CPUC Ca Public Untility Commis

see main<div>
</div><div>other states have too</div><div>
</div><div>relate to RPS?</div><div>
</div><div>=</div><div>really long and detailed, but note weasel words</div><div>many artl by mcdonald sd trib</div><div>
</div><div><a href="http://environmentalprogress.org/big-news/2016/9/8/future-of-californias-largest-nuclear-plant-diablo-canyon-should-not-be-decided-by-a-california-public-utilities-commission-that-is-hiding-emails-under-an-active-criminal-investigation">http://environmentalprogress.org/big-news/2016/9/8/future-of-californias-largest-nuclear-plant-diablo-canyon-should-not-be-decided-by-a-california-public-utilities-commission-that-is-hiding-emails-under-an-active-criminal-investigation</a></div><div></div><div>
</div><div>not so strange shill never mentioned the $3billion tab</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div><div class="ArticlePage-byline" style="background-repeat: no-repeat; box-sizing: border-box; display: flex; flex-wrap: nowrap; align-items: center; justify-content: normal; margin-bottom: 20px; max-width: 680px; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><div class="ArticlePage-authors" style="background-repeat: no-repeat; box-sizing: border-box; width: auto; margin-bottom: 0px; text-transform: uppercase; display: inline-flex; margin-right: 10px;"><div class="ArticlePage-authorName" style="background-repeat: no-repeat; box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1.2; display: inline;"> <a aria-label="Jeff McDonald" href="https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sdut-jeff-mcdonald-staff.html" style="background-repeat: no-repeat; box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; touch-action: manipulation; text-decoration-line: none;">JEFF MCDONALD</a>, <div class="ArticlePage-contributors" style="background-repeat: no-repeat; box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1.2; display: inline;"><a class="Link" href="https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sdut-rob-nikolewski-staff.html" style="background-repeat: no-repeat; box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; touch-action: manipulation; text-decoration-line: none;">ROB NIKOLEWSKI</a></div></div></div><div class="ArticlePage-datePublished" style="background-repeat: no-repeat; box-sizing: border-box; letter-spacing: 0.2px; line-height: 1.2; text-transform: uppercase; word-break: keep-all; margin-right: 5px;"><div class="ArticlePage-datePublished-day" style="background-repeat: no-repeat; box-sizing: border-box; display: inline; white-space: nowrap;">JULY 26, 2018</div> <div class="ArticlePage-datePublished-time" style="background-repeat: no-repeat; box-sizing: border-box; display: inline; white-space: nowrap; margin-left: 5px;">12:30 PM</div></div></div><div class="ArticlePage-articleContainer" style="background-repeat: no-repeat; box-sizing: border-box; max-width: 680px; margin: 0px auto;"><div class="ArticlePage-articleBody" style="background-repeat: no-repeat; box-sizing: border-box;"><div class="RichTextArticleBody" style="background-repeat: no-repeat; box-sizing: border-box;"><div class="RichTextArticleBody-body RichTextBody" style="background-repeat: no-repeat; box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1.67;">Four years after approving a plan that charged ratepayers billions of dollars for the premature closing of the San Onofre nuclear plant, state utility regulators <a class="Link" href="https://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/Published/G000/M219/K163/219163548.PDF" target="blank" style="background-repeat: no-repeat; box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; touch-action: manipulation;">adopted a new deal</a> Thursday that trims about $750 million from consumers’ electricity bills.By unanimous vote, the California Public Utilities Commission agreed to a new cost-sharing settlement that halts payments by utility customers for the failed power plant as of December 2017.The decision means that consumers would stop paying the $3.3 billion in San Onofre-related charges imposed on them after a radiation leak shut down the nuclear plant north of Oceanside in 2012.Under the plan approved by regulators in 2014, those charges were scheduled to persist until 2022.The agreement would save more than 6 million homes and businesses an average of about $120 over four years. Ratepayers also could see an actual rebate — most likely reflected as a credit on their bills — for closure costs they paid since December, when the revised settlement was agreed to in principle.“This is a marked improvement from the 2014 decision,” <a class="Link" href="https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/picker/" target="blank" style="background-repeat: no-repeat; box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; touch-action: manipulation;">CPUC president Michael Picker</a> said just before the vote.