Saturday, October 20, 2012

Sen. Dianne Feinstein Vows to Continue to WHORE for Pacific Gas & Electric Crimnal Utility Monopoly reports that FEINSTEIN’S biggest corporate paymasters, even bigger than BIG BANKS that FEINSTEIN works so hard for, is the CA utilities monopoly, PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC. PGE has long been a criminal corporate rape and pillage crime wave. The pillage PGE performed would be later used as the paradigm the BIG BANKERS’ utilized in their massive rape that brought down a global economy.


“The new bill is a product of talks between Feinstein, PG&E Corp. Chairman and CEO Peter Darbee and other members of the Clean Energy Group, including Calpine, Exelon, Entergy, Florida Power & Light and the Public Service Enterprise Group. The group, which supplies power to 18 percent of U.S. households, is heavily invested in natural gas, nuclear power and other low-carbon sources, and has backed efforts to curb greenhouse gases.”


The paradigm is simple; first buy an easily bought whore like FEINSTEIN. One that has no compunctions about selling out her state and country when the money looks good. Then have the whore work to deregulate so the monopoly can more easily roll the pillage along. FEINSTEIN has been characterized by Ralph Nader as a “closet republican” already. During the 16 years of the HILLARY, BILLARY, BUSH CORPORATE RAPE, the banks, and utilities were all DEREGULATED so the nation’s economy could be more easily be transferred to the CORPORATE CLASS. We know how hard old Bush worked for BIG BUSH SAUDI OIL, his family having started two (2) wars to protect our 9-11 invaders from SADDAM, as well as Bush’s sell out of our nation, environment, institutions, and economy to WALL ST. And right there, as always, was FEINSTEIN, voting for anything that put money in pimp BLUM’S pockets or repaid her corporate paymasters. FEINSTEIN fell in love with BUSH from day one! The smell of money was just too enticing not to!


After deregulation of the utilities monopoly PGE, came BUSH’S ENRON that kicked PGE’s ass across town. Things backfired on the monster utility, but that’s never a problem in this country when you have a bought whore like FEINSTEIN. The corporate losses are simply socialized. The people of CA will be subsidizing PGE’S demand for deregulation, and damages from BUSH ENRON RAPE, for years to come. But there’s always a few tricks to rape consumers more.


One of my fave PGE rapes was when they went to the elected whores in Sacramento and demanded $200 million for “tree trimming”. Sacramento put the money out immediately. Probably no legislator in SAC isn’t paid off by this monopoly. Then the $200 million “disappeared”. So PGE went back for more, and the whores in SAC paid out $300 million for “tree trimming”. Last I read was on this was the $300 million had also “disappeared”. There’s a half-billion of pillage that disappeared.


The old whore FEINSTEIN has many devices to pay back her corporate paymasters. In this instance, she sent her senior staffer SUSAN P KENNEDY over to head up the so-called PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION, which in theory is supposed to protect consumers from CA’s utility/phone monopoly. Of course, the PUC’s real job is to protect the MONOPOLIES so there is NO REGULATION and rate increases are rubber stamped “approved” instantly.


The day FEINSTEIN staffer KENNEDY started at the PUC, the Los Angeles Times, in a front-page article, characterized her as a “closet republican”. Kennedy made it clear whom she worked for when she admitted her vision of her job (at taxpayers’ expense) was to RUBBER STAMP PGE’s rate increases. CA pays the highest rates for utilities in the country, and it is not surprising that WHORE FEINSTEIN will work hard to assure the monopolies pillage will roll on, and on, and on!  This is the whore that fronted for the so called BANKERS’ BANKRUPTCY REFORM on behalf of her paymasters WELLS FARGO and BANK of AMERICA , to prevent victims of these banks’ mortgage devices from obtaining impartial help in the courts EVEN AFTER WELLS FARGO HAD their CA MORTGAGE LICENSE REVOKED FOR FRAUD AND CORRUPTION, and then voted over and over again for NO STRINGS BANKERS’ WELFARE . There is NO amount of corporate rape and pillage that would possibly prevent WHORE FEINSTEIN from taking money from her corporate paymasters, or working their crimes in Congress. None! Susan P Kenney then went on to work for the Austrian steroid freak, ARNO who has cut more than a few back room deals just like FEINSTEIN’S PIMP-HUSBAND, BLUM.

