This Newsletter is still under construction...
 |
WATCHDOG
Utility Consumers’ Action Network
CELEBRATING
25
YEARS!
Inside This Issue …
- Letter from the Executive Director
- Watch out for this property tax scam!
- Secret oil price-fixing documents go public
- The Sunrise PowerLink
- Why you NEED New Media Rights
- A better way to save water
- NewsBites & FREE offer
A letter from UCAN's Executive Director...
Dear Fellow Utility Victim:
It’s hard to believe that 25 years ago, UCAN burst into prominence due to the support of a dedicated group of citizens like yourself. Much has changed in the last 25 years – except perhaps for SDG&E, which remains as callow, greedy, and ruthless as it was back in 1984. Now, SDG&E must rely on spineless regulators at the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), to increase its rates at your expense. Fortunately, UCAN has developed the skills, resources, and weapons to challenge SDG&E in regulatory and civil courts.
A few other things have changed, too. The Internet has revolutionized almost everything. In the last year, our wildly popular Web site at www.ucan.org, which contains more than 19,000 “pages” of content, has been viewed by more than 300,000 visitors from all across the globe.
The Internet has affected everything, which is why I am pleased to announce the official arrival of our “New Media Rights” Web project , dedicated to protecting and nurturing the right to express yourself freely on the Internet and elsewhere.
Sincerely,
Michael Shames
Executive Director
P.S. If you aren’t sure what to think of all this “internet stuff,” then I invite you to respond to the special FREE offer in this newsletter.
SDG&E’s Strategy:
“When you burn, we earn!”
Hot embers are falling on your neighbor’s roof.
You call the Fire Department, but your phone won’t work ... you grab a hose to put the fire out ... but there is no water because SDG&E has shut off your power in order to preserve its profits. Do you feel burned yet?
After the most recent spate of out-of-control wildfires in San Diego County, an enormous amount of evidence has been presented showing that at least three major wildfires were started by faulty SDG&E power lines. Earlier this year, SDG&E proposed shutting off power to the backcountry when the Santa Ana winds kick in.
On the surface, this makes some sense. But when UCAN and others dug deeper, its experts found that the ramifications of this policy actually INCREASED the likelihood of a fire and the damage caused by any Santa Ana-fueled fire.
According to UCAN and a host of other consumer and environmental groups, shutting off electricity during fires could trap school children, deprive firefighters of water, shut down Internet connections, cable television, traffic lights, and gas stations.
In other words, SDG&E’s plans to “Cut and Run” during a fire emergency will make the problem worse, not better. UCAN’s experts found a direct correlation between increased use of portable generators and fire risk. So, with SDG&E power cut-offs, more people would be using generators and … well, the rest is obvious.
“Naturally, SDG&E is fighting the concept of corporate responsibility”
UCAN was one of the first voices to express concern about SDG&E’s fire risks. Since that time, we have been joined by a broad coalition of community groups who think shutting off power – at the very moment people desperately need it – is a bad idea. Naturally, SDG&E is fighting the concept of corporate responsibility. It prefers to preserve its profits instead of delivering safe and reliable power to its customers.
As UCAN’s Executive Director Michael Shames said, “This is deceptive grandstanding by SDG&E. Instead of fixing the problem, SDG&E’s only solution has been to punish the victims for daring to insist on safe power lines that help prevent fires instead of starting them.”
UCAN is urging CPUC, the California Public Utilities Commission, to throw cold water on SDG&E’s lust to preserve its obscene profits, fix its fire hazards, and leave the water on during fires.
If you support this vital work to hold SDG&E accountable, then please consider supporting our efforts to fight them by joining online at www.ucan.org
Read more information on the SDG&E “de-energizing” proposal and UCAN’s submissions on this Web site.
Water – the new whiskey
Mark Twain’s oft-quoted refrain: “Whiskey is for drinking and water is for fighting” is probably as true today as it was in the 1900s. As California faces continued drought conditions, combined with climate changes, and Court-ordered water cutbacks, San Diego must grapple with some ugly realities about water.
Last year, UCAN surveyed smart water policies from around the country, and the globe. We found encouraging and exciting ideas that we detailed in our July, 2007 report showing how local cities are beginning to address this new water reality. Some cities are quite inventive. Others, like the City of San Diego, leave much to be desired. UCAN has established five basic principles of smart water management and has challenged local water utilities to honor them. They are:
Principle #1: Ratepayers thirst less for water than for fairness: Policies that show favoritism to certain classes of ratepayers will encourage widespread wastefulness. The current program, which demands a 20% reduction is overly complex and difficult to understand, creating the impression that it is unfair to ordinary ratepayers.
Principle #2: The current rates were created during a time of short-term abundance. We are now in a time of long-term drought, and must adjust the region’s water strategy accordingly.
Principle #3: We need smart, easy-to-understand price signals: For water conservation to work, the market must be able to respond to simple pricing that encourages conservation. The current plan is too complicated.
Principle #4: Reward water virtue: Businesses and citizens that have already taken steps to conserve water must be rewarded, not punished. The Mayor Sanders’ plan is unfair because those who have been given the most water will be asked to conserve the least, creating a perverse incentive to not conserve water. For example, customers who have aggressively reduced their water use in the last ten years will be expected to cut their consumption by the same mandated 20% as profligate water-wasters. In addition, households that already use tiny amounts of water (less than 7 hcf a month) will also be forced to conserve by 20% even though they are using zero irrigation.
Principle #5: Reforms must be long-term in nature. Sustained regional growth demands long-term planning. Declarations of temporary “emergencies” only create a bigger problem in the near future.
We’d love to know what you think of these principles. E-mail or write us and give us your opinion. After all, we represent you, so we need to hear from you.
A better way to save water
UCAN examined winning water strategies from as far away as Australia, to as close as the San Diego Zoo. Our research found a variety of successful approaches that are less complex, easier to understand, and more importantly, reward ratepayers who are water-wise. Our careful analysis showed that successful water plans have the following qualities:
1) Lower rates for people who conserve, with tiered rates that increase with excessive water consumption. It’s only fair.
2) Eliminate flat fees and fixed charges. Flat monthly fees artificially inflate the bills of people who are already water thrifty, and reward water-wasters with bills that are artificially low. Flat fees must be changed to a variable rate (such as a percentage) to distribute water costs fairly across users.
3) Impose prescriptive prohibitions on profligate water wasters (that’s a fancy way of saying that if you have a leaky swimming pool, or broken irrigation system, you could get fined).
4) Allocate water based on demographics. The city must eliminate ratepayer classes that discourage conservation. An apartment dweller with a pet goldfish should be charged differently than a Rancho Sante Fe socialite with an Olympic-sized pool and personal polo field. Agricultural subsidies must be limited to genuine agricultural enterprises.
LEARN MORE by clicking on WATER on this Web site. You can read Michael Shames’ letter to the Mayor, the latest water news, videos, and more.
The disconnect between oil and gasoline prices
According to the U.S. Department of Energy, oil inventories are at a 20-year high in the USA – a record-bursting surplus. Normally, in times of surplus, prices decline – that’s basic economics – yet oil and gasoline prices are rising.
As this newsletter went to press, gas prices in San Diego set a record high for 2009, passing the $2.50 a gallon mark for the first time since January 1, when gasoline averaged $1.84 a gallon in San Diego County.
Predictably, oil industry analysts are blaming the price increases on “high oil prices” but this isn’t true. Oil is sold in 42-gallon barrels while gasoline is sold on a per-gallon basis, making it difficult to make an easy comparison. But when you look at the cost of a gallon of oil vs. the cost of a gallon of gasoline, the disconnect between oil and gas prices becomes clear.
The chart below compares the cost of a gallon of oil to the average retail cost of a gallon of gasoline in San Diego. For an extensive analysis on the disconnect between oil prices and retail gas prices, and how the industry has used high oil and gas prices to crush competition in California, visit the gas section of this Web site. And while you are there, check out our “Cheap Gas Locator” to find the least expensive gasoline in your neighborhood.
The cost of oil increased by 25 cents a gallon since December 11, 2008, but by May 15, 2009, the cost of gas had increased by 80 cents a gallon. Taxes were 45¢ and 53¢ respectively.
Oil industry papers outlining conspiracy to be made public
Eleven years ago, San Diego attorney Tim Cohelan investigated the trade practices of California’s gasoline refineries. In the process, he learned that so-called competitors weren’t competing at all – they were, in fact, trading gasoline supplies with each other during times of shortage. According to Cohelan, the big refineries are engaged in a conspiracy to restrict the supply of gasoline and drive prices to artificially high levels. What’s more, he has reams of documents to back up his claims, but for more than a decade, that evidence has been censored by the court.
Not anymore.
On Friday, April 3, the Ninth District Court of Appeals ruled that Mr. Cohelan’s lawsuit, Gilley, et al. v. Atlantic Richfield, could proceed. The decision also allows the secret information about supply trading agreements to be made public. We’ll let you know what we find.
Property Tax Reassessment: It's a scam!
It looks official, but this letter came from scam artists, not the State of California or your local property tax assessor. Our experts think hundreds of thousands – if not millions- have been mailed in California.
If you purchased your home after 2003, and its value has dropped, you may be eligible for a lower tax bill.
The County offers tax reassessment services free of charge. All you have to do to get your property assessed is go online and fill out the Application for Changed Assessment or call (858) 505-6262.
But now, scam artists are exploiting the collapse in real estate values by sending out hundreds of thousands of official-looking notices to homeowners from “California Tax Reassessment” services. The letters look like a bill and demand a $186 fee. The letters even threaten the recipient with a $67 “late fee” if the bill is not paid promptly, and offer a local 619 phone number. UCAN’s Fraud Squad has been flooded with reports about this scam – especially from elderly victims who have received nothing in return for their $186.
UCAN has been advising victims who have been duped into paying fees to complain, but there’s a catch: If the P.O. Box is in Los Angeles, complaints must be filed with the L.A. Dept. of Consumer Affairs. If you sent your money to a San Diego P.O Box, you should file your complaint with the San Diego City Attorney. You can also notify the Attorney General.
It pays to complain: On May 12, 2009, the California Attorney General, prompted in part by complaints from UCAN members, responded to our requests by taking legal action against the scammers. For more information on this scam, visit www.ucan.org
Study of San Diego cell phone users makes national waves
UCAN rocked the national telecom boat in March with a survey of 134 San Diego households that showed most of us pay more for phone service than we realize. The survey, conducted by TeleTruth, found that when all of the confusing taxes, surcharges, and unused plan features are calculated, huge numbers of consumers pay several dollars a minute on average for cellular and landline phone service. The analysis found that on average, 51 percent of customers in the survey paid 25 cents a minute or less, and 49 percent paid 26 cents a minute or more.
The results, which were covered in feature stories in the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times, provoked a violent reaction from the phone industry, which has a history of hiding the true cost of phone services with overly complex and difficult-to-read billing statements. The reason for the industry’s harsh response? UCAN wants a line on each phone bill that shows the true cost per minute.
UCAN is appealing Sunrise PowerLink decision on the grounds that it is unlawful
On Christmas Eve, 2008, regulators delivered an unlawful $2 billion lump of coal to California ratepayers. The decision, which was issued on the slowest news day of the year to avoid negative publicity, is so appallingly biased that on Friday, January 23, UCAN filed a formal appeal against the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) decision to approve the $2 billion Sunrise Powerlink. UCAN’s appeal exposes how a handful of regulators have twisted the evidence in favor of SDG&E and offers 18 reasons why the decision is unlawful. In this case, the courts will find that the regulators couldn’t legitimately approve this project and they knowingly distorted the facts in a complete violation of regulatory guidelines and basic common sense. Specifically:
- The Sunrise PowerLink won’t reduce greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) The record shows that it will likely increase emissions.
- It isn’t necessary for SDG&E to be able to meet its 20% or 33% renewable quotas.
- It won’t save ratepayers a dime, let alone hundreds of millions of dollars.
These assertions aren’t from UCAN – this is based upon SDG&E’s own testimony! UCAN also points out how the regulators chose to ignore a solution that would cost a few hundred thousand dollars in favor of SDG&E’s proposal that would cost a few billion dollars. The courts will have to remind the regulators that it isn’t the Environmental Impact Report money they are spending… it is the public’s money.
On April 19th, 2009, UCAN pledged an additional half-million dollars to see this battle through the courts. Your membership supports this vital effort to protect California ratepayers.
Regulatory Failure!
18 reasons why CPUC’s approval of the Sunrise PowerLink is wrong
1. Failure to apply the proper standard of review (clear and convincing rather than preponderance of the evidence);
2. Failure to properly consider the alternatives;
3. Failure to provide due process to assess means by which the 33% mandate could be suitably and cost-effectively addressed;
4. Ignoring overwhelming evidence that would have rendered the project cost-ineffective, even assuming a 33% mandate;
5. Lacking the requisite authority to base its decision of a 33% Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS).
6. Manipulation of the evidentiary record to create facts that didn’t exist;
7. Material factual errors throughout the decision;
8. Reliance upon extra-evidentiary facts to justify the decision;
9. Failure to consider the true costs of the Sunrise project upon the state’s ratepayers;
10. Concluding that the project adds additional renewable energy capacity available to California’s utilities when the facts show otherwise;
11. Concluding that it reduces GHG (greenhouse gas emissions) when the facts show otherwise;
12. Concluding that the project increases reliability when the facts show otherwise;
13. Ignoring earthquake dangers at the Imperial Valley substation;
14. Failure of the CPUC, the California Public Utilities Commission, to require SDG&E to compare Sunrise to the UCAN Alternative;
15. Numerous deficiencies of the EIR (Environmental Impact Report) including the failure to consider the UCAN No-Project alternative as an environmentally superior alternative to the Southern Route;
16. Failure of the EIR to properly consider overriding considerations;
17. Failure of the EIR to consider the existing South West Power Link’s capacity to import renewable power from Imperial County; and
18. Failure of the EIR to assess distributed generation and demand-side alternatives.
North County gets to keep the 760 area code, but there is a price...
