San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station
  • San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station
  • Photo by David Batterson
  • Letter to Editor
  • Pin it

A new batch of emails released Friday, May 22, in the California Public Utilities Commission probe show snug and questionable relationships between an administrative law judge and Southern California Edison.

Melanie Darling

Melanie Darling

From YouTube

The role of Michael Peevey, then the president of the commission and now retired, is under criminal investigation by the state and federal governments regarding similar coziness.

It is already clear that top commission officials were scheming to make sure that ratepayers would be forced to pay the bulk of $5 billion costs for the decommissioning of the now-shuttered San Onofre nuclear plant — even though those ratepayers would get no power in return and had nothing to do with the errors that led to the closing of the plant.

Newly released emails reveal that the administrative law judge on the case, Melanie Darling, was alarmingly close to Edison — indeed, apparently making decisions for the utility. That is not the role of an administrative law judge.

On December 4, 2012, Southern California Edison's Russell Worden, who was handling the San Onofre strategic review, had a 15-minute phone conversation with Darling. The next day, Worden emailed Darling, asking if she wanted Edison to notify all its customers about an upcoming public participation hearing about San Onofre, or did she want only customers near the nuclear plant invited. He also said that "upon reflection" he thought the company should let the public know of his telephonic meeting with her.

Worden wrote that the two had discussed "expectations about recovery of damages" and "root cause analyses" of the debacle. These subjects go to the heart of the matter. But, Worden said, "I will follow your direction on this."

Darling wrote back, "I don't recall going beyond procedural matters, including broad concept of phases of testimony." She asked him if his concern related to "my query about the arbitration?"

Worden wrote back and said he would like to file the notice of the meeting but limit it to a few issues. The filing was made December 7. Edison claimed the conversation was about "procedural issues," including Edison's relationship with Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, the designer and fabricator of steam generators at the plant; the timing of a filing related to capital costs, and access to documents on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's website.

The filing did not discuss Edison's expectations "about recovery of damages" or "root cause analyses," which Darling and Worden had discussed in the conversation on December 4. Nor did it reveal Darling's questions about arbitration.

At hearings, Darling would not let San Diego attorney Mike Aguirre probe the key topic: whether the CPUC's decision to stick San Onofre expenses on ratepayers had been pre-determined in secret meetings between the company and the commission.

It is now abundantly clear that the decision was shaped in multiple secret meetings, including one that Peevey had with an Edison executive in Warsaw, Poland. Did Darling know about those secret meetings?

  • Letter to Editor
  • Pin it

Comments

MURPHYJUNK May 25, 2015 @ 11:38 a.m.

apparently, they didn't use enough "protection " when screwing the public

1

Don Bauder May 25, 2015 @ 1:47 p.m.

Murphyjunk: This is why it is urgently necessary, in my opinion, that some of the participants in the rape of the ratepayer (San Onofre decommissioning) do time in custody. This means both Edison and perhaps SDG&E executives, along with a number of people with the commission.

That will send a message that ratepayers will never put up with such pro-utility swindles again. Best, Don Bauder

2

MichaelValentine May 25, 2015 @ 8:18 p.m.

From your lips Don but I'm a tad cynical.

1

Don Bauder May 25, 2015 @ 9:33 p.m.

MichaelValentine: Your cynicism is understood. Best, Don Bauder

1

MURPHYJUNK May 26, 2015 @ 7:17 a.m.

lock up a few and let them rat out everyone involved, they probably would not have a problem with that to save their worthless hides.

1

Don Bauder May 26, 2015 @ 8:10 a.m.

Murphyjunk: That is the usual method. Best, Don Bauder

1

CaptD May 25, 2015 @ 1:06 p.m.

Don - This is a perfect example of CYA by an ALJ.

It should now be obvious to everyone that for far too many at the CPUC, their concept of "servicing" ratepayers is akin to Bulls "servicing" cows.

  • Salute & Happy Memorial Day To All
2

Don Bauder May 25, 2015 @ 1:49 p.m.

CaptD: Obviously, this is a case of covering one's rear. But there are deeper implications here. How many times do administrative law judges know in advance that a case has been rigged at secret meetings, and then go along with the thieves plotting to screw ratepayers? Best, Don Bauder

3

CaptD May 25, 2015 @ 2:45 p.m.

I'm having problems posting comments, will try again later.

0

CaptD May 25, 2015 @ 2:46 p.m.

Don - What I call San Onofre Gate is getting bigger almost daily!

