donahue Schriber control the referendum. Kilroy needs these groups to sign off, too. Your article seems to adopt the Kilroy "talking point" that this is just a struggle between two big developers. Why? Residents who have worked for free for five years to oppose this project resent that mischaracterization. Some of these same residents fought the Del Mar Heights Town Center twenty years ago because of its density. This is a nice community only because of these activists who have saved it from the jaws of greedy developers. Kilroy should be happy to get twice their entitlement. It is not our job to bail them out. Spot zoning for special interests violates the community planning board system and comprehensive urban and transportational planning efforts. If the City Council wants increased density, they have to pay for public transit to support it, unless we get solar-powered vehicles with zero emissions. That law is made in Sacramento to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We are wise to City Councilmembers who say one thing and then vote another way, like David Alvarez did. He now hopes that a resolution by negotiation will save his political career.— May 19, 2015 9:12 a.m.
California public utilities vs. us
This scandal is too well-documented by admissions contained in emails to just disappear. There are billions of dollars at stake. Aguirre and Severson have a theory used in other states that a "taking without due process occured in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment" that is binding upon the states by virtue of the 14th Amendment. There is state action by the state of California. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is likely to uphold this theory. The lack of procedural due process is very clear. There is no opportunity to present evidence. The whole idea is to favor private utility companies and their investor shareholders. There is no meaningful opportunity to confront and cross-examine witnesses. The Commission avoided the main issue of prudence. The operator was not prudent. The based Commission wants to stick it to the ratepayers. The record will not stand up in the 9th Circuit Court of Apoeals. The Commission should assign the losses to the shareholders or have a full evidentiary hearing on the issue of prudence. Criminal investigations are going on. That is enough to set aside the settlement. A new Commission should be appointed. Everyone should write to their elected state representatives demanding this action.— May 15, 2015 4:19 p.m.
California public utilities vs. us
Don, Exactly. But passing on what should be shareholder losses to ratepayers is done by a corrupted process that denies due process to ratepayers and constitutes a taking. It adds up to the same thing: ratepayers get screwed. Ex parte meetings in Poland? There are responses to emails cited in the UT article that are interesting. Time for full hearings. I told the Commission this last May. I bet there are a few that wished they had listened. But their hands got stuck in the cookie jar. Pressure for full hearings on the issue of prudence of the operator at SONGS are required now more than ever. The rush to settle was a cover up, in my opinion. The public were endangered.— May 14, 2015 11:31 a.m.
California public utilities vs. us
CaptD, Brown's sister sits on the Board of Sempra, Peevey is married to a State Senator, Democrats get big campaign contributions from private energy companies and own stock - former intervenors play ball and get appointed to the Public Utilities Commission, intervenors' attorneys do not get paid unless they play ball, Republicans are worse, money is spread around to non-profits, charities, and universities to support a collusion settlement that costs ratepayers billions of dollars and covers up nuclear endangerment of all residents of Southern California - plus, whistleblowers are punished with retaliation. Sounds like standard operating procedure to me. Good business practices. Maybe these "expenses" are not properly deductible. If the settlement is collusion and the donations are to buy support for that settlement, are these expenses properly deducted as legitimate business expenses? Enron had nothing on these guys.— May 14, 2015 8:58 a.m.