Energy Assistance Income Levels Increase
Staring in June, many families may be able to get relief from summer heat above and beyond buying up all the ice cream man's supply. According to an article in the North County Times, the income level for the California Alternative Rates for Energy (CARE) program has increased. Specifically, the maximum income level for a family of four increased $1,200, from $43,200 to $44,400. This relief comes just in time for summer, when many families will need any extra help they can get to battle the horrendous summer heat.
The CARE credit is just one energy assistance program SDG&E customers can use. The Home Energy Assistance Program, or HEAP, provides qualified individuals with financial assistance for their energy bills. If you need emergency financial assistance, the Neighbor to Neighbor program offers a one time financial payment towards an energy bill for qualified individuals.
Want more information about energy assistance programs? Call 211, San Diego's very own services helpline. Staffed by knowledgeable individuals, 211 can give you the information you need on a variety of services. Additionally, the California Public Utilities Commission (PUC) has a great list of low income and assistance programs.
And, as always, if you want to file a complaint against SDG&E or any other big business that has wronged you, give the Fraud Squad at a call at (619) 696-6966.
Post to Twitter
Like what you see? Go ahead and show your support! UCAN is a truly independent non-profit watchdog organization, dependent on grassroots donations like yours!
Utility Consumers' Action Network - (619) 696-6966
Terms and 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 Terms of Use, Privacy, and Copyright complaint policies as well as our Content Reuse Policy, Some Rights Reserved. Remember, if you have any questions about copyright law or need legal information regarding intellectual property, the internet, or new technologies, visit our affiliate New Media Rights at www.newmediarights.org. If you are in the San Diego region, you can also can apply to use New Media Rights' multimedia studio and equipment for free.
No accountability
Award ????
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/jun/01/fire-chiefs-group-honors-sdge-shut-plan/
I do not know if I should laugh or cry, but it is yet another example of the political process in California. Every time accountability is on the line among so called "consumer" stakeholders, the propaganda machine starts spinning.
As a professional with expertise in building up qualitative and quantitative processes to identify, monitor and manage operational risk it is not comforting to know that the utility board or so called regulator have never undertaken a process to do the following;
1. Identify the likelihood and frequency of possible fire storms across operating territory of the utility dependent on weather patterns (short history, medium history). - Probability of loss / occurrence
2. Quantified the potential / possible impact of firestorms on behalf of utility customers and share holders given likely scenarios
3. Evaluated current mitigation alternatives (insurance, fire prevention) to assess cost of insurance / remaining risk if cost to be assumed.
4. Presented CPUC, stakeholders, fire departments a quantification and report to engage in a constructive debate to find a consensus for what should be done and who should bear the cost
5. Make sure that the analysis from above is based on "independent input" to assure transparency to the process.
But, what do I know - politics is everything until another BP event occurs.
Post new comment