The Desert Sun

Warren Horton spent more than $7,000 installing a high-efficiency refrigerator and air conditioning system in his Cathedral City home, trying to drive down his electric bills as low as they could go.

Now he fears those bills could rise again if the California Public Utilities Commission approves a rate restructuring plan from Southern California Edison, which covers roughly the western half of the valley.

“I can’t do anything more to reduce our electric bill other than shut everything off,” said Horton, one of a handful of Coachella Valley residents who turned out for one of two public meetings the PUC held Tuesday in Palm Springs on the proposed rate changes.

“At this point, if Edison raises rates, obviously we’re going to have higher bills,” he said.

Maybe not, said Russ Garwacki, Edison’s manager of pricing design, who argued the proposed changes might lower bills for some homeowners by $1 to $14 a month.

Edison’s proposal to the PUC, submitted in June, would first lower the baseline allowance for all customers from 55 percent of average use to 50 percent and set separate baselines for single-family home owners and apartment dwellers.

To further flatten high rates, the company also wants to eliminate its highest, Tier 5 rates, leaving a four-tier rate structure.

The baseline allowance is the amount of electricity a customer can use per month and still pay Edison’s lowest or Tier 1 rates, which now average around 12.4 cents per kilowatt-hour. The amount for any customer is based on climate zone and time of year.

In the Coachella Valley, for example, electric bills often spike in April or May because the region is still on its lower, winter baseline. The higher summer baseline doesn’t kick in until June and runs through the end of September.

Consumer advocates have voiced strong opposition to the proposed baseline and tier changes, arguing they will affect lower income people who use the least electricity and can least afford the rate hikes.

Dexter Khoury, an analyst for the PUC’s Division of Ratepayer Advocates, an independent consumer watchdog, said the combined impact of lower baselines and separate baselines for apartment dwellers could be an 18 percent to 34 percent drop in their baseline allowances.

“We noted 25 percent of low-income customers would receive a bill increase of 10 percent or greater,” he said.

Garwacki said the impact for apartment dwellers could range from slight monthly decreases of $1 to $14 increases.

The proposed rate restructuring is the second phase of Edison’s application for overall rate increases to the PUC. In 2010, the company submitted an application for rate increases of 7.2 percent in 2012, with increases of 1.2 percent and 4.5 percent the two following years.

The commission has yet to rule on those increases, but Edison has followed up with the rate restructuring proposals, which are intended to cover how the increases would be parceled out across the utility’s residential, commercial and municipal customers.

The proposals also include a 2 percent rate hike for street lights that is being opposed by a coalition of cities, and the introduction of time-of-use rates — which charge more for electricity used at peak hours — for small and medium-sized businesses.

Garwacki said the residential baseline and tier changes are aimed at making rates more equitable. Since 2001, the lowest rate tiers, Tier 1 and 2, have essentially been frozen, with homeowners who use the most electricity bearing the weight of residential rate increases over the past decade.

The proposed changes would mean “the biggest users would see the largest reductions because they are paying the highest of the excess in cost,” he said.

But Enrique Gallardo, attorney for the Greenlining Institute, a Berkeley nonprofit that works on economic issues affecting low-income communities, said the rate changes are unfair to apartment dwellers.

“They want to raise rates for people who live in apartments in order to lower rates for people in single-family homes. In a way, it’s kind of penalizing apartment dwellers for being conservative in their energy use,” he said.

The public hearings in Palm Springs and three other cities in Edison’s service territory will be followed by official hearings in July where witnesses will give evidence and be cross-examined, said Stephen C. Roscow, the PUC administrative law judge who is overseeing the case.

Typically, utilities and consumer or business groups try to reach a settlement on points of conflict, he said. But Roscow could not predict if or when any compromises might be reached on the Edison restructuring plan or when it might go to the commission for a vote.

Mindy Spatt, spokeswoman for The Utility Reform Network, a consumer group in San Francisco, said the ratepayers have to come first in any settlement.

“The big concern is that rates should be allocated fairly, and any changes in the pricing structure are changes that benefit rather than harm residential consumers,” she said.

K Kaufmann covers energy and green technology and health care for The Desert Sun. She can be reached at k.kaufmann@thedesertsun.com or (760) 778-4622. Follow on Twitter @kkaufmann.

