Brown said the six bills had several worthwhile ideas. “Unfortunately, taken together there are various technical and conflicting issues that make the over 50 proposed reforms unworkable. Some prudent prioritization is needed,” he wrote.

Sen. Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, and Sen. Ben Hueso, D-San Diego, who co-sponsored Senate Bill 660, the most sweeping reform measure, expressed disappointment and dismay. So did Assemblyman Anthony Rendon, the Lakewood Democrat who will take over as speaker in coming months.

The measures were intended to limit back-room dealings in which PUC officials and board members met surreptitiously with representatives of the state’s powerful investor-owned utilities. The most notorious example was a 2013 meeting in a Warsaw, Poland, hotel between then-PUC President Michael Peevey and a Southern California Edison executive at which the parameters were set for a later-approved deal in which ratepayers bore 70 percent of the $4.7 billion cost of the shutdown of the San Onofre nuclear plant. Southern California Edison is San Onofre’s majority owner and San Diego Gas & Electric is the minority owner. The meeting and its central role in the bailout approved by the PUC wasn’t disclosed until February of this year.

Ex-PUC president’s home searched by investigators

Peevey is the subject of state and federal criminal investigations over the San Onofre deal and other PUC decisions. He left the PUC under pressure in late 2014. Soon after, his La Canada Flintridge home was searched by investigators looking for evidence of improper relationships with the utilities he used to govern.

Within weeks after the raid, the PUC released emails that raised troubling questions about the cozy ties between Peevey and top officials at Pacific Gas & Electric, the giant Northern California utility. This is from a February CalWatchdog account:

Emails show Peevey pressured PG&E to give money to oppose Proposition 23, the failed 2010 ballot measure opposing AB32; appeared to link his support for rate hikes to PG&E actions on unrelated issues; and was open to PG&E efforts to influence inquiries into a San Pedro pipeline explosion that killed eight people. … He sought to prop up a project by the Hydrogen Energy California (HECA) firm by constantly reminding PG&E how much he had done for it.

The Brown administration promised to work with lawmakers on a more streamlined reform proposal in coming months. But in the meantime, as Hueso told the Union-Tribune, the PUC has “little incentive to work toward a culture of openness and accountability.”

The agency has been accused of being excruciatingly slow in releasing crucial documents, whether to criminal investigators, the Legislature or journalists. It also appears to be shrugging off growing calls to scrap the deal on how to cover the $4.7 billion cost of closing San Onofre.

Michael Aguirre, the San Diego attorney who led testimony against the San Onofre plan last fall, had the sharpest reaction to the governor’s decision. He told the Union-Tribune that “Jerry Brown’s vetoes show he is helping — not stopping– the dishonest practices known to the people of California.”

Brown chose aide to replace Peevey, not outsider

A previous decision by the governor already suggested he doesn’t share the prevailing view in Sacramento that the PUC is badly in need of a culture change. When Peevey was forced out in December of last year, Brown could have appointed an outside energy expert with a history of independence. Instead, he named PUC board member Michael Picker as president. Though Picker has only been on the board since January 2014, he is an energy establishment insider, working for Brown — and with the utilities  — from 2009 as a senior energy adviser until joining PUC management.

Despite continued criticism of PUC secretiveness, Picker’s selection as board president was ratified by the state Senate a month ago.

However, California’s emphasis on switching to renewable power — and the little-known fact that it is home to The Geysers, the world’s largest geothermal power complex, 70 miles north of San Francisco — has officials in Imperial County hopeful that developing their region’s vast geothermal resource can be part of a larger overall plan to rescue the dying Salton Sea and improve the impoverished local economy.

Last year, working with the Imperial Irrigation District, state Sen. Ben Hueso, a Democrat from San Diego whose district includes all of Imperial County, and Assemblyman V. Manuel Pérez, D-Coachella, won Senate passage of SB 1139 before pulling the bill from Assembly consideration in September. This is from the Desert Sun’s account:

SB 1139 … would require utilities to buy 500 megawatts of electricity from new geothermal plants by 2024 … . While the bill wouldn’t have required that any geothermal power come from the Salton Sea specifically, it’s likely that developers would have jumped to take advantage of the sea’s huge untapped energy potential.

 

IID has estimated that geothermal and other green technology development at the Salton Sea could generate more than $4 billion over 30 years, with much of that money going toward restoring the receding body of water. Ramping up geothermal development would also create thousands of jobs in Imperial County, which has a 22 percent unemployment rate — the highest in the state.

 

It’s unclear why [Hueso and Pérez] decided not to bring the bill to a vote in the Assembly, following its 21-11 passage in the Senate earlier this year. Hueso’s office had indicated last month it was only a matter of time before the bill came up for a vote in the Assembly, but it’s possible he simply didn’t have enough votes to secure its passage.

Imperial still committed to grand plans

As saltonseasense.com noted in June, quoting official reports, the Imperial Irrigation District remains committed “to build up to 1,700 MW of geothermal power by the early 2030s at the Salton Sea.”

