Connect with us

California

Here's the Real Reason PG&E Rates Are Skyrocketing in California

Published

on

Here's the Real Reason PG&E Rates Are Skyrocketing in California


California now holds the ignominious prize for the highest electricity rates in the nation, except Hawaii. How did we get into this predicament?

Because the California Public Utilities Commission — the five-member agency appointed by Governor Gavin Newsom that regulates the prices, service and reliability of private energy utilities — has failed to do its job.

There are other government entities that hand out cookies to energy companies without a care for who pays the bill. But the buck stops at the Public Utilities Commission to protect utility customers.

When a private utility like PG&E decides it needs to build new infrastructure — say, to protect against wildfires — it’s the commission that determines if the infrastructure is necessary, if the utility’s proposed costs for that infrastructure are fair, and if better and cheaper alternatives exist.

Advertisement

The commission enjoys limited scrutiny by the courts. Decisions made by other state agencies can be appealed to Superior Court. But only an appellate court can hear commission appeals, and taking that case is discretionary. This limited judicial review means that the Public Utilities Commission essentially answers to the governor alone.

As a former commission president, I know what keeping energy prices down requires: a sharp pencil to control relentless spending requests from utilities that allow them to generate more profits, adherence to legal mandates that require it to protect ratepayers and allow only “just and reasonable” costs and the backbone to just say no to the utilities’ unceasing demands that customers pay for programs that are ineffective or unnecessarily expensive.

None of this is happening, and Californians should be outraged.

Last November, the commission authorized a historic rate increase — more than $2.56 billion for PG&E’s 2023-2026 general rate case spending estimates. PG&E applied to the commission to charge its customers for the costs of running its gas and electricity businesses, including new infrastructure, system maintenance, and employee and management salaries.

That rate increase hits in stages. The commission let PG&E charge its customers immediately for the first $1.3 billion, painfully hitting in January’s bills. But that’s not the end to commission-permitted rate increases: The utility will collect $716 million more in 2024, $359 million in 2025 and $204 million in 2026.

Advertisement

The commission allowed these increases despite its administrative law judge’s initial decision finding that PG&E’s evidence justified a much smaller rate hike. (The commission employs administrative judges to independently vet whether or not utilities have proved that they are entitled to charge their customers for their costs.)

The administrative law judge’s decision hinged on whether PG&E’s spending was “just and reasonable” — the legal prerequisite for approving any utility cost. Instead, politically appointed commissioners overruled the judge and gave PG&E the vast bulk of what it wanted despite what the facts support.

Before the ink on PG&E’s unprecedented 2023 rate increase was dry, the utility came back, asking the commission to order its customers to pay over $4 billion more for Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant costs, power purchases from electricity generators and infrastructure upgrades for “energization” efforts.

PG&E wants $691 million of that upfront — paid now — before the Public Utilities Commission even evaluates whether those costs are just and reasonable.

Adding insult to injury, in its March 12 decision, the commission handed PG&E yet another increase of $516 million — to take effect immediately. This time the commission dispensed with pesky legal requirements for evidentiary hearings, testimony or proof of PG&E’s asserted costs. By not even attempting to evaluate the reasonableness of the utility’s demands, commissioners set a new low in disregarding the law, which allows the commission to increase rates only after it holds a hearing that includes testimony under oath and cross-examination of PG&E’s witnesses.

Advertisement

In its decision, the commission admitted that granting PG&E half a billion up front, based only on PG&E’s word, “departs from the general requirement to raise rates only after the costs are determined reasonable.” Despite PG&E’s admission that its original $5.7 billion expense estimate actually only totaled $2.7 billion, commissioners approved the increase anyway, only timidly admonishing that “PG&E should be more transparent at the outset to assist with decision-making.”

What should have occurred?

Formal hearings, with PG&E’s witnesses testifying under oath about the true amounts of their asserted costs. The commission should have followed the law that requires PG&E to prove that its costs are “just and reasonable” — before forcing its customers to pay more. The law requires public, rules-based fact determinations about what money is really needed to provide safe and reliable service versus what constitutes frivolous, unnecessary or profit-plumping projects.