AlterNet
by: Samuel Kang

If one man can be described as absolutely key to solving the ongoing foreclosure crisis — and thus not only helping millions of struggling homeowners but also stabilizing the neighborhoods where they live — it is Edward DeMarco, head of the Federal Housing Finance Agency. The rest of the country is inching forward on tangible progress, but DeMarco could do more than anyone.

The need is as urgent now as it ever was.

There have been small glimmers of hope on several fronts. Mortgage delinquency rates have inched down a bit, though they’re still about triple what they were before the collapse.

And as a result of the recent “robo-signing” settlement, several large banks have agreed to write down the principal of some troubled loans. Writing down principal is essential to any real solution to this mess: Millions of borrowers owe more than their homes are worth or are ever likely to be worth. Because many of these families are also struggling with reduced income due to the recession, they face a situation that’s simply untenable. Instead of futile attempts to collect payments based on fantasy values that bear no relationship to reality, we should adjust these loans to reflect home values in the real world. That way, millions will stay in their homes, their communities will avoid the disruption of continuing waves of foreclosures, the housing market can start to stabilize and the struggling construction industry may begin to see a path forward.

In California, state officials have begun to take the lead, announcing on May 7 that they would use a chunk of federal dollars to offer principal write-downs of up to $100,000 to some of that state’s troubled borrowers.

These are all useful steps, but they still leave millions of underwater families without help. The biggest chunk of those troubled loans are backed by government-backed mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which are overseen by DeMarco’s FHFA. And DeMarco has thus far refused to involve Fannie and Freddie in principal reduction.

Last month, it looked like that was going to change. DeMarco agreed to speak at an April 19 symposium organized by The Greenlining Institute that focused on how to restore and protect the dream of homeownership that seems to be slipping out of reach of so many Americans. And he deserves some credit for simply showing up: He knew that this audience, heavy with housing advocates and community groups in addition to bankers and regulators, was filled with people who have questioned and challenged him and FHFA. It is always a good thing when officials are willing to reach out to folks who may be skeptical, and his willingness to stick his neck out was genuinely appreciated.

At our meeting, DeMarco said he was “deeply concerned” about these underwater mortgages. He promised that FHFA would have something concrete to say about principal reduction by the end of April. So far, so good.

But in an astonishing story published May 1, the Los Angeles Times reported two disturbing pieces of news: 1) FHFA was still working on its analysis of principal reduction and would have nothing to say until that analysis is done — with no hint as to when that might be. 2) According to internal documents obtained by two members of Congress, Reps. Elijah Cummings of Maryland and John Tierney of Massachusetts, Fannie Mae officials had supported principal reductions back in 2009, believing that they would save taxpayers money, but a pilot program was squelched, apparently for ideological reasons.

The two congressmen are continuing to pursue the issue and have asked FHFA for all documents related to it. But a congressional inquiry shouldn’t even be necessary.

The crisis has not gone away, and without meaningful principal reduction on the millions of troubled Fannie and Freddie-backed loans, it will linger for years to come.

Mr. DeMarco, we appreciate your coming to speak — and listen — to us and our community colleagues. But with millions of American families and their communities still in desperate straits, we need more than words.

Follow Preeti Vissa on Twitter: www.twitter.com/Greenlining

Contact: Bruce Mirken, Greenlining Institute Media Relations Coordinator, 510-926-4022; 415-846-7758 (cell)

SACRAMENTO – As the Senate Appropriations Committee prepares to consider SB 1161, legislation to deregulate Internet-based phone services, The Greenlining Institute urged senators to take a close, hard look at the measure’s fiscal impact.

A recent California Public Utilities Commission staff analysis found that the bill, by exempting Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) phone services from the Utility Users Tax, could cost local governments roughly $70 million.

“This bill is a budget-killer,” said Greenlining Institute General Counsel Samuel S. Kang, who will be testifying in opposition to SB 1161. “In major cities like Los Angeles, Oakland, San Jose, and Pasadena, the Utility Users Tax could make up about 15 percent or more of the city’s budget. In an era of tightening state budgets – which may get even worse when we see the May budget revision – this bill could be a disaster for vital city services.

“That’s just one of many problems with this truly terrible bill,” Kang added. “Last week all three of Governor Brown’s appointees to the Public Utilities Commission voiced strong opposition, recognizing that SB 1161 will be a disaster for consumers. Telephone service remains a necessity of life, and what technology is used to send the signals makes zero difference.”

VoIP phone services now make up over one quarter of California’s 10.4 million residential telephone subscriptions, and VoIP’s share of the phone market has been growing rapidly. For more information on SB 1161, click here.