But it’s no longer clear if there is much legislative support for an SB 1139-type approach mandating geothermal development. Officials with the state’s three giant investor-owned utilities have never been big fans of geothermal as a major source of state power. Energy experts say there’s a reason that there’s no billionaire enthusiast pushing geothermal, as T. Boone Pickens has done with wind power and several tycoons have done with solar power. It’s because a deep dig into the facts — by scientists as well as potential investors — shows it’s not an attractive option.

Tom Murphy, an associate professor of physics at the University of California-San Diego, explains why on his “Do the Math” blog:

The energy derived is mostly useful for heat, being inefficient at producing electricity. It won’t fly our planes or drive our cars. And it’s buried under kilometers of solid rock, making it very difficult to access. Each borehole only makes available the heat in its immediate surroundings — unlike drilling for oil or natural gas, where a single hole may access a large underground deposit.

 

So my guess is that we’ll burn every tree and fossil fuel on the planet before we start drilling through ordinary rock to stay warm. In other words, there is little incentive to dig deep for heat. By the time we run out of the easier resources —having burned every scrap of wood not bolted down — are we going to be left in a state to drill through rock at a massive scale?  ….

 

In short, even though the thermal energy sitting under our feet is enormous in magnitude, it does not strike me as a lucky find. No one is racing to dig in.  Perhaps it is simpler to say that it’s economically excluded, at present.

The 10 small geothermal plants now operating in Imperial County are seen as a promising symbol of what the poor farming region might become. But the reality seems much more likely to be that geothermal energy — on a large scale, at least — never amounts to much in a California that’s now rushing to invent its alternative-energy future.

Instead, those plants could someday be seen as a symbol of the folly of local politicians and bureaucrats talking themselves into believing that they could treat geothermal energy production as if it were a type of pork that could be legislated into existence.

Asm. Ling Ling Chang

Sacramento once again has its eye on the sharing economy.

This year, state lawmakers have targeted ride-sharing companies and short-term accommodation services for more regulations that, some fear, could kill the burgeoning industry. But, at least one state lawmaker has embraced the mantra: “sharing is caring.”

Republican Assemblywoman Ling Ling Chang of Diamond Bar has introduced legislation that would rewrite the state’s travel policy to guarantee state workers have the right to use sharing services while traveling on government business. That means on the next business trip to Los Angeles, a state worker could ditch the corporate hotel chain in favor of Airbnb, or upgrade the big yellow taxi for an Uber.

“The sharing economy is becoming a part of our everyday lives,” Chang told CalWatchdog.com. “I see it as a growing market in California that is creating jobs and making our lives better, which is a win-win.”

Chang added, “We should be embracing these new markets and one way to do that is to allow state workers to take advantage of their cost-saving benefits.”

Bill could saves taxpayers millions

Technically, there’s nothing in state law that prevents an agency or department from approving travel reimbursements for sharing services. Chang says that her measure is a pro-active effort to keep state policies current with new innovations in the marketplace.

“By allowing state employees to use the sharing economy, California is leading by example and embracing innovation,” Chang explained. “Too many times state bureaucracies punish these new entrepreneurs because they don’t understand them. If it doesn’t fit into the status-quo, 20th century regulatory scheme, there seems to be a desire to push them into that old system.”

Last year, the University of California initially banned reimbursements for travel expenses incurred with sharing services. That led to a public outcry with some Democratic politicians calling for the UC system to modernize its travel policies.

“Sharing economy companies offer consumers more choices at often less cost than comparable services offered by traditional vendors,” Lt. Governor Gavin Newsom, a member of the UC Board of Regents, wrote at the time. “Prohibiting U.C. employees from using services that cost less is simply bad for the university’s bottom line.”

Eventually, the UC system backed away from its ban. Chang’s bill encourages the UC system to follow the state’s lead in embracing sharing services.

Internet Association, Natural Resources Defense Council back bill

The $15 billion sharing industry is expected to grow to $335 billion over the next decade, in part, because it saves consumers money. Sharing services are commonly cheaper than traditional travel businesses. According a legislative analysis of the bill, home-sharing services can save consumers as much as 50 percent compared to conventional lodging options.

With more than 271,000 active state employees, a shift by state government to more sharing services could help save taxpayers money. Chang’s office says that state employees have been reimbursed approximately $110 million in travel-related expenses over the last three years.

The bill has picked up key support from the Internet Association & Natural Resources Defense Council, which believe it will help the environment and save taxpayers money.

“AB229 recognizes the value of the emerging sharing economy and how it could be used to reduce state costs relating to travel,” the Internet Association wrote in support of the bill. “Providing the ability for state employees to use sharing economy services and receive reimbursement would increase the number of safe and reliable options available to employees when they travel on state business.”

AB229 sailed passed the State Assembly on a 74-0 vote.

Sen. Ben Hueso attacks ride-sharing services

But not everyone in Sacramento is ready to embrace the idea. The bill has run headlong into opposition from one state lawmaker that has consistently opposed the new sharing economy.

