One time when I went to deliver my check in person, I was shocked to find that an organization that does so much had so few people. The office was as opposite of being fancy that an office could be. Everyone seemed to be in one cramped room working hard to help people. Just so you know, there were only 2 people answering everyone's complaints.

Mike,

instead of telling everyone to get a stuffy, self-important attitude like you, or "class" as you call it, why don't you get a sense of humor?

you write that the issue is, "the people being crossed can't fire back or post stupid antics on their websites." no, you are right. instead, they work for a company with a PR department that has literally spent tens of millions of dollars pushing its point of view all over the TV and radio airwaves as well as sponsoring countless events, contributing to political campaigns and business associations, and trying to influence public opinion and political decision makers in any way possible. additionally, sdge has spewed forth an immeasurable amount of bs and misinformation. you accuse ucan of "stupid antics." but stupid and false aren't the same thing. can you even dispute anything they have written on a factual basis? without name calling?

last, you ask mr. shames to be "professional." but what does professional mean to you? does it mean giving sdge whatever they ask for, and not criticizing any of their employees because they are just regular working joes? and how is funding relevant to your argument. if ucan is funded by the utilities, does that mean they shouldn't criticize them? but isn't that ucan's role in the regulated monopoly system, to watchdog the utilities? also, if you ask who funds ucan, i ask who funds the utilities? obviously it's the ratepayers. don't you think the ratepayers deserve better answers than what sdge has given at the hearings?

Bike

After watching multiple days of testimony it appears that many of the participants do not know or are not very knowledgeable of the testimony that either they prepared or was prepared for them. Even the opposing attorneys were ill prepared and asked several stupid questions. For instance, one attorney asked the president of SDG&E what books she has read. What a waste of time!!! Then a Navy attorney asked about the tree trimming budget.

Then UCAN tries to intimidate or mock fun of people that have busted their butts to learn about the power industry. I would be ashamed if I posted their faces on my website, just to make fun of them. Come on UCAN have some class or CANU???? In the case of Caroline Winn, I bet many times consutants write reports for people and the report produced is not consistant with the truth. Or maybe she didn't completely agree with the report. I have seen it done even in our own industry. Several times I bet UCAN gets reports that they don't agree with. The issue is the people being crossed can't fire back or post stupid antics on their websites.

Michael Shames, don't make us ashamed of you. Please be professional. After all, isn't the utilities funding your organization anyway?

Mike