Keep up with UCAN.org by following us on Twitter!
Thanks for visiting UCAN.org! Please remember our services are available because of grassroots donations from people like you. Please help us continue our work with a donation of any amount. Click here to visit our secure donation page.
California has a new energy efficiency standard. The California Energy Commission voted 5-0 to approve efficiency regulations for TVs up to 58 inches.
These new standards will take effect January 1, 2011.
The new standards will only affect TVs sold in the state. Consumers will not have to buy new TVs to meet the standards.
These new regulations may make it more difficult to buy Plasma TVs in the near future as they use significantly more energy than LCD screens.
According to an LA Times article television manufacturers do not predict they will have any difficult supplying TVs that meet the standard.
Questions remain as to whether these new standards will increase the average cost of television set or have any effect on set quality or size.
California sets Energy Efficiency Standards for TVs
California has a new energy efficiency standard. The California Energy Commission voted 5-0 to approve efficiency regulations for TVs up to 58 inches.
These new standards will take effect January 1, 2011.
The standard will only affect TVs sold in the state. Consumers will not have to buy new TVs to meet the standards.
These new regulations may make it more difficult to buy Plasma TVs in the near future as they use significantly more energy than LCD screens.
According to an LA Times article television manufacturers do not predict they will have any difficult supplying TVs that meet the standard.
Questions remain as to whether these new standards will increase the average cost of television set or have any effect on set quality or size.
A little known credit check that telecom and utility companies do among themselves may have a significant impact on your ability to receive services and whether or not a deposit will be required. The National Consumer Telecom & Utilities Exchange (NCTUE) is a member-owned database managed by Equifax. According to the NCTUE website, the database exchanges information on new connects and defaulted and/or fraudulent accounts among members. It also gives the companies access to consumers' current contact information on defaulted consumers, and provides treatment and collection strategies for alleged unpaid bills.
The twist here is that not only have you never heard of this company, but according to the latest issue of Privacy Times, NCTUE may be running afoul of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
According to the Privacy Times, it appears that some of the companies using the database may not be providing notices to consumers when the companies take an adverse action against a consumer based upon the information in the NCTUE database.
Neither Equifax nor NCTUE specifically responded to the Privacy Times inquiry as to whether it believed NCTUE was subject to the Fair Credit Reporting Act or whether consumers have access to the information in their files and the ability to dispute and have corrected inaccurate or incorrect information.
What seems clear though is that the NCTUE should be subject to the Fair Credit Reporting Act because it appears to be providing a consumer report within the statutory definition.
UCAN, therefore wants to know about your experiences.
Have you ever been denied service or charged a deposit based on your NCTUE file?
Has a telecom or utility ever sent you a notice that adverse action has been taken based upon your file in this database?
Have you ever requested to see your file from NCTUE or Equifax and did they give you access?
Having an accurate credit profile is a necessity today and any database that affects your ability to receive essential services such water, gas, electricity, and phone should be available to you.
The Privacy TImes is edited by Evan Hendricks. The referenced article "Is Little Known Database Subject to FCRA? Equifax, NCTUE won't say," is available in Vol. 29 No. 19 October 23, 2009 of the Privacy Times.
Miracles don't happen often enough in our world. But when I decided to start growing my own fish and food in his garage, then you know that there's some divine intervention because I don't fish and I've got a brown thumb that makes all leafy things tremble. So how did I become Farmer Michael? One word: AQUAPONICS.
I became intrigued with aquaponic home farming when I realized that he might be able to cut my water consumption by up to 90% and could harness the excess power generated by my photovoltaic array that is pumping out over 100kwhrs each month MORE than I use. OK, and I realized I could make some money, to boot. I've never denied being opportunistic when it comes to making money rather thanspending it.
Aquaponics is an old concept but it is using some mid-level technology in pumps and timers. The cool thing about aquaponics is that it recreates a natural biosystem without the need for any added
fertilizers, chemicals, or pesticides. And some experts have estimated that they require only 10% of the water normally needed for regular farming. Michael is carefully measuring his usage so that he can
verify aquaponic advocates' claims.