“This industry, two years ago was operating illegally,” state Senator Ben Hueso, D-San Diego, said in reference to the ride-sharing industry during a committee hearing earlier this month. “This is a bill that is largely unnecessary, but it is setting a statement, saying, ‘The state of California is endorsing this mode of travel and encouraging this mode of travel over others.'”

Hueso, whose family is in the taxi cab business, has become the Legislature’s biggest critic of ride-sharing. Yet, even he could benefit from the new services. Last summer, Hueso was arrested for driving under the influence just hours after he voted for legislation that one ride-share executive feared “would literally spell the end of the ride-share industry.”

As CalWatchdog.com reported last Aug. 25:

“State Senator Ben Hueso, D-San Diego, was arrested early Friday morning on suspicion of drinking and driving. He reportedly spent the night drinking wine and tequila in the State Capitol and at a local restaurant with several of his colleagues. Years before, he voted to ban drinking at public beaches.”

Now, the Los Angeles Times just reported:

“The state purchased $540,000 worth of new Ford Fusion Hybrids and other cars for legislators over the last 18 months, prompting criticism from taxpayer activists who call the vehicles unnecessary political perks given at a time when many Californians continue to struggle financially. …

“The 2015 cars were assigned to the more senior lawmakers, Alvarez said, including Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de León (D-Los Angeles) and Democratic Sens. Ben Hueso of San Diego, Marty Block of San Diego, Ricardo Lara of Bell Gardens, Hannah-Beth Jackson of Santa Barbara and Richard Roth of Riverside. The newer cars also went to Republican Sens. Joel Anderson of San Diego and Mike Morrell of Riverside.”

Hueso also worked on a bill to kill Uber, the ride-sharing company. In that instance, Gov. Jerry Brown worked out a compromise to tighten safety while keeping one of San Francisco’s brightest new tech companies — and competitors such as Lyft — going strong in their home state.

In the November election, voters re-elected Hueso with 55 percent of the vote, to 45 percent for fellow Democrat Rafael Estrada.

The car purchases come after de Leon laid off 39 staffers, many of whom wrote the analyses of bills that citizens, journalists and lawmakers rely on to figure out what’s going on in government.

All bills are online at the state’s site, Bill Information. The analyses put into plain English legislative language that often is difficult to understand. And the analyses often include historical information especially useful now that term limits have reduced the “institutional memory” in the Legislature.

The analyses also partly made up for the sharp reduction in news coverage of the state Capitol the past decade as newspapers have cut staffs. It’s this type of gap in information that CalWatchdog.com works to fill.

“How we achieve these goals and at what pace will take great thought and imagination mixed with pragmatic caution,” Brown said in Monday’s Inaugural Address for his fourth term as governor. “And we will need active collaboration at every stage with our scientists, engineers, entrepreneurs, businesses and officials at all levels.”

Yet, as state leaders take up Brown’s ambitious renewable energy agenda, two of California’s most opinionated energy experts will be missing from the debate.

For more than a decade the Capitol’s two most forceful energy voices have been State Sen. Rod Wright, D-Los Angeles, an influential member of key energy committees, and Public Utilities Commission President Michael Peevey, who spent 12 years as the state’s top energy regulator. Last fall, both were brought down by scandal.

Wright objected to current renewable energy mandate

Wright’s departure, in particular, eliminates a major legislative roadblock for Brown. A former chairman of the Assembly Committee on Utilities and Commerce and influential member of the Senate Committee on Energy, Utilities and Communications, Wright had been the Legislature’s biggest critic of renewable-energy mandates. That was until last September when he resigned his position after being convicted of multiple felonies for lying about his residence.

In 2011, California lawmakers approved Senate Bill 2X1, the state’s first major renewable energy mandate. The bill required that a third of the state’s energy come from renewable sources by 2020. This requirement, known as a Renewable Portfolio Standard, or RPS, was criticized for legislating by popular slogan — rather than setting out a clear plan for achieving its goal.

“Legislation to increase the RPS goals to 33 percent has been attempted in each of the last two sessions,” a Senate bill analysis of SB2X1 stated. “There has been little or no debate about the goal, but there has been great controversy over how to get there and from where the generation should be secured.”

When the bill reached the Senate Floor, Wright expressed concerns about the cost to consumers and taxpayers.

“Today we are about to vote on a bill that could result in a 15 percent to 20 percent rate increase,” Wright, the most passionate critic of the bill, said in his floor speech. “SB2X could very well result in a $1.5 billion hit to the general fund without any demonstrable benefits.”

“Thirty-three percent by 2020 is a great slogan,” Wright complained, “but what are we trying to achieve?”

Brown’s renewable energy adviser set to lead PUC

Brown defended the move as the first step in the state’s long-term renewable energy effort.

“While reaching a 33 percent renewables portfolio standard will be an important milestone,” Brown said in his signing message, “it is really just a starting point — a floor, not a ceiling.”

Brown had help in crafting the mandate from his then-renewable-energy adviser, Michael Picker, who was appointed last month to take over as president of the PUC. If confirmed by the state Senate, Picker can be expected to push Brown’s renewable energy agenda at the PUC. After all, according to Smart Voter, it was Picker’s job in the governor’s office, to coordinate “the statewide effort to help reduce California’s reliance on polluting coal and fossil fuels and bring us closer to our goal of providing at least 33 percent of electricity from renewable generation sources.”