Instead of WaterGate's famous saying of "Follow the Money" which led to President Nixon leaving Office; in San Onofre Gate we now have "Follow the Email". You can be sure that many of our elected Officials are now wishing they never learned how to use emails since those same email could used to put their careers at risk, should they be implicated in some wrong doing, which is why so many in San Diego and elsewhere are trying to keep their emails private.

If Darling had immediately reported their phone call instead of emailing Worden back saying "I don't recall going beyond procedural matters, including broad concept of phases of testimony." then perhaps everyone might have "JUST" wondered about what they talked about during that 15 minute phone call. But now, it is painfully clear, that not only must she step down, but all her decisions, especially about investigation "discovery" into wrong doing must be revisited by an impartial Judge and hopefully one not in the employ of the CPUC and/or associated with the Utilities. Coming after both Peevey and another Commissioner disclosed their close connections with the Utilities, this additional revelation will blow up SCE/SDG&E "settlement" case (of having SoCal ratepayers foot bill for the 4-5 Billion Dollar San Onofre Replacement Steam Generator Debacle), as so many of us have been saying from the beginning.

Worden was very smart to email Darling since that document would link the two of them together, with a virtual paper trail that would be of great use by Worden, especially when he objected to what SD Attorney Michael Aguirre was saying during CPUC scheduled meetings, since he knew ahead of time that both he and Darling were literally "on the same page".

If this revelation does not initiate an immediate full public investigation by those elected Officials in Sacramento charged with oversight of the CPUC (like the Assembly Committee on Utilities and Commerce which is now Chaired by Anthony Rendon, the State Attorney General (who is now running for State Senate) and the Federal Government, then we must admit that our system of checks and balances has failed us in California and the USA! Con't.

3

CaptD May 25, 2015 @ 2:46 p.m.

Cont 2 Perhaps some cartoonist can provide an image of a ratepayer with their pockets turned inside out and their hands up, being threatened by someone with CPUC written on their back, with the caption, "Don't Raise Rates".

BTW: Have you ever heard the saying: A Good Lawyer knows the Law A GREAT Lawyer knows the Judge

... And as we now know, the CPUC, SCE & SDG&E all have the best lawyers money can buy!

SD Attorney Michael Aguirre was correct when he said,

“This is one of the biggest white-collar crimes ever” *

Calls To Overturn San Onofre Settlement Intensify Amid PUC Revelations http://www.kpbs.org/news/2015/mar/31/calls-overturn-san-onofre-settlement-intensify-ami/ ===> Much more info can be found using the Twitter "Hashtag" #SanOnofreGate which is the new hashtag that will allow you to keep up to date on the ongoing investigation into the multi-billion $ SCE-CPUC ripoff, just enter the hashtag into the Twitter search bar to view all relevant articles.

3

Diogenes May 25, 2015 @ 4:08 p.m.

CaptD,

The public meeting in Costa Mesa a year ago in May with the CPUC was claimed to be a "kangeroo court" by protesters, yourself included. When I spoke my piece before the Commission, I looked each Commissioner in the eye. Not one could look 'ole Diogenes in the eye. I had not found an honest person. I lowered my lamp.

I am very effective in detecting dishonesty by observing facial micro-expressions. I have training in the method from Paul Ekman, one of the originators.

My encounter with the Commissioners was videotapped. It can be run in slow motion. I could point out who were the most dishonest.

Regarding ALJ Darling, it would seem that she.tried to shut down Mr. Aguirre from making a record by sustaining objections. In retrospect, this appears to have been intended to conceal her contacts with private utility executives and further the behind-the-scenes settlement that favored private utility shareholders over ratepayers. I stated that the settlement was premature without producing all documents and questioning the authors under penalty of perjury. You can imagine how nervous they were.

The secret meetings in Poland resulted in handwritten notes that Commissioner Peevey would brandish. The UT story from yesterday's edition lays this out. As I recall, search warrants executed at Peevey"s home revealed the "cocktail napkin notes" from the meeting in Poland.

If the deal was already concluded in advance of public hearings, that is a violation due process and constitutes a "taking." The federal judge should set aside the settlement as requested by Aguirre and Severson's lawsuit and refer the matter to the U.S Attorney's office for prosecution.

3

Don Bauder May 26, 2015 @ 6:54 a.m.

Diogenes: The best way to detect lying in scams such as this is to assume everybody is lying until proved otherwise. The CPUC since 2002 has been a cesspool of corruption. Best, Don Bauder

2

Don Bauder May 26, 2015 @ 7:28 p.m.

