Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

CA: (Mothers for Peace) Attorney named to post on state PUC
The Tribune ^ | Dec. 19, 2004 | David Sneed

Posted on 12/19/2004 8:13:48 PM PST by calcowgirl

Attorney named to post on state PUC
Dian Grueneich has represented SLO Mothers for Peace

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has appointed an attorney who represented the San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace to a key regulatory position.

Dian Grueneich was appointed Thursday to the state Public Utilities Commission. Until her appointment, Grueneich represented Mothers for Peace in the group's case before the PUC against a steam generator replacement project at Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant.

"We are thrilled that the commission has someone who has the consumers at heart," said Rochelle Becker, spokeswoman for Mothers for Peace.

Pacific Gas and Electric Co., which owns Diablo Canyon, has applied to the PUC to replace all of the plant's steam generators and to bill ratepayers for the estimated $700 million expense.

Mothers for Peace and other environmental groups oppose the replacement because they think the money would be better spent replacing the plant with non-nuclear power sources. A decision by the PUC is expected in January or February.

Grueneich has more than 25 years of experience in energy efficiency and environmental policy and law, according to a press release from the governor's office. The PUC is responsible for the regulation of investor-owned utilities in the state.


TOPICS: Government; News/Current Events; US: California
KEYWORDS: appointment; california; capuc; grueneich; mothersforpeace; puc; schwarzenegger
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-24 next last

1 posted on 12/19/2004 8:13:49 PM PST by calcowgirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: calcowgirl

No nuke power, in fact no power production in California. Californians want cheap power and water and expect surrounding states to produce it.


2 posted on 12/19/2004 8:18:06 PM PST by USNBandit (Florida military absentee voter number 537.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: USNBandit
No nuke power, in fact no power production in California. Californians want cheap power and water and expect surrounding states to produce it.

Correction:

No nuke power, in fact no power production in California. Californians Arnold's benefactors want cheap expensive power and water and expect surrounding states and Mexico to produce it.

Read the whole post; I think you'll find it enlightening.

3 posted on 12/19/2004 8:39:46 PM PST by Carry_Okie (There are people in power who are truly evil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: USNBandit
And RINOld, the enabler, is gonna let the watermelons and the no-nuke nutbags have their way...

Anyone remember the old (50s-60s) Art Baker programme, ''YOU Asked For It!'' ?

4 posted on 12/19/2004 8:40:31 PM PST by SAJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: calcowgirl
Mothers for Peace and other environmental groups oppose the replacement because they think the money would be better spent replacing the plant with non-nuclear power sources. A decision by the PUC is expected in January or February.

'non-nuclear' power sources like hydrogen and solar, I guess. ;-)

5 posted on 12/19/2004 8:43:31 PM PST by NormsRevenge (Semper Fi ...... The War on Terrorism is the ultimate 'faith-based' initiative.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
...and expect surrounding states and Mexico to produce it.

Or... anyplace but California?

theage.com.au

Schwarzenegger keen on gas deal: PM
By Michael Gordon
June 4, 2004

It was a fleeting thumbs up for the camera, but it seemed to sum up the response of actor-turned-Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to John Howard's pitch on behalf of BHP Billiton.

After a "very positive" meeting of less than 30 minutes, the Australian Prime Minister reported yesterday that the Governor of California seemed keen to consummate a deal worth more than $US4 billion ($A5.75 billion) to supply energy-poor California with liquefied natural gas.

"The Governor himself expressed a keen desire to see that our negotiations were brought to a successful conclusion," Mr Howard said. "He expressed great interest in a partnership between Australia and California."

(snip)


6 posted on 12/19/2004 9:19:36 PM PST by calcowgirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: calcowgirl

I wonder how they will transport the LNG from Australia. They (CA)probably will not allow unloading the tankers at any port inside the state. Looks like more dependence on the "evil" pipeline operators that were blamed in the last energy crisis.


7 posted on 12/19/2004 9:44:16 PM PST by Bring Back Old Sparky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Bring Back Old Sparky

Interesting point.

Welcome to Free Republic! :-)


8 posted on 12/19/2004 10:07:42 PM PST by calcowgirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: USNBandit

They do produce it for Cali, but no one ever said it had to be cheap!


