CGNP Criticizes the CPUC's Role in High California Electric Rates

The CPUC's absolute power harms ratepayers and the environment

This is the text of CGNP’s March 28, 2025 letter to the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC.) Since 2016, CGNP has been an intervenor in the public interest before the CPUC. CGNP has received intervenor compensation in the past for its advocacy for extended operation of PG&E’s Diablo Canyon Power Plant (DCPP.)

Julie Lane, CPUC IComp Coordinator's Office, California Public Utilities Commission, 505 Van Ness Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94102-3214

March 28, 2025

Subject: CGNP Feedback and Question regarding the 03/26/25 CPUC IComp Workshop

Hello, Julie:

First, I wish to extend CGNP's thanks for the Intervenor Compensation (IComp) Coordinator's Office conducting a workshop on March 26, 2025. The bulk of the time being dedicated to Intervenor questions and comments was a refreshing change.

However, as an Intervenor, CGNP certainly did not get a sense of being heard or acknowledged regarding the grievances our representative raised during this meeting. Several decades ago, the California Legislature enacted statutes commencing with PUC §1801 et. seq. in recognition of the need for interested members of the public to be able to constructively criticize and improve the actions of what is likely the most powerful arm of the California executive branch, namely the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC.) According the Governor's 2025-2026 Budget Summary, the 2025-2026 CPUC projected budget is $2,835,547, 000 which annualizes to over $1.4 billion dollars per year.

Despite unanimous approval of the California Assembly and California Senate of a 2015 reform package that included naming a CPUC inspector general empowered to investigate waste, fraud, and abuse - and a guaranteed appellate pathway for aggrieved parties to a CPUC Decision for review within the State Court of Appeals, this package was killed at the last minute by actions of the California Governor's office. Thus, the status quo gives the CPUC essentially absolute power within its California constitutional remit. In a quote attributed to Lord Acton, "Absolute power corrupts absolutely."

Theoretically, Intervenors could assist the public in representing their interests before the CPUC. Instead, CGNP observes public participation via the Intervenor system is becoming more challenging and convoluted, as evidenced by the changes we continued to learn about during the workshop.

CGNP raised concerns that the lavishly-funded direct lobbying of the CPUC by an investor-owned-utility PacifiCorp ($2,541,794.12 between 2019-2023) was the likely reason for CGNP's January, 2023 IComp claim for over $153K being completely denied by the Commission in a proposed decision announced on December 8, 2023. See:

CGNP was the lone party of 55 that supported the Commission's final Decision during the entire Proceeding. On the other hand, during A.16-08-006, Intervenors opposed to the final Decision in the Proceeding received a total of roughly $2 million in IComp.

CGNP received the suggestion during the workshop of contacting the Commissioners directly at their San Francisco, California headquarters. If our nonprofit had unlimited time and resources, such a suggestion might be viable. However, in our case, the suggestion is akin to a "Catch-22" - a non-solution to the structural power imbalance between independent nonprofit CGNP and PacifiCorp, backed by billions of dollars from its corporate parent Berkshire-Hathaway.

CGNP was recently astonished to learn the Colorado Public Utilities Commission invites interested and knowledgeable members of the public to directly address the Commissioners during a public comment period during their weekly meetings via Zoom for up to five minutes.

CGNP had a steep "learning curve" lasting about a year between our initial contact of the CPUC in 2015 and finally being granted Party status in 2016. CGNP has focused on supplying testimony in numerous Proceedings based on technical input from our science and engineering Ph.D. degree holders and other advocates in the public interest. Most of the time, it seems that the CPUC has supported the special-interest lobbying of corporations and nonprofits instead of being persuaded by the facts based on science, engineering, and economics. During the roughly nine years of CGNP's advocacy, we have been allowed to address in-person the Commissioners for a mere handful of minutes.

January, 2025 above-average U.S. residential electricity rates from highest to lowest. The nationwide average was 15.95 cents per kilowatt-hour in January, 2025. Source:

https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.php?t=epmt_5_6_a

CGNP believes the Commission is at a crossroads. Does the Commission continue the status quo which has led to the state typically having the most expensive electric power in the continental U.S. - with ongoing precarious reliability - or will the Commission base policy going forward upon the principles of science, engineering, and economics while protecting the environment?

Please share and comment below with your thoughts regarding the CPUC. Thank you.

CGNP will soon be posting a criticism of Warren Buffett’s latest plan via SB 540 (Becker, 2025) for CAISO grid regionalization. Since 2016, the California legislature has repeatedly rejected CAISO grid regionalization. The CPUC has already signaled its approval of CAISO grid regionalization at the Western Interstate Electricity Board “Pathways” pages.

The likely consequences of CAISO grid regionalization would be increased use of Buffett’s coal-fired power plants in Wyoming and nearby states while Diablo Canyon would be needlessly shut down. California electric power rates would increase.