The commission blithely maintains that it will review PG&E’s actual costs later — years from now. If unreasonable costs are found, it will order refunds of the money PG&E took from its customers.

But PG&E will almost certainly fight such refunds by scaring future commissioners into inaction, claiming that “the markets” have expected them to keep the money so it can’t be taken away.

Advertisement

Kowtowing to PG&E despite the evidence and the facts — or in this latest case, raising rates without any evidence or facts — shows the Public Utilities Commission’s utter indifference to the hardships these rate increases impose on California’s families and businesses.

Now, a new commission scheme is set to create a “fixed charge” on top of current pay-as-you-use prices, which would be marginally reduced, only for residential customers, under the plan.

On March 27, an administrative law judge published a proposed decision that, if approved in May, will impose a new fixed $24.18 monthly charge on residential customers not eligible for low-income discounts. The commission touts this proposal as a win because it set the charge significantly lower than the $70-$90 the utilities initially proposed. But the new charge still exceeds twice the national average for similar charges.

Fixed fees are the start, not the end, of more rate increases because the commission doesn’t prohibit the fixed charge from increasing whenever PG&E wants. The plan lacks safeguards against utility double-dipping, so it will be hard to tell whether the costs embedded in this new fixed charge are duplicated in other cost-recovery requests. Even PG&E’s low-income customers are not protected — they already pay more than the average customer in the Sacramento Municipal Utility District.

The Public Utilities Commission’s rubberstamping of unproven, unwarranted, unjust electricity costs must stop. It is up to the state Legislature to inject sanity into the regulatory system and protect California families and businesses from ruinous, undeserved rate increases.

Advertisement

Thankfully, legislators have introduced AB1999 to stop this increase and cap any fixed charge at $5 for low-income customers and $10 for other customers. AB2054 would stop the revolving door of former commissioners moving to jobs with utilities and scrutinize utility funds, and SB938 would stop ratepayers from paying for utility lobbying and advertising, among other reforms.

Passing these bills would be important first steps to reining in California’s rogue Public Utilities Commission and halting runaway energy rates.

More robust oversight by the Legislature is needed. Without it, you can expect your energy bills to continue to skyrocket.

Loretta Lynch is a former president of the California Public Utilities Commission and an attorney in San Francisco.



Source link

Advertisement

California

Trump claims without proof Democrats are ‘trying to steal’ California primaries

Published

on

Trump claims without proof Democrats are ‘trying to steal’ California primaries


Donald Trump has alleged without evidence that Democrats are cheating in California’s primaries and claimed in a late-night social media post that the US attorney’s office in Los Angeles was investigating.

As counting continues in the most populous state in the US, the president’s unfounded remarks are likely to further alarm election observers, who have warned of the risk of escalating misinformation in the absence of a final result.

Trump has a history of undermining election results that don’t go in his favor. He has repeatedly alleged that Democrats “stole” the 2020 presidential election, which he lost to Joe Biden, despite privately admitting his defeat, according to aides.

At 12.48am on Thursday, Trump posted: “The Dumocrats are at it again! They are trying to STEAL THE GOVERNOR OF CALIFORNIA PRIMARY, AND THE MAYOR OF LOS ANGELES, PRIMARY, AWAY FROM TWO GREAT REPUBLICAN CANDIDATES. Here we go with the very late and massive numbers of MAIL IN BALLOTS.”

Advertisement

“There’s BIG cheating by the Dumocrats in California,” he said 17 minutes later in another post on his Truth Social platform. “Votes are all tied up. May not be in for weeks. Under investigation by the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Los Angeles. Why the vote counting DELAY??? President DJT”.

The US attorney’s office said it had no comment on Trump’s claim that his allegations of cheating are “under investigation” by US attorneys. The Department of Justice in Washington DC did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The president presented no substantive basis for questioning the legitimacy of the election.

