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 amountClick here to visit our secure donation page.

Protest by UCAN to SDG&E Advice Letter Concerning Franchise Fees

Date of Filing/Decision

Jun 3 2002
Filed Under

June 3, 2002 

Energy Division – IMC Branch Public Utilities Commission

505 Van Ness Ave.   4th Floor

San Francisco, CA  94102

 

RE:       Protest to SDG&E Advice Letter 1407/1313-G  Increase to SDG&E Franchise Fee Differentials

 

Dear Energy Division.

 

UCAN submits this protest to the above-cited advice letter on the following grounds: 

  1. It results in ratepayer cross subsidies for telecommunications corporations in violation of D. 89-05-002;
  2. It does not properly ensure that the monies will be spent for the purposes described; and
  3. It is inconsistent with Commission policy established in D. 01-12-009.
  4. SDG&E’s filing is imcomplete and does not comport with D. 8905-002 guidelines. 

UCAN urges the Commission to reject the Advice Letter filing and to require SDG&E to file an application with the Commission that addresses the issues raised by UCAN and any other protesting party.    In the alternative,  the Commission should reject the Advice Letter and instruct the City of San Diego to implement a local utility users’ tax instead of using a franchise fee artifice. 

Commission Jurisdiction over Franchise Fee Levels 

            The Commission has established limited jurisdiction over the franchise fee levels charged by municipalities.    In D. 89-05-063  the Commission determined that municipalities had sought to circumvent property tax restrictions by imposing taxes that had a direct bearing upon utility ratepayer customers.   (32 PUC2d 60,69)    Importantly, while the Commission does not assert pre-emptive power over a municipalities right to negotiate franchise fees with a utility, it has preserved the jurisdiction to control the extent to which those fees are passed on to customers is reasonable, just and non-discriminatory.    (PU Code Section 451)    It is this concern that prompted the Commission to require utilities to file advice letters where a local governmental entity imposes or increases a local tax which “rises to a total level significantly exceeding the average level of the total of those imposed by the other local government entities within the local service area”.  (32 CPUC2d 70) 

            UCAN asserts that the specific franchise fee increase sought by this advice letter violates PU Code Section 451 for the reasons that will be discussed below.   As the Commission notes in D. 89-05-063,  franchise fees fall into the category of city charges that creates subsidies and inequities.  (32 CPUC2d 70).[1] 

Creates Ratepayer Subsidies for Telecommunications Companies            

          The franchise fee increase to cover costs “exclusively for expenses directly related to electric undergrounding” is misleading, as it also includes costs incurred by telecommunications companies.   Shortly after the City of San Diego conditionally approved the Electric Franchise Amendment,  the City entered into an agreement with Cox Cable and Time Warner Cable  (See Attachment “A”).    This agreement obligated the City to “pay for some costs associated with the proposed increase to the Undergrounding Utility Conversion Program”.   

           This agreement between the City and the telecommunications companies falls afoul of the exact abuse about which the Commission was concerned about.   In D. 89-05-063,  the Commission articulated fears of cross-subsidies and the right of ratepayers to know about costs passed on to them via utility bills.   The March 13, 2002 City Managers’ report details how fees to be secured from electric ratepayers will be used to defray costs to convert cable wires to underground,  thus confirming the Commission’s concerns.   The City of San Diego must invalidate these Cable agreements in order to secure a franchise fee agreement approval from the Commission.

The Stated Purpose of the Franchise Fees is Not Accurate 

            The advice letter states that the increased franchise fees will largely be applied to increased undergrounding costs.   UCAN has reviewed the Electric Franchise Amendment submitted as an attachment to the advice letter.   There is no showing by SDG&E how the monies collected as “franchise fees” and given to the City will be exclusively dedicated to the purpose of undergrounding projects.  

            Specifically, the monies collected are to be paid to the City’s General Fund.   This fund is an unrestricted fund for which monies can be used at the City’s discretion.    In order to ensure that these monies would be used exclusively for undergrounding costs,  the City should have authorized the creation of a dedicated account for these purposes.   The Commission should require the City of San Diego to make a showing as to how it can ensure that the franchise fee monies are not subject to attachment by City creditors or cannot be diverted to other uses by the City.    The City should also be compelled to provide its City Manager’s advisory opinion on whether these monies could be used for purposes other than undergrounding.    Absent such a showing,  the Commission must reject the advice letter on the basis that it does not accurately describe the purposes for which it has been sought.             

