Here's something you might be interested in.
A complaint filed February 13 alleging that San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station operator Southern California Edison potentially overcharged by as much as $100 million for installation of new steam generators (that failed less than two years into their service life periods) was promptly rejected by the California Public Utilities Commission.
“The Docket Office Advisor, John Wong, who is also an Administrative Law Judge, directed that the complaint be rejected for the following reasons, to wit: The complaint alleges violation of securities laws and unfair competition/false claims, over which the Commission has no jurisdiction. Moreover, the complaint fails to allege any violation of a PUC code sections or of a Commission decision,” reads the Commission’s response to the Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility, a nuclear watchdog group that had filed the complaint.
The Alliance’s lawyer, former Commission member John Geesman, quickly fired back a protest of the rejection:
I am respectfully asking you to reconsider, or provide some written explanation of how your decision is consistent with Cal. Pub. Util. Code § 1702 or the Commission’s own Rule 4.1(a)(1), which both use identical language to enable a complaint
setting forth any act or thing done or omitted to be done by any public utility including any rule or charge heretofore established or fixed by or for any public utility, in violation, or claimed to be in violation, of any provision of law or of any order or rule of the Commission;
Your rejection narrows A4NR’s rights as a Complainant considerably more than the Legislature or the Commission intended, respectively, under § 1702 and Rule 4.1(a)(1).
Secondly, A4NR’s Complaint asks the Commission, pursuant to Cal. Pub. Util.Code § 2101, to request the Attorney General institute court actions for the recovery of damages and punishment of the violations of law alleged therein. Again, this statutory authority is not confined to violations of the Public Utilities Code but rather “the enforcement of the provisions of the Constitution and statutes of this State affecting public utilities and for the punishment of all violations thereof.”
Finally, the Complaint alleges conduct which deliberately misrepresents the Commission’s D.05- 12-040. As remedy, it seeks an order to show cause why those committing such conduct should not be found in contempt of the Commission under Cal. Pub. Util. Code § 2113.
Any updates to the complaint status, or expanded justification to its dismissal, will be followed by News Ticker.
A complaint filed February 13 alleging that San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station operator Southern California Edison potentially overcharged by as much as $100 million for installation of new steam generators (that failed less than two years into their service life periods) was promptly rejected by the California Public Utilities Commission.
“The Docket Office Advisor, John Wong, who is also an Administrative Law Judge, directed that the complaint be rejected for the following reasons, to wit: The complaint alleges violation of securities laws and unfair competition/false claims, over which the Commission has no jurisdiction. Moreover, the complaint fails to allege any violation of a PUC code sections or of a Commission decision,” reads the Commission’s response to the Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility, a nuclear watchdog group that had filed the complaint.
The Alliance’s lawyer, former Commission member John Geesman, quickly fired back a protest of the rejection:
I am respectfully asking you to reconsider, or provide some written explanation of how your decision is consistent with Cal. Pub. Util. Code § 1702 or the Commission’s own Rule 4.1(a)(1), which both use identical language to enable a complaint
setting forth any act or thing done or omitted to be done by any public utility including any rule or charge heretofore established or fixed by or for any public utility, in violation, or claimed to be in violation, of any provision of law or of any order or rule of the Commission;
Your rejection narrows A4NR’s rights as a Complainant considerably more than the Legislature or the Commission intended, respectively, under § 1702 and Rule 4.1(a)(1).
Secondly, A4NR’s Complaint asks the Commission, pursuant to Cal. Pub. Util.Code § 2101, to request the Attorney General institute court actions for the recovery of damages and punishment of the violations of law alleged therein. Again, this statutory authority is not confined to violations of the Public Utilities Code but rather “the enforcement of the provisions of the Constitution and statutes of this State affecting public utilities and for the punishment of all violations thereof.”
Finally, the Complaint alleges conduct which deliberately misrepresents the Commission’s D.05- 12-040. As remedy, it seeks an order to show cause why those committing such conduct should not be found in contempt of the Commission under Cal. Pub. Util. Code § 2113.
Any updates to the complaint status, or expanded justification to its dismissal, will be followed by News Ticker.