SB 1161 is opposed by a wide variety of consumer advocates and other grassroots organizations, including The Greenlining Institute, AARP, the Center for Accessible Technology, the Center for Media Justice, Communications Workers of America, Consumers Union, Division of Ratepayer Advocates, Media Alliance, National Hispanic Media Coalition, Santa Clara University School of Law, The Utility Reform Network, and Utility Consumers’ Action Network, among others. It is principally supported by the telecommunications industry.

###

THE GREENLINING INSTITUTE
A Multi-Ethnic Public Policy, Research and Advocacy Institute
www.greenlining.org

FRESNO, CALIFORNIA – At its public meeting today in Fresno, the California Public Utilities Commission postponed voting on whether to oppose SB 1161, legislation that threatens the CPUC’s ability to protect millions of telephone customers.

Commissioner Timothy Simon moved to postpone the vote, and such postponement motions are almost always adopted with little controversy. The commission’s discussion highlighted multiple problems with the legislation while the delay left consumer advocates, who overwhelmingly oppose SB 1161, to focus on the senate Appropriations Committee, which will take up the bill on Monday.

“The commissioners had a lot of questions on the fiscal impact of this legislation on the people of California,” said Greenlining Institute General Counsel Samuel S. Kang, one of many citizens and consumer advocates who urged the Commission to oppose SB 1161. “Besides the enormity of the fiscal impact, there are lots of other unanswered questions the appropriations committee should look into. This is a terrible bill for consumers, and it’s no surprise that several commissioners suggested it’s unsalvageable.”

Yesterday, the CPUC’s legal division released an analysis showing that SB 1161 would cost local governments close to $70 million, while the bill’s excessively broad wording could lead to other problems.

Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) phone services now make up over one quarter of California’s 10.4 million residential telephone subscriptions, and VoIP’s share of the phone market has been growing rapidly. By barring the CPUC from regulating such services, SB 1161 threatens to take away consumers’ rights to affordable, reliable phone service, protections against unfair billing, and even access to vital emergency and public safety services such as 911. For more information on SB 1161, click here.

SB 1161 is opposed by a wide variety of consumer advocates and other grassroots organizations, including The Greenlining Institute, AARP, the Center for Accessible Technology, the Center for Media Justice, Communications Workers of America, Consumers Union, Division of Ratepayer Advocates, Media Alliance, National Hispanic Media Coalition, Santa Clara University School of Law, The Utility Reform Network, and Utility Consumers’ Action Network, among others. It is principally supported by the telecommunications industry. A recent tabulation by MAPLight found that campaign contributions to state senators by supporters dwarfed those from opponents, by a ratio of over nine to one.

###

THE GREENLINING INSTITUTE
A Multi-Ethnic Public Policy, Research and Advocacy Institute
www.greenlining.org

Industry-backed legislation that would bar California officials from regulating Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) service in the Golden State drew opposition this week from lawyers at the California Public Utilities Commission.

The regulatory body’s Legal Division is urging commissioners to oppose Senate Bill 1161, which seeks to preempt the CPUC and other state entities from regulating VoIP-enabled voice and data transmissions unless expressly authorized by federal law and state statute.

The CPUC, to date, has no regulatory activities regarding VoIP or other IP-enabled services.

The commission’s Legal Division argues that S.B. 1161 is so broadly written that, if enacted, the legislation would impede the CPUC’s regulation of non-IP wireline and wireless service.

What’s more, they say, the law would deregulate carriers that are not, at present, considered VoIP providers.

In a May 8 memorandum to commissioners, CPUC Government Affairs Director Lynn Sadler reiterated the Legal Division’s argument that if the bill were amended to make all of the exceptions needed to preserve the commission’s ability to administer its existing programs, “the exceptions arguably would swallow the rule,” Sadler wrote.

“Especially, Legal Division asserts the CPUC, as the constitutional agency with the expertise in telecommunications, should retain flexibility to determine whether and how to regulate VoIP and IP-enabled services,” Sadler added.

The Legal Division also has argued that under S.B. 1161, the CPUC would be allowed to hear and address complaints from VoIP service carriers but not from consumers, “thereby inhibiting one of the CPUC’s primary functions to protect ratepayers,” Sadler wrote in the memo.

The bill was introduced by Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Los Angeles), chairman of the Senate Committee on Energy, Utilities and Communications, which April 17 voted unanimously to advance the bill.

