Tweet
Cal American Water is asking to raise your water rates 40%. should we be worried though? After all, the ratepayer advocates are there to protect us. They recommended a little less of an increase, so they are on our side, right?
I'm a little less than comforted by the whole PUC process. The department seems to be more of a buffer between ratepayers and corporate profits than it is an actual advocate for ratepayers. From my perspective, an advocate should be challenging the entire increase, and not justifying a large portion of it. The process seemed more akin to the soviet union's legal system, where the attorney for the accused employs as thier only strategy, the method of throwing you to the mercy of the judge. If the judge were one of us, there might be some hope for salvation, however the judge is hand picked by the governor, who is chosen by larger voter blocks, usually from Los Angeles or San Francisco. I'm not sure they give a damn about Sacramentan's at all
But regardless of the process, we still must find a way to deal with the end result, which is rocketing water rates. The powers that be are passing this all off on costs of service, however I'm not convinced that is the case. The German company that previously owned the water company bought it high, and then started failing to make it pay. Their next move was to recoup their investment by selling it off as another company via and IPO. The investors are primarily British who are holding the notes, and a few choice Americans who have very little ties to the community, other than fleecing it. So rather than attacking the trumped up costs, I feel the first strategy is to attack the investors who paid too much, and find a way to get them to accpet their losses as opposed to letting them recoup them via a water monopoly.
Let's strategize now on how to accomplish that task
I'm a little less than comforted by the whole PUC process. The department seems to be more of a buffer between ratepayers and corporate profits than it is an actual advocate for ratepayers. From my perspective, an advocate should be challenging the entire increase, and not justifying a large portion of it. The process seemed more akin to the soviet union's legal system, where the attorney for the accused employs as thier only strategy, the method of throwing you to the mercy of the judge. If the judge were one of us, there might be some hope for salvation, however the judge is hand picked by the governor, who is chosen by larger voter blocks, usually from Los Angeles or San Francisco. I'm not sure they give a damn about Sacramentan's at all
But regardless of the process, we still must find a way to deal with the end result, which is rocketing water rates. The powers that be are passing this all off on costs of service, however I'm not convinced that is the case. The German company that previously owned the water company bought it high, and then started failing to make it pay. Their next move was to recoup their investment by selling it off as another company via and IPO. The investors are primarily British who are holding the notes, and a few choice Americans who have very little ties to the community, other than fleecing it. So rather than attacking the trumped up costs, I feel the first strategy is to attack the investors who paid too much, and find a way to get them to accpet their losses as opposed to letting them recoup them via a water monopoly.
Let's strategize now on how to accomplish that task