California Desert and its residents made to pay for Los Angeles city services (police, fire, street maintenance, libraries, etc.)?
Desert residents have been up in arms since they first learned two years ago that the utility agency serving the city of Los Angeles, the Los Angeles Department of Water & Power (LADWP), was proposing to build high-tension transmission lines through their communities and through environmentally sensitive conservation lands.
It seemed particularly unfair that federal eminent domain processes would allow a Los Angeles utility to take their property--so far from the city benefiting from the transmission lines. It also seemed apparent that the "Green" Path North project was far from "green" as it would carve a path through public and private nature preserves and other pristine desert wildlands. And, all this when LADWP could use an existing energy corridor along the I-10 Freeway for its Green Path North Project.
Now we learn that on top of this, LADWP would make a profit from building Green Path North transmission lines, and that surplus cash could be used to pay for unrelated Los Angeles city services, such as police, fire, street maintenance, and libraries. Now is that the American way, that rural communities and the public lands we all own should be devastated to support urban residents and their need for city services?
Here is how it works:
LADWP charges their customers for the cost of building transmission lines and also extracts a transmission
It seemed particularly unfair that federal eminent domain processes would allow a Los Angeles utility to take their property--so far from the city benefiting from the transmission lines. It also seemed apparent that the "Green" Path North project was far from "green" as it would carve a path through public and private nature preserves and other pristine desert wildlands. And, all this when LADWP could use an existing energy corridor along the I-10 Freeway for its Green Path North Project.
Now we learn that on top of this, LADWP would make a profit from building Green Path North transmission lines, and that surplus cash could be used to pay for unrelated Los Angeles city services, such as police, fire, street maintenance, and libraries. Now is that the American way, that rural communities and the public lands we all own should be devastated to support urban residents and their need for city services?
Here is how it works:
LADWP charges their customers for the cost of building transmission lines and also extracts a transmission
charge for the electricity transmitted on these lines. David Nahai, LADWP General Manager, has often pointed out (as to why LADWP cannot share transmission lines with Southern California Edison), that LADWP must "own" Green Path North transmission lines. Yes, this is how LADWP makes money.
Then, the excess funds they make in this way are transferred to the Los Angeles City general fund, to pay for other city services. According to the Los Angeles Times article of April 3, 2009, "Last year, Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and the City Council agreed to take $196 million from the utility's electrical power fund."
This has been the practice of LADWP and other municipal utilities for many years. As Mike Peevey, President of the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), says in the UCTV Podcast of December 29, 2008, "Their (municipal utilities) economic model is to subsidize the general fund in the communities in which they serve."
Is this fair? Unquestionably not. The California Desert, its residents and its environmentally sensitive lands should not be sacrificed to pay for Los Angeles city services. LADWP can use an existing energy corridor for Green Path North--that's the better, greener, responsible way for this municipal utility.
Then, the excess funds they make in this way are transferred to the Los Angeles City general fund, to pay for other city services. According to the Los Angeles Times article of April 3, 2009, "Last year, Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and the City Council agreed to take $196 million from the utility's electrical power fund."
This has been the practice of LADWP and other municipal utilities for many years. As Mike Peevey, President of the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), says in the UCTV Podcast of December 29, 2008, "Their (municipal utilities) economic model is to subsidize the general fund in the communities in which they serve."
Is this fair? Unquestionably not. The California Desert, its residents and its environmentally sensitive lands should not be sacrificed to pay for Los Angeles city services. LADWP can use an existing energy corridor for Green Path North--that's the better, greener, responsible way for this municipal utility.
Recommended Links:
"For years, mayors and council members have relied on transfers from the DWP to address the city's budget woes. Last year, Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and the City Council agreed to take $196 million from the utility's electrical power fund."
Los Angeles Times, March 3, 2009
Los Angeles Times, March 3, 2009
"Their (municipal utilities) economic model is to subsidize the general fund in the communities in which they serve."
Mike Peevey, President
California Public Utilities Commission
UCTV Podcast, December 29, 2008
Mike Peevey, President
California Public Utilities Commission
UCTV Podcast, December 29, 2008
Is this fair? Read below to learn how LADWP makes money from "owning" transmission lines (like Green Path North) and then uses the profits to pay for Los Angeles city services.
