SDG&E Rates to Increase for Some Residents..uh..Most Residents..The Facts Outspeak the Lies!

Holy electrons, Batman, here it is just a few days later and the gougers at San Diego Gouge and Extort are at it again! After a 12 percent increase in May, the greedy suckers are now looking at a 15 percent increase for ratepayers starting in September. Or, up to a 30 percent increase, according to their news release. What? That's right. They stated the increase would amount to about $15 more on a $100 bill and about $75 more on a $250 bill. That's 15 and 30 percent respectively, folks. Do you feel the shaft here?

The news article starts out with: SDG&E Rates to Increase for Some Residents (not according to the published rate chart! That shows increases for everyone!)

About 25 percent of San Diego Gas & Electric customers will see an increase in their bill beginning this fall (The article says 350,000 customers but the rate chart covers all customers. Is there a method where some customers will pay more for the same usage than others. Will you pay more than your next door neighbor? How can it be the rate increases only cover 25% of the customers yet the charts show it also covers the entire utility customer base increasing? Sounds like a bunch of crap talk to this writer!)

 

The news release is fraught with lies as they say "those customers live mainly in warmer inland areas of San Diego." Actually, when you read the rate sheet, everyones' rates are going up, and those living on the coast using 500 KWH actually will see a bigger increase than someone living inland using 500 KWH of electric. And people in the mountains and deserts will see the lowest increase of only about 2%. I always thought the deserts were warmer areas? Does SDG&E lie so much they forget we can and do read? We've come to distrust them so much we never take anything they say at face value.

Here's their Sept.1 increases:  http://www.sdge.com/residential/2013-rates

And, don't you know they blame it on the shutdown of San Onofre in the following statement:   The closure of San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station has “created an untimely reduction in our region’s energy resources," explained SDG&E in the letter.

Better yet, further showing the greed of this utility, is the following statement attributed to SDG&E: She (Stephanie Donovan) also said the bill impact is 30-50 percent greater than what it would have been if the General Rate Case had been approved last year.

The article is here for your perusal. I'd use to line the litter box after reading it but I think it might make my cat vomit:

http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/SDGE-Rates-to-Increase-for-Some-Residents-213016021.html

Once again, raising rates on a whim, unexplained blackouts and no protection from the California Public Utilities Commission. You do have to ask if someone isn't in the utilities pockets here? I'm not intimating they are, but you really do have to wonder how a regulatory agency lets this utility run wild with our money and just about every increase seems to be a slam dunk. Maybe the governor needs to dump the cronies on the CPUC and put some people with balls in there to stand up to the utilities and quit being lackeys to the power company.

San Diego Gas & Electric

Well, well, well, once again the local gas and electric company is raising the red flag about brownouts and rolling outages this summer. Isn't that just amazing?

A few years ago, SDG&E and its thirsty shareholders jammed the Sunrise Power Link up our collective arses by pressing everyone in the political world, especially the useless CPUC, that is supposed to protect the ratepayers, that it was so sorely needed. By allowing the construction of this massive project across the desert, it would bring virtually unlimited electricity to San Diego County and minimize our need for such terrible things as brownouts that ruin our appliances and rolling blackouts.

Last summer, if you recall, San Onofre Nuclear Power Station, of which SDG&E owns 20%, was out of commission. In fact, it had been out of commission due to faulty equipment (who bought and paid for that do you think?..the ratepayers) since January 2012. No blackouts or brownouts occurred. Seems we had plenty of electricity to go around.

Yet on June 7, 2013 the plant was formally closed permanently, never to generate electricity again. Shortly thereafter, warnings began to circulate about brownouts and rolling blackouts should the summer heat warrant. Why? We didn't have San Onofre last summer, so why would it suddenly be necessary to cut the power this summer? To scare the consumers to allow another Power Link? To allow a huge rate hike to line the pockets of SDG&E's shareholders?

Frankly, folks, SDG&E never takes responsibility for their screw ups. When two of the three 2007 wildfires in San Diego County were attributed to SDG&E improper maintenance of power lines, SDG&E mounted a defense to delay payment to homeowners for years. Then went on the attack by trying to recoup the costs for future wildfire costs by nailing ratepayers ahead of the fact with large rate charges. That's like an individual asking you to put money into the bank in case he burns down his home because he is careless! He knows he's careless and knows he'll burn it down but wants to create a fund to cover the costs, but wants YOU to pay his bills first! Idiotic. And only to protect the shareholders. I thought this is a PUBLIC UTILITY where we the PUBLIC are supposed to be protected by the PUBLIC utilities commission. Guess not, at least here in Kalifornia!

I guess SDG&E really does stand for San Diego Gouge & Extort. Wish we had a way to just turn them off and move to more sources of power. I've gone solar and LED as much as possible. How about you?

Oh, one more thing:

From the San Diego Reader:

CPUC approves fat rate hike for SDG&E

Typical bill will jump 12.2%. Decision was unanimous

Don Bauder, May 9, 2013

 

The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) today (May 9) approved a rate hike for San Diego Gas & Electric customers that will come to almost $10 a month for the average electric ratepayer. The vote of the commission was unanimous. SDG&E for many years has consistently had the highest electricity rates in the nation, but that apparently didn't dissuade the commission or the administrative law judge who earlier recommended an increase. The CPUC said the typical electric bill (500 kilowatt hours per month) will leap 12.2% or $9.95 per month; the average gas bill (33 therms per month) will rise 9.6% monthly or $3.55.

KPBS quoted Commissioner Mark Ferron commenting, "Safety and reliability do not come free. While we must do our best to contain costs, we do have to spend some more on safety and reliability." Some would challenge his reference to safety, since a division of the CPUC found SDG&E greatly responsible for significant parts of the 2007 wild fires, and customers going through blackouts have not been singing the praises of reliability.

"No Duty to Defend the Individual Citizen"

Well, someone had to finally admit it and place it in the news. A fact that has been hidden pretty deep over the years and largely buried by the gun control crowd. Maybe not buried, but they do not want you to know that the government, be it the state or county or municipality or whomever, has absolutely no duty to protect YOU, the individual citizen.

Maybe the boldest statement came from the recent Connecticut case involving the disfigurement of Charla Nash by her friend's chimpanzee and the State of Connecticut dismissing her $150 million dollar lawsuit. The suit is based on the fact that the State knew beforehand that the animal was dangerous but did nothing about it, even though it had attacked several other people. I'm not commenting on the value of the lawsuit at all, but rather the language in which the lawsuit was dismissed by the state claims commissioner: "He added, "If there was a failure by the DEP to seize the animal ... the duty owed was to the general public and does not create a statutory obligation to ensure the safety of a private individual such as (Nash)."

Most law enforcement agencies will tell you their "protect and serve" also is to do so as it pertains to the community as a whole, not as it pertains to any private citizen. Thus agencies are generally immune to lawsuits when they do not show up in time to stop an assault, rape, robbery, murder, or whatever criminal activity may be involved. If you call 911 and it takes 7 minutes response time, and you are seriously injured or dead before help arrives, your family cannot sue the city or county because the police or sheriff didn't arrive in time to stop the crime. Nor can the next victim or their family sue because the perpetrator should have been caught at your home had the response been more timely.

So, the statement above in Connecticut does give you great pause on your own personal protection. Why, then, should you leave it to someone else to protect you and your family, when those sworn to protect actually have no duty to protect them, only the community in general? Don't get me wrong, many fine officers will go to the wall for you and yours, but spread as thin as the blue line is today, you simply can't expect any immediate response, no matter how good you think your police or sheriff's department is. You need to protect you and yours and not be a target while waiting for help to arrive. But be reasonable about doing it!

My suggestion is to be prepared for every eventuality. If you are a firearms owner, know how to use it. Know how to safely use it. Take a firearms safety course. Train with it, know how it should be safely stored, handled, and the laws on self-defense inside your home. Be well trained, as too many accidents can happen when a family member is mistaken for a bad guy in the middle of the night. Solid locks that are actually used are a must; alarms and deadbolt locks and a baseball bat are better deterrents for most people than a firearm they don't know how to use.

I believe in our Second Amendment rights. I believe law abiding citizens should be able to own firearms after reasonable background checks and fingerprinting. That's no less than we ask of people who work in many professions who do not purchase firearms. We go through checks for a drivers license with fingerprinting and a written and driving test. So what's the big deal about the same for a firearms purchase. But let's be sensible. Those who desire to take away everyones' guns are trying to change the face of America. It would be as likely to remove the automobile from our streets. But wait...isn't that part of the government scheme by continually mandating higher MPG until there's nothing left but electrics, and the power companies can't keep up with the demand for charging as they shut down nuclear plant after plant?  It seems so ....clear?