Overview of article at San Diego Reporter that documents alleged collusion and constitutional violations of 5th Amendment Rights at CPUC the California Public Utilities Commission by Michel "Mike" Florio, and outgoing Commissioner Michel Peevey.
How Southern California Edison charged YOU for not using their electricity ...
ANALYSIS The original story quotes ratepayer attorney Mike Aguirre defining the gist of the case as follows: "Every American citizen has the constitutional right not to have their personal property taken without just compensation."
Summary and Key Points
1) All Southern California Edison and SDG&E customers have had their property (money) taken without just compensation
The lawsuit represents Southern California Edison victims (customers) in Orange County, San Diego County, and also the not-for-profit Citizens Oversight, which has also protested the wrongful billings in separate CPUC filings.
2) Alleges that ratepayers are being charged in violation of the Fifth Amendment right to due process and just compensation
The story explains that in January of 2012, ratepayers were forced to pay for newly installed and defective nuclear generators at the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS). The generators, which were supposed to last 40-years, yet failed within two years.
As a result, SCE and SDG&E ratepayers have been paying for electricity that they never received. It notes that "under the direction of Commissioners Florio and Peevey, SCE forced its customers to relinquish their private property without just compensation in violation of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution."
3) Suggests collusion between utilities and government regulators
The lawsuit also documents collusion between the Southern California Edison and top Public Utility Commission officials who are acting on behalf of SCE. When regulatory agencies are controlled by the people or organizations they are supposed to regulate, it is called "adverse domination." In this case, adverse domination means that the utilities, not the regulators at CPUC are calling the shots.
4) Unlawful rate increases were imposed without due process and public review of evidence
The Federal lawsuit alleges that two powerful bureaucrats -- Michel Florio and Michael Peevey -- failed to do their jobs by exercising regulatory oversight over Southern California Edison. It shows how future rate increases were approved in advance as early as 2005 in violation of proper procedure.
5) The rate hikes violate the "Used and Useful" standard.
It argues that the "used and useful" standard for evaluating rate hikes was not applied. "Normally, new construction like the new steam generator project at San Onofre had to be shown to be 'used and useful' in producing electricity before the costs could be put into rates. However, the decision authored by Peevey in 2005, allowed SCE to charge plaintiffs for the new steam generators..." (even of those generators proved to be unusable and useless)
6) CPUC bureaucrats helped Southern California Edison charge skirt legally required design approvals from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
CPUC allowed the utility to sidestep the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which should have approved the changes for safety purposes. Instead, unknown officials at Southern California Edison presented the newly designed and untested generators as an old design that did not require approval by the NRC.
Ultimately, the new experimental generators failed, endangering the lives of as many as 8 million Southern Californians. CPUC has worked diligently to prevent an investigation into how Southern California Edison deceived the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. It has also refused to investigate who was responsible for the decision to install an unlicensed and untested design at one of America's largest nuclear facilities.
7) You have been paying for electricity you never received.
SCE began billing you for power you never received in 2012. The story quotes the lawsuit as follows: "the San Onofre power plant has not been used or useful since Jan. 2012, however the CPUC has continued to change plaintiffs for its cost without allowing them to participate in a hearing whether San Onofre should be removed from rates, and the funds returned to plaintiffs."
8) The cost to you: $3 Billion or more.
The money at play is over 3 billion dollars, distributed between both San Diego Gas and Electric (SDG&E), and SCE (See also Item 10 below).
9) SDG&E excluded from lawsuit
SDG&E is a minority owner a minority owner of SONGS, an protested against the new steam generators. It is hoped that SDG&E will join as a plaintiff.
10) Real refunds of $1,000 or more?
If this lawsuit succeeds, rate payers will stop paying for the electrical power that SONGS is no longer generating and could see $1000 per meter or more in reimbursements, as well as an end to the unlawful charges that are appearing on monthly electric bills.
Keywords: CPUC, California Public Utility Commission, Collusion, California Public Utilities Commission, Corruption, PUC, Public Utilities Commission, Bureaucrats, Florio, Michel Florio, Peevey, Michael peevey, Mike Peevey, Peavey, Mike Florio, Maria Sevrson, Aguirre, lawsuit, San ONOFRE, SONGS, NUKE, nuclear reactor, nuclear failure