So, you ask…..

Why would this old whore care about a swath of desert and a few wind power projects at the time we’re at the mercy of BIG BUSH SAUDI OIL???? It’s because WHORE FEINSTEIN is doing the bidding of PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC! This monopoly has long be successful in preventing any competition. It’s no more difficult for PGE than buying a whore like FEINSTEIN, or running over to SAC and demanding a half-billion ransom!


From the Los Angeles Times

Feinstein wants desert swath off-limits to solar, wind projects HER PAYMASTERS AT PG&E TOLD HER TO!

In a move that could pit environmentalists and alternative energy industries against each other, the senator wants hundreds of thousands of acres in California designated as a national monument.

By Richard Simon

March 25, 2009

Reporting from Washington — While President Obama has made development of cleaner energy sources a priority, an effort is underway to close off a large swath of the Southern California desert to solar and wind energy projects.

In a move that could pit usual allies -- environmentalists and the solar and wind industries -- against each other, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) is preparing legislation that would permanently put hundreds of thousands of acres of desert land off limits to energy projects. The territory would be designated California's newest national monument.

The move has triggered cries of NIMBY-ism on Capitol Hill.

"If there is such strong support for renewable energy, then why are they moving to block renewable energy production in their own state?" said Rep. Doc Hastings of Washington state, the top Republican on the House Natural Resources Committee.

Myron Ebell, an energy expert with the pro-market Competitive Enterprise Institute, called Feinstein's effort "just the first example of how hard it is going to be to realize President Obama's dream of a green-energy economy."

Feinstein disputed that she is engaged in a not-in-my-backyard campaign. "I'm a strong supporter of renewable energy and clean technology -- but it is critical that these projects are built on suitable lands," she said. NEVER UNDERESTIMATE HOW MUCH FEINSTEIN WILL LIE FOR A BUCK!

The area of concern to Feinstein is between the Mojave National Preserve and Joshua Tree National Park, off old Route 66 between Ludlow and Needles. The area includes desert tortoise habitat, wildlife corridors, cactus gardens and the Amboy Crater -- an inactive volcanic crater where portions of the 1959 movie "Journey to the Center of the Earth" were filmed.

"That section of the road is as pristine as it was when travelers came across it in the 1920s and '30s," said James Conkle, chairman of the Route 66 Alliance.

Boundaries for the proposed monument have yet to be drawn up. But David Myers, executive director the Wildlands Conservancy, said it probably would be in excess of 800,000 acres. Feinstein said in a Capitol Hill interview Tuesday that she was sending her staff to the desert -- and would probably visit the area herself next month -- to consider what areas should be made off limits to green-energy projects and where they should be permitted.

Feinstein, who regards the 1994 California Desert Protection Act as one of her proudest achievements, noted that the Wildlands Conservancy spent more than $40 million buying the former railroad land in the desert and turning it over to the government in one of the largest land purchases in California history, with the intent of protecting it. "I feel very strongly that the federal government must honor that commitment," she said.

The Bureau of Land Management is reviewing 130 applications for solar and wind energy development in the California desert, covering more than 1 million acres of public land, according to Feinstein, who recently discussed her concerns with Interior Secretary Ken Salazar. At least 19 projects have been suggested in the area where the monument has been proposed, Myers said.

Salazar said in a letter to Feinstein that projects in the desert would be "carefully considered" before any decisions were made and that "every effort will be made to avoid the most environmentally sensitive and valuable areas." But he also noted that developing cleaner energy sources was a priority.

