120,000 Small Business SDG&E Customers Included in Proposed PSW/PSH Rate Scheme

San Diego Gas & Electric Company employee Joseph Velazquez testified to California's Public Utilities Commission that SDG&E intends to move "virtually all of SDG&E’s customers including its estimated 1.2 million residential and 120,000 small nonresidential customers" to time-based electricity rates.

The Velasquez SDG&E testimony was provided to support SDG&E's application A1007009 that would effectively end usage-based customer billing practices at the investor owned utility. Sempra Energy, the holding company that owns SDG&E, recently suffered a multi-billion-dollar contraction in its year-to-year revenues, reporting only about $8 billion in 2009 compared to roughly $11 billion during the year of the Crash of 2008.

SDG&E's proposed time-based billing programs PeakShare at Work (PSW for small businesses) and PeakShare at Home (PSH for residential customers) are designed to herd those customers into using electricity during off-peak hours and weekends, reducing power resource competition for large business consumers and reducing the need for SDG&E to construct expensive peaker plants to meet daytime power demands.

A lack of peaker plant capacity may act to constrict the future sales of residential units in San Diego's already lackluster housing market.

One or more SDG&E spokespersons have previously cited the Sempra-owned utility's proposed PSW/PSH rate scheme as a means of controlling its costs for electricity to be later sold to customers. To insure customer demand for PSW/PSH, SDG&E plans to bill all SDG&E customers about $118 million for consumer education and other PSW/PSH costs over the next five years, despite SDG&E attorney assurances to CPUC that "PeakShift terminology is intended to be easily understood and user-friendly for use by these customer classes."

At the same time, SDG&E is awaiting approval from the Forest Supervisor of the Cleveland National Forest to begin work on the Sunrise Powerlink project through federally-protected property. A lease agreement for half of the Sunrise Powerlink capacity from Imperial Valley to San Diego has been proposed by Boston-based Citizens Energy Corporation, to be accomplished through a Citizens-controlled limited liability company that will hand $83 million in pre-paid rent over to SDG&E. SDG&E hopes its total Sunrise Powerlink capacity will improve its percentage of alternative energy use, although the utility will not dedicate the Sunrise Powerlink project for alternative energy transmission. Other potential Mexican sources of electricity may include the somewhat-stalled Energia Costa Azul project overseen by Sempra LNG.

CPUC recently determined that the A1007009 ratesetting application required hearings on SDG&E testimony and other evidence to be held in November and December 2010, before the application could be approved by the state utility commissioners.

Visit the SDG&E regulatory website for CPUC activity to see the Velazquez testimony as a PDF file at http://www.sdge.com/regulatory/documents/a-10-07-009/Chapter1-Velasquez.pdf

Visit the A1007009 application PDF at CPUC for SDG&E attorney testimony at http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/EFILE/A/120244.PDF

Visit the Cleveland National Forest - Projects & Plans website at http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/cleveland/projects/sunrise-powerlink/index.shtml

NB: On third-party request, above links may be deprecated without blogger's input at website administrator's discretion.


Founder July 12, 2010 @ 4:12 p.m.

This is yet another high tech money "grab" out of each of our pockets! It would not be SO bad if SDG&E put every cent of these "additional" charges into the Solarizing of it's supply but I'm very sure they will just add it to their bottom line and make their shareholders $mile instead

If that were not bad enough (and at the same time) SDG&E refuses to pay US for the Energy we generate at the time we add it to the Grid! SDG&E's "Energy" is worth much more than our "Energy" only because they say so and people wonder why all of US do not add Solar panels to our roofs!

Let's use a money example to examine what is happening here: How would you like to own a Bank where you could pay folks a discounted rate for the money they added to your Bank and then instantly turn around and charge everyone a much higher rate when they "take" any money out; even the folks that just added their money to your Bank and BTW: YOU ARE ONLY BANK IN TOWN!

Sound too good to be true, not for SDG&E. How do you spell MONOPOLY?

Why have all our elected Representatives allowed SDG&E to do this to US, is it all the contributions that Big Energy has made to get these Officials elected or is it for the same reason that Dogs lick themselves, "Because they can...".


Founder July 13, 2010 @ 8:38 a.m.

Rate Hike RIPOFF only two comments posted!

I guess everybody in SD is so rich that it doesn't matter to them!


a2zresource July 13, 2010 @ 11:44 a.m.

RE #2:

SDG&E appears to understand that it doesn't have to pay out a cent for confiscated electricity from home generation as long as homeowners are scared off from applying to Federal Energy Regulatory Commission as Qualifying Facilities.

RE $3:

At least the blog postings and comments that do come in provide some sort of record on the search-engine term "SDG&E" for news...


Sign in to comment

Win a $25 Gift Card to
The Broken Yolk Cafe

Join our newsletter list

Each newsletter subscription means another chance to win!