Mail-in ballots factor heavily in California political races – typically about 80% of votes cast – and those ballots can be counted up to a week after election day, as long as they are postmarked before election day.

California uses a “jungle” primary process, in which the two candidates with the most votes advance to a runoff – regardless of their political party – unless one candidate wins an outright majority. A huge field of 61 candidates fragmented the vote in the race for governor, but Republicans have coalesced around Steve Hilton. Together with Xavier Becerra and Tom Steyer, the three are in a contest that remains too close to call as votes are tallied.

Advertisement

Mail-in ballots tend to favor Democrats, which implies the possibility that Hilton – whom Trump has endorsed – may drop into third place by the time all the ballots are counted.

The last Republican to win the California gubernatorial race was Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2006. Republicans have polled just under 40% in each of the last four contests.

Last month Gavin Newsom sent a letter to elections officials to thank them for their work while warning that a long process invites disingenuous accusations of misconduct.

“We must acknowledge that the longer the vote count takes, the more mis- and dis-information spreads,” wrote the California governor. “That means we must do all that we can to tabulate votes quickly and accurately. Time is of the essence in preventing election lies from taking root.”

On Wednesday evening, election observers echoed those concerns. “Conducting elections with integrity and ensuring that every eligible vote is counted are fundamental to maintaining public confidence in our democracy,” said Mike DuHaime of the Democracy Defense Project, a bipartisan effort to combat election misinformation.

Advertisement

“At the same time, prolonged delays in ballot tabulation, such as those that have become increasingly common in California, can undermine public trust and create unnecessary uncertainty around election outcomes,” DuHaime added. “The longer election results remain unresolved, the greater the opportunity for misinformation and speculation to spread online, eroding confidence in our electoral process. Accuracy must always remain the highest priority, but accuracy and timeliness are not mutually exclusive.”



Source link

Continue Reading

California

California man charged with bringing explosives to Sacramento airport after repeatedly calling FBI tip line | CNN

Published

on

California man charged with bringing explosives to Sacramento airport after repeatedly calling FBI tip line | CNN


A California man was charged Tuesday after authorities say he brought an explosive device and other weapons through a security checkpoint at Sacramento International Airport.

Kimani Osayande Jones, who also uses the last name Jackson, attempted to bring an improvised explosive device, a knife and other bladed weapons, a torch lighter and zip ties through a TSA security checkpoint on May 30, according to court documents filed Tuesday in the Eastern District of California.

Officials believe Jones, 49, repeatedly called the FBI tip line to report he was being threatened and intimidated in the months leading up to the incident.

Sacramento County Sheriff’s Office bomb technicians safely removed the explosive device and tested its powder and fuse, both of which were determined to be “viable and energetic,” officials say.

Advertisement

Investigators said the device had the potential to damage an aircraft and cause a loss of cabin pressure.

Jones’ other luggage, which had already been through security and loaded onto an American Airlines flight to Charlotte, North Carolina, was hand-searched and examined by a canine unit upon arrival, and investigators said nothing “illegal or concerning” was found.

Jones has been charged in federal court with unlawful possession of explosive material at an airport. He faces up to five years in prison and a $250,000 fine if convicted.

His attorney, Meghan McLoughlin, told CNN in a statement: “There is often more to these cases than the government’s allegations, and that the criminal process will reveal Mr. Jones’ story as well.”

Multiple cell phones and repeated FBI tip line calls

The Sacramento resident went through security on May 30 wearing a face covering and blue latex gloves, court documents say.

Advertisement

When officers found the explosive device and other items in Jones’ carry-on bag, he told them he was unaware the items were in his possession and said “he would be okay with just discarding them.” When authorities informed him that explosive material could not simply be thrown away, he denied ownership of the backpack.

Jones also had five mobile phones in his possession. The cameras on each phone had been covered with painter’s tape, which authorities believe was intended to prevent his surroundings from being recorded.

One phone contained a 15-minute timer ready to start and another had a message from an unknown number on the screen stating, “we will be awaiting your call,” according to court documents.

