CALIFORNIA FOCUS
FOR RELEASE: TUESDAY, JANUARY 26, 2016, OR THEREAFTER
FOR RELEASE: TUESDAY, JANUARY 26, 2016, OR THEREAFTER
BY THOMAS D. ELIAS
“ONE PUC EMBARRASSMENT GONE, BUT PROBES CONTINUE”
Here’s the bottom line on the
significant but under-publicized retirement of Melanie M. Darling, the
California Public Utilities Commission judge who fined a huge utility $16
million late last year for not reporting secret contacts with PUC officials including
herself:
The PUC is rid of a major
embarrassment, but is still under criminal investigation. Why? Because private
phone calls and emails between some of its top officials and executives of
Pacific Gas & Electric Co. and Southern California Edison Co. may have
fixed the outcome of billion-dollar cases.
It’s not yet known whether the commission has had secret dealings
with Sempra Energy, owner of the other two large private utilities it
regulates, Southern California Gas Co. and San Diego Gas & Electric Co.
Darling, 63, had multiple phone calls
and emails with Edison executives, both reported and not, helping make a
laughing stock of the state’s most powerful regulatory board.
None of it was intended as comedy.
Darling’s last major assignment was presiding over hearings that saw the PUC
force consumers to pay 70 percent of about $4.7 billion in costs associated
with the closure of the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, 80 percent owned
by Edison. SONGS shut down in 2012 following a major blunder by the company.
Neither Edison nor the PUC has ever
presented a reason why customers should pay any of those costs, but they are
nevertheless stuck to the eventual tune of about $2,300 for every electric
meter in the territories of Edison and SDG&E, which owns 20 percent of
SONGS.
That decision, it turned out, was
first outlined during a secret 2013 meeting in a Polish hotel between an Edison
executive and former PUC President Michael Peevey. Darling’s real, unannounced
task, then, was arranging the details. Emails between her and Edison executive
Russell Worden reveal she began favoring Edison and SDG&E months before the
Warsaw meeting. PUC judges like Darling hold hearings and recommend decisions,
but only the actual commission can finalize outcomes.
In this case, she and Worden agreed to
split hearings on SONGS into three phases, with the first to set the amount
consumers would pay and the last determining fault for the plant failure.
That’s the reverse of normal, sensible procedure, where blame is assessed
before costs are distributed. One email
reveals Darling already knew about the Edison blunder when she set up her
process; a later one shows she actually asked Edison whether it thought the
proceeding should be reopened after it ended. Naturally, the utility said no
and that was that.
So she was a major embarrassment to
the commission, which insists she planned for a “long” time to retire on Dec.
25. PUC spokesmen did not answer questions about when Darling gave notice of
her rather early “retirement.” She may have been dumped quickly after this
column in early December noted the absurdity of her fining Edison for not
reporting to the commission contacts with her and others at the commission.
It’s all part of a longtime PUC
climate favoring utilities over their customers.
This pattern was obvious for many
years, but the extent of relations between the commission and executives of the
utilities whose rates and profits it sets was not clear until late 2014. A
lawsuit then forced release of 65,000 previously secret and possibly illegal
emails between commissioners, staff and PG&E. Further disclosures
revealed private contacts with executives of other utilities.
Just as astonishing is the way Gov.
Brown and other state officials continue treating the under-investigation PUC
as if it’s trustworthy.
Example: When Brown belatedly declared
a state of emergency over the ongoing natural gas leak at a SoCal Gas storage
facility in Aliso Canyon, about a mile from the Porter Ranch section of Los
Angeles’ San Fernando Valley, he assigned investigative functions to the PUC,
saying it will “ensure that (SoCal Gas) covers costs…while protecting
ratepayers.” Absolutely no recognition there of the commission’s enduring
disregard for the wallets of ratepayers, aka customers.
So yes, the PUC needs big change, and
a wholesale housecleaning may come if indictments ever emerge from state and
federal investigations. Getting rid of one embarrassing second-level official
like Darling won’t solve the problem, either for the PUC or the consumers it is
supposed to protect – but usually doesn’t.
-30-
Email
Thomas Elias at tdelias@aol.com. His book, "The Burzynski Breakthrough,
The Most Promising Cancer Treatment and the Government’s Campaign to Squelch
It," is now available in a soft cover fourth edition. For more Elias
columns, visit www.californiafocus.net
No comments:
Post a Comment