California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said in a speech last year at a Yale University climate-change conference: "If we cannot put solar power plants in the Mojave Desert, I don't know where the hell we can put it."

In November, Schwarzenegger signed an executive order that a third of the state's electricity come from renewable sources by 2020. A major boost in solar and wind power is an essential component of the state's plan to cut greenhouse gas emissions under its
landmark global warming law. About 12% now comes from renewable sources, excluding large hydropower plants.

His administration, however, has signaled that it will work with Feinstein. A number of companies pursuing solar or energy projects said they hoped to work with Feinstein to fashion legislation that would satisfy her, environmentalists and the industry. THE ONLY THING FEINSTEIN WORKS FOR IS HER BRIBES FROM PG&E… AND OF COURSE HER WAR PROFITEERING, BRIBES FROM RED CHINA FOR BEING THEIR ADVOCATE IN CONGRESS! (OPENSECRETS.ORG)

Feinstein holds a position of influence: She chairs the Senate appropriations subcommittee that writes the Interior Department's budget.



 Power players warm to Feinstein bill

 (01-18) 04:00 PST Washington -- California Sen. Dianne Feinstein, joined by top executives from PG&E Corp. and other energy firms, introduced an aggressive plan Wednesday to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by electric utilities that is backed by some powerful players in the industry.

The move came the same day news leaked that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will create a new Select Committee on Global Warming to ratchet up pressure in the Democratic-controlled House to pass climate change legislation this year.

The moves by Pelosi and Feinstein suggest that California's top lawmakers -- including Sen. Barbara Boxer, the new chairwoman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee -- plan to take the state's aggressive approach on global warming to the national level.

Feinstein's legislation is part of a blitz of new climate change bills introduced in recent weeks to capitalize on the shift in power in Congress. Her bill also reflects that lawmakers and industry leaders increasingly believe new federal limits on carbon dioxide are inevitable.

There are rumors in the capital that President Bush may announce a shift in climate change policy during his State of the Union speech scheduled next Tuesday. White House spokesman Tony Snow has been noncommittal about any new plans, but said Wednesday that strict limits on emissions are "not something we're talking about."

But Feinstein said a Democratic Congress could pass legislation later this year that would force Bush's hand.

"This administration has not been in the vanguard of action," she said. "It does not mean we should remain dormant. We have an obligation to the people we represent that when we know something is happening and we know there is a way to change it, that we produce legislation. Then the responsibility is with the president whether he wants to sign or veto it."

Feinstein's bill is a "cap-and-trade" measure similar to the law adopted by California last year, except it applies strictly to the electricity sector, which accounts for one-third of America's greenhouse gas emissions.

The bill would cap emissions at 2006 levels starting in 2011, which would represent a 6 percent reduction. In 2015, the cap would drop to 2001 levels, forcing a 16 percent reduction in emissions. Power suppliers would have to further cut emissions by 1 percent a year between 2016 and 2019.

Overall, greenhouse gases would drop 25 percent from today's levels by 2020. The bill also would give the Environmental Protection Agency the power to order further cuts.

Feinstein said it was the first of five global warming bills she will propose this year: One would create a similar cap-and-trade system for the rest of the industrial sector; another would raise fuel economy standards by 10 miles per gallon over a decade. Others would promote biodiesel and E-85 fuels, and apply California's energy efficiency standards to the nation as a whole.

"If we act now and act with purpose, the most serious consequences can be averted. Global warming can be contained to 1 to 2 degrees, and therefore it is manageable," she said Wednesday. "But if we don't act and the temperature spikes by 5 degrees or more, the world around us will change forever. It will be catastrophic, and there is no going back."

The new bill is a product of talks between Feinstein, PG&E Corp. Chairman and CEO Peter Darbee and other members of the Clean Energy Group, including Calpine, Exelon, Entergy, Florida Power & Light and the Public Service Enterprise Group. The group, which supplies power to 18 percent of U.S. households, is heavily invested in natural gas, nuclear power and other low-carbon sources, and has backed efforts to curb greenhouse gases.