As in nature, the plants and fish sort of scratch each others' backs. The scientific term is "symbiotic". In short, the plants keep the water clean and, in turn, the fish feed the plants. Well, sort of. Actually, the waste from the fish tanks is treated with natural bacteria that converts the waste, largely ammonia, into nitrates that are used as essential nutrients by the plants. In turn, the plant roots serve to filter out this waste, so that the fish poop doesn't despoil the fish tanks. Everything stays clean and well fed.
The only regular farming activity needed is feeding the fish and that's handled by an automatic fish feeder that feeds them twice daily. Only a small amount of water is needed periodically to replace water that gets evaporated over time. And because I built the system in my garage, there is even less evaporation and no pesticides required because catapillars, worms, meal bugs and other creepy crawlies don't like my garage.
The entire system is powered by the electricity generated by my photovoltaic system. So the sunlight powers the pumps and lights that grow the plants and keep the closed system water circulating. And if that isn't cool enough, I can contract with companies who will buy the fish and vegetables that he grows, pay him for whatever he doesn't use personally, and then sell it as organic, locally-produced product. No trucks importing the food from other states. No oil-based fertilizers or pesticides. The only non-solar energy required is the effort to harvest the fish and plants. (which he's not all that happy about, but is sated by the money he'll be making).
While it sounds complicated, it really wasn't. I contracted with Grow Foods, a local installer of aquaponics systems. None of the equipment is patented so anyone can do it. For about $2000, they shipped and assembled the system.
They also provided the tilapia and shrimp that will grow in the tanks. As for the plants, I chose to grow assorted lettuces, basil, tomatoes, peppers and french green beans. The high-nitrogen fertilizer generated through fish waste promotes especially lush foliage. And the special full-spectrum grow lights give all of the light that the plants need to thrive, while giving bugs nothing to live upon.
Aside from plants and fish, the other major component of aquaponics is the water itself. That said, carefully monitoring the water's pH, which determines acidity, is of the upmost importance to ensure safe levels for the fish. Water quality testing equipment is very important to ensure that both fish and plants remain healthy. Michael also has to keep an eye on dissolved oxygen, carbon dioxide, ammonia, nitrate, nitrite and chlorine. Within the first two weeks, the beneficial bacteria stabilize and little additional maintenance is needed thereafter.
The progress and details of my new aquaponic miracle garden will be charted and provided. Click here for a more detailed description of the experiment. And, if you like video, Click here for a three minute video about the installation.
In the meantime, here's lot of information about this installation that might help you decide whether and how to create your own aquaponics miracle.
Vendor: John Choisser
Grow Foods, Inc.
17005 Castello Circle
San Diego, CA 92127
jchoisser@growfoodsinc.com
www.growfoodsinc.com
858-414-1007
To see the specs for my project, click on the 4 X 4 specs attachment below.
To see the owners manual (8-pages), click on the 4 X 4 manual attachment below.
If you've got an outdoor pool that is just too expensive to maintain and you are thinking of getting rid of it, THINK AGAIN. It could turn out to be the perfect aquaponics site. Just fill with fish and place growing pans over it for the plants. Your old pool can become a serious money-maker!
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
| 4 x 4 Specs.doc | 293.5 KB |
| 4x4 Manual.doc | 318.5 KB |
In what is perhaps the most exciting energy development of 2009, UCSD is coordinating a multi-agency effort to develop substitutes for gasoline, diesel and ethanol at a cost of as little as $2 a gallon. In fact, this research is so powerful - so exciting - and so deserving of your support that I'm reluctant to write another word about this. JUST GO THERE NOW. In terms of national security, global wealth, and historical importance, this urgent research may be the most important scientific effort since the Manhattan Project ... and it all revolves around using San Diego's sunshine and abundantly available brackish water supplies to grow algae -- one of the most basic life forms on the planet. Best of all, Algae is literally a "green" fuel that does far less damage to the environment than hydrocarbons derived from oil or coal.
If you are concerned about breaking America's growing dependency on environmentally toxic imported oil from countries that loathe us, then VISIT SD-CAB, the San Diego Center for Algae Biotechnology, NOW.
The CPUC determined that regulatory violations involving SDGE's power lines caused the most destructive of last year's devastating San Diego County fires. The Witch Creek fire combined with the Guejito fire and killed two people, burned almost 200,000 acres, and destroyed 1,141 homes. The Rice Canyon fire burned almost 9,500 acres and destroyed more than 200 houses.
Rather than address the real problems that caused the 2007 wildfires, SDG&E has asked the CPUC to approve, through an informal process, blanket authority to cut off power to backcountry ratepayers when SDG&E determines dangerous dry and windy conditions exist.
Affected schools, water districts and other ratepayers sternly objected at the CPUC's October 14 hearing inviting public comment on the 2007 San Diego fires.
The proposal raises major logistical issues. Without power the schools have to contact parents and send children home. Water districts and private wells need power to pump water that firefighters can use to fight wildfires. Medical baseline customers cannot be without for extended periods without endangering their health.
Michael Shames, UCAN's Executive Director, in a protest letter to the CPUC, opposes immediate implementation of SDGE's controversial plan because the "proposal raises some very complex and important policy issues" better suited to formal review by the CPUC.
UCAN's protest letter raises several issues ripe for CPUC review including:
The CPUC welcomes public comments at sd2007fires@cpuc.ca.gov
Related links
UCAN's protest letter to the CPUC
SDG&E blamed for wildfires in legal action
SDG&E faces rising tide of lawsuits over '07 fires
Fire plan by SDG&E criticized at hearing
REGION: Water districts protest SDG&E plan
SDG&E misreading rule, water districts say
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
| AL2025protest.doc | 439.5 KB |
As part of the massive financial bailout, Congress extended and enhanced the solar tax credit, set to expire this year, through 2016.
Currently, homeowners can take a 30% tax credit, capped at $2,000. On January 1, 2009, the cap goes away and the tax credit remains at 30%. Plus, the credit will extend to commercial installations, so utilities like SDG&E will have more incentive to build solar generation facilities.
Related articles
Massive solar credit OK'd with bailout
Renewed green tax credits lift Silicon Valley
Up on the rooftop: Brightening prospects for solar technology
Solar tax credits boost SunPower
It was beyond outrageous when Southern California Edison's managment and employees provided rigged customer satisfaction survey data to the PUC in a scheme designed to swindle millions of dollars in Performance Based Ratemaking (PBR) customer satisfaction rewards from 1997-2003.
Edison admitted the scam after being turned in to the PUC by a whistleblower.
On September 18, 2008, the PUC penalized Edison $146 million for its outrageous conduct.
Read the following articles from the Los Angeles Times and The Mercury News for more details on Edison's scam.
How to Look Good: Survey Yourself March 16, 2004
Edison Scam Was Broader Than Disclosed May 24, 2004
Edison Says 36 Involved in Fraud June 26, 2004
Edison is hit hard for fraud on survey October 2, 2007
State regulators penalize SoCal Edison $146M September 18, 2008
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
| CPUC PENALIZES EDISON $146 MILLION FOR FALSIFYING DATA.pdf | 44.89 KB |
If you have been following the Bob Kittle editorial controversy on our Web site, you know that Mr. Kittle has made numerous factually deficient statements about UCAN's efforts to fight the construction of the Sunrise Powerlink. Mr. Kittle has attacked UCAN as a "lucrative rip-off" in a recent editorial, while gushing with support for the Sunrise Transmission Project.
Now, a former colleague of Kittle's, Don Bauder, who edited the Union-Tribune's business section for nearly 30 years has exposed Kittle as a "pathetically fatuous" toady for San Diego's power "overlords."
If you are a Union-Tribune subscriber, a UCAN member, or if you are concerned about the negative financial and environmental effects of the Sunrise PowerLink, you must read this article published July 31 in the San Diego Reader.
Fortunately, on August 12, 2009, the Voice of San Diego reported
that Mr. Kittle was laid off by the same Union-Tribune. So it is
sorely hoped that he will not resurface again in any journalistic
enterprise and befoul the profession with his vendetta-journalism.
Here are just a few of the highlights:
"The campaign to ballyhoo the proposed Sunrise Powerlink has one beneficial effect: it is shining light on how San Diego’s overlords try to use misinformation to manipulate public opinion ..."
"... One of the groups battling Sunrise is Utility Consumers’ Action Network (UCAN), a 30,000-member organization that has fought every SDG&E rate-increase attempt since 1984, with many great successes. On Monday, July 14, the Union-Tribune wrote an editorial titled “Lucrative rip-off: SDG&E bills include interest-group costs.” The editorial was inaccurate and pathetically fatuous. The second sentence read, “But what few San Diego Gas & Electric customers know is that their monthly bills are higher because UCAN’s small staff has collected nearly $2 million from SDG&E ratepayers for intervening before the California Public Utilities Commission in opposition to SDG&E projects from 1989 to 2006 ... Think about that nonsense." ...
... The U-T’s editorial did not mention, of course, that on January 26, 2002, another editorial that appeared in the U-T lauded Shames as a “consumers’ hero.” UCAN had challenged a deal cooked up in a back room by Sempra and former governor Gray Davis. UCAN won and saved the ratepayers $363 million, later reduced to $197 million. Said the editorial about UCAN, “Good work, guys.” If the U-T’s statement that UCAN has cost ratepayers $2 million over 17 years were accurate — and it is not accurate — even the U-T might understand that $197 million is a very good return on a $2 million investment. It’s even better on the actual investment: zero.
The July 14 editorial was written by Bob Kittle, the U-T’s editorial page editor. Kittle got information for his piece from SDG&E, says Shames, quoting a phone conversation he had with Kittle.
In an email, I asked Kittle about that. He shot back, “In fact, I received no information from SDG&E.” He explained that the information provided to him was given by Sempra, SDG&E’s parent. Hmmm. This isn’t even hairsplitting. It’s rank deception. ..."
We couldn't have said it better. Again, we urge you to read Don Bauder's Spinrise.
Related articles:
Bob Kittle's hit piece targeting UCAN as a "lucrative rip-off."
Bob Kittle's opinion, lauding UCAN as a "Consumers' Hero" (Mr. Kittle denies running this opinion).
UCAN's rebuttal to Robert A. Kittle's attack. (Mr. Kittle has refused to publish this document).
Bob Kittle's refusal to print UCAN's rebuttal.
Law Professor Robert Fellmeth's letter to the Union, asserting that Kittle's editorial was flawed by "material omissions."
Factual misstatements made by Bob Kittle on KPBS Radio's Editor's Roundtable.
The Facts About the San Diego Union Tribune's Anonymous Editorial about UCAN and SDG&E.
Not so long ago, the Union Tribune declared Michael Shames to be a "Consumers' Hero" after he saved SDG&E customers $363 million. Now, they're making him out to be a goat!
Shouldn't the Union Tribune check its own facts before it publishes an opinion?
Today, the San Diego Union Tribune published an anonymous hit piece on its opinion page calling UCAN, the Utility Consumers' Action Network a "Lucrative rip-off" that has "collected nearly $2 million from SDG&E ratepayers." It asserts that this $2 million "rip-off" has taken place from 1989 to 2006.
There is only one problem with this article. It just isn't true.
The "facts" that are presented are completely distorted. This is a piece of work that was not written by a professional journalist, rather it appears to have been dictated by SDG&E's public relations department to an obedient secretary who didn't bother to check check the facts. And in the process, it has betrayed the interest of it readers in favor of one of its biggest advertisers.
Most of you probably won't be shocked by that revelation, but for those of you who are we would like to make our case:
1) UCAN has not taken $2 million from ratepayers since 1989.
As the Union has routinely noted elsewhere, we have saved ratepayers hundreds of millions - perhaps even billions of dollars - in rate demands from SDG&E and other utilities. Yes, UCAN has filed for reimbursement of legal costs. In fact, those costs probably exceed the $2 million cited in the article. But all of these costs were in battles with SDG&E that without question reduced electric rates. The author conveniently forgets that UCAN's fees have resulted in lower electric bills for you.
2) As a not-for-profit UCAN has is reimbursed for legal expenses.
When CPUC, the California Public Utilities Commission evaluates a rate request from SDG&E, it allows the public to participate in the evaluation of the rate increases. Groups and individuals who object to a rate proposal are called Intervenors. When we fight a rate hike in regulatory court, we appear as YOUR advocates. We are your intervenors and YOUR voice before the Public Utilities Commission. We are beholden to no political or business idealogy. We represent YOU the ratepayer. After a rate increase is evaluated, the court determines which of the participants are eligible for intervenor compensation. This means that only a portion of our considerable legal expenses are actually reimbursed. Sometimes our expenses are in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. These expenses are dwarfed by the legal firepower of the companies we fight.
3) The article suggests that UCAN is a redundant waste of money.
Do you trust the former president of Edison Electric to fight on your behalf for lower electric rates? The Union Tribune says you should. Its opinion states that the PUC's internalrate review process is more than enough. What the Union fails to mention is that the current head of the Commission is Michael Peevey, the former president of Edison International and
Southern California Edison (see biography). Mr. Peevey has a history of anti-consumer activities that spans decades.
4) The anonymous author suggests that Michael Shames' salary is too high.
The Union Tribune has asserted that UCAN's Executive Director has made as much as
$106,766 in a year, at a rate of $35 an hour. This sounds expensive, but the grim reality is that this is a working-stiff wage for an
attorney with more than 25 years of litigation experience. Many law school graduates make (and bill) more than this when they
first join a law firm. By way of example, one of UCAN's former attorneys was
hired in 1999 by a large San Francisco law firm. This young man was 28
years old. In negotiations with his new employer, our young attorney
said "I refuse to work for less than $75,000 a year!" The man who was
interviewing him replied "Sir, we don't pay less than $125,000 a year."
They hired him immediately. They knew a bargain when they saw one.
5) The opinion fails to mention a serious conflict of interest.
The Union fails to mention that it fully supports the construction of SDG&E's unnecessary $1.3 billion disaster, the so-called "Sunrise Powerlink." On February 27, the Union published "Yes to the Powerlink," an ill informed opinion that clearly ignored UCAN's reports which show that the PowerLink is a wasteful, unnecessary money-loser. It also fails to mention that SDG&E is a significant and frequent advertiser in its pages.
6) What you need to know about newspaper publishers and news media in general.
It should be noted that if you subscribe to the Union Tribune, you are not the customer, even though you are a paying subscriber. The real
customers of the Union Tribune are its advertisers. YOU are the product
that is being delivered to the newpaper's advertisers. In this case, the Union's
realcustomers (which include SDG&E) want subscribers and voters who
think poorly of UCAN.
7) $2 million vs $1.5 billion - YOU do the math.
On the one hand, the Union portrays UCAN as villanious mustache-twirling bad guys, ripping consumers off to the tune of $2 million since 1989. Then on the other hand, it touts the $1.5 BILLION dollar Sunrise Powerlink as the solution to all of our energy woes despite tens of thousands of pages of legal testimony proving that it is a disastrous money loser. Suddenly, $2 million in legal fees since 1989 (that's about $117,000 a year) doesn't seem quite so bad now, does it?
onsumer protection agency. Unlike the Union Tribune, we do not rely on advertisers to fund our activities or to dictate our content.
The facts are that UCAN's small staff regularly takes on some of the biggest Fortune 500 companies in legal actions and wins. These wins cost money. And given UCAN's accomplishments over the years, that money has been a bargain for ratepayers.
The mantle of anonymity is easy to assume under three conditions: A) If you are cowardly, B) If what you write is so blatantly WRONG that your opinion is an embarrasment to your profession of journalism, and C) That what you write is hypocritical.
In this case, the Union Tribune is guilty of all three sins.
My name is Charles Langley. I wrote this article.
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
| Union_Tribune_Michael_Shames_scam.pdf | 118.99 KB |
| Union_Tribune_Michael_Shames_UCAN_scam.png | 604.16 KB |
SDG&E's lust for removing trees is pornographic.
Guest Commentary by Jeanne Gahagan.
(Jeanne Gahagan is a San Diego resident and SDG&E victim)
SDGE is addicted to the promiscuous wanton destruction of palm trees that pose no interference whatsoever with overhead power lines - or anything else for that matter - other than perhaps a corporate syndrome of male inadequacy.
Men suffering from such a psychosis may consume Viagra and then find a complicit sex worker to draw off some of their accretions. SD&GE wields its corporate penis by threatening property owners with lawsuits if they complain about SDGE whacking off (trees) for no discernable reason other than SDGE, like a 13 year old pubescent teen in the privacy of his room, can do it with impunity.
At the risk of frustrating the reader with an early withdrawal from the tease of sex, this is about corporate environmental malfeasance. SDGE owns easements along sidwalks in Mission Hills that allow it to remove things, such as trees, that interfere with
power lines. SDGE apparently believes that their easement also allows them to remove trees that are remote from the nearest power line and needs no further reason for removal apart from some weird sort of fetish in felling something long, hard, and upright. In fact, SDGE is actively continuing such removal right now. By "remove" I mean "whack off at the base", not "dig up for replanting", something that is easily and frequently done in the case of this particular victim tree, the palm.
Calling the removal of trees with a root system too shallow to annoy gophers and a top too small to stretch to the nearest overhead power line "stupid" is an unneccessary offense against stupidity. It is a waste of effort, resulting in no discernable reduction in
the arboreal risk to SDGE's power lines. It is a waste of money. It is a waste of trees. You know, those big things that soak up
CO2. So where are the global warming obsessives when you need them? In darkened theaters, wearing rubber gloves and drooling over the latest globaloney peep show from Al Gore.
For those truly sick enough to require pictures to get off, I have some. If you have a stump fetish like SDGE, you're going to love
these. Those of us with normal environmental urges, however, will want to puke at these photos.
As a Supreme Court justice once said, pornography cannot be defined, but you know it when you see it. Have a gander at some
corporate porn.
Utility Consumers' Action Network
Terms & Conditions
UCAN.org is made available by the Utility Consumers' Action Network to assist you in becoming what you always knew you could be, a consumer ROCK STAR! We take no corporate money, and are beholden only to you, the consumer. As such, the site is here for educational, advocacy, and empowerment purposes, as well to to give you general information and a general understanding of the law. Just remember this site is NOT here to provide specific legal advice. By using this web site you of course understand that there is no attorney client relationship between you and the Web Site publisher, UCAN. The Web Site should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a licensed professional attorney in your state.
That said, get to digging on the site, inform yourself, speak your mind, and earn Watchdog Bones! This is YOUR site, and we mean it. So comment on any of the content, discuss the latest issues in the forums, file a complaint on a company with the fraud squad, and generally cut loose.
See our Privacy Policy and Copyright Policy, Some Rights Reserved
UCAN's affiliate New Media Rights is hosting a discussion forum on the future of media and journalism in San Diego. Join in on the discussion now!
How to protect your own blog or website from liability for user generated content
Is Youtube putting advertisements on user videos without permission?
Essential free and open software toolkit for consumers
How to find free music, images, and video you can use or remix in your own creative works
How to Listen to Music on the Internet for Free...Legally
How to make a Podcast... for free
Visit NewMediaRights.org
We are currently looking for blog posts from both attorneys and consumers. If you would like your work published on a site with thousands of daily visits, send a submission to tips@ucan.org.
Get personal assistance with your consumer complaint about a company by using our Online Complaint Forms. Or, call the Fraud Squad Hotline at (619) 696-6966!
Don't buy a cell phone without our Mobile Phone Plan Checker!
Register to get it FREE right now!
What are you packin? Is it anything like UCAN's new and improved Consumer Complaint Directory? If not, you should really pick up a copy. This thing is chock-full of hard-hitting consumer punch.
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Propeller
Reddit
Magnoliacom
Newsvine
Furl
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
Icerocket
Post to Twitter