An individual police believe to be Jones made approximately 13 calls to the FBI tip line leading up to the incident, beginning in March.

On May 24, the caller reported being followed to and from a doctor’s appointment and described what he said were threats and intimidation by another individual.

Advertisement

He said he was “being coerced in sleep to say certain phrases through digital media” and described “hearing sounds coming through walls, window panes, or even outside, attributing the outside sounds to drones,” court documents say. The call was ultimately terminated because of its “nonsensical nature.”

On the day of the incident, the same caller again contacted the FBI tip line, alleging that several individuals were threatening him throughout the past year through “cyber means.” He also referenced exercising his Second Amendment rights while denying any intention to harm others.

The Sacramento County Sheriff’s Office also noted it had prior contact with Jones, “wherein he had a history of being paranoid.”



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

California

California may take weeks to finalize primary results. ‘This is normal’

Published

on

California may take weeks to finalize primary results. ‘This is normal’


play

Although results from California’s primary election began rolling in on Tuesday, June 2, it could take days or even weeks before the final counts are certified. 

“This is normal … We have a process that by law ensures both voting rights and the integrity of elections, so I would call on all Californians to be patient,” Secretary of State Shirley N. Weber said in a June 2 news release.

Advertisement

The Golden State’s lengthy vote-counting process has “become a national narrative about California elections,” according to Thad Kousser, a professor of political science at the University of California, San Diego.

“In California, it takes a long time to certify votes, to verify the signatures, to then count the ballots; all of that process takes a while,” Kousser said in an interview last week. “It may take a while for us to learn who the top candidates who emerge are.”

Here are some factors behind California’s lengthy vote-counting process. 

Mail-in ballots come with added verification step 

With each mail-in ballot cast, elections officials must compare the signature on a returned vote-by-mail envelope to the voter’s signature on their voter registration card. Various factors go into determining whether the signatures match, including the slant of the signature, whether it is printed or written in cursive, and the size, proportions, or scale. 

Vote-by-mail ballots were Californians’ preferred voting method in both the 2024 primary and general elections, with drop-off locations — such as ballot drop boxes and voting centers — the most popular way to return mail-in ballots. 

Advertisement

During California’s 2024 primary, more than 7.7 million votes were cast statewide, and 90 percent of those were mail-in ballots. This means election officials had to verify the signatures on more than 6.8 million ballots before they could be counted. For the November 2024 general election, 80% of cast ballots, or about 13 million, were vote-by-mail. 

Reviewing conditional voter and provisional ballots 

California also allows for same-day voter registration, also known as conditional voter registration. Voters who need to register, or re-register, within 14 days of an election can do so at their county elections office, polling place, or vote center. These ballots will be processed and counted after the county elections office has completed the voter registration process. 

In addition to conditional voter ballots, there are provisional ballots that must be verified before they are counted. Voters cast provisional ballots for a wide array of reasons, including if their name does not appear at a polling place or if they’ve made a mistake on their ballot. After a voter casts a provisional ballot, it will not be counted until election officials have confirmed that the voter is registered to vote in that county and has not already voted in that election. 

Vote-by-mail ballots can be sent on Election Day 

Though state officials recommend voters mail their ballots sooner rather than later, state law allows vote-by-mail ballots postmarked by Election Day to be counted if they arrive within a specified window afterward, thereby extending the tallying process. 

Advertisement

For the primary, ballots needed to be postmarked on or before June 2 and received by county elections office no later than June 10.  

California is, well, big 

California is the most populous state in the nation. And, as of May 18, a record total of 23,155,447 Californians were registered to vote. 

While not all registered voters are expected to have voted, county election officials estimate that more than 5 million ballots were cast statewide. 

When to expect final results 

Under state law, county elections officials are required to report the results for most ballots by June 15, or 13 days after the election, according to Weber. However, some ballots can take counties up to 30 days to count every ballot and then conduct a post-election audit. 

State law requires county elections officials to report final official results to state officials July 3. State officials then have until July 10 to certify the results of the election.

Advertisement



Source link

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending