On June 14th, the San Diego Union-Tribune published a critical and factually deficient, attack on UCAN and its executive director, Michael Shames, using data supplied by SDG&E.  It was authored by Bob Kittle (Robert Kittle) who is the editor of the editorial page at the Union Tribune.  In his editorial titled "Lucrative Rip-off) he accused UCAN of causing SDG&E rates to be higher because of a state law that compels SDG&E to reimburse UCAN for costs it incurs in fighting SDG&E rate cases.

Of course, the editorial was blatantly wrong.  It didn't address the fact that UCAN's success in reducing SDG&E rate hike requests caused rates to be lower.  Kittle  complains that over a 17-year period, SDG&E paid UCAN some $2 million in reimbursed costs.   Yet, Kittle ignores its own January,2002 editorial extolling Michael Shames a "Consumers' Hero" (see PDF) for returning $363 million in wrongful SDG&E charges to San Diego consumers.   And it ignores the law that prohibits UCAN receiving any compensation from SDG&E if UCAN duplicates the arguments tendered by the PUC staff.

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 his profession. 

Below is Michael Shames' response.  Michael shows how Kittle tried to pressure him into answering questions in an unreasonably short time-frame and wasn't interested in gathering the facts necessary to offer an informed opinion on the topic of intervenor compensation or of UCAN's performance.   

As to the "Lucrative Ripoff" editorial written by Bob Kittle, I believe
the Union-Tribune's readers should know the "behind-the-scenes" story
behind his July 14th editorial.

Mr. Kittle admitted to me that SDG&E supplied most, if not all, of the
numbers upon which he relied. He called me last Thursday afternoon asking
me to verify SDG&E's numbers that same afternoon. I explained that I was
out of the office that day but would be happy to sit down with him after the
weekend and share with him all of the numbers that he sought from me as
well as a tally of the hundreds of millions of dollars in rate savings to SDG&E
customers for which UCAN has been responsible for since it began its work
in 1985.

Mr. Kittle insisted he had a deadline and that he needed the information
no later than Friday morning. After I explained that this compressed
schedule wasn't possible, he spewed the yellow journalism phrase that so
demeans his profession: "So, you are saying that you refuse to answer
my questions?" He then hung up on me.

Mr. Kittle's fervor to write an editorial hit piece is not surprising.
He has long been disdainful of UCAN's efforts to counter SDG&E. Had he
met with me this week, as I proposed, he would have had to acknowledge
that UCAN's one attorney and one expert witness essentially took apart
SDG&E's Sunrise economic case that was defended by the utility's five
attorneys and untold numbers of "expert" witnesses. And he would have
had to admit that my $350 per hour rate for legal work is about half of
what SDG&E's outside counsel charges the utility (and SDG&E customers)
for their work in the case. He would have suffered through the litany
of cases since 1985 in which UCAN has saved San Diego consumers hundreds
of millions of dollars. Finally, he would have learned about how the
Division of Ratepayer Advocates most always welcomes UCAN's intervention
because it doesn't have the staffing and budget to effectively address
every utility application, notwithstanding its $24 million annual
budget.

Understandably, Mr. Kittle didn't want to hear any of these facts. He
made it clear that it'd have been a waste of my time to gather this
information for him because he was determined to ignore it. Thus, I
wasn't even offered the decency to present those facts before he spewed
his invective. U-T readers should know that when they read an
editorial that it could be as baseless and vindictive as the one
published about UCAN this week. When fully informed, U-T readers can
determine which is truly the "lucrative rip-off" - an ill-informed,
personal attack by a rude editor or the work by diligent public interest
advocates on behalf of the San Diego consumers. Caveat reader.