For all his faults, and there are many well-documented by NBC Bay Area’s Tony Kovaleski, Peevey pushed back against elected officials. Throughout his controversial tenure, Peevey seemed impervious to public criticism. He also sought “more flexibility in implementing California’s RPS law,” according to an Restructuring Today, an energy industry newsletter.

Lawmakers unlikely to challenge Brown

It’s unlikely that state lawmaker will fill the energy vacuum left by Wright. In the Assembly, the Utilities and Commerce Committee will be chaired by Assemblyman Anthony Rendon, D-Lakewood. A well-liked lawmaker with two years’ experience on energy, Rendon isn’t expected to rock the boat. In December, Rendon said his top priority as chair of the utilities committee will be transparency.

“Transparency in deciding how California’s businesses and families invest in energy will play a critical role in assuring our state’s vibrant, smart and safe renewable energy future,” he said in a press release announcing his appointment.

Similarly, State Sen. Ben Hueso, D-San Diego, who took over as chairman of the Senate Committee on Energy, Utilities and Communications, won’t thwart Brown’s renewable energy agenda. Last session, he introduced legislation to “force the state’s three investor-owned utilities — SDG&E, PG&E and Southern California Edison — to buy 500 megawatts of geothermal power annually from the Imperial Valley by 2024.” The bill died in the Assembly.

According to Hueso’s web site, his district “incorporates all of Imperial County,” which includes Imperial Valley.

Rate hikes: Wright’s prediction proving true

And what does this all mean for consumers?

Wright’s prediction that RPS would increase energy rates is proving true. School districts throughout the state have been hit with higher electricity bills, due in part to the state’s renewable energy mandate. According to the UT San Diego, the San Marcos Unified School District has seen its energy bill increase by $700,000 over a five-month span compared to the same period in 2013.

“We are stuck,” said Assistant Superintendent Gary Hamels. “It’s a big, big shock.”

A spokeswoman for San Diego Gas & Electric Co. identified “higher costs for the electricity the utility provides customers — due mainly to the growing percentage of more expensive renewable power” as one of three reasons for the rate hike.

As her first act in office, Assemblywoman Catharine Baker, R-Pleasanton, has declined per diem payments and a taxpayer-funded vehicle, saying that it’s a way to give something back to taxpayers.

“Rather than introduce a bill on the first day of session I want to give something back to the taxpayers and constituents that elected me to office,” Baker said in a press release announcing her decision to forgo the perks. “My very first action as an Assembly member will be to decline both the state issued vehicle and per diem.”

Baker declines per diem

In addition to their annual salary of $97,197, state lawmakers receive $141.86 tax-free for every day they are in Sacramento on legislative business. Latin for “per day,” the intent of the supplemental payment system is to help elected officials “defray additional living expenses, such as maintaining a second residence,” according to the California State Assembly Office of the Chief Clerk.

Other states commonly provide per diem to state lawmakers. However, as the Orange County Register pointed out in 2010, “What makes our lawmakers unique is the number of billable days they rack up. Many California lawmakers were eligible for more than 200 days of per diem in 2009 and many netted more than $37,000 in tax-free money. … All told, the state spent more than $4 million on legislative per diem in 2009.”

Traditionally, lawmakers that represent the Sacramento region have declined to accept per diem. But that’s not a legal requirement. In 2012, then-Assemblyman Richard Pan, who represented portions of Sacramento, accepted per diem to help offset the costs of a recent move, according to the Sacramento Bee.

“I think the rationale is that I have to maintain two places of residence,” Pan told the Bee. “I know that we’re all trying to work things out.”

Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, said Baker’s decision to decline per diem was a “very smart political move.”

“Catharine actually has a legitimate claim to the per diem because it would be 3 hours’ round trip for her,” Coupal said. “Certainly those who live close to the Capital should consider declining.”

History of abuse, misuse of state vehicles

In addition to per diem, lawmakers have also abused the perk of a state-issued vehicle. In August, State Sen. Ben Hueso, D-San Diego, was arrested on suspicion of driving under the influence. The San Diego lawmaker drove his state-issued vehicle the wrong way on a one-way street near the state Capitol. The charges were later downgraded to a lesser “wet reckless” charge that carries no jail time.

Despite the incident, voters re-elected Hueso on Nov. 4 with 55 percent of the vote.

Former State Sen. Carole Migden rear-ended a Fairfield motorist in 2007, while driving her state-issued Toyota Highlander. The other driver sustained minor injuries and received a $335,000 settlement paid for by taxpayers.

In 2012, the Associated Press uncovered a scheme where lawmakers ordered upgrades to state-issued vehicles and then purchased the vehicles for their personal use. Of 64 lawmakers that had state-financed repairs on their vehicles that year, 37 went on to purchase their vehicles. In some cases, the improvements were scheduled days before leaving office.

“At least a dozen California lawmakers repaired or upgraded their state-provided vehicles at taxpayers’ expense in the final weeks before the one-of-its-kind perk was ending, then later bought those vehicles for personal use,” according to AP. “The improvements ranged from cosmetic changes such as fixing dents and replacing wheel covers, to getting tires, multipoint inspections and new parts such as fuel pumps that cost hundreds or even thousands of dollars.”

Baker possible trend-setter?

Could more GOP lawmakers follow Baker’s lead?

GOP activist Allen Wilson said he hopes other members who talk tough on taxpayer funds, follow her example.

“I implore other GOP Assembly members to follow Catharine Baker’s lead,” said Wilson, who believes the party faithful appreciate when “a legislator does more than talk.”

That opinion was echoed by one GOP party leader. “I am so proud of my friend Catharine Baker, who is leading by example by declining a state owned vehicle and a per diem,” Harmeet Dhillon, vice-chair of the California Republican Party, recently wrote on her Facebook page. “I hope I hear about other Republican and Democrat legislators taking this pledge.”

Baker, the first Republican to win a seat in the Bay Area in years, represents the communities of Alamo, Danville, Dublin, Lafayette, Livermore, Moraga, Orinda, Pleasanton, San Ramon and Walnut Creek.

No one of any Dem stature ever said anything when a police officer union member identified Republican DeMaio on his blog with a pink signifier. No Dem insider ever said anything publicly about Bob Filner’s repulsive attempts throughout the 2012 mayoral campaign to remind voters that “hey, Carl’s gay!” Or to repudiate recent DUI arrestee Ben Hueso’s X-rated, unsubstantiated allegations about what DeMaio purportedly did in the bathrooms of City Hall.

Tolerance is not required when it doesn’t suit Democrats or their de facto media allies, even those most likely to moralize about bigotry. Instead, 1940s-style sniggering about sexuality is fine when the target is a Republican. Shades of the way Democrats shrug off Harry Reid’s and others’ racially charged criticism of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas’ intelligence, even though legal blogs across the spectrum consider him a better writer and a more interesting legal mind than most of his colleagues.

Now San Diego machine Democrats — and Democrats in East Coast Super PACs flooding San Diego’s airwaves with hit ads — will have to decide whether to use outrageous new allegations against DeMaio. As a sign of how important the national parties consider the 52nd Congressional District race pitting DeMaio and first-term incumbent Scott Peters, Politico covered the scandal as it broke:

A high-profile Southern California congressional race descended into chaos on Wednesday when Republican Carl DeMaio was peppered with questions from reporters about whether he had sexually harassed and then intimidated and attempted to bribe a former campaign staffer.

At a news conference at his campaign headquarters, DeMaio called the allegations “absolutely untrue” and a “complete lie.” He added that authorities had questioned him and his campaign staff about the harassment claims, concluded they were unfounded and closed the case. DeMaio, 40, said the accuser concocted the story after he was identified as a “prime suspect” in a break-in at DeMaio’s campaign office last spring.

“All the evidence that was collected by the police department clearly indicated this individual was the prime suspect, and, it’s unfortunate, but we will continue to allow the district attorney to proceed with her case and weighing the case to prosecute for the break-in of our office,” said DeMaio, a former San Diego city councilman trying to unseat Rep. Scott Peters (D-Calif.) in one of the nation’s most competitive House races.

What I’m hearing as a San Diego journo is that DeMaio is on solid ground in denying everything. That appears to be what Peters believes as well. He didn’t bring up the allegations at a Thursday debate.

But, hey, it’s been reported on. I expect the attack ads by Friday afternoon at the latest.

Democrats can’t wait to insinuate a gay Republican is a reprobate.

State Senator Ben Hueso, D-San Diego, was arrested early Friday morning on suspicion of drinking and driving. He reportedly spent the night drinking wine and tequila in the State Capitol and at a local restaurant with several of his colleagues. Years before, he voted to ban drinking at public beaches.

In Nov. 2007, Hueso, then a member of the San Diego City Council, voted to adopt a one-year ban on alcohol consumption at the city’s public beaches. The temporary ban, which took effect on Jan. 14, 2008, prohibited “alcohol consumption 24 hours a day on all City beaches, including Mission Bay Park and coastal parks south of Tourmaline Surfing Park.”

In July 2008, before the effects of the alcohol ban could be evaluated, Hueso voted to put a permanent ban on the Nov. 2008 ballot, a measure that would later be titled Proposition D. Hueso’s fellow council members at the time who also voted for the ban included current San Diego Mayor Kevin Faulconer and Assemblyman Brian Maienschein, both Republicans; and Rep. Scott Peters and Assembly Speaker Toni Atkins, both Democrats.

Prop D: Narrowly approved by voters

Prop. D, which passed 52.5 percent to 48.5 percent, gave authorities leeway to charge violators with either an infraction or a misdemeanor. The maximum penalty is a $1,000 fine and up to six months in jail.

Opponents of the alcohol ban argued that the law would take “away your right to enjoy your beaches.”

