PG&E's new move to screw residential customers

By Bruce B. Brugmann

(Scroll down to see the David Lazarus LA Times column and the CPUC administrative law judge's draft decision to reject PG&E's latest move to hammer residential ratepayers in San Francisco)

David Lazarus, the talented San Francisco Chronicle consumer reporter who is now writing for the Los Angeles Times, exposes in a Nov. 24 column the proposal by the state's three largest private utilities to shift $90 million in fees for natural gas paid each year by business customers onto residential customers.

Lazarus asks quite rightly, "Is it equitable to raise rates for families while allowing them for the likes of Chevron and Bank of America? Is it equitable to offer a helping hand to employers by increasing the financial burden on employees?"

The Lazarus column ran in the Fresno Bee and other California papers. It did not run in the Chronicle/Hearst nor did the Chronicle do its own story. It is, I might add, the kind of story that Lazarus would find it difficult to write while working on the Chronicle because of the long standing sweetheart relationship that Hearst has had with PG&E. The most recent example of this unholy alliance came when PG&E and Hearst ganged up once again this fall to help PG&E defeat a clean energy/public power initiative that would have brought millions of dollars in savings for San Francisco ratepayers.

Oh, yes, PG&E spent well over $l0 million to defeat Prop H, the most ever spent in a local initiative campaign in California. This $90 million maneuver is one way for PG&E to get its money back, by once again screwing residential ratepayers in San Francisco.

Lazarus reported that the administrative law judge at the California Public Utilities Commission "wisely" nixed the proposal, but noted "there's no telling how the Public Utilities Commission will vote." The PUC is likely to vote at its Dec. 18th meeting. He recommends emailing your comments to public.advisor@cpuc.com.

I recommend, since San Francisco is the only city in the U.S. mandated by federal law to have a public power system, that it unleash some serious counter punches. For starters, the supervisors can condemn PG&E's move in a strong resolution and it can ask City Attorney Dennis Herrera to testify and intervene on behalf of the residential ratepayers of San Francisco. Herrara can do either or both on his own. The City and County of San Francisco need to keep fighting back against PG&E offensives. b3

Utilities' surcharge proposal arrives at wrong time

Southern California Gas, San Diego Gas & Electric and Pacific Gas & Electric want businesses to pay less and households to pay more to help low-income customers.

David Lazarus

November 23, 2008

Three of California's largest utilities are proposing something so heavy-handed, it almost seems like a prank. But this is no laughing matter.

Southern California Gas Co., San Diego Gas & Electric Co. and Pacific Gas & Electric Co. -- which collectively serve about 10 million natural gas customers -- want to shift $90 million in fees paid each year by business customers onto residential customers. The fees primarily go toward helping low-income people heat their homes.

The utilities contend that these fees, which are now shared almost equally by business and residential customers, make California too pricey for companies. If some relief isn't offered, the utilities say, those companies will pack up and move elsewhere.

Click here to continue reading.

Click here for the CPUC administrative law judge's draft decision to reject California utilities' surcharge proposal.

Comments (2)

Jim LeCuyer:

Dear Bruce: You may recall me as Mark Linenthal and Joyce Jenkins friend who suggested that the Guardian run an article on Poetry Flash. You asked me at that time if I were willing to do it, and I said no because while I am a writer I am not a journalist. You kindly offered to present the idea to your Editor. I wonder if I could do the article for you?
Here's my idea: Poetry Flash, like dozens of other small magazines, is nearly out of business because of the failing economy. Yet it has stuck around for the past 35 years primarily because of Joyce's determination. And it has, like the Guardian, been distributed as a free paper. So, I could interview Joyce about her struggles to keep the Flash afloat and how that might be a metaphor for American poetry in general and for small publications, and add in short interviews or statements about Joyce and the Flash from some of the poets she has helped over the years, from Ferlinghetti to Bob Hass to Gary Snyder to Diane diPrima and many of the greats in American literature. The Flash is really struggling to survive, and a timely article would alert the poetry world to its needs. I'd love to do it. Jim LeCuyer

Mark Linenthal has undergone a lot of surgery lately, but has survived and is recovering. If you want to call him, I'm sure he'd be charmed. He's at home at 415 695 0174.

Posted by Jim LeCuyer | December 10, 2008 03:28 PM

Keith Freitas:

I am having trouble with collecting fire damages claim created from a fire caused by negligent pg and e equipment.

Just today SCE Southern California Edison just tried to fly onto my property and install a modified power cable, and a new technology fiber cable, which is an easement expansion and abusive use, and unintended use of the easement. They also failed to supply us with a insurance policy naming us as additional insured on the policy.

see email I just sent to them:

Mr. Peveler,

It has also been brought to my attention, that your field rep Bob Slocum has failed to even offer to provide a written request to access our property; nor has he offered to provide an insurance policy naming the property owner, its guests and invitee's as additional insured on that policy providing for adequate protections form potential damages sustained from your very dangerous helicopter installation operation on and above our property and fly-zone. We have not received any written request's detailing this work and/or exposure to damages and or offers of indemnity, which we have been advised would be the proper protocol, in your line of hazardous work.

Thank you for giving this matter your time and attention.

Keith Freitas

________________________________________

From: gvfreitas@msn.com
To: bslocum@wilsonconst.com
Subject: FW: Delivery Status Notification (Failure)
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 21:02:02 +0000

Life is a party, don't be a party pooper !