9 posted on 12/19/2004 10:29:46 PM PST by TheDon (The Democratic Party is the party of TREASON)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: calcowgirl
This is an old article, but it seemed relevant to Carry Okie's theory.
So... they get the LNG from Australia and deliver it through Mexico?
San Diego Union-Tribune
Officials' Australia, Asia trip an issue
Governor's cabinet members sponsored by energy interests

By Diane Lindquist
July 31, 2004

Accusations have arisen that energy company executives wielded undue influence on four members of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's cabinet by traveling with them to South Korea and Australia to examine issues involved with the possible introduction of liquefied natural gas to California.

The July 9-19 trip was underwritten by the California Foundation on the Environment and the Economy, or CFEE, a San Francisco-based nonprofit focused on educating public and private decision makers about California's economic, environmental and social issues and developing solutions for them.

Doug Heller, executive director of the Foundation of Taxpayer and Consumer Rights, called the trip a lavish junket that gave energy officials an inappropriate opportunity to persuade state officials to help introduce LNG to the California energy market.

"We have real concerns about how this might have compromised the Schwarzenegger administration's ability to look honestly and fairly at the question of LNG terminals in the state," Heller said yesterday.

His group is a California-based, nonprofit education and advocacy organization that works to protect the interests of state residents by holding politicians and special interests accountable.

Heller said CFEE's status as an independent, nonprofit organization allowed the energy executives to skirt California laws that prohibit corporations from underwriting trips taken by state officials.

Although the tour was billed as an informational trip in which participants visited LNG facilities and spoke with operators and public officials, Heller said that it included a stay at a Four Seasons Hotel in Sydney, a yacht cruise and a visit to South Korea's demilitarized zone.

"It was as much luxury as it was learning," Heller said.

At least five LNG projects have been proposed along the California and Baja California coast to supply natural gas to the region. If successful, they will be the first re-gasification terminals on the western coast of North America.

Because LNG is a new fuel source for the region, public officials in the United States and Mexico are working to devise a system under which the LNG facilities will be developed and the fuel sold to area consumers.

Schwarzenegger administration officials on the Asia-Australia trip included Cabinet Secretary Marybel Batjer; Cal EPA Secretary Terry Tamminen; Resources Secretary Mike Chrisman; and Chrisman's energy deputy, Joe Desmond.

Chrisman denied the trip constituted undue influence.

"Our primary goal was to take a close look at LNG and how it's managed in the countries that have dealt with it," he said.

Chrisman said he returned home convinced that LNG is an option the state must consider.

"What I learned from this trip is that LNG should definitely be one of our energy options here in California," he said.

The energy executives "were along on the trip just like us," Chrisman said.

The executives included representatives of Australia's BHP Billiton, ChevronTexaco, Shell and San Diego-based Sempra Energy.

All the firms have proposals to build multimillion dollar LNG re-gasification terminals onshore or offshore of Baja California or Southern California.

Sempra Energy spokesman Art Larson said Javade Chaudhri, a company executive vice president and general counsel who works on public policy issues, represented Sempra on the trip.

"We wanted to get additional information on the LNG business as it's practiced in countries where it's succeeded and to learn more about public policy issues there," Larson said. "It was a terrific opportunity to gain information on technology that will be new to the West Coast."

He said he could not speak to the accusation of undue influence.

Sempra has a member on CFEE's board of directors, which also includes representatives of environmental groups. It pays the organization $30,000 in annual membership dues, Larson said.

The only LNG critic on the trip was Susan Jordan, leader of the California Coastal Protection Network, who said she went along to make certain that environmental and safety issues associated with LNG were raised.

"I don't think the administration officials are particularly that weak willed," Jordan said.

Chrisman, Tamminen and other state officials seem open to hearing the concerns of communities where LNG projects are to be sited, Jordan said. Only two days before the CFEE trip, she said, they met with members of environmental and community groups for an hour and a half to gather input on the topic.

CFEE president Patrick Mason said the organization has sponsored similar trips and informational forums for 20 years.

"Our job is to be a forum that can educate public officials on these issues," he said.

The executives, Mason said, played a major role in getting the visitors on the LNG sites visited in South Korea and Australia.

"You can get to know somebody on a first-name basis. That doesn't necessarily change their mind," he said.

Heller of the Foundation of Taxpayer and Consumer Rights, however, said he was disappointed the California officials agreed to take the trip. It contradicts Schwarzenegger's campaign promise to clean up the state government by ridding it of special interests, he said.

"It compromised their ability to make decisions on these issues that are in the public interest," Heller said. "Who wouldn't be convinced when given such a wonderful tour?"


10 posted on 12/20/2004 12:36:10 AM PST by calcowgirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: calcowgirl
For those who don't know the history, the "Mothers for Peace" were a group of frustrated, wealthy housewives who were protested against the Viet Nam war.