Darbee, who attended Feinstein's news conference Wednesday on Capitol Hill, said his industry has a responsibility to address climate change.

"The utility sector is the single largest source of emissions in the U.S.," Darbee said. "This bill will significantly reduce emissions from this sector, and it will do so by leveraging the innovation and efficiency of the market."

Darbee acknowledged that other utilities will likely oppose the new approach. PG&E's low-carbon power cost its California customers about 8 cents per kilowatt hour, while heavy-carbon emitting coal-fired plants can provide power for about 3 to 4 cents per kilowatt hour.

Feinstein is seeking to alter that calculus by requiring utilities to buy "carbon credits" if they exceed the CO{-2} emissions allowed under law -- making it more costly to emit greenhouse gases. Utilities could also buy "offset credits" that pay for restoring wetlands and forests or setting farm land aside to cut emissions. Proceeds from auctioning the credits would fund new low-carbon technologies and help address the effects of warming.

Boxer, whose panel has jurisdiction over the legislation, plans to hold her first hearing Jan. 30 on climate change to allow senators to talk about their proposals. She hopes to move one or more climate bills to the Senate floor later this year.

"I am very pleased that my colleagues are putting forward their best ideas," Boxer said. "Progress will depend upon where my colleagues come down, which is why we are holding this unprecedented hearing to get the perspective of all senators who have bills on global warming."


From the Los Angeles Times


California solar-power subsidy program approaches its limit

A bill seeks to quadruple the amount of electricity consumers with roof panels may sell. The solar industry pushes to pass it. PG & E, Southern California Edison and San Diego Gas & Electric oppose

By Marc Lifsher

July 6, 2009

Reporting from Sacramento — Lis Sines of Hermosa Beach loves watching her electric meter run backward.

When that happens, she knows that the 20 solar panels on her roof are producing more power than she needs to run her 3,800-square-foot home. The excess electricity flows to the electric company's grid, and she gets its full retail value credited to her utility bill.

Sines' electric bill has plunged since she and her husband, William, installed a photovoltaic system on their roof three months ago. In June the bill totaled just $1.26, compared to about $100 a year earlier.

But the Sineses' subsidy may not be available to future solar-power users for long.

The state's $3.3-billion solar subsidy program has become so popular that the state utilities are approaching the legal limit for how much power they can buy from customers.

The limit could be reached in parts of northern and central California served by Pacific Gas & Electric Co. by the end of this year. The state's other two investor-owned utilities, Southern California Edison Co. and San Diego Gas & Electric Co., are proceeding somewhat more slowly.

Eager to keep the program growing, the solar industry is pushing for approval of legislation in Sacramento that would quadruple the amount allowed. The state's for-profit utilities oppose the higher cap in the bill AB 560 by Assemblywoman Nancy Skinner (D-Berkeley).

A key Senate utilities committee vote on the measure is expected this week. Currently, utilities are limited by state law from buying from its customers more than 2.5% of a utility's maximum generating capacity. Skinner's bill would lift the cap to 10%.

All three companies oppose Skinner's bill. They do not want lawmakers to raise the limit until next year at the earliest, after the California Public Utilities Commission tallies up the program's costs and benefits.

Utilities say they strongly support solar power but want more information about whether it's fair to further increase financial incentives for solar-panel ownership.

Such incentives, they point out, would come at the expense of most of the utilities' other customers, who don't want or can't afford to invest in the costly panels.

"We want to make sure there isn't an unfair level of cost-shifting," said Jennifer Briscoe, a spokeswoman for San Diego Gas & Electric.

Fairness issues were also raised in a report on Skinner's bill by the staff of the Senate Energy, Utilities and Communications Committee, which will review the bill this week.

The report pointed out that California solar-panel owners already benefit from a variety of subsidies approved in recent years -- even without this "net metering" program, which allows people to sell power to the utilities.