________________________________________

From: gvfreitas@msn.com
To: mpeveler@wilsonconst.com
Subject: FW: Delivery Status Notification (Failure)
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 21:00:49 +0000

From: gvfreitas@msn.com
To: jcb4@pge.com; cwakefield62@wmconnect.com; dab6@pge.com; dru3@pge.com; dyen@energy.state.ca.us; hals@harrisfarm.com; hals@harrisfarms.com; halstainbrook@harrisfarms.com; hcmontoy@daklaw.com; slolaw@belsherandbecker.com; jhingtge@energy.state.ca.us; laurawolfe86@yahoo.com; kings_oaks@earthlink.net; lisa_houston@sanger.k12.ca.us; lpistoresi@sbcglobal.net; mdjlaw@verizon.net; dak@daklaw.com; nate.calk@fresnosheriff.org; desantispat@hotmail.com; pxcr@pge.com; customerserviceonline@pge.com; pelosi@mail.house.gov; rspg@pge.com; schafferc@slmclaw.com; smm3@pge.com; sjpoliticalacademy@yahoo.com; m.stout@cleantechamerica.com; davidh8376@aol.com; soniacwi@sbcglobal.net; tanyasjag@netzero.net; magillstaff@yahoo.com; tivyfamily@unwiredbb.com; tom.roberts@ca.usda.gov; tpnoble53@comcast.net; talkncat@aol.com; suzanne.elford@wellsfargo.com; wileyramey@aol.com; wolfeden@qnis.net
Subject: FW: Delivery Status Notification (Failure)
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 20:59:29 +0000

From: gvfreitas@msn.com
To: mpeveler@wilsonconst.com
Subject: FW: Delivery Status Notification (Failure)
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 20:53:49 +0000

From: postmaster@mail.hotmail.com
To: gvfreitas@msn.com
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 12:52:31 -0800
Subject: Delivery Status Notification (Failure)

This is an automatically generated Delivery Status Notification.

Delivery to the following recipients failed.

mperveler@wilsonconst.com

--Forwarded Message Attachment--
From: gvfreitas@msn.com
To: mperveler@wilsonconst.com
Subject: FW: Request for voluntary cease and desist form Property Owners in Tivy Valley
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 20:52:31 +0000

From: gvfreitas@msn.com
To: mpereler@wilsonconst.com; movinggavel@earthlink.net; buronb@slmclaw.com
Subject: Request for voluntary cease and desist form Property Owners in Tivy Valley
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 20:51:16 +0000

As Senator Dodd, just quoted that the American people who are working for lees, eating less, and living on less, are now being force fed a bailout program for companies, with failing business models, and the American people are fed up with this shit. The same goes for individual property owners (unknowingly) being forced to accept a modified and overburdened use of an "all ready over burdened" easement, without first explaining, notifying, and/or informing and negotiating an easement compensation and re-negotiation. It also pisses me off that this mega profit company did feel it could simply just walk onto our property and modify equipment and install new equipment without first having had and obtained an environmental report, of CEQUA waiver. The New equipment may have a cancerability aspect associated with it and/or radiation and/or a single either sensitive to competing technology and equipment or creates a noticeable interference with future equipment. Also, SCE Company stands to benefit and/or profit substaial from the use, installation, and general application of this new installation, which is a major element required to claim "easement overburdening".

I am herewith instructing your company and putting you on notice that you can be viewed as a co-conspirator seeking to gain un-justified advantage on an un-suspecting property owner and united states citizen, and potentially expose me, my family and or guest's and invitees to addition (unknowns) effecting our health and welfare. In addition, your company could be held liable as the installer of this equipment, if it is later discovered that this equipment would interfere with future radio, satellite, shortwave, and/or conflicting technology that may hamper our ability to fully develop our property to its full and maximum resource potential. In addition, these easement's do not allow for this type and kind of equipment, as they were originally designed for a "power utility wire system only" with existing power outputs, that imply specific economic and health impacts. It could be inferred, and argued that the installation of this "new equipment" technology advanced may create unique issues that cold potentially eliminate, reduce, and or lessen our ability to install "like equipment" and/or our own technology, that could interfere with the "new technology" that is being installed now by your company.

You are being asked to cease and desist with your activities on this ranch within the confines of the easements now in question regarding the installation work being done by your client Southern California Edison. We appreciate your willingness to consider your extended liabilities and concern for our concerns and I am sure a resolve of this matter can be mediated in short order without the need for aggressive legal action.

We would like you to discuss this with our legal representative, and/or consultant prior to reentering our property to complete this installation of this equipment.

Thank You

Keith Freitas, c/o The Freitas Ranch, Sea Pine Ventures, Inc, Ronald Bettencourt, Barbara Freitas, and Josh Watson, interested investors on the ranch development projects.

I can be reached at (559) 375-3431 Cell

or (559) 787-3915 Home

You live life online. So we put Windows on the web. Learn more about Windows Live
________________________________________
Send e-mail faster without improving your typing skills. Get your Hotmail® account.
________________________________________
Suspicious message? There’s an alert for that. Get your Hotmail® account now.

Posted by Keith Freitas | December 12, 2008 01:59 PM

Comments (2)

Post a comment