After the war, they were floundering around with nothing to do until they discovered the nearby Diablo Canyon power plant, which was due to open in 1976.

So they reinvigorated their organization by becoming "intervenors" in the licensing process for that plant, and were amazingly successful. They managed to delay the initial operation of the plant by ten years, and run up the cost to the California ratepayers and taxpayers by several billion dollars.

These costs were never really paid, and were one of the reasons PG&E went bankrupt.

Californians can also thank this group for the electric power "deregulation" scheme of the mid nineties which was basiclly an attempt to pay the "stranded costs" (the additional costs thanks to the Mothers for Peace intervention) associated with building Diablo canyon.

So in essence, this group is pretty much responsible for the electric power mess that California is still in.

11 posted on 12/20/2004 3:55:27 AM PST by snopercod (Bigger government means clinton won. Less freedom means Osama won. Get it?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bring Back Old Sparky

The unloading will be in Ensenada, BC (Baja California, not British Columbia).


12 posted on 12/20/2004 3:56:42 AM PST by snopercod (Bigger government means clinton won. Less freedom means Osama won. Get it?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: snopercod

protested=protesting (need more coffee...)


13 posted on 12/20/2004 3:57:42 AM PST by snopercod (Bigger government means clinton won. Less freedom means Osama won. Get it?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: snopercod

Interesting bunch of mothers! I had to write a paper about the CA electrical crisis for a power systems analysis class. The instructorette hammered me for making the general statement "...Diablo Canyon was bitterly opposed by environmentalists...", without quoting a source. I told her that I was around at the time, so that it was a personal observation. She wasn't impressed. Now I can see that my actual mistake was to use past tense. After 18 years they still are trying to kill Diablo.


14 posted on 12/20/2004 5:46:44 AM PST by Bring Back Old Sparky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: calcowgirl

Folks, this is getting serious. Arnold is appointing all these lefties to positions of power in this state. It appears Arnold is a true RINO and is governor in name only. I would guess Maria is the real power in this state and is telling her husband what to do. Just when it looks like we take one step forward we take two steps back. I am really depressed.


15 posted on 12/20/2004 10:21:50 AM PST by Uncle Hal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: snopercod

Thanks for the background on M for P. I knew the general category to place them in, but didn't know the specifics. And now we have one of their operatives being appointed to the PUC. Dang.


16 posted on 12/20/2004 11:28:03 AM PST by calcowgirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Bring Back Old Sparky

I wouldn't describe the Mo-Fo's as being "for the environment". More like being "against industry". If they actually cared about the environment, they would support nuclear power.


17 posted on 12/20/2004 12:17:06 PM PST by snopercod (Bigger government means clinton won. Less freedom means Osama won. Get it?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: calcowgirl
Worse yet, the Mo-Fo's are a 501(c) organization, which I believe means that people get a tax deduction for donating to them.

They are also taxpayer funded.

18 posted on 12/20/2004 12:25:26 PM PST by snopercod (Bigger government means clinton won. Less freedom means Osama won. Get it?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: snopercod
Well, they don't seem to have a lot of money (thankfully) but their program objectives show their target is narrow and specific.

From Guidestar.org

SAN LUIS OBISPO MOTHERS FOR PEACE
PO BOX 164
PISMO BEACH,CA 93448
ABOUT THE ORGANIZATION

Who We Are
Issues of peace, social justice and a safe environment


BASIC INFORMATION

EIN: 95-3080124
CT Number:
Year Founded:
Ruling Year: 1978
Fiscal Year: 2003
Assets: $16,118
Income: $55,571

Board of Directors:
Nancy Norwood, Director
Elaine Holder, Vice-President Jill ZamEk, Secretary
Elizabeth Apfelberg, President Morgan Rafferty, Treasurer


MORE ABOUT THE ORGANIZATION

Mission
Issues of peace, social justice and a safe environment

Programs
Provide scholarships for local students whose goals are consistent with our mission and provide support to local peace and environmental groups.

Legal intervention in PG&E's application to build an onsite storage facility for high level radioactive waste. Our intervention is focused on making the plant as safe as possible for our community.

Educate other reactor communities about the ways in which we can work together to make nuclear power safer for all of us.

19 posted on 12/20/2004 12:47:43 PM PST by calcowgirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: calcowgirl

I don't believe one word of that "who we are".


20 posted on 12/20/2004 12:54:30 PM PST by snopercod (Bigger government means clinton won. Less freedom means Osama won. Get it?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-24 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson