Shifting costs to residential users
Regarding the consumer column on Pacific Gas & Electric’s desire to shift millions in fees paid each year by business customers onto residential customers to fund low-income heating programs (“Utilities’ surcharge proposal is ill-timed,” Nov. 23):
I can’t help but think that the $250,000 that PG&E; donated in July to the No on Prop. 8 campaign could have been better allocated to support low-income families.
I don’t understand why a public utility should be involved in an issue unrelated to its services, and I believe that directing this money to support low-income folks would have been more in keeping with the company’s mission.
Eric Van Denburg
Trabuco Canyon
--
To pass the burden of utility payment for those who cannot afford to pay much of anything to the residential customer is just increasing the problem.
I understand the argument for letting the big companies off the hook -- same old “trickle down” theory.
It’s about time that the big utility companies started giving back to the community by bearing the cost of helping those unable to pay.
It’s not always about the stockholders. It’s also about those who give their hard-earned money to these companies.
Dick Diamond
Bay City, Ore.
--
You’re right: This story sounds like a joke. The proposal ranks up there with bailed-out corporations using the money for executive raises and lavish retreats.
Every time I read a story like this, my first question is, “Who are these people? Do they have families who love them? Do their pets enjoy their company?”
Here’s my counterproposal: For the lower contribution rate, businesses must have their usage capped at a certain level.
If they want lower contribution rates, they must consume less utility. If they exceed the cap, they are levied a steep penalty.
Barbara J. Greyhosky
Los Angeles
--
San Diego Gas & Electric hopes to stick state electricity users with a multibillion-dollar price tag for its proposed Sunrise Powerlink transmission line.
Only the California Public Utilities Commission stands between SDG&E; and a lot of money. (“PUC chief backs Sunrise Powerlink transmission line,” Nov. 20.)
You reported Commission President Michael Peevey’s support for the line, but not that he would approve the line without an enforceable commitment by SDG&E; to put renewable energy on it.
SDG&E; is far behind in meeting the state’s renewable energy requirements, and existing rules won’t fix that. Commissioner Dian Grueneich proposed approving the transmission line only if there was a binding clean energy guarantee.
Whatever one thinks of the line, it only makes sense for the commission to require such a guarantee if it is going to give ratepayers’ money to SDG&E.;
Bill Corcoran,
Sierra Club
Los Angeles