“Taking away your rights and freedoms is easier than punishing the troublemakers, but it is the wrong solution,” opponents of Proposition D wrote in their ballot argument. “More punishment for troublemakers, overnight and holiday bans only, and enforcing our existing laws are the right solutions for San Diego!”

Although Hueso voted for the ban, he was far from its biggest cheerleader. Faulconer, the city’s current mayor, championed the cause after “a Labor Day booze-fueled melee on Pacific Beach brought out cops in riot gear.”

According to the Voice of San Diego, “Revelers threw bottles at the police. The police pepper-sprayed crowd-goers. And national television audiences were treated to handheld videos of drunks generally making idiots of themselves.”

Following the incident, Faulconer proposed an outright ban, but was initially stymied by Hueso, who “worried about law-abiding beachgoers being cited as if they were rowdy drunks.”

“What’s going to happen to people who want to propose to their partner on the beach with a bottle of wine?” Hueso asked the L.A. Times in November 2007.

Hueso accepts full responsibility for DUI

On Friday, Aug. 22, Hueso was arrested by the California Highway Patrol on two misdemeanor charges of driving under the influence. According to a CHP spokeswoman, Hueso drove his state-owned Ford Fusion the wrong way on a one-way city street.

Hueso, who initially said he would fight the charges, later accepted “full responsibility.”

“I am truly and profoundly sorry for the unacceptably poor personal judgment which I demonstrated last night,” Hueso said in a statement following his release from jail. “I accept complete personal responsibility for my actions and any punishments that ultimately come my way as a result of this incident.”

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Every day, almost 30 people in the United States die in motor vehicle crashes that involve an alcohol-impaired driver.”

“33,561 people died in traffic crashes in 2012 in the United States,” according to a report by the Foundation for Advancing Alcohol Responsibility, which reviewed data from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Of those accidents, “an estimated 10,322 people died in drunk driving crashes, accounting for 31 percent of all traffic deaths that year.”

Hueso: 4th State Senator in trouble with the law

Hueso becomes the fourth Democratic state Senator in trouble with the law this year. In March, State Senator Leland Yee was arrested on felony charges of working with Chinatown gangsters and brokering arms deals with a Muslim rebel group based in the Philippines.

In February, state Sen. Ron Calderon, D-Montebello, was charged with a 24-count indictment in connection with bribery and corruption.

In January, state Sen. Rod Wright, D-Inglewood, was found guilty of eight counts of felony voter fraud, perjury and filing a false declaration of candidacy.

Hueso is not up for re-election until 2016.

California residents and businesses could be paying an extra $400 million annually for electricity if a geothermal energy mandate bill making its way through the Legislature becomes law.

Senate Bill 1139, by Sen. Ben Hueso, D-San Diego, would require non-publicly-owned utilities to purchase 500 megawatts of new geothermal energy by 2024, with at least half of that purchased by 2019.

The bill is backed by the state’s building trade unions, eager for the geothermal plant construction jobs. Hueso anticipates that most of the plants would be built in his district’s Imperial Valley, which is east of San Diego near the Mexican border.

The bill’s opponents argue that it will drive up costs for energy that is not needed. They also believe it will force utilities to cut back on wind, solar, biomass and existing geothermal energy sources in order to meet the new geothermal mandate.

SB1139 passed the Senate along party lines, 22-11, on May 28, and has received similar partisan approval in two Assembly committees.

Hueso: SB1139 good for jobs, environment, world peace

Hueso made his case for the bill to the Assembly Natural Resources Committee on June 26, arguing that the geothermal mandate will help provide jobs, a better environment and even world peace.

“What are the goals that we so often talk about to our constituents and our communities?” he asked. “We talk about creating jobs. We talk about supporting efforts to restore environments that have been impaired.

“We talk about achieving California’s energy independence as a way to not only help our economy thrive but to accomplish world peace. So many of the struggles around the world are around resources like water and energy and food.

“This bill gets to everything. It protects our food supply in California. It helps create a renewable source of energy that reduces our dependence on foreign fuels. It helps clean air, which we all want. I feel very confident that we are getting to a place that achieves the intent of the bill: Not to hurt current geothermal resources – to help in the production of more geothermal resources.”

Scott Wetch, representing a variety of construction trade unions, argued that more renewable baseload power is needed, particularly in the Los Angeles area after the San Onofre nuclear power plant shut down last year.

“PUC [the California Public Utilities Commission] will come up here and say we have more than enough power, we don’t need this power,” said Wetch. “That’s all natural gas power. That is spewing pollution into the air. These peaker plants, that were intended to burn 15 percent of the time during peak load demand, have been running 24/7. And that’s not good for anybody.

“Secondly, this is a job creator. It will create over 6,000 union building trades jobs in very short order. If you are a plumber, a pipefitter, an insulator or a boilermaker, you have virtually got no jobs out of this entire renewable energy revolution. And we still have 30 percent unemployment in those crafts. While all crafts will benefit from this, those particular crafts are the ones that are so desperate for those jobs.”

Wetch portrayed as a false argument the concern that mandating 500 MW of new geothermal generation would put existing geothermal plants out of business when their current contracts expire.