CaptD: Aguirre is right. This has been an enormous swindle of ratepayers. Best, Don Bauder

1

Don Bauder May 25, 2015 @ 4:30 p.m.

CaptD: I certainly hope the decision to rape the ratepayer is rescinded and, in the end, the shareholders pick up 100 percent of the decommissioning costs, or almost $5 billion.

I agree that her past decisions must now be reviewed in a new light. But it shouldn't stop there. Best, Don Bauder

3

Don Bauder May 26, 2015 @ 6:58 a.m.

CaptD: Yes, all this merits a full public investigation. Will there be one? The odds are still against it. This is an instance in which the investigation initiative must go from the bottom up -- from a clamoring public to reluctant (and often bought and paid for) public officials. Best, Don Bauder

0

CaptD May 25, 2015 @ 3:59 p.m.

Don - RE: "Worden wrote back and said he would like to file the notice of the meeting but limit it to a few issues. The filing was made December 7. Edison claimed the conversation was about "procedural issues," including Edison's relationship with Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, the designer and fabricator of steam generators at the plant; the timing of a filing related to capital costs, and access to documents on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's website."

His statement is also a carefully crafted misdirection by SCE, since there are SCE documents proving that SCE not MHI had the final say/authority over the replacement steam generator (RSG) design and even some of SCE's own engineers said that the SCE RSG in house design team was not up to the task, since neither they nor MHI had never designed such a large RSG before. Lets give Darling the benefit of doubt and say that she did not know that; perhaps she only had Peevey and others at SCE's word for it, (since she did not allow Michael Aguirre to give evidence to refute their claims) either way, she was now "on board" with what I call the RSG Design Cover Up

By SCE 's Worden, "who was handling the San Onofre strategic review" telling Darling that MHI was the RSG Designer and not just the fabricator, he set her up by shifting all blame for the RSG debacle from SCE to MHI. Being generous, this might very well be why Darling would not allow any "discovery" (aka investigation and or questioning of SCE's personnel on the record) by Michael Aguirre into the reasonableness of SCE's actions since if Darling assumed that Worden was "correct" then it would be a perfect reason for her not to waste or allow any time during the investigation upon what was clearly not SCE's fault, especially it concerned highly technical engineering issues that might bog down the investigation.

What we do know is that SCE (not MHI) WAS RESPONSIBLE, therefore it means that the entire state mandated investigation was a just a mockery, especially since now it is clear that all the important decisions between SCE and the CPUC were made in private long before the public CPUC meetings even took place.

Expect a near future headline to read:

CA Utilities Found Responsible For Billion $ Debacle

2

Don Bauder May 25, 2015 @ 4:32 p.m.

CaptD: I sure hope to see that headline -- and I would like to see it first in the Reader. Best, Don Bauder

2

CaptD May 25, 2015 @ 5:23 p.m.

Don - Together we can "make it so" I'd love to see you share a Pulitzer for San Onofre Gate

2

Don Bauder May 25, 2015 @ 9:35 p.m.

CaptD: Don't hold your breath on the attainment of any prize. Best, Don Bauder

0

CaptD May 25, 2015 @ 4:25 p.m.

Don - Don't you think it is amazing that the CPUC is still getting to make decisions concerning the Future of SoCal Energy when it is obvious that they are this "cozy" with the Utilities they supposedly regulate?

Our elected Officials are all looking the other way, while this farce continues all at ratepayer expense, I wonder why?

2

Don Bauder May 25, 2015 @ 4:35 p.m.

CaptD: You know why. You yourself referred to "follow the money." If legislators won't do anything, don't you think we should "follow the money" or the political gifts that utilities bestow? Best, Don Bauder

3

Ponzi May 25, 2015 @ 8:02 p.m.

I believe state ALJ's generally do not need to have a law degree or education in law. So citizens often are subject to the judgment of people who have not had a rigorous study of case law, precedents, ethics, conflict of interest, etc. The gravity of the decisions put before these so-called judges in this era are too immense to let continue. There needs to be a body of people making these decisions rather than an individual. Even homeowners associations are run with more checks and balances.

1

Don Bauder May 25, 2015 @ 9:39 p.m.

Ponzi: I recently saw an ad the CPUC put up to recruit a new administrative law judge (ALJ). I can't remember the qualifications, but a faint memory tells me you may be right: a law degree is not needed. Don't take that to the bank, however.

In any case, a CPUC administrative law judge doesn't need to know the law, because CPUC ALJs have different standards than normal courts of law. The ALJs make that clear when ruling on matters. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder May 25, 2015 @ 9:42 p.m.

Ray Lutz: You were there at hearings, so you are a better judge than I am. However, in the video of hearings over which she presided, I have to agree: the hearings were shams. The outcome had already been decided. I suspect she knew. Best, Don Bauder

1

Don Bauder May 25, 2015 @ 9:44 p.m.

Nuke Pro: Time in custody would be an ideal solution for a number of CPUC officials as well as utility executives. However, I wish I could be certain it will happen. Best, Don Bauder

1

MURPHYJUNK May 26, 2015 @ 7:19 a.m.

want to bet if they seize some computers from these crooks the history will show searches for off shore banks and countries that don't extradite.

1

Don Bauder May 26, 2015 @ 7:32 p.m.

Murphyjunk: Which crooks? The ones at the CPUC or the ones with the utilities? Best, Don Bauder

2

MURPHYJUNK May 27, 2015 @ 8:01 a.m.

the list grows, they may have to add a new wing to the prison before its all said and done.

2

Don Bauder May 27, 2015 @ 5:05 p.m.

Murphyjunk: We can hope, but for that to happen, justice would have to prevail. That seldom occurs these days. Best, Don Bauder

2

Diogenes May 26, 2015 @ 8:10 a.m.

The CPUC hearings about SONGS were a disgusting charade designed to mislead the ratepayers and conceal the dangerous operation of a nuclear power station. If replacement pressure steam tubes could be designed to create vibrations leading to failure, and that failure could propagate throughout the facility, the public needs to have a bright light shined on the myriad of failure modes possible at such power plants. Allocation of the losses is important, too. Only by paying the losses can a message be sent to the Board of Directors by the shareholders. Otherwise there is moral hazard in the operation of a nuclear power plant. Maximization of profits rather than public safety will continue until a massive mishap.

The CPUC decided to pass the losses on to ratepayers and evade judicial inquiry into the lack of prudence by the operator and their contractors that caused the failure of the replacement steam pressure tubes.

It is well-known that no escape plan exists to evacuate the general population of Southern California in the event of a loss of coolant event leading to meltdown. No plans exist to safely store spent fuel rods.

The tsunami wall was not sufficient to protect against a large tsunami. A large earthquake or a terrorist attack, a mass coronal projection, or any of a number of other events could trigger a meltdown.

The nuclear cartel in all of its many manifestations, including nuclear energy generation, is a clear and present danger to the environment and human populations.

To have a smug Administrative Law Judge and a Chairman such as Michael Peevey in charge of the truth-finding in such an important proceeding as this is an outrage.It needs to be reopened, all the dirty laundry aired in public, with discovery of documents and cross-examination of the authors of those documents under penalty of perjury.

One meltdown in Southern California would finish off the economy of the state of California. I hope that these wrongdoers see the inside of a prison cell.

Judge Darling does not recall discussing anything but procedural matters. But she does not recall not discussing the cause of the accident and the damages either. That is unacceptable for a judge. Without a record of her ex parte contacts, we are left with her memory, which seems more than convenient under the circumstances. We have a factual dispute between a judge and a party without any actual record. The appearance of impropriety is overwhelming under these circumstances.

Senator Boxer's Committee was having difficulty in obtaining documents. The CPUC and the NRC are designed to protect the operators of nuclear power plants at the expense of public safety. Nothing could demonstrate this more than the SONGS settlement.

3

CaptD May 26, 2015 @ 3:33 p.m.

Diogenes - RE: "Senator Boxer's Committee was having difficulty in obtaining documents."

FYI: Senator Boxer was given a number of notarized statements concerning Utility RSG design faults at San Onofre, long before she ever made any public statements about them. This time lag points out that she also may also have some "skin" in this "Hide The Utility Blame Game", so you can be sure she will resist any and all disclosures of her email concerning San Onofre Gate* Much later, she did ask for and was denied additional documents from the NRC about San Onofre, even though she Chaired the US Committee on Environmental and Public Works, which oversees the NRC. Looking back, perhaps that also was just more Political CYA, since we have clearly witnessed a failure in those charged with regulating our Energy Utilities both within the State of California and by the US Gov't. San Onofre may be one of the reasons that Senator Boxer decided not to run for another term.

Hopefully very soon, if not already, the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) and/or one or more other Federal agencies like the FBI will get involved in a "real" investigation that could very easily expose the biggest Utility financial coverup in the history of the State of California, if not the USA.

  • If you are using Twitter, just enter #SanOnofreGate into the search bar and it will allow you to keep up to date about the ongoing investigation into the multi-billion $ SCE-CPUC ripoff.
1

Wabbitsd May 26, 2015 @ 4:27 p.m.

CaptD, I am not a Twitter user, but by chance, do you have a Facebook page?

0

CaptD May 26, 2015 @ 5:50 p.m.

Wabbitsd - Nope, but I suggest that you start a Tweeter account if only to keep abreast of #SanOnofreGate or use Google to search https://twitter.com/hashtag/sanonofregate

1

Don Bauder May 26, 2015 @ 8:29 p.m.

CaptD: Your statement that this may be the biggest utility financial coverup in the history of the state or nation is not hyperbole. Best, Don Bauder

1

Don Bauder May 26, 2015 @ 7:37 p.m.

Diogenes: Those CPUC hearings on San Onofre were completely one-sided -- designed to protect the egregious mischief that the CPUC and the utilities had jointly pulled, and to silence those who knew what the truth was, and wanted it to get on the record. Best, Don Bauder

0

AlexClarke May 26, 2015 @ 11:26 a.m.

Nothing will happen as the ratepayers will pay and pay and pay while the investors collect and collect and collect and the executives get larger bonuses. The CPUC needs to be disbanded. The SONGS decommissioning should be paid for by the stockholders. The AG should investigate all involved. The utilities should be sized and turned over to the ratepayers. But nothing will happen except the rates will go up.

1

Don Bauder May 26, 2015 @ 7:39 p.m.

AlexClarke: Of course the shareholders should pick up the tab for the San Onofre decommissioning. Egregious management errors were at fault. This means the shareholders should pay. Best, Don Bauder

1

CaptD May 26, 2015 @ 5:59 p.m.

Here is some background information that many SD Readers may not know.

  1. Gov. Brown (a long time friend of Peevey) has to date taken a hands off role regarding San Onofre, other than appointing Peevey’s replacement (since Peevey chose not to seek "reappointment") who has insured that the CPUC maintain the status quo.

  2. Governor Brown’s sister is on the Board of Sempra Energy as are others that are familiar names to many in San Diego. www.sempra.com/about/governance/board-of-directors.shtml

  3. Peevey’s wife is also an elected CA State Official.

  4. Peevey (who is a graduate from UCB) made giving them $5 million a year for a number of years a key component of his San Onofre Settlement Deal. This money will fund Climate Change Research by UCB. This Research will then be used to justify Utility Energy Production instead of Residential Energy Production, much like Big Milk and/or Big Meat funds Research to then justify the consumption of ever more Milk and Meat in our diets because it has been shown to be healthful in University scientific studies.

  5. SDG&E which is owned by Sempra Energy, has done a great job of staying out of the public spotlight regarding San Onofre Gate despite being a 20% Owner of San Onofre. SDG&E had to have knowledge of all Utility settlement discussions before agreeing to any settlement as proposed by the CPUC. Look for Freedom of Information (FOI) requests being filed with SDG&E in order to find out how much they knew, who knew it and when they knew it as San Onofre Gate expands.

  6. Senator Boxer received notarized documents regarding replacement steam generators (RSG) Design Problems long before she started asking the NRC pointed questions about the replacement steam generators in Public, despite being the Chair of the US Committee on Environmental and Public Works, which has oversight of the NRC.

  7. Since SoCal ratepayers will EACH be liable for about $1000 per Utility account if the CPUC “settlement” stands, expect the rate paying public to increase its demand for more information, regarding anything that might reduce or better yet transfer that $5 billion dollar debt to the Utility shareholders, which is why San Onofre Gate will continue to grow.

1

Don Bauder May 26, 2015 @ 7:43 p.m.

CaptD: The Reader has had a spotlight on each of your points except number 6. Best, Don Bauder

0

dwbat May 27, 2015 @ 6:17 a.m.

RE: No. 5. Anyone can file a request for public records in CA; you don't have to be with the media. Here's a link to a sample request form: http://www.nfoic.org/california-sample-foia-request

0

Don Bauder May 27, 2015 @ 6:52 a.m.

dwbat: Good information. Best, Don Bauder

0

Diogenes May 28, 2015 @ 7:31 p.m.

Good information. Do not request paper copies or they will charge 25 cents per page. Request copies by sent by email or burned down onto a CD ROM. Or just request an appointment to inspect and/or copy the records. Get a scanner app for your smartphone.

Request texts. Request emails relating to public records that were sent on personal electronic devices.

Be persistent.

0

Don Bauder May 29, 2015 @ 9:29 a.m.

Diogenes: Patience and persistence are two requirements. Best, Don Bauder

0

CaptD May 29, 2015 @ 2:09 p.m.

Don - RE:"Patience and persistence are two requirements" One other thing wold be most helpful and that is enough money to fund some Staff that would be able to amass the relevant documents and then formulate a PR plan to make the public aware of them.

The Utilities on the other hand are using unlimited amounts of "ratepayer" money to coverup their own wrong doings which is addition to the large sums they are already spending on their own staff of in-house Lawyers. In addition the CPUC, has hired outside expert legal help to defend their own wrong doing, again all at ratepayers expense.

For San Onofre Gate to bust wide open, what we really need is an Angel that would fund both Aguirre & Severson and their media campaign, which would enable a tipping point in public awareness concerning Energy Rip Offs in California.

1

Don Bauder May 30, 2015 @ 3:17 p.m.

CaptD: Yes, a staff to collect the documents, sort through them, and then disseminate the critical information widely would be a real bonus.

As you say, utilities have the funds to hoodwink their customers, buy off politicians, and put friendly regulators in place to do the dirty work. If the public had the means, it could catch the illegalities committed by the regulators. In this case, the public IS catching the conspirators and getting the word out.

Now there has to be justice. Keep your fingers crossed. Best, Don Bauder

0

Diogenes June 1, 2015 @ 8:09 a.m.

UT (surprisingly) and our own Don Bauder at the Reader (not surprisingly) have kept on top of this 3.7 billion-dollar rip off of ratepayers.

If a taxicab company hires a mechanic to work on the cab, and does some of the work itself, should I pay full fair if the cab breaks down? Should I pay full fair while the cab company sues its own mechanic? That squabble is between the cab company and its mechanic.

I am concerned that the passenger in the cab was endangered because the cab had no brakes and was driving at 90 miles per hour. The cab regulatory agency did nothing, and the judge was overruling questions about the brakes as "irrelevant" while emailing with the cab company.

They wanted a big multi-million dollar tip to spread around to their favorite charities. Political campaign contributions help grease the wheels - not just the wheels of the cab.

Here is corporate welfare - they take massive risks, including endangering public safety, and get bailed out by taxpayers and ratepayers. The shareholders win either way. This encourages the CEO to take more risks. Heads we lose, tails they win.

0

CaptD June 1, 2015 @ 6:12 p.m.

Diogenes - Using your analogy, all their SoCal ratepayer passengers are now "each" slated to get stuck with a $1000 bill for their "ride" thanks to the CPUC, yet far too many of them have not cried FOUL (yet), but as we all have seen San Onofre Gate could become front page news tomorrow as ever more insider information makes its way "above the fold".

0

danfogel June 1, 2015 @ 7:32 p.m.

captd/founder, Just don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen!

0

Don Bauder June 2, 2015 @ 7:30 a.m.

danfogel: The LA Times has devoted little space to this scandal. Will the Times shut down the U-T's coverage of this rape of the ratepayer? Best, Don Bauder

0

danfogel June 2, 2015 @ 8:36 a.m.

don bauder, With the U-T not even penetrating 20 percent of the households in the county does it even matter? How many of the county's 2.5 million or so residents of voting age even pay attention for more than just a moment or two? I follow what goes on there from afar, having left SD more than 2 decades ago, but I probably know more of what's going on down there than half the people who live there. And my opinion is that in San Diego county, as well as the rest of So Cal, the vast majority of people not only don't pay much attention to the goings on of the PUC, but most of those people don't have have the slightest clue of not only how they have been doing things for some many years, but also how things are supposed to work. This "rape of the ratepayer", as you call it, has been going on for so long that most people just don't know any better. People don't drink the sand because they're thirsty. They drink it because they don't know the difference.

0

Don Bauder June 2, 2015 @ 7:28 a.m.

CaptD: We HOPE what you call San OnofreGate gets the media attention it merits. The issue has opened many eyes. It must open more. The CPUC's corruption is costing Southern Californians lots of money. There should be a massive ratepayer rebellion. And incarcerations of the wrongdoers. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder June 2, 2015 @ 7:23 a.m.

Diogenes: An excellent analysis using penetrating analogies. I can't improve on it, and won't try. Best, Don Bauder

0

Sign in to comment

Let’s Be Friends

Subscribe for local event alerts, concerts tickets, promotions and more from the San Diego Reader

Close