Padilla has said the bill is aimed at encouraging broadband deployment by providing industry regulatory certainty.

Bipartisan-backed S.B. 1161 is sponsored by TechAmerica, TechNet and the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, and supported by such companies as AT&T Inc. (NYSE:T), Cisco Systems (Nasdaq: CSCO), Microsoft (Nasdaq: MSFT), Qualcomm (Nasdaq: QCOM) and Verizon Communications (NYSE: VZ).

Also supporting the measure are the California Chamber of Commerce and the California Manufacturers & Technology Association, both influential trade groups.

CalChamber Vice President of Government Affairs Marc Burgat called the bill a “job creator,” in a letter of support.

“SB 1161 would ensure that California maintains its competitive edge and continues to provide a regulatory environment that promotes advancements in internet technology,” Burgat wrote. “Such continued advancements would result in widespread access to communication technologies and would allow for solutions to challenges in healthcare, energy, education, public safety, and economic development.”

Padilla’s bill has drawn widespread opposition from consumer groups, including AARP California, Center for Media Justice, Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, The Greenlining Institute and the Utility Consumers’ Action Network.

Critics say the bill would effectively strip the CPUC of its oversight authority over landline and cellular phone services.

“SB 1161 is a stealth vehicle for the gradual deregulation of telecommunications in California,” the Consumer Federation of California declared on their website. “Consumers need the CPUC to have the power to investigate complaints of bad service or unfair charges on bills, regardless of the technology used to provide phone service.”

S.B. 1161 is pending consideration by the Senate Appropriations Committee.  The panel has set a May 14 hearing on the bill.

Contact:
Bruce Mirken, Greenlining Institute Media Relations Coordinator, 510-926-4022; 415-846-7758 (cell)
Mindy Spatt, Communications Director, The Utility Reform Network (TURN) , 415-929-8876, ext. 306

FRESNO, CALIFORNIA – At a rare public meeting in Fresno on May 10, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) will consider whether to take a position on telecommunications industry-sponsored legislation that threatens vital protections for telephone consumers. Consumer advocates from around the state will join local leaders in opposing the bill, and will hold a press conference immediately after the meeting.

SB 1161, now moving through the state legislature, would take away the CPUC’s ability to protect the growing number of Californians using Internet-based (VoIP) telephone services, threatening reliable and affordable phone service as well as life-saving 911 emergency services. For information on the bill, click here.

WHAT: CPUC vote on whether to support or oppose legislation to bar CPUC regulation of VoIP telephone and other broadband services; press conference with consumer advocates opposed to the bill.

WHO: Scheduled speakers include –

• Samuel S. Kang, General Counsel, The Greenlining Institute
• Mark Toney, Executive Director, The Utility Reform Network
• Margarita Rocha, Executive Director, Centro La Familia, Fresno
• Val Afanasiev, Administrative Director, Communications Workers of America District 9

WHEN: Thurs, May 10. Meeting begins at 9 a.m.; press conference at 11:30, or, if debate on SB 1161 is still going on, immediately after the vote.

WHERE: Fresno City Hall, 2600 Fresno St., Fresno, CA 93721. Hearing in City Council Chambers, Room 2097; press conference outside the main entrance.

###

THE GREENLINING INSTITUTE
A Multi-Ethnic Public Policy, Research and Advocacy Institute
www.greenlining.org

Ballot initiatives are playing an increasingly important role in setting policy in California, on nearly every issue from education to same-sex marriage, but today millions of Californians are excluded from a crucial part of the process.  Despite a long history of struggle to gain voting rights in this country and to ensure that all eligible citizens can exercise this right freely, millions of citizens who do not speak English very well have no say in determining what gets on the ballot.

This is not a hard problem to fix. Senate Bill (SB) 1233, authored by Senator Alex Padilla (D-San Fernando Valley) and sponsored by The Greenlining Institute, would make initiative petitions language accessible and enable more Californians to participate. This important legislation will be considered by the Senate Appropriations Committee May 14.

Right now, voters who are limited-English proficient (LEP) are left completely out of the process of determining what initiatives qualify for the ballot. They are also at risk of manipulation by signature gatherers who may speak the voter’s language but misstate the details of a petition, since the voter has no way to verify whether the gatherer is telling the truth.

Initiative proponents also suffer because they lack the tools necessary to involve LEP voters in signature drives that they might want to support.