Union rep: mandate won’t hurt existing geothermal

“It’s not in our interest to see any of the existing geothermal resources … go by the wayside,” he said. “We are invested in those facilities. We do the maintenance work on those facilities. So what we’ve done … is try to craft an amendment that will put the existing contracts on a better footing than they are today.

“If this bill fails, then those existing contracts, when they come up, will have to compete with whatever type of renewable power is available in the market. It’s not a geothermal-on-geothermal discussion. Those contracts will have to compete with whatever solar, wind, biomass, whatever else is on the market.”

Wetch downplayed concerns about the mandate’s impact, calling 500 MW of power “a drop in the bucket. That is less than 1 percent of the state’s entire portfolio. By the time we get to the end of the 10 years it’s going to be closer to half of 1 percent.”

Could help Salton Sea restoration

If SB1139 becomes law, a prime beneficiary, in addition to the unions, could be the Imperial Irrigation District, which provides electricity in addition to irrigation water to the Imperial Valley.

“We are in the process of drilling out in the Salton Sea a known geothermal resources area with our public power brethren in Southern California, including Los Angeles Department of Water and Power,” said IID General Manager Kevin Kelley. “A geothermal facility that, when it’s completed, will comprise about 8 percent of our total generation.

“So we believe in geothermal. All of our resources in the RPS [Renewable Portfolio Standard] come from our own backyard, and geothermal is a big part of that. Just as the status quo is the enemy of the Salton Sea, it’s also the enemy of the entire geothermal industry. So what’s needed is a refreshed procurement process and for the Legislature to lead.”

Hueso and Gary Wyatt, representing the Imperial County Board of Supervisors, touted the geothermal mandate as a way to help fund the restoration of the Salton Sea.

PUC: mandate would ‘needlessly raise rates’

Some of the strongest opposition to the bill came from the California Public Utilities Commission.

“The PUC opposes the bill for multiple reasons,” said Nick Zangiani, PUC senior legislative liaison. “But most notably because it would mandate procurement of unusable power that will needlessly raise rates at a time when Californians can least afford higher electric bills.”

Zangiani noted that the PUC recently updated its Long-Term Procurement Plan, which oversees the state’s utility energy purchases.

“Our current LTPP requires no additional procurement arrangements until after 2022,” he said. “Because procurement arrangements are already in place through 2022, passing SB1139 would result in a massive 500 megawatts of new geothermal generation with literally no use.

“It would be nothing more than grid congestion that the ISO [California Independent System Operator Corporation] would have to curtail. Five hundred megawatts represents hundreds of millions of dollars in new power plant costs and billions more in new transmission upgrade costs. Again, all for no reason.”

Geothermal is more expensive

Contributing to the costs is the fact that geothermal energy is not as efficient or reliable as other renewable energy sources.

“Geothermal bids, by way of comparison, were more than twice as expensive last year than solar,” said Zangiani. “And of the bids that were accepted, more than three-quarters of those projects failed. So there’s a problem with geothermal beyond simply a mandate and a need for procurement.”

PUC: mandate will cost jobs

He acknowledged that the bill would create construction jobs in the Imperial Valley, but added that it would cost jobs elsewhere.

“There are major rate hikes at stake here,” said Zangiani. “When an industrial facility sees its electric bill increase, that talk about shipping operations to Texas becomes all the more real. That is a job loss right there. When small businesses have to cut payroll because higher electric bills are eating into their operations expenses, those are lost jobs.

“And when a 500-megawatt procurement mandate for new geothermal that’s primarily Salton Sea is implemented, that means that expiring geothermal contracts in areas like The Geysers are going to be crowded out and potentially ineligible to get renewals. That’s job loss right there.”

PG&E: will cause rate hikes

His warnings were echoed by Pacific Gas & Electric representative Valerie Turella Vlahos.

“There’s no real cost-containment in this bill,” she said. “Constituents will see a rate increase in Fresno, in Mendocino, in Monterey, in Santa Barbara, in Bell Gardens, in Oakland, in your districts where IOUs [investor-owned utilities] provide service.

“These rate increases do impact business decisions. And [Texas Gov.] Rick Perry might be drafting a support letter right now for this bill. And we might be shipping all that lithium to Texas. This is not a way for us to attract our businesses.”

Vlahos affirmed that current energy sources will be hurt if new geothermal energy is mandated.

“We have over 400 megawatts of geothermal and roughly 300 megawatts of biomass in our portfolio right now,” she said. “We will one-for-one reduce what we’re buying from contracts that are falling off, whether renewable or not, to meet this mandate.”

Geothermal three times more expensive

Mandating geothermal energy could triple the cost of energy purchases, according to PG&E in a July 2 letter to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, citing CPUC data. Market purchases have averaged about $50 per megawatt-hour.  But the average bid for new geothermal in 2013 was $155.96 per megawatt-hour, not including the cost of transmission upgrades.

