November 28, 2022 Breaking News, Latest News, and Videos

Customers Keep Paying For Utility Blunders:

When a car company blunders by installing, say, a power window switch that might catch fire, it issues a recall and fixes – for free – as many as 2.5 million cars. Toyota issued precisely such a recall notice this fall, the company paying heavily for its mistake.

But when a utility company sees one of its gas pipelines blow up, killing eight and putting many more residents in a dense San Francisco suburb out of their homes, it seeks to have its customers pay for most of the fix that must follow. Pacific Gas & Electric Co. is trying that right now.

Similarly, when other utilities see their nuclear power plant shuttered for most of a year because of a flawed part and a small radiation leak, with little chance of restarting anytime soon, they expect customers to keep right on paying as if nothing happened.

That’s what Southern California Edison Co. and San Diego Gas & Electric Co. have done since their San Onofre generating station shut down last Jan. 31, with customers paying $54 million a month, or $28 so far per person their vast service areas. That’s $28 per person, not per customer household.

The good news is that besides federal authorities that supposedly assure utility safety, a state commission regulates rates. The Public Utilities Commission (PUC) can quickly halt any plans big California utilities have to keep soaking their customers, to keep profiting from their own dangerous, sometimes disastrous mistakes. Now, after Edison and SDG&E kept soaking the customers for the more than nine months since the San Onofre shut down, the PUC at last will take a look. It will soon “investigate,” with customers continuing to pay while that probe goes on.

Butthe PUC has been anything but a consumer watchdog under its current president, Michael Peevey – first appointed by ex-Gov. Gray Davis, reappointed by ex-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and kept on as president by current Gov. Jerry Brown. Peevey is a former president of SoCal Edison. You’re dreaming if you expect him to recuse himself from cases involving his old firm.

Under Peevey, the PUC has been a steadfast lapdog for utilities. This involves not only rates, but also approvals for huge solar thermal power plants now under construction in California deserts that require massive investments in hundreds of miles of new power transmission lines. Those billions will be added to the “rate base” of each utility company, meaning they not only get repaid by customers for their investments, but are assured of a “reasonable rate of return” on those investments for the next 20 years.

That means billions in guaranteed profits even if the solar plants don’t produce nearly what’s planned. Billions that would not accrue to them if the PUC instead encouraged putting solar photovoltaic panels on most buildings in the cities they serve. The electric output would likely be the same, but the cost for transmission lines would be next to nothing.

Is it any wonder the big utilities love big solar plants, even when they don’t own them?

Similarly, PG&E wants to profit from whatever it spends on fixing its hundreds of miles of gas transmission pipelines. Never mind that consumers made payments monthly for decades earmarked to assure safety and reliability of gas pipelines all over California. The National Transportation Safety Board concluded last year that – at least for PG&E – inspections and repairs have long been inadequate. So the money collected all those years plainly wasn’t used as it should have been.

Now the utility wants customers to pay 84 percent of the $2.2 billion it says it will spend to fix its pipelines. A PUC administrative law judge proposed instead that customers pay 55 percent. Chances are, the PUC will split the difference, with customers paying about 70 percent. And PG&E would likely get to put the full amount into its rate base, ensuring a $300 million profit over 20 years from its deadly negligence.

At the same time, the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission probably won’t let even one of San Onofre’s two generators back online for many months, but it’s no sure thing the PUC will stop the consumer ripoff (as the majority owner, Edison operates the plant).

What’s more, even if Edison and SDG&E were suddenly told to stop collecting for operating the inoperative San Onofre (don’t bet on any such order coming soon), they’d keep the hundreds of millions they’ve already collected.

If all this seems absurd and wrong – giant companies profiting from their own dereliction – it is. But it’s not likely to change as long as there is no mechanism for shortening the five-year terms of utility commissioners and getting rid of those who act as tools of the companies they are supposed to regulate.

in Opinion
Related Posts

A SMa.r.t. Thanksgiving

November 23, 2022

November 23, 2022

SMart has much to be thankful for this year: We are thankful for the courage of all who face death...

SMa.r.t. Column: Renting and Owning. The Santa Monica Long View

November 18, 2022

November 18, 2022

In May, 2020, SMa.r.t. urged the city to consider establishing community land trusts, in which community-owned land is leased at...

SMa.r.t. Column: Santa Monica Housing Development – Poison Pills, Bad Data and the Blame Game

November 11, 2022

November 11, 2022

Prior councils have made long term decisions that have locked the city into an extraordinarily fixed path, the consequences of...

Column – Gas Gougers Beware: California Is Onto You at Last

November 11, 2022

November 11, 2022

By Tom Elias It has taken more than 50 years of on-and-off gasoline price gouging, but at long last California...

Video: Santa Monica College on Measure SMC

November 7, 2022

November 7, 2022

Enjoy this live interview with Measure SMC campaign co-chair Shari Davis in this paid segment.

Video: Santa Monica Police Officers Association on Their Election Endorsments

November 7, 2022

November 7, 2022

Santa Monica Police Officers Association Vice Chair Carlos Madrid joins the Santa Monica Mirror for a paid segment on the...

Santa Monica Mirror 2022 Election Endorsements

November 4, 2022

November 4, 2022

By the Santa Monica Mirror Editorial Board Santa Monica City Council Albin Gielicz  Albin has been involved with the community...

S.M.a.r.t. Election Recommendation

November 4, 2022

November 4, 2022

Editor’s note: The following endorsements should not be attributed to the Santa Monica Mirror. They are the opinion of Santa...

Letter to the Editor Santa Monica Mirror: In Response to Mr. Schwich’s Letter of November 1, 2022

November 3, 2022

November 3, 2022

Mr. Schwich, an employee of the United States Tennis Association, made many serious and disingenuous allegations in his letter to...

Letter to the Editor: Tennis v Pickleball (and the City of Santa Monica)

November 1, 2022

November 1, 2022

In communities both large and small across America, the debate involving tennis and pickleball has become increasingly louder. But in...

Column: Who’s the ‘True’ Democrat in CD-11?

October 30, 2022

October 30, 2022

So who is the true Democrat in this race to succeed Mike Bonin in CD-11? While the campaign for city...

SMa.r.t. Column: Santa Monica’s Pending Apocalypse

October 28, 2022

October 28, 2022

Editor’s note: The following endorsements should not be attributed to the Santa Monica Mirror. They are the opinion of Santa...

Column: Follow the Money This Election Season

October 27, 2022

October 27, 2022

By David G. Brown Earlier this month I read with great interest the coverage of local campaign finance filings and...

Column: Excess School Lands for Teacher Housing?

October 22, 2022

October 22, 2022

By Tom Elias, Columnist Do voters want more teachers living in their communities, even if it means a little more...

SMa.r.t. Column: 4500+ Units Permitted!

October 22, 2022

October 22, 2022

In the last month your City was forced by the State of California to approve the construction of about 16...