California PUC Watchdog

The PG&E September 9th San Bruno pipeline blast, which left eight people dead, finally forced consumer watchdog groups AND the California Public Utilities Commission to open their eyes. Even after the PG&E “smart meter” scandal that had many residents up in arms about the price increases, the PUC didn’t step in to mediate the situation.


The PUC is the committee that should be protecting and serving the people with fair prices and utility regulation, but lately it seems that the committee is favoring the utility Goliaths instead of all the David’s out there paying their gas bills.

The regulatory power of the PUC dictates how much profit companies like PG&E will receive annually, based on PUC regulatory rates. Apparently PG&E is looking for a $4.2 billion increase this year, but in the wake of the pipeline blast, the PUC may not be so lenient with granting their request.

Unnecessary stress on taxpayers and businesses during these tough economic times is the last thing we need. With taxes increasing to pay for schools, infrastructure and public safety services, I hardly find it necessary to increase taxpayers’ utility bills, just so PG&E can have a $4.2 billion increase in profits.

Activists such as the Utility Consumers' Action Network in San Diego have come out against the PUC, advocating for tighter, more fair regulation. And this is commission President Michael Peevey’s response:

"To quote Fox News, we're fair and balanced."

Hmmmm… not the most fair and balanced source, but OK.

It will be important for the community to keep an eye on the PUC: two of the five commissioners are to be replaced in 2011. This means our next governor will play a major role in the future composition of the commission; the five commissioners are appointed by the government and confirmed by the state Senate. Stay tuned.

Voter Survey Says: Gilmore Favored; Top Issues Job Creation, City Budget and School Funding

After I waded through survey percentages, open ended responses, aggregated responses, first, second and third choices, a voter survey revealed that Alameda voters are concerned with…money.

Money for schools: address the school closings, school funding and how it relates to the overall budget.

Money management: balance the city budget, both long and short term, focusing on the sustainability of pensions, city services and school funding.

Making more money (JOBS): create more local jobs and boosting commerce.

And of course, Alameda Point redevelopment was a top concern for voters, citing frustrations on the lack of progress at Alameda Point, “going back 13 years since the base closed.”

And who do voters want in charge of the money? Gilmore.

Eighteen percent of voters would cast their ballot for Marie Gilmore, followed by Doug DeHaan with 17 percent. So bye, bye Matarrese; it looks like Gilmore and DeHaan will go head to head come November.

Some of the open-ended survey responses to the question (paraphrased) “what issue or problem is the top priority for Alameda?” were particularly interesting, so I pulled out a few choice replies:

It would be schools. Education is going downhill. It is a lot worse than it was when we were kids. That is very sad. A healthy school system means that there is a healthy community, and that kids and parents are happier and smarter. It just makes everything work out just fine. It is really important.

The schools are the primary issue. If the children aren't in the right direction of getting a good education, we will have a lot of grown up idiots. We need better teachers. The government must not be loose with the money. They need to be wiser.

They should find a way to take care of the education system without taxing more. They always throw it on the homeowners. The main issues are schools and employment. They need to stop doing these partial taxes.

They need to focus on the Alameda base. They need to be nicer to businesses. They are chasing businesses out of town because they think of themselves first as opposed to thinking of everyone else. It is a tiny island community

It is the naval air station. They should get on with redevelopment. It is not halfway finished, and for 15 years, they have been working on it due to arguments with the developers. The naval air station finally closed and the third developer just moved out. No property taxes or income are being generated, but it is the best view in the bay area.

They should address the development of the old naval base or Alameda point. It is an empty space on the island. I think the proper infrastructure needs to be placed before they start developing the island. Whatever they do, they need to make sure it doesn't clog the arteries into the city. They also need to help the school district.

… and just to get everyone riled up:

I would like to see a Wal‐mart or Kmart built here.

In Alameda, Matarrese Is Attacked From All Sides

Matarrese’s flip flop tactics and lack of leadership are finally garnering election attention. Labor representatives, DeHaan supporters and anonymous citizens are burning Matarrese left and right. I’ll have to say, I almost feel bad for the guy… Almost.
After getting the Alameda Labor Council endorsement in 2006, they pulled support from Matarrese and dished it out to Gilmore this year. This was even after Matarrese pushed for an Alameda Point PLA (public labor agreement) with the unions. I’m not sure what’s going on behind those closed doors, but Labor seems confident in their endorsement of Gilmore after a rigorous candidate interview process to find a candidate that “will best meet the challenges of today's economy and keep our interests at heart.”
And of course, the infamous Anti-Matarrese push poll that ran on September 17. I frown on these kind of election tactics, but this push poll really held Matarrese to the fire citing his lack of leadership and failure to hold corrupt officials accountable. I agree with latter part.

Most recently, an unnamed (sortof) source posted an anti-matarrese YouTube clip. Bloggers are opinionating that David Howard, a known DeHaan for Mayor supporter, posted the clip. Take a look; it’s comment number 32 on LaurenDo’s Election 2010 entry. The clip highlights his flip flop tactics, and I’ll have to agree it does seem like Matarrese is more interested in appearing like he serves the community than actually (gasp) serving the community.

One quick quip then I’ll get off my soapbox, but it makes me wonder what Alameda officials are really working towards if it’s not the best interest of the community…

Push Poll Tactics in Alameda

A push poll this last Friday made waves in Alameda.

The Alameda Journal pointed out that there seems to be a reason the person behind this poll chose Matarrese. The Journal speculates that “Matarrese is the front-runner and, hence, the one worth some smearing.”

John Knox White of the SF Gate blog managed to get a recording of the first question. Click here to take a listen.

The tactics are underhanded, but Knox White’s got it right… unfortunately the push poll makes a few good points. Matarrese is a fence-rider that is adept at the game of politics. He certainly won’t come out in public support of something that will hurt him in an election year, which obviously it is.

But where do his votes lie behind closed doors? One can’t be sure. At least Lena Tam will publicly stand up for what she believes in, instead of engaging in backroom deals. But look where that got her. I have to continue to commend Tam for these efforts, and hope that she keeps fighting for government transparency.

Frank on the other hand, seems to be spending time and effort on initiatives that will help his stats and not what will help out his community, which Lauren Do pointed out in her blog entry yesterday.

As for the City Council race, Tam and Bonta are racking up endorsement after endorsement. Thank goodness. Maybe we’ll get some sense into City Hall after all…

Gallant Wrongly Chooses Tam for Target Practice in Alameda

My faith has been restored in the Alameda justice system and City Councilmembers. The Alameda DA has exonerated Lena Tam, and the Alameda City Council voted unanimously in opposition to a costly civil suit against Lena Tam.

This whole issue was political smoke and mirrors, and to be quite honest, makes me furious to know it cost Alameda over $100,000. Fortunately our city judicial and legislative leaders were able to stick to the facts and see through the political tricks.

Unfortunately Tam was chosen as the bull’s-eye for the ICM’s target practice. Her name was dragged through the mud, leaving the general public to ask the question, “Did Lena Tam commit the crime?” This is unfortunate because they should be asking the question “Who accused Tam of these crimes and why?” The answers are much more interesting for the latter question.

It is no coincidence that Ann Marie Gallant, Alameda Interim City Manager chose Tam as the scapegoat. She is the City Councilmember who is and was questioning the corrupt system, and trying to get some structures in place that will clean up City Hall, such as the Sunshine Task Force. She openly questions Gallant at City Council meetings and was one of the two votes against hiring Ann Marie as City Manager.
A quick peek into Gallant’s past shows us that this is not the first time Gallant has tried to kick out someone who doesn’t agree with her, then hastily resign, as she did in Desert Hot Springs:

http://www.pe.com/localnews/desert/stories/PE_News_Local_D_dgallant11.4025e27.html