San Diegans do not live within Pacific Gas & Electric’s service fiefdom, but we are nonetheless affected by the giant utililty’s political weight-throwing.
Following the wake of its disastrously expensive and failed attempt to persuade voters — via Prop. 16 — to grant a virtual monopoly, PG&E is now trying to rehabilitate its image and grow its bottom line by opposing Proposition 23 – the initiative that would suspend job-killing AB 32 until state unemployment falls to 5.5%.
It’s an attempt to please the powers-that-be by being “green” – and in PG&E’s case, green is just about The Planet.
A quick analysis produces the not-so-shocking revelation that the “green” PG&E is focused on is cold hard cash. Estimates ranging from the Legislative Analyst’s Office to independent economic studies show PG&E would miss out on a big payday in the form of higher rates if voters approve Proposition 23.
PG&E has already requested a rate increase to “comply with AB 32” via Resolution G-3447. Take note:
“Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) seeks to modify its gas and electric regulatory accounts to recover from its core and noncore gas and electric customers a portion of the California Air Resources Board’s (CARB) Assembly Bill (AB) 32 Cost of Implementation Fee (AB 32 Fee) paid to CARB.”
“To the extent the fee results in additional costs to investor-owned utilities, the CPUC will be able to allow them to recover the costs via appropriate regulatory proceedings.”
That is just to pay for the administration of the program; the real costs haven’t even begun.
Since PG&E is a regulated utility, it has guaranteed profits – so higher rates mean a bigger corporate bottom line.
If your rates go up from about $100 — $111 to $150, that equates to $166.50 including guaranteed profits. At $5.50 a month, times, say 6 million customers (PG&E had installed 5.7 million smart meters as of May), means $33 million a month and $396 million a year.
That’s a lot of “green.”