Your gardener would never get away with charging you for his grass mower and other tools as part of his service fees, nor would your family doctor bill you for all those years of medical training prior to providing you with medical treatment. Accordingly, why are customers asked to pay the $150 million over a five year period to cover costs incurred by PG & E while looking into renewable energy sources supposedly in conjunction with Livermore Labs? And yet, along with the August utility bill, there appears an application for approval by California Public Utilities Commission to increase utility rates for recovery of these costs.
"3 Phases Renewables," a private energy supplier, already offers electricity through renewable sources and they didn't gouge the public $150-million in the process. If capital is needed for research and development, PG & E has the option of selling stock to generate funds - it is outrageous to expect ratepayers to fund research and/or "capital" improvements as a means to compete against private suppliers who seem to be able to provide the same energy at a lower cost. But then requesting rate increases is something PG & E does on a monthly basis:
February 15, 2011: A.11-02-011: Specifically, the request seeks to recover in rates the costs PG&E has incurred to comply with the mandated Market Redesign and Technology Upgrade (MRTU) initiative - $47.2 million effective January 1, 2012. (In other words, they wish to charge the ratepayer because they have to follow the law.)
March 1, 2011: A.11-03-001: Application proposes a total demand response related revenue requirement of $228 million: $76.8 million in 2012; $73.8 million in 2013; and $77.4 million in 2014. PG&E claims this expense is related to ". . .costs incurred by motivating electric customers to reduce electric usage during high-demand, or peak usage periods to other periods when electric demand is lower." Why is this a ratepayer expense?
March 24, 2011: A.11-03-014 - PG & E proposed that ridiculous "opt-out" provision of smart meters resulting in a whopping $270 fee to remove recently installed "smart" meters (the ones we didn't want installed in the first place) and then charge a monthly fee to read the old meters. They have since reduced these charges to smaller fees subject to approval by the CPUC.
April/2011 - PG & E proposed its customers pay for one-third of the cost to cover a ridiculous $35-million retirement package for Peter Darby. Governor Jerry Brown denounced this plan and PG & E agreed to give back the $9.6 million.
May/2011 PG & E proposed a rate increase ($104-million) to pay for the discarded old meters claiming they had a useful remaining life - ignoring the fact that most of us did not want the new meter in the first place and PG & E had probably recovered the full value of these old meters through depreciation.
June 1, 2011: A.11-06-004: PG & E proposed a rate increase beginning January 2012 to cover $205-million in forecasted increases of energy costs. (With all these other rate increases, it would be hard to justify the basis for any forecasted increase of energy costs!)
June 9 - August 26, 2011: R.11-02-019: Pipeline safety enhancement plan - resulting from the infamous San Bruno disaster - whereby PG&E is proposing the ratepayers ought to shell out $247.3 million in 2012, $220.8 million in 2013 and $300.6 million in 2014 to pay for safety measures which should have been in place when these pipes were originally installed.
It is hard to forget Federal investigators have charged PG&E with gross negligence and the CPUC with poor supervision in this matter!!!!
June 27, 2011: A.11-06-028: Proposed a rate increase ($32.4 million) effective January 1, 2012, to cover the energy savings incentive program - but it's not a savings if we have to pay for it!
July 18, 2011: A.11-07-008: PG & E is asking customers to pay $150 million over a five year period to cover costs incurred by PG & E while looking into renewable energy sources supposedly in conjunction with Livermore Labs. "3 Phases Renewables," a private energy supplier, already offers electricity through renewable sources and they didn't gouge the public $150-million in the process. If capital is needed for research and development, PG & E has the option of selling stock to generate funds.
September 21, 2011: A. 11-09-014: PG & E seeks to recover costs related to Catastrophic Event Memorandum Account "CEMA" estimated at $32.44 million over a 1-year period. These costs would probably be recovered under their rate increase of June 1, 2011 "forecasted increases of energy costs."
November 21, 2011: A. 11-11-017: PG & E seeks to pass on costs of being more efficient and cost effective as well as prepared for future development because the State Legislature told them to do it.
PG & E is a public utility and there are some things the ratepayer is expected to pay, but who is being held responsible for the gross negligence involved with San Bruno? I see no indictments and apparently no one is accountable for what has been determined by Federal investigators as gross negligence on the part of PG & E and poor supervision by the CPUC.
These are not all of the rate increase proposals advanced by PG & E to the CPUC, and there is little doubt California's ratepayers need better protection from this corporate "bully". Possibly, at least three members of the CPUC board "ought" to be elected so that the public has opportunity to judge them in accordance to their performance. In any case, something must be done as the current system appears to be broken!
PG & E is required to provide us with a notice of rate increase requests and we, the ratepayers, are allowed to respond to these requests. Prior to paying your utility bill, take the time to read these rate increase proposals. There is no requirement the ratepayer has to have some compelling reason to deny these requests - just say no!