           Another glaring omission from the SDG&E filing is a showing that the monies spent for “undergrounding costs” will, in fact, be for undergrounding.   There is no independent auditing process in place to ensure that the costs alleged by SDG&E will be for underground conversion and that they are limited to San Diego City residents.   Nor has the City made a showing that it has allocated sufficient staff time and resources to properly supervise and audit the expenditure of over $30 million annually in accelerated underground conversion projects.    As the advice letter is currently constituted, the Commission cannot be assured that monies spent by SDG&E ostensibly for electric undergrounding in the San Diego City area will be so spent. 

Conflicts with Rate Impact Commission Ruling in D. 09-12-009 

            In a decision issued late last year,  the Commission rejected proposals to increase ratepayer dollars allocated to undergrounding.   In that Decision, the Commission wrote: 

Currently, the state is facing an energy crisis, with ratepayers seeing increased electric and gas bills.  The Commission, therefore, is interested in ways to improve the existing system without increasing the cost to ratepayers.  Although the actions contemplated in this decision would not increase the current funding amounts, it is likely they will increase the costs and rates; but only within the limits of the existing funding level.  (D. 01-12-009, p. 20)            

          The rate crisis for San Diego is more severe than any other utility in the state.  According to SDG&E’s own determination,  SDG&E residential customers are now paying the highest electric rates of the three investor-owned utilities in the state of California.   (See Attachment “B”)    The franchise fee agreement with the City would expose City of San Diego electric customers to the highest rates in the state --- by a notable amount.     Yet, the record is bereft of any investigation made by the City and no disclosure by SDG&E to the City of the impact that the franchise fee has on the electric rates paid by customers.   The Commission must compel SDG&E to make a showing that the City of San Diego has considered the relative rate impacts of the proposed franchise fee and made an informed judgment to drive the bundled rate of electricity to levels in excess of any state or, for that matter, national electric utility.            

             Additionally, the City’s imposition of franchise fees is a blatant circumvention of the Commission ruling declining an increase in 20A undergrounding expenditures.    In December 2001,  the Commission clearly rejected requests for increased undergrounding expenditures.  In addition to rate impacts, it cited concerns about the cost-effectiveness and data collection.  It initiated a Phase 2 in the proceeding to study these, and other, matters further. 

            Rather than comply with the process set out by the Commission, the City of San Diego decided to use franchise fees to substitute for the current Rule 20A funding.  It effectively triples the ratepayer funds to be applied to undergrounding.   The Commission should not accept this circumvention of its process.   Until many of the issues relating to undergrounding are resolved, the Commission is imbued with the jurisdiction to prohibit a City from passing on unduly higher undergrounding costs to SDG&E ratepayers.  

Filing Does Not Comport With D. 89-05-063 Guidelines 

            SDG&E is obligated by Commission rules to “demonstrate such significant difference” in franchise fees sought for approval.  It must also set forth the basis asserted for the surcharge.   And the utility is encouraged to identify administrative costs incurred by the utility by the surcharge.   (32 CPUC2d 70)    SDG&E’s advice letter filing does not comport with this rule.

            First, while it identifies that the surcharge to San Diego Gas & Electric customers in the City of San Diego will be 5.78%, it does not compare that rate to the rates charged by other municipalities served other than mentioning a “2% average franchise fee”.     This “average” is not accurate, nor is it sufficiently specific for the Commission to determine a ‘significant difference’.    SDG&E maintains a list of franchise fees paid for each municipality in San Diego.   It failed include this updated list in the Advice Letter filing.

            The Commission rules also require SDG&E to state the basis for the surcharge.  SDG&E claims that 3.53% (the bulk of the increase) is to be used for undergrounding projects to be used exclusively for expenses directly related to electric undergrounding.  As discussed above, the City Council Policy on Underground Conversion of Utility Lines does not ensure this use.

            Finally, the company is asked to indicate any administrative costs associated with implementing this fee.   The advice letter makes no mention of such costs.

            For the reasons stated above, UCAN urges the Commission to reject the proposed Advice Letter. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Michael Shames

 

On behalf of UCAN 

Cc:      J. Royer

            H. Gatchalian

            J. Frank (SDG&E)

 





[1] Notably,  this advice letter does not involve the implementation of a utility user tax – which is simply a tax collected for the city by a utility.


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

This looks pretty

This looks pretty controversial for me and that because it's not about economical issues, it's also about political issues and it's all a mixture of contradictory norms. I definitely think we should keep things simple here, people need this.
Franchise opportunities

Age of Conan Power

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <em> <p> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <!--break-->
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options




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 or file a complaint about a company online.

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 Terms of Use, Privacy, and Copyright complaint policies as well as our Content Reuse Policy, Some Rights Reserved.