May 20, 2022 Breaking News, Latest News, and Videos

Smell Of Fear As Utilities Commission Lawyers Up:

The strong odor surrounding California’s most powerful regulatory commission this spring stems not only from corrupt-seeming decisions but also from fear. Fear that past and present members or top staffers of the state Public Utilities Commission might do jail time. Fear they could see personal fortunes decimated by legal fees while fending off state and federal criminal investigations.

How bad have things become at the PUC, which sets prices for privately-owned utilities like Pacific Gas & Electric, Southern California Edison and San Diego Gas & Electric?

Even the commission’s new president, Michael Picker, said the other day that when it comes to cleaning up his agency, “I think we have a long way to go.” Of course, over the last 17 months, he backed every questionable decision pushed by disgraced former PUC President Michael Peevey.

Like many outfits overcome by fear, the PUC has lately tried to cover up by claiming internal documents are “privileged” and by hiring top defense attorneys. The commission’s first contract with the SheppardMullin law firm was for $49,000, work to be done at a “discount” rate of $882 per hour. That deal fell just below the $50,000 level where state contracts for outside work must be approved by the Department of General Services.

But the Picker-led PUC has followed up by awarding SheppardMullin a contract for $5.2 million for the rest of this year. Both agreements may be illegal, even if the new one is approved by the DGS.

Still, there is little doubt of that approval. All present PUC members were appointed by Gov. Jerry Brown, who also named all top officials of the DGS, so this is really the right hand approving what the left hand wants. What’s more, Brown’s chief of staff, Nancy McFadden, was PG&E’s chief lobbyist in Sacramento before joining him.

Asked under what authority it hired SheppardMullin, the PUC cited state government code section 995.8. That section says a public entity can only hire criminal lawyers to defend present or former officials if “The public entity determines that such defense would be in the best interests of the public entity…” The PUC would have to hold hearings to make such a circular determination, but it has not.

This makes the big-buck pacts appear illegal, no matter what the DGS might rule.

The obvious question here is why state taxpayers should fund the defense of officials who may have conspired with big utilities to bilk them via decisions like the one forcing consumers to pay most costs for retiring the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station.

Commission spokeswoman Terrie Prosper claims outside lawyers are needed because the PUC “does not have the expertise…or time to handle…the massive amount of work that needs to be done to…manage and cooperate with investigations.”

The SheppardMullin contract suggests that “managing investigations” includes stonewalling requests for documents while “assisting in public relations.” It says attorneys will also “develop and manage litigation strategies” and “assist and attend interviews of commission employees by investigators (including preparing witnesses).”

“This means the $5.2 million is for a cover-up,” says former San Diego City Attorney Michael Aguirre, who has sued to block the contracts. “They will restrain and restrict documents and the testimony of witnesses and use privilege to (try to) conceal crimes.”

Aguirre notes the commission never formally voted to spend the money, but PUC Executive Director Timothy Sullivan simply signed the new contract. Because the PUC itself cannot be indicted, it’s clear the money will be spent to help defend individuals – present or former commission officials.

Neither Sullivan nor any other PUC official responds to repeated inquiries about who SheppardMullin will defend. Nor would the PUC say why those officials should not fund their own defenses.

Aguirre suggests that if Picker really favors transparency, as he often claims, he would waive all privilege and open every commission document to press, public and investigators, saving the $5.2 million in legal fees.

But Picker repeatedly refuses to be interviewed and by the end of March, the commission had spent more than $2 million on outside lawyers to deny document requests during the last six months, all without a hearing.

So the smell of fear is plain at the PUC, and no one can predict the next major errors and cover-up attempts that might produce.

in Opinion
Related Posts

Column From Santa Monica Mayor Himmelrich: We Walk the Talk

May 12, 2022

May 12, 2022

By Sue Himmelrich, Santa Moncia Mayor  I like the SMa.r.t. architects. I often agree with them. But in allowing Mark...

Is Gelson’s Our Future? Bigger Is Not Better!

May 12, 2022

May 12, 2022

It’s appalling to see what’s happening in our city – projects recently built or about to be approved – in...

Renting Your Second Home

May 6, 2022

May 6, 2022

If you are among the many Americans who own a second home that you occasionally use as a vacation getaway,...

Column: Cities Fight to Maintain Distinctive Characters

May 6, 2022

May 6, 2022

By Tom Elias, Columnist Anyone who knows California well will realize that Palo Alto does not look much like nearby...

SMa.r.t. Column: Gelson’s, Boxed-In

May 6, 2022

May 6, 2022

This week we are re-visiting an article from 2018 regarding the Miramar project, by simply replacing the word “Miramar” with...

Column: Are You Talking Yourself Out of Saving for Retirement? Here’s How to Break the Habit

May 5, 2022

May 5, 2022

Saving for retirement can be an abstract concept. It’s something we all know we should do, but the farther away...

SMa.r.t. Column: Failure to Plan…

April 30, 2022

April 30, 2022

Over the last approximately two years your City has been busy trying to respond to new California laws that are...

Letter to Editor: Your “Standing Firm With Santa Monica” Initiative

April 25, 2022

April 25, 2022

The following is an open letter to Councilmember Sue Himmelrich from Santa Monica resident Arthur Jeon regarding a proposed transfer...

SMa.r.t. Column: Planning The Real Future

April 24, 2022

April 24, 2022

In the 1970s, renowned USC architecture professor Ralph Knowles developed a method for planning and designing cities that would dramatically...

SMa.r.t. Column: New City Financial Plan: The Resident Homeowner Bank

April 15, 2022

April 15, 2022

Part II: Who pays the proposed transfer tax and where does the money go? Last week, we introduced the proposed...

Column: NIMBYs Getting a Bad Rap

April 8, 2022

April 8, 2022

By Tom Elias Rarely has a major group of Californians suffered a less deserved rash of insults and attacks than...

SMa.r.t. Column: New City Financial Plan – The Resident Homeowner Bank

April 8, 2022

April 8, 2022

Part 1 of 2 In this two-part article, we will discuss both the proposed transfer tax ballot initiative and the...

Column: Tackling Childcare Costs

April 7, 2022

April 7, 2022

Finding affordable, quality childcare is essential for many working parents. The current shortage of care options is helping drive up...

SMa.r.t. Column: Tunneling for Mobility

April 1, 2022

April 1, 2022

Editor’s note: this is an April Fools Day column and is intended to be satire.  Starting this year permits from...

SMa.r.t. Column: The Value of Our Boulevards

March 28, 2022

March 28, 2022

Following is a composite of past articles dealing with the accelerated demise of our beachfront environment together with the increasing...