According to Migration Policy Institute, California’s LEP population grew by 56 percent from 1990 to 2010, to roughly 6.9 million, which includes nearly half of California’s naturalized citizens. The U.S. Census definition of LEP includes anyone who responded less than “very well” to the question, “how well do you speak English?” Given our state’s large LEP population, it is unacceptable that we continue to deny the rights of so many to participate in direct democracy.

The Federal Voting Rights Act (VRA) of 1965 outlawed discrimination in voting, with a series of provisions designed to ensure that all eligible citizens can exercise their right to vote free from intimidation or discrimination. Section 203 of the law specifically requires counties with large LEP populations to provide elections materials in the groups’ languages.

For California, this means we provide voting materials, such as ballot pamphlets and sample ballots, in Spanish, Chinese, Japanese, Vietnamese, Korean, Tagalog, Hindi, Khmer, and Thai. But there has been disagreement as to whether or not the VRA covers initiative petitions that are being circulated in hope of making it onto the ballot.

If passed, SB 1233 would solve this problem by requiring the state to provide translations of ballot initiative titles and summaries in each of the languages covered by the VRA, before supporters begin gathering signatures. The translations would appear on the petitions themselves when circulated in counties covered by the VRA.
California was one of the states that pioneered creation of the initiative process a century ago, and SB 1233 gives us another opportunity to show leadership. If it passes, California would become the first state to mandate language accessible initiative petitions, raising the bar for the rest of the nation.

The initiative system was created so that the people could hold their government accountable  – all of the people, not just some of them. Passing SB 1233 will ensure that all citizens can participate in our democracy.

–

Michelle Romero is Claiming Our Democracy Program Manager and Nisha Balaram is SB 1233 Policy Coordinator for The Greenlining Institute.

State governments are losing out on much-needed tax revenue from rich online retailers, even as they’re forced to lay off teachers and policemen.

The state of Missouri alone has lost $468 million per year in uncollected online sales tax revenue over the past decade: $4.68 billion in total, according to a new study from David Valentine, a public policy professor at the University of Missouri. The study estimates that Missouri will lose another $1.4 billion in sales tax revenue to online retailers between 2011 and 2014. (h/t the Kansas City Star.)

To put that lost tax revenue into perspective, that $468 million would comprise 38 percent of Missouri’s entire annual education budget, which state lawmakers are slashing.

Some states have tried to collect sales tax from online retailers voluntarily, but their efforts have largely failed, according to the study. On average, the 24 states collecting voluntary online sales tax revenue collected $30.7 million in online sales tax revenue between 2005 and 2010. Missouri is not one of those 24 states.

Online retailers are taking advantage of a 1992 Supreme Court decision that mandates that states cannot force online retailers to pay sales taxes unless they have a physical connection to the state, according to NPR. Amazon.com does not have a physical presence in most states and is based in Seattle.

Online retailers have also been paying minimal federal income taxes. Apple paid a top tax rate of 9.8 percent last year, Google paid a tax rate of 11.9 percent, and Amazon.com paid a tax rate of 3.5 percent, according to the Greenlining Institute. This is thanks in part to the fact that online retailers such as Apple and Google claim they are selling their products online around the world from low-tax countries such as Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Ireland, and the British Virgin Islands, according to The New York Times and Bloomberg News.

Losing end: That 9.8 percent figure the New York Times came up with in its highly publicized report on how little tax Apple pays has been disputed by the company. It’s the same figure Berkeley’s Greenlining Institute came up with in a survey of Fortune 500 high-tech companies released last week.

What is not open to dispute is the magic kingdom of tax havens that Apple lives in. Most telling in the Times report were the words of De Anza College President Brian Murphy, whose campus is a mile and a half from Apple’s Cupertino headquarters.

“I just don’t understand it,” said Murphy. “I’ll bet every person at Apple has a connection to De Anza. Their kids swim in our pool. Their cousins take classes here. They drive past it every day, for Pete’s sake. But then they do everything they can to pay as few taxes as possible.”

And it’s not just Apple.

“When it comes time for all these companies – Google and Apple and Facebook and the rest – to pay their fair share, there’s a knee-jerk resistance,” Murphy said. “They’re philosophically antitax, and it’s decimating the state.”

Alluding to the companies’ job creation and philanthropic contributions, Murphy added, “But I’m not complaining. We can’t afford to upset these guys. We need every dollar we can get.”