Residents behind the “Cabernet Curtain” will not be forced to give up their old 760 area code prefix. Thanks are due to www.keep760.org, which, with a little strategic advice from UCAN, and the hard work of local activists, convinced CPUC, the California Public Utilities Commission, to vote against an earlier ruling that would completely abolish the 760 code in favor of a new code, 442. Now, under the compromise, North County will have two area codes: 442 and 760. But there is a catch: Starting soon, you will have to dial 1 + 760+ the phone number before you make a local call and some local calls will require dialing 1 + 442 first. The good news? Local tolls, if any, will still apply to local calls, even if they are in a different area code.
“We protect and promote your right to freely share and access information on the Internet”
There is a battle being waged over what you see, hear, and read in newspapers, TV, the radio, and the Internet. That’s why UCAN created NewMediaRights.org
For the last 100 years, corporations and governments have had enormous influence over the news and entertainment that you consume. But now, with the Internet, ordinary people can broadcast videos, publish their opinions, and even “podcast” radio shows that are capable of reaching millions. This ability has made some corporations, governments and the mainstream media nervous.
With old media YOU were the product,
With new media, YOU are the creator
When you read a newspaper, you may think of yourself as the “customer,” but the truth is that you are the product being delivered to the newspaper’s advertisers. New media turns this paradigm on its head. With new media, you have the ability to write your own headlines, publish your own opinions, access others’ ideas and display your own creative work without having to deal with journalists, editors, censors, or meddling advertisers who are trying to control or manipulate your message.
That’s why corporations and other special interests are working to find ways of curbing and controlling your access to new media. Even if you don’t have “an Internet” (see free offer, Page 8) new media has changed your life. Have you noticed how “thin” your newspaper is? How local TV news has devolved into the “fire & murder report?” How TV has degenerated into low-budget reality shows? New media have leveled the playing field, and this new outlet for creativity and ideas must be safeguarded and protected.
Hey! Where’s my bailout?
You’ll get your personal federal bailout when Hell freezes over, and banks stop lobbying Congress … but in the meantime Uncle Sam is offering BIG CASH to ordinary people who install photovoltaic solar panels on their rooftops.
To help commemorate this unusual turn of events, UCAN has updated this Web site with new information to help you decide if setting up a roof top power plant is a wise option for you.
Included in our solar section are new updates on state and federal incentives, plus shopping tips and an easy-to-read overview of the work involved in setting up a PV ( PhotoVoltaic) system for generating electricity in your home using San Diego’s most abundant natural resource – sunlight.
Whether you want to unplug from the electric grid and declare independence from SDG&E, or are just curious about the possibility of powering your home with sunlight, this 4-page guide is a must-read. Exclusively at www.ucan.org.
NOTE FOR UCAN MEMBERS: If you are a UCAN member and do not have Internet access, let us know and we’ll send you this useful guide, free, as a member courtesy.
Should I get an Internet?
It’s official: This “computer thing” is more than a passing fad, but does that mean you need to go out and buy one?
Recently, we asked a long-time member of UCAN, who is 87 years old, how he was feeling these days. “Not so good” he said, “my daughter is giving me a computer and I’m not sure I want it.”
Deciding what technology you allow into your life is a uniquely personal decision. That’s why UCAN has created a special guide titled Should I Get An Internet? This compelling guide is a “must read” for senior citizens and others who aren’t sure if they want to learn a new technology. It includes a brief quiz to help you decide whether the costs, risks, and benefits of getting a computer and using the World Wide Web are worth the stress, hassle, and effort. FREE to UCAN members who call (619) 696-6966.
Become a monthly donor for as little as $2!
If you haven’t renewed your membership recently, then rest assured that soon, we will be darkening your mailbox with urgent, and completely obnoxious requests for money! Now thanks to the magic of Internet technology, you can join online as a monthly donor for as little as $2 a month and never get another renewal request again! Avoid the guilt and self-loathing of NOT supporting America’s best regional consumer group by visiting www.ucan.org today!
NOTICE SOMETHING MISSING ? ? ?
UCAN has no ads!
UCAN does not accept advertisements.
We are supported by members like you … not the narrow interests of the “privileged few.”
LEGAL DISCLAIMER
UCAN, the Utility Consumers’ Action Network, is a 501 (c)3 non-profit formed to protect consumers from SDG&E and other large, abusive corporations. You can support us by becoming a member at www.ucan.org, and by inviting us to your parties. Members get valuable benefits including a subscription to the Watchdog (published quarterly), and priority access to the UCAN Fraud Squad with personal help and dispute resolution advice when you have a problem with your cell phone company, SDG&E, or other companies doing business in San Diego or the state of California (some limitations apply). Get the full story at www.ucan.org
Telephone: (619) 696-6966 Fax: (619) 696-7477 e-mail: info@ucan.org Web: www.ucan.org
The UCAN Watchdog is published quarterly at 3100 Fifth Avenue, Suite B, San Diego, CA 92103
Post to Twitter
Post new comment