By Bruce B. Brugmann
(Scroll down to see the David Lazarus LA Times column and the CPUC administrative law judge’s draft decision to reject PG&E’s latest move to hammer residential ratepayers in San Francisco)
David Lazarus, the talented San Francisco Chronicle consumer reporter who is now writing for the Los Angeles Times, exposes in a Nov. 24 column the proposal by the state’s three largest private utilities to shift $90 million in fees for natural gas paid each year by business customers onto residential customers.
Lazarus asks quite rightly, “Is it equitable to raise rates for families while allowing them for the likes of Chevron and Bank of America? Is it equitable to offer a helping hand to employers by increasing the financial burden on employees?”
The Lazarus column ran in the Fresno Bee and other California papers. It did not run in the Chronicle/Hearst nor did the Chronicle do its own story. It is, I might add, the kind of story that Lazarus would find it difficult to write while working on the Chronicle because of the long standing sweetheart relationship that Hearst has had with PG&E. The most recent example of this unholy alliance came when PG&E and Hearst ganged up once again this fall to help PG&E defeat a clean energy/public power initiative that would have brought millions of dollars in savings for San Francisco ratepayers.