<a class="Link" href="https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/peterman/" target="blank" style="background-repeat: no-repeat; box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; touch-action: manipulation;">Commissioner Carla Peterman</a> said, “Ratepayers deserve closure on this issue.”The new arrangement was negotiated by plant owners Southern California Edison and San Diego Gas & Electric after the San Diego area consumer group Citizens Oversight sued Edison and the commission over the 2014 deal.<div id="nativo_1" style="background-repeat: no-repeat; box-sizing: border-box;" /><div class="Enhancement" data-align-center="" style="background-repeat: no-repeat; box-sizing: border-box; clear: both; margin: 30px 0px; width: 680px;" />“It’s not a 100 percent victory, but it does mean no more bleeding after December 2017,” said attorney Michael Aguirre, who represented Citizens Oversight in the litigation.In a statement, Edison President Ron Nichols said the commission “took an important step forward.”The commission made one change to the proposed decision — eliminating a $25 million, stand-alone greenhouse gas research program to be administered by the <a class="Link" href="https://www2.calstate.edu/" target="blank" style="background-repeat: no-repeat; box-sizing: border-box; touch-action: manipulation;">Cal State University system</a> and funded by utility shareholders.While the program’s goals may be laudable, Picker said, “I don’t think it’s appropriate for us” to approve.Parties involved in the case have 10 days to let the CPUC know if they agree with the deletion.Background on the caseThe federal lawsuit that led to the $750 million in savings accused the utilities commission of authorizing an illegal taking of property — consumers’ cash by way of higher electricity bills — because customers were being charged for a power plant that produced no electricity.The suit was dismissed by U.S. District Court Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo in 2015, but the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals later agreed to hear the case.<div class="Enhancement" data-align-center="" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); background-repeat: no-repeat; box-sizing: border-box; clear: both; margin: 30px 0px; width: 680px;" />Within weeks of that decision, lawyers for Edison and SDG&E initiated settlement discussions that led to an agreement announced early this year between the utilities and each party in the San Onofre case pending before the utilities commission.But Picker and other commissioners were not immediately swayed that the agreement was worthwhile.In February, they agreed to allow the San Diego advocacy group <a class="Link" href="https://publicwatchdogs.org/" target="blank" style="background-repeat: no-repeat; box-sizing: border-box; touch-action: manipulation;">Public Watchdogs</a> into the proceeding on a limited basis. Public Watchdogs opposed the settlement because it allowed the utilities to retain most of what the group said were illegal gains and because it granted Aguirre and his law partner some $5.4 million in attorney fees.“Sure, the settlement claims to return ($750 million) to ratepayers but the total cost of the failure (at SONGS) is $5.5 billion and 40 percent of that cost is being borne by the public,” Public Watchdogs executive director Charles Langley said during the public comment period at Thursday’s CPUC meeting in Sacramento.The $3.3 billion costs to consumers equaled 70 percent of the $4.7 billion expense. The $750 million savings ratepayers will now see is nearly 25 percent of the 2014 cost to utility customers.Backers of the settlement approved Thursday say it is a notable improvement from the deal approved in 2014, when regulators assigned the lion’s share of San Onofre costs to utility customers rather than Edison and SDG&E shareholders.As part of the new settlement, a <a class="Link" href="https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/business/energy-green/sd-fi-songs-experts-20180315-story.html" target="blank" style="background-repeat: no-repeat; box-sizing: border-box; touch-action: manipulation;">team of six nuclear energy experts has been assembled</a> to work with Southern California Edison to try to find a way to move the 3.55 million pounds of nuclear waste at SONGS to another location.[dropped the casket. bolts loose?]<div class="Enhancement" data-align-center="" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); background-repeat: no-repeat; box-sizing: border-box; clear: both; margin: 30px 0px; width: 680px;" />The team includes a former chairman of the <a class="Link" href="https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/topic/environmental-issues/environmental-politics/u.s.