Solar power users get a state subsidy of about 20% of the purchase and installation cost and a federal income tax credit of 30%. Adding more incentives could be going too far, the committee staff analysis suggested.

The staff report also takes issue with the amount of credit that solar users get when they sell power to the utilities.

"By compensating the solar or wind customer at the full retail rate" for energy sold to the grid, "the utility is using ratepayer funds to pay the solar or wind customer at a rate well above the value of the generated power, which is about one-third of the total cost of a typical residential customer's bill," it said.

The other two-thirds of the bill covers utilities' fixed expenses for building power plants and transmission lines, buying electricity from independent generators and meeting a variety of state mandates, including the cost of subsidizing low-income customers and solar-power system owners.

Supporters of solar-power systems say the net metering program and other subsidies are essential. And many would like to see no caps at all.

"Without net metering we're not going to see a lot more people" buy expensive solar systems, said Adam Browning, executive director of the Vote Solar Initiative, a San Francisco advocacy group. "If we hit the net metering cap, the California solar industry grinds to a halt."

Caps are an impediment to fully developing solar power's potential and its ability to provide clean energy that can be tapped in urban areas, where it is most needed, during peak demand on hot summer afternoons, Browning said. Eighteen states allow net metering without any caps, he noted.

The appeal of lower electric bills appears to be persuading more people to go solar.

Legislation, approved in 2007 and known as the Million Solar Roofs program, has spurred the production of solar-generated electricity to rise 78%. That's equivalent to the power generated by a modern power plant, the Public Utilities Commission reported last week.

Consumer demand continues to grow despite the recession. Applications for state subsidies hit a record high in May, the commission said.

The commission's first solar program assessment recommends raising the net metering cap "to prevent a stall in the solar market," and the commission endorses the Skinner bill.

One solar booster is Harry Pope, a retired Edison executive who bought a large system for his Long Beach home after the energy crisis of 2000-01. He said he needs the state's incentives to make his investment pay off.

"I probably put in $30,000 and got half back. Maybe over 15 years I might achieve total payback," he said.

Without people like him, Pope said, the state will have to build more power plants. "I'm preventing the utilities from having to build that next-generation power plant . . . the most expensive power plant you ever saw."




PG&E opposes two solar-power bills

By Tracy Seipel

Mercury News

Posted: 06/19/2009

Green Energy

After casting itself as a champion of solar power, Pacific Gas & Electric has angered green-energy advocates by opposing two state bills that would ramp up the benefits for those who go solar.

Put simply, PG&E's objection is that the two measures would make solar too popular. The utility says that would be unfair to its non-solar customers, who under existing law must subsidize rebates and credits paid to solar-power users.

But some supporters of the bills say PG&E's real worry is about its own financial burden, since it sells less electricity to solar-power users."The big picture, unfortunately — and counter to their public image — is that PG&E doesn't like the idea of an unbridled solar market," said Bernadette Del Chiaro, director of clean energy programs at Environment California, a nonprofit statewide environmental group and sponsor of Assembly Bill 920. "Unfortunately, the business model doesn't yet allow for a market in which customers generate their own electricity."

For consumers who might be considering a solar system, the bills enhance one of the most attractive financial benefits of making such a move: the opportunity to sell excess power back to their electric utility.

Assembly Bill 560 would increase the cap on "net metering," which gives solar customers credit on their electric bill for surplus power they transfer to the utility. Currently, a utility is not obligated to sign net-metering contracts once solar power equals 2.5 percent of its peak electricity demand, a level PG&E is approaching. AB 560 would quadruple that cap, to 10 percent.

The second bill, AB 920, would change the way customers with solar installations are paid for surplus power. Utilities now give them full retail rate credit on their monthly bill that can be used to offset the customer's energy consumption at other times, like nighttime. But at the end of the year, leftover credits are zeroed out. AB 920 would require utilities to pay for credits or any electricity left over at the end of the year, although at a lower rate, or allow them to be rolled over to the next year.

Dan Kammen, professor in the Energy and Resources Group at University of California-Berkeley, said the bills will help open up competitive markets that favor low-carbon and clean energy, and help the state meet the goals of its landmark climate-change legislation.

But PG&E and other opponents contend the bills would impose a financial burden on non-solar customers, who pay for the state rebates for solar installations. And because solar customers buy less electricity from the utility, PG&E said they do not contribute as much to transmission and generation costs, increasing the burden of non-solar customers. So far, about 30,000 of the utility's 6 million customers have solar systems.

Sue Kateley, executive director of the California Solar Energy Industries Association, said PG&E's opposition may result from its lead over the state's other two investor-owned utilities, Southern California Edison and San Diego Gas & Electric, in the number of solar adopters. PG&E's success in solar adoption has "forced us to have a discussion about raising the cap earlier than we expected," she said.

Before it agrees to any further increases, PG&E wants to review a cost-benefit analysis of net metering being prepared by the state's Public Utilities Commission and due in January. However, it would support raising the net-metering cap to about 3 percent as a buffer should it reach the 2.5 percent cap before then.

Likewise, supporters say solar adoption will be slowed unless AB 920 is passed to end an unfair subsidy to PG&E from its solar customers. But PG&E's Rubin says the price the utility would have to pay for the electricity from its solar customers is too high, further burdening the utilities non-solar customers.

"Maximizing the number of people who go solar is a paramount policy — it affects air pollution consideration, climate change considerations and the development of green jobs," said Adam Browning, executive director and co-founder of Vote Solar Initiative, a San Francisco nonprofit seeking to bring solar energy into the mainstream. "So why are we talking about stamping on the brakes when we should be talking about pushing on the accelerator?"….WHY? IT’S CALLED THE OLD BOUGHT WHORE FEINSTEIN!


PGE finds yet another way to extract WELFARE from people! That’s all this is.

PG&E pushes to extend unpopular ClimateSmart

Monday, July 27, 2009

(07-26) 20:32 PDT -- A Pacific Gas and Electric Co. program that asks customers to fight global warming by paying a little extra on their electricity bills has enrolled just 31,000 people and takes far more money to run than it generates.

Now PG&E wants to extend the ClimateSmart program, even as consumer watchdogs question whether it's worth the money.

"Everyone agrees that reducing greenhouse gas emissions is important - this just might not be the best way to go about it," said Diana Lee, an attorney representing the consumer protection office of the California Public Utilities Commission.

Launched with great fanfare in 2007, ClimateSmart gives PG&E customers a way to go "carbon neutral."

People who sign up for the program pay a monthly fee - usually less than $3 - to offset greenhouse gas emissions from the power plants that supply their electricity. Most of the money funds forestry projects that pull carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. While other, smaller companies - such as TerraPass in San Francisco - offer similar services, ClimateSmart was the first such program from a utility.

But so far, only 31,000 PG&E customers have joined. That's 0.6 percent of the utility's 5.1 million customers, far fewer than expected. The California Public Utilities Commission, which approved the creation of ClimateSmart, predicted that 3.3 percent of PG&E customers would sign up.

The commission approved ClimateSmart as a three-year experiment and gave it a $16.3 million operating budget. Those expenses are paid by all of PG&E's customers, not just the ones who volunteer for the program. The fees collected from ClimateSmart participants pay for greenhouse gas reductions rather than the program's day-to-day operations.

But in its first two years, the program collected just $2.6 million from participants. During the same two years, it cost $9.7 million to run.

"This is a bad ratio, and there's no indication that it's going to get better anytime soon," said Matt Freedman, staff director for The Utility Reform Network, a consumer advocacy group.

ClimateSmart's three-year run is supposed to end late this year. But PG&E, which is based in San Francisco, has asked the commission to extend the program through 2011.

No comments: