Dear Editor,
From: Ron Crawford
I was forwarded your article on MWH, and I thought you might find this interesting.
On my SewerWatch Blog:
. . . I recently (re)exposed a 2004 Los Osos CSD document —Exhibit 3-C—that I first exposed way back in 2005, that shows that the LOCSD and its engineers, had sitting on their desks the near-exact same sewer project that the County just "accepted," (with an out-of-town sewer plant), but they deliberately low-balled their numbers in that document (to the Coastal Commission), and because they deliberately low-balled their numbers, they were able to (fraudulently) lock in the Tri-W disaster, instead of going (in 2004) with the project the county just accepted in 2010.
The engineering firm that created Exhibit 3-C, with deliberately low-balled numbers? MWH
There's a link directly to Exhibit 3-C in my story. (The post currently at the top of SewerWatch is my letter to CCC Chair, Sara Wan, in response to my main story, which is directly below the Wan letter.)
Had MWH NOT deliberately fudged their numbers in Exhibit 3-C, the near-exact same project that the county just developed (after four years and some $8 million) would have been built starting back in 2004, and the recall, bankruptcy, CDO enforcement actions, AB 2701, the county's entire process, etc., etc., etc. would have never happened.
It's an extremely interesting story, and it seems to tie in nicely with your piece.
Anyway, thought you might find it interesting. Maybe you can help me pull an answer out of Sara Wan on whether she would have still approved the Tri-W disaster in 2004 had MWH not lied to her (and her fellow commissioners) in Exhibit 3-C.
Keep up the great work.
From: Margaret Hennessy
Arroyo Grande
I have attended a number of City Council meetings regarding the "automatic" installation of Smart Meters. None of which answered some very important questions.
PG&E's smart meter opt out option is grossly unfair for ratepayers who have already paid in excess of 2.2 billion dollars for the Smart Meter program--which they never asked for.
PG&E's OPT OUT PLAN: $270.00 up-front opt-out fee + $14/month surcharge + a yet-to-be determined "exit fee" if you move.
While PG&E is being forced to offer an opt-out provision of the Smart Meters program, it has gamed that provision. The proposed costs of opting out are prohibitive, which is PG&E's intention to stop the opposition to Smart Meters. A REASONABLE CHOICE IS NOT BEING OFFERED.
Here is a proposition for another opt out plan:
No charge to keep existing analog meters. PG&E could estimate usage based on the prior year, or customers could self-read, monthly. A meter reader could check twice a year so that any underage or overage can be adjusted. For any customer who requests it, PG&E should restore their analog meter at PG&E's expense, ASAP.
Rate payers should not have to pay for their negligence. There needs to be a choice.
Also, there should be an immediate moratorium on any further installation of wireless Smart Meters until consumers know they have these opt out options. And there needs to be evidentiary hearings on smart meters. We should not be used to find out if these meters are dangerous to our health . . . after the fact. |
From: David Broadwater
Atascadero
A modest and prudent proposal for SLO County residents.
Whereas, the SLO County Board of Supervisors on April 12 unanimously advocated the cessation of Diablo Canyon relicensing until state-of-the-art seismic studies of nearby faults are completed and independently reviewed; and
Whereas, Senator Blakeslee and Representative Capps have called for that halt for the same purpose; and
Whereas, the SLO Tribune has made the same call; and
Whereas, the Public Utilities Commission requires this analysis during relicensing, and the Energy Commission recommends its completion prior to PG&E's NRC application submission; and
Whereas, the USGS reports we don't know the length or depth of the Shoreline fault, whether it runs under the plant or connects with the Hosgri fault, or the potential magnitude of forces unleashed in the event earthquakes are triggered on both faults simultaneously; and
Whereas, PG&E has refused to halt relicensing to acquire this available knowledge, and the NRC has refused PG&E's offer to hold relicensing until the studies are completed; and
Whereas, the PUC has yet to halt relicensing until their completion; and
Whereas, PG&E claims company seismologists assess the magnitude potential of the Hosgri fault is 6.5, and USGS seismologists find it's 7.3; and
Whereas, PG&E has disputed the PUC's authority to require inclusion of seismic analysis in its relicensing decisions, failed to submit reports in a timely manner, and objects to complying fully with state law regarding that reporting; and
Whereas, three times since the Japanese seismic disaster, PG&E has erroneously told the SLO Co. Board of Supervisors, during its March 15 & 29 and April 5 meetings, that it knows the damage to Japanese nuclear plants was due exclusively to the tsunami, and not the earthquake (despite evidence to the contrary); and
Whereas, Diablo Canyon reactor licenses don't begin to expire until 2024, and seismic studies will take only three to four years to complete . . .
Therefore, be it resolved:
We, the people of SLO County, will write and call Governor Brown and Senators Boxer and Feinstein urging them to take the same position as our other elected representatives and press the NRC and PUC to stop their relicensing proceedings until the completion and review of seismic analysis of all potentially relevant nearby fault systems, using this contact information:
Brown - (916) 445-2841 / Email
Boxer - (916) 448-2787 / Email
Feinstein - (415) 393-0707 / Email
If not us – who? If not now –when?
|