-nuclear-regulatory-commission-ORGOV000259-topic.html" target="blank" style="background-repeat: no-repeat; box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; touch-action: manipulation;">Nuclear Regulatory Commission</a>, the independent agency in charge of all safety-related matters surrounding nuclear energy in the U.S., and a former director of policy at the U.S. Department of Energy.A complicated and controversial 2014 dealThe 2014 deal was negotiated privately between utility executives and two consumer groups, The Utility Reform Network of San Francisco and the Office of Ratepayer Advocates, an independent unit of the utilities commission.The proposed settlement was announced in March 2014 but amended that September to include a provision requiring utility shareholders to contribute $25 million toward an unspecified greenhouse-gas research program within the University of California(which was later <a class="Link" href="https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/watchdog/sd-me-settlement-deal-20180130-story.html" target="blank" style="background-repeat: no-repeat; box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; touch-action: manipulation;">changed to be run by the Cal State University system</a>).About the same time, then-Attorney General Kamala Harris opened a criminal investigation into the utilities commission based on emails between utility regulators and executives that surfaced in an unrelated lawsuit.Those exchanges showed that commissioners were routinely meeting privately with companies they oversaw to discuss matters that were pending before the commission.When investigators searched the Los Angeles area home of longtime commission president Michael Peevey in 2015, they found two pages of handwritten notes that appeared to show an agreement to resolve the San Onofre costs between ratepayers and utility shareholders.After the Union-Tribune disclosed the finding, Edison filed notice of an ex parte meeting — conversations not in a public forum — it had with Peevey nearly two years earlier at a hotel in Warsaw, Poland.The company said it had previously thought the meeting didn’t need to be reported, even though the deal points listed on the notes closely resembled the terms approved by Peevey and other commissioners at their public meeting in November 2014.The $25 million in greenhouse-gas emissions research funding became a key element of the criminal investigation because the funding appeared on the Warsaw notes sketched out in 2013 but were not added to the settlement terms released publicly until September 2014.Meanwhile, emails obtained by the Union-Tribune showed Peevey discussing the funding with UCLA researchers nearly a year before then-commissioner Michel Florio proposed adding the money to the San Onofre settlement as a way to improve the deal for consumers.The utilities commission later fined Edison $16.7 million for failing to disclose the Warsaw meeting for nearly two years.Despite the meeting in Warsaw and numerous disclosures indicating that the San Onofre costs were negotiated in private rather than through the public process, regulators took no steps to alter the terms of the deal they approved in 2014— until Thursday.The four-year Attorney General’s Office investigation into utilities commission practices similarly sputtered and no criminal charges have been filed.</div></div></div></div></div><div></div><div><h1 style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0.67em 0px; font-weight: normal; line-height: 1.1; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">June 29, 2018: Emails Released</h1>On June 19, 2018, the California Court of Appeal ruled that the CPUC must disclose certain emails being sought under a Public Records Act request. The CPUC had argued that the emails were protected by the deliberative process privilege, or contained exempt correspondence with the Governor's Office. The CPUC's concerns were never about the content of the emails, but rather in preserving our rights under the California Public Records Act, including our ability to apply confidentiality rules to records in our possession. The emails range in date from February 2014 to December 2014. None are from the Governor, nor are they related directly to the approval of the original San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station settlement. <a href="ftp://ftp.cpuc.ca.gov/publicrecordrequests" title="View the emails" style="box-sizing: border-box; background: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">View the emails</a></div><div>
</div><div>=</div><div>
