1 Comment

1. jimvs says:

   Sunday, Mar 13, 2016 at

   R-i-i-ight. Let’s see; PUC leadership has been bought and paid for by the three big corporate electric utilities since our governor packed it in his last two or three appointments. That has been apparent for a number of years (San Bruno? Sand Onofre, anyone? Anyone?) but now y’all up there are going to fix it.

   Well, that will certainly singe Jerry’s pants. Besides, he’s done the same thing with the Coastal Commission lately although in a slightly arm’s length way (to the average eye).

   I don’t see you and Gatto agreeing on that one, but maybe he’s more mercenary than I know.

   The premise of tossing out nearly 60 years of reasonably effective protection of the interests of the people of California is questionable. Currently the Senate can vote up or down on the Governor’s appointments, and the people can respond to that in force (if they are interested).

   A more appropriate approach would be to support the current investigations widely, loudly and often to ensure public understanding that the State Legislature is on the job. Getting behind those investigations with the power of the legislature and encouraging public interest, support and participation would be even better. It is obvious that in our current culture, we need watchers to watch the watchers (Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?).

   Unfortunately, Gatto’s plan would make the legislature in charge of moving all of the current work the PUC does and spreading it out across multiple agencies, no doubt governed/overseen by state legislative committees. Lots of Members will have the opportunities to provide oversight, as well as to receive campaign contributions from the “interested” people, companies, corporations (and their PACs) affected by the work of these agencies under this proposal.

   How is that better?

   The argument for undoing the PUC is a worthwhile discussion, but this proposed solution will be even worse than the problem.

   Reply

Leave a Comment