“Why should any electric customer be forced to purchase power that potentially could be $100/MWh above market prices?” the PG&E letter asks. “That is a 200 percent cost premium. PG&E does not make money on these mandated purchases, and all costs are passed through directly to our customers in the form of higher rates.

“It is hard to fathom how Californians are best served when local, uneconomic job creation from such an excessive cost burden is placed exclusively on the backs of utility customers, including schools, hospitals, small business and local governments. The end result of SB1139 is the requirement to buy more of something we do not need at a price we cannot afford.”

PG&E and other non-public utilities are also miffed that the bill does not place the same geothermal purchase mandate on public utilities. That lets off the hook the state’s third largest utility, the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, and the fifth largest, the Imperial Irrigation District, according to the committee’s legislative analysis of the bill. Hardest hit will be PG&E, Southern California Edison and San Diego Gas & Electric.

$8 billion ratepayer cost over 20 years

The energy cost increase from SB1139 could total $8 billion over the 20-year life of the mandate, warned SCE Director of Legislative Affairs Kelly Boyd.

“[If SB1139 passes] we’re buying a resource in a remote area that we don’t need,” she said. “Which means we’ll have to either sell it or it’s just lost power. That’s an additional $8 billion spent on electricity going into our ratepayers’ bills and not serving the purpose that we are trying to serve here. Forty-three percent of our [renewable energy] portfolio is geothermal. This won’t solve the problem. It will create a bigger problem.

“While I think we would like to benefit the Salton Sea, one of the biggest beneficiaries of a bill like this might be a state like Texas with our energy costs going up this high again.”

She was echoed by Heidi Barsuglia, SDG&E’s senior manager for state governmental affairs.

“This is asking SDG&E ratepayers to buy power that we do not need at significantly higher expense,” said Barsuglia. “And power that we cannot actually get to the power grid because we do not have the transmission capacity. So we’re asking San Diego Gas and Electric ratepayers to pay significantly higher costs for a benefit that they will never see.”

The Assembly Natural Resources Committee approved SB1139 on a 6-2 vote. It will next be considered by the Assembly Appropriations Committee after the Legislature returns from summer recess on Aug. 4.

By Chris Reed

The longer I’ve lived in California, the more governance here seems to resemble organized looting of taxpayers. It’s not just the showy and ridiculous things, like the longtime president of the CalPERS governing board being a top official in the California Federation of Labor, or the public safety workers in a bankrupt town winning automatic raises. It’s stories like this one, about a defeated Assembly member getting a $128,000 part-time state job:

“Allen, defeated by Marc Levine in his reelection bid for a state Assembly seat representing part of Sonoma County and Marin County, was appointed on Thursday to the state Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board.

“The five-member panel, which meets monthly, is the final arbiter in appeals of unemployment and disability claims involving workers and employers.

“The job pays $128,000 a year. That’s a hefty bump from an Assembly member’s base pay of $95,300.”

Assemblyman aids aide and is aided in return

And it’s stories like this one, about a termed-out Assembly member helping his aide win a narrow election to his old job, and then getting a $102,000-a-year job from his aide until his next elected gig starts paying him:

“Voters in northeast Los Angeles picked former state Assemblyman Felipe J. Fuentes III (D-Sylmar) in March to represent them on the City Council, but that job won’t begin until July, seven months after Fuentes’ term in Sacramento ended. He won’t be struggling to make ends meet, however: Fuentes is bridging the gap by working for his former chief of staff and longtime friend, Raul Bocanegra, who was elected in November to fill Fuentes’ seat in the 39th District.

“Assembly records show that Fuentes went on Bocanegra’s payroll Dec. 3. His title as of February 28 was principal assistant in Bocanegra’s district office; his monthly salary of $8,500 was the second-highest among Bocanegra’s aides. In fact, it’s more than the salaries paid to either Bocanegra or his chief of staff.

“The unofficial tally from the March 5 election showed Fuentes with 51% of the vote in Council District 7, almost twice the percentage of runner-up Nicole Chase. The only candidate in the district to raise a significant war chest, Fuentes spent almost nine times as much in the campaign as all his rivals combined.”

That’s from the L.A. Times.

Question the looting, and you’ll get insulted

Here’s another version of governance as looting involving another Democratic Assembly member, Ben Hueso, and the San Diego City Council. Note that Hueso’s aide characterizes questioning the looting as being “obnoxious.”

What’s obnoxious is this status quo, and how government watchers are so used to it that it’s barely considered news any  more.

Here’s more from the Times story on Fuentes:

“Fuentes has tapped public funds at least once before while moving from one public-sector job to another. He was chief of staff for Padilla in the 7th District until Padilla won a seat in the state Senate in 2006. Fuentes then ran for and won a special election to replace Assemblyman Richard Alarcon (D-Panorama City), who had won the seat Padilla vacated on the council. The day after Fuentes won that election, he obtained a $7,500 contract from the [Los Angeles] City Council to brief Alarcon’s council staff. Not that Alarcon was new to the council; he’d represented the 7th District before heading to Sacramento.”

Showing it’s not just Sacramento and San Diego. It’s L.A. It’s all of California government.

Great, just great.