</div><div><div class="ArticlePage-byline" style="background-repeat: no-repeat; box-sizing: border-box; display: flex; flex-wrap: nowrap; align-items: center; justify-content: normal; margin-bottom: 20px; max-width: 680px; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><div class="ArticlePage-authors" style="background-repeat: no-repeat; box-sizing: border-box; width: auto; margin-bottom: 0px; text-transform: uppercase; display: inline-flex; margin-right: 10px;"><div class="ArticlePage-authorName" style="background-repeat: no-repeat; box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1.2; display: inline;"><a aria-label="Jeff McDonald" href="https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sdut-jeff-mcdonald-staff.html" style="background-repeat: no-repeat; box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; touch-action: manipulation; text-decoration-line: none;">JEFF MCDONALD</a></div></div><div class="ArticlePage-datePublished" style="background-repeat: no-repeat; box-sizing: border-box; letter-spacing: 0.2px; line-height: 1.2; text-transform: uppercase; word-break: keep-all; margin-right: 5px;"><div class="ArticlePage-datePublished-day" style="background-repeat: no-repeat; box-sizing: border-box; display: inline; white-space: nowrap;">JUNE 20, 2018</div> <div class="ArticlePage-datePublished-time" style="background-repeat: no-repeat; box-sizing: border-box; display: inline; white-space: nowrap; margin-left: 5px;">2:15 PM</div></div></div><div class="ArticlePage-articleContainer" style="background-repeat: no-repeat; box-sizing: border-box; max-width: 680px; margin: 0px auto;"><div class="ArticlePage-articleBody" style="background-repeat: no-repeat; box-sizing: border-box;"><div class="RichTextArticleBody" style="background-repeat: no-repeat; box-sizing: border-box;"><div class="RichTextArticleBody-body RichTextBody" style="background-repeat: no-repeat; box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1.67;">State appellate judges have ordered the California Public Utilities Commission to produce at least some of the disputed emails exchanged between regulators and the Governor’s Office in the run-up to a 2014 deal that charged ratepayers $3.3 billion for the nuclear plant closure.In an opinion issued late Tuesday, the 1st District Court of Appeal gave commission lawyers 10 days to produce many of the communications withheld for years under exemptions from the California Public Records Act.“The CPUC did not meet its burden of ‘demonstrat(ing) a clear overbalance on the side of confidentiality’ between the public interest in nondisclosure and the public interest in disclosure,” the ruling states.Judges said the commission must produce all records withheld under the deliberative process privilege, an exemption state lawyers cited in refusing to release at least 40 documents related to the 2012 shutdown of the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station north of Oceanside.But the opinion only directs the commission to produce some of the dozens of emails to and from the Governor’s Office first sought by the San Diego law firm Aguirre & Severson in 2015.Utilities commission spokeswoman Terrie Prosper did not respond Wednesday to a request for comment. The Governor’s Office also declined to respond to the ruling.Maria Severson, who represents law partner Michael Aguirre in the litigation, said she is pleased with the appellate judges’ order and looks forward to seeing some of the long-requested documents.“We are thankful the court took time to review the records, and urge the governor and CPUC to release those they are still withholding,” she said in a telephone interview. “We look forward to receipt of the records without redactions and the privilege log to understand just what the CPUC has refused to date to show the public.”<div id="nativo_1" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); background-repeat: no-repeat; box-sizing: border-box;"><div class="Enhancement" data-align-center="" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); background-repeat: no-repeat; box-sizing: border-box; clear: both; margin: 30px 0px; width: 680px;">It is unclear at this point how many documents were ordered to be disclosed and how many were permitted to be withheld because the “tabs” submitted to the court by the commission contain different numbers of pages.In addition to the records ordered by the court to be produced by next Friday, the commission is required to release what’s known as a privilege log, or a list of specific emails or other records withheld by the commission.Severson said the log would help explain who at the commission and Governor’s Office were communicating about the San Onofre case while the investigation into what caused the plant failure was still active.“We are hoping the privilege log sheds light on the universe of documents withheld,” she said.The 1st District court ruling does not resolve a discrepancy in the number of emails sent to the judges by the commission.Late last year, commission lawyers acknowledged providing the court fewer emails than they told Aguirre they were withholding and blamed it on an oversight.Aguirre filed a California Public Records Act request for the emails early in 2015, shortly after the commission unanimously approved a settlement that allows plant owners Southern California Edison and San Diego Gas & Electric to charge customers $3.3 billion of $4.7 billion in costs related to the 2012 closure.The former San Diego city attorney, Aguirre argued in court papers that the communications were improper and may have influenced what is supposed to be a state utilities commission that is independent of political influence.<div class="Enhancement" data-align-center="" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); background-repeat: no-repeat; box-sizing: border-box; clear: both; margin: 30px 0px; width: 680px;">Previously released records show utility regulators and executives met regularly to discuss matters pending before the commission in secret.Other publicly released records show that Brown met privately with then-Edison CEO Ted Craver for nearly two hours just weeks before another Edison executive and former commission president Michael Peevey sketched out the framework of a deal at a hotel bar in Warsaw, Poland.Most of those deal points were subsequently incorporated into the settlement commissioners approved in 2014, effectively sticking customers with the multibillion-dollar cost of the plant failure.The secret meeting in Warsaw became the subject of a criminal investigation opened by the state Attorney General’s Office in 2014. But despite executing at least six search warrants and seizing more than 1 million pages of internal utility and commission documents, no charges have been filed.In an unrelated lawsuit, Aguirre and Severson sued to reverse terms of the San Onofre settlement.Last year, they reached an agreement with Edison and SDG&E to whittle $775 million from the $3.3 billion in closure costs to be paid by ratepayers, but the commission has refused to sign off on the arrangement.</div></div></div></div></div><div></div><div>shillenberger</div><div>
</div><div>Environmental Progress has requested the U.S. Department of Justice take over from the California Department of Justice the investigation of the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) for possible criminal activities relating to the closure of San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS).More than 18 months have passed since California’s Attorney General assured a reporter that the investigation had not stalled; it is now abundantly clear that it has.Letter can be <a target="blank" href="http://environmentalprogress.org/s/Letter-to-DOJ-re-California-Corruption-FINAL.pdf" style="text-decoration-line: none; overflow-wrap: break-word;">downloaded (PDF), </a>and full text of the letter follows:January 10, 2018The Honorable Alex G. TseActing U.S. Attorney, Northern District of CaliforniaFederal Courthouse, 11th Floor450 Golden Gate AvenueSan Francisco, CA 94102 Dear Mr. Tse:I am writing as president of Environmental Progress, a not-for-profit (501c3) research and policy organization, to respectfully request the expediting of the U.S. Department of Justice’s investigation of a possible criminal conspiracy at California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), and its separation from the investigation underway by the California Department of Justice.In November 2014, agents with the U.S. DOJ and California DOJ raided the offices of the CPUC in a joint investigation of potential criminal activities relating to the permanent closure of, and settlement proceedings for, the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS).More than 18 months have passed since California’s Attorney General assured a reporter that the investigation had not stalled; it is now abundantly clear that it has.<a href="http://environmentalprogress.org/big-news/2018/1/10/environmental-progress-urges-us-justice-department-action-against-corrupt-california-public-utility-commission#edn1" style="text-decoration-line: none; overflow-wrap: break-word;">[1]</a>Since the announcement, a new Attorney General, Xavier Becerra, was appointed by Gov. Jerry Brown.  Mr. Becerra has never stood for election, but instead owes his position to a possible person-of-interest in DOJ’s investigation, has not recused himself due to conflict-of-interest, and has, as best we can tell, stopped investigating. Additional urgency to separate DOJ’s investigation comes from the fact that CPUC will likely vote this week to approve another settlement for the closure of yet another nuclear plant, Diablo Canyon, after years of private negotiations involving Pacific Gas & Electric, top advisors to Gov. Brown, including the former head of the California Energy Commission, and Brown appointee, John Geesman, and Lt. Gov. Newsom.<a href="http://environmentalprogress.org/big-news/2018/1/10/environmental-progress-urges-us-justice-department-action-against-corrupt-california-public-utility-commission#edn2" style="text-decoration-line: none; overflow-wrap: break-word;">[2]</a>We still have no resolution with respect to the CPUC’s refusal to turn over 60 or more emails from Governor Brown’s office to the CPUC relating to the closure of SONGS.  During the timeframe of the SONGS settlement, CPUC’s then-president communicated regularly with current CPUC President Michael Picker. Mr. Picker, at the time of the privately-negotiated SONGS settlement, was working as an advisor to Governor Brown.<a href="http://environmentalprogress.org/big-news/2018/1/10/environmental-progress-urges-us-justice-department-action-against-corrupt-california-public-utility-commission#edn3" style="text-decoration-line: none; overflow-wrap: break-word;">[3]</a> According to the San Diego Union Tribune, in July 2013, both former President Peevey and current President Picker attended a three-hour post-San Onofre “strategy dinner,” and Commissioner Picker was on Gov. Brown’s “loss of SONGS task force.”<a href="http://environmentalprogress.org/big-news/2018/1/10/environmental-progress-urges-us-justice-department-action-against-corrupt-california-public-utility-commission#edn4" style="text-decoration-line: none; overflow-wrap: break-word;">[4]</a>The Associated Press and San Diego Union Tribune reported that CPUC ”opposed providing records to investigators as required by three different search warrants approved in 2015 and 2016”:Commission lawyers argued that prosecutors failed to properly serve the warrants — even though they agreed to the process in advance. "Here, the CPUC has engaged in inequitable conduct, by insisting upon a method of execution of a search warrant and now claiming that execution was improper," Judge William C. Ryan wrote in a ruling last year that was unsealed this week. "The Attorney General relied upon CPUC's promise that it would comply with the warrant if served in the manner agreed upon."<a href="http://environmentalprogress.org/big-news/2018/1/10/environmental-progress-urges-us-justice-department-action-against-corrupt-california-public-utility-commission#edn5" style="text-decoration-line: none; overflow-wrap: break-word;">[5]</a>California’s institutions have proved themselves unwilling to root out possible criminal activity.a.     In 2014, a group of CPUC attorneys publicly warned that their colleagues may have been destroying evidence relating to another criminal investigation of CPUC relating to a Pacific Gas & Electric natural gas explosion in San Bruno that killed eight people.<a href="http://environmentalprogress.org/big-news/2018/1/10/environmental-progress-urges-us-justice-department-action-against-corrupt-california-public-utility-commission#edn6" style="text-decoration-line: none; overflow-wrap: break-word;">[6]</a>b.    The California legislature passed legislation to reform the CPUC in August 2016, but it was killed at the last minute by CPUC President Picker, according to reports by the Los Angeles Times and San Diego Union Tribune. The legislation would have allowed for the Superior Court to review decisions when regulators refuse California Public Records Act requests, as the CPUC did regarding email exchanges with President Picker while he was working on behalf of the Governor.<a href="http://environmentalprogress.org/big-news/2018/1/10/environmental-progress-urges-us-justice-department-action-against-corrupt-california-public-utility-commission#edn7" style="text-decoration-line: none; overflow-wrap: break-word;">[7]</a>c.     A state Superior Court highlighted the public interest in the email correspondence when it ruled the CPUC should have to justify why it would not release emails. Judge Ernest Goldsmith made a strongly worded call for CPUC to disclose Picker’s SONGS correspondence first in November 2015 and again in January 2016. In November, 2015, Judge Goldsmith wrote:                                          i.         This is a big deal. This is not a trivial issue to the taxpayers of California. And just like the San Bruno events [natural gas explosion that killed eight people] were not a trivial deal, and when something is big enough, it’s just got to come out. It’s going to come out, and it’s either going to be horribly painful, or you can just do the right thing.<a href="http://environmentalprogress.org/big-news/2018/1/10/environmental-progress-urges-us-justice-department-action-against-corrupt-california-public-utility-commission#edn8" style="text-decoration-line: none; overflow-wrap: break-word;">[8]</a>d.    In January 2016, Judge Goldsmith wrote:                                          i.         Withholding records of allegedly ex parte secret deals resulting in shifting $3.3 billion of utility losses to ratepayers cannot possibly be a regulatory function of the PUC. It is not realistic that the Legislature intended that [Public Utilities Code] Sec. 1759 should be invoked to insulate PUC officials accused of corruption from public scrutiny. (…) The core value of a democracy is the right of citizens to know the actions of public officials.<a href="http://environmentalprogress.org/big-news/2018/1/10/environmental-progress-urges-us-justice-department-action-against-corrupt-california-public-utility-commission#edn9" style="text-decoration-line: none; overflow-wrap: break-word;">[9]</a>In such circumstances, when a state’s political establishment refuses to act in the public interest, it is incumbent upon the U.S. Department of Justice to do so.We strongly encourage you to take swift and strong action to investigate, independent of the California Attorney General, and bring charges, if criminal activity is found, against all culpable parties.Sincerely,Michael ShellenbergerPresident cc: The Honorable Jeff SessionsAttorney General of the United StatesUnited States Department of Justice950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NWWashington, D.C. 20530-0001  <a href="http://environmentalprogress.org/big-news/2018/1/10/environmental-progress-urges-us-justice-department-action-against-corrupt-california-public-utility-commission#ednref1" style="text-decoration-line: none; overflow-wrap: break-word;">[1]</a> Jeff McDonald, “AG Says CPUC Probe Hasn’t Stalled,” San Diego Union Tribune, May 14, 2016. <a href="http://environmentalprogress.org/big-news/2018/1/10/environmental-progress-urges-us-justice-department-action-against-corrupt-california-public-utility-commission#ednref2" style="text-decoration-line: none; overflow-wrap: break-word;">[2]</a> Office of Gavin Newsom, “Lt. Governor Newsom orders review of California’s nuclear and energy future, http://www.ltg.ca.gov/news.2015.12.18_DiabloCanyon.html<a href="http://environmentalprogress.org/big-news/2018/1/10/environmental-progress-urges-us-justice-department-action-against-corrupt-california-public-utility-commission#ednref3" style="text-decoration-line: none; overflow-wrap: break-word;">[3]</a> Jeff McDonald, “Aguirre Pushing for Brown’s Emails,” San Diego Union-Tribune, November 13, 2015.<a href="http://environmentalprogress.org/big-news/2018/1/10/environmental-progress-urges-us-justice-department-action-against-corrupt-california-public-utility-commission#ednref4" style="text-decoration-line: none; overflow-wrap: break-word;">[4]</a>  Jeff McDonald, “San Onofre Plan Details Under Scrutiny,” San Diego Union-Tribune, March 14, 2015.<a href="http://environmentalprogress.org/big-news/2018/1/10/environmental-progress-urges-us-justice-department-action-against-corrupt-california-public-utility-commission#ednref5" style="text-decoration-line: none; overflow-wrap: break-word;">[5]</a> Associated Press, Utility Regulators Used Private Lawyers to Challenge Probe<a href="http://environmentalprogress.org/big-news/2018/1/10/environmental-progress-urges-us-justice-department-action-against-corrupt-california-public-utility-commission#ednref6" style="text-decoration-line: none; overflow-wrap: break-word;">[6]</a> <a href="https://www.nbcbayarea.com/results/?keywords=%22Tony+Kovaleski%22&byline=y&sort=date" style="text-decoration-line: none; overflow-wrap: break-word;">Tony Kovaleski</a>, <a href="https://www.nbcbayarea.com/results/?keywords=%22Liz+Wagner%22&byline=y&sort=date" style="text-decoration-line: none; overflow-wrap: break-word;">Liz Wagner</a> and <a href="https://www.nbcbayarea.com/results/?keywords=%22Felipe+Escamilla%22&byline=y&sort=date" style="text-decoration-line: none; overflow-wrap: break-word;">Felipe Escamilla</a>, “Attorneys Suggest Evidence Isn’t Safe at CPUC Amid Federal Investigation,”NBC News, Bay Area, Oct 16, 2014. https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/Attorneys-Suggest-Evidence-Isnt-Safe-at-CPUC-Amid-Federal-Investigation-279510462.html<a href="http://environmentalprogress.org/big-news/2018/1/10/environmental-progress-urges-us-justice-department-action-against-corrupt-california-public-utility-commission#ednref7" style="text-decoration-line: none; overflow-wrap: break-word;">[7]</a> Jeff McDonald, “2 PUC Reform Proposals Die, Emails Will Stay Secret,” San Diego Union-Tribune, September 1, 2016. Melanie Mason, “Brown vetoes transparency bills for troubled commission, “ Los Angeles Times, October 9, 2015. <a href="http://environmentalprogress.org/big-news/2018/1/10/environmental-progress-urges-us-justice-department-action-against-corrupt-california-public-utility-commission#ednref8" style="text-decoration-line: none; overflow-wrap: break-word;">[8]</a> Jaxon Van Derbeken, “Judge: Regulator should release Brown emails on nuclear plant shutdown,” San Francisco Chronicle, November 28, 2015.<a href="http://environmentalprogress.org/big-news/2018/1/10/environmental-progress-urges-us-justice-department-action-against-corrupt-california-public-utility-commission#_ednref9" style="text-decoration-line: none; overflow-wrap: break-word;">[9]</a>  Jeff McDonald, “Judge Calls for Review of Emails,” San Diego Union Tribune, January 15, 2016.
=</div></div></div></div>