A1908013 - Public Comments


This page includes the Public Comments for this proceeding. The CPUC values your input on our proceedings, as public comments help us reach an informed decision.

Tip: You may download these comments as a PDF by clicking the PDF Download button below.
To provide us your thoughts on this proceeding, click on the Add Public Comment button below.

DISCLAIMER: Comments that include inappropriate language, or language that is potentially slanderous, purposefully demeaning of some specific person or persons, or threatening violence may not be posted. Additionally, anonymous comments will not be posted.




Use the Flag as Offensive or Inappropriate link to submit a complaint on Public Comment.
row(s) 1 - 15 of more than 500Next
Mel Linecker Ojai, CA93023

Where are the think tanks and public discussion of this SCE corporate behavior that is tantamount to price gouging during an impending financial crisis? Yes, there are hard decisions about paying for maintenance and upkeep, but keep us in the loop, and share out the financial burden to ALL the stakeholders (investors and ratepayers alike). We all need this system to keep running.

Jan 31, 2021 2:14 pm Flag as Offensive or Inappropriate
Max Herr Pomona, CA91766

When will CA PUC hold So Cal Edison investors responsible for the cost of doing business? Investors have virtually no risk of loss when they purchase Edison stock, which today trades at more than 10 times its per share price in 1981. By comparison, a Snickers candy bar cost $0.25 in 1980 and can be purchased for less than $0.70 at Walmart today. Investors never foot the bill for SCE's "infrastructure" replacements or upgrades . . . only the "ratepayers" are ever held accountable for covering SCE's expenses. The fact is, Edison is losing revenue as State-sponsored PV solar installations reduce dependency on generated electricity, so, just like power-drunk legislators in Sacramento, the only answer they know is WE NEED MORE REVENUE! SCE is reported as having some $64+ billion in assets. What more do they need? Edison investors should be held accountable for the deferred maintenance costs SCE wants the rest of us to pay for now. Just take a look at your monthly bill from SCE and see how much ratepayers are paying for SCE's debt. Investors don't pay a dime of it. A rate increase will only translate into greater inflation at all levels of Southern CA's economy. Perhaps if CPUC commissioners were actually accountable to the public . . . as in being elected to office . . . there would be a greater reluctance to rubber-stamp utility rate increases.

Jan 12, 2021 8:12 pm Flag as Offensive or Inappropriate
Olga Kaczmar Newall, CA91321

People are out work.  They are not getting raises. SS increase was $20/mo. Why do you allow Southern California Edison to keep raising its rates? This is a rip-off. I oppose any more rate hikes.

Jan 09, 2021 2:15 pm Flag as Offensive or Inappropriate
Chelsea Van Bastelaar Moorpark, CA93021

I oppose this increase. We are on the LPP program and have seen a steady increase in our monthly payment already. Our neighbors are all complaining of increasing bills every month as well.

Nov 25, 2020 11:09 am Flag as Offensive or Inappropriate
G Mone Corona, CA92882

enough is enough we pay some of the highest rates in the country. The increase that is being asked for is ridiculous SCE needs to do a better job on budgeting. PUC you need to start helping the consumers and not the big corporations. I do my job to conserve energy, so stop continually asking for rate increases year after year.

Sep 15, 2020 12:28 pm Flag as Offensive or Inappropriate
S Clerkley Harbor City, CA90710

I oppose this rate increase. My electricity usage continues to increase in spite of no changes to my household routine. I would like to understand better how this usage is derived and what the increase is based on. Rather than just increasing the rate. I have attempted to employ the suggestions I see on the SCE site as best I can.

Sep 05, 2020 12:09 am Flag as Offensive or Inappropriate
Abraham Que Torrance, CA90503

I am completely opposed to this rate increase. My electricity usage is somehow going up and up, and I cannot figure out where it comes from. Rather than increasing the rate, please provide tools for consumers to monitor and understand their energy usage.

Sep 03, 2020 12:27 pm Flag as Offensive or Inappropriate
monica riley Santa clarita, CA91350

I am against the rate increase, efficiency and transparency is what is needed, learn to work with the budget like the rest us do, increase does nothing for the consumers, stop taking vacation and education money from hard working consumers

Sep 01, 2020 12:41 pm Flag as Offensive or Inappropriate
Khari Rockward Lancaster, CA93536

The proposed rate increase by SCE seems considerably high, especially for the residential sector, during a situation in which income is expected to be limited and may be limited for an indeterminate amount of time. In addtion, changes in electricity generation costs are not consistent with the severity of this rate increase. Furthermore, this rate increase is not commensurate with an increased load of work or financial investment by SCE on infrastructure modernization and execution of their WMP, instead balancing existing finances between the two based on their current resources. As the frequency and intensity of wildfires in the state continue, it is imperative that SCE be held to expand their scope and resources in executing modernization of grid infrastructure and of executing the WMP. Would recommend a reduced rate increase and require that SCE use some of the funds to increase their resources and financial investments towards infrastructure updates and execution of the WMP, so as to avoid costly losses from wildfires by SCE, the state, and the general public which may be mitigated or wholly prevented by proactive action to protect and upgrade the infrastructure.

Aug 28, 2020 5:46 pm Flag as Offensive or Inappropriate
Ralph Iwens Rancho Palos Verdes, CA90275

The rate increase sought by SCE is way too high and given without any justification. I rarely have seen a more blatant attempt to come in with an off the charts request in order to eventually settle for a still large rate increase. Please do not fall for this strategy. Request a plan for SCE's investment in making the grid more fire-preventive; request the projected costs and time frame. Review this critically, independently assess the cost, and then negotiate a deserved fair rate increase and over what time period of cost depreciation. There should be a sunset clause. Just improving and maintaining the grid does, beyond inflation (currently absent), deserve no rate increase. It is SCE's cost of doing business. Thank you. Ralph Iwens

Aug 20, 2020 11:23 am Flag as Offensive or Inappropriate
Ralph Iwens Rancho Palos Verdes, CA90275

Hope this is not too late. Other events ... While an electricity kWh rate review and increase every 4 years may be in order, this requested rate increase by SCE is WAY too high. And it is given without any justification. I like to see a justification for any rate increase and the requested increase must be reasonable. Upgrading and maintaining the grid is part of SCE's cost of doing business and should not qualify. Making the grid more wild fire proof because of climate change would qualify. But this investment needs to be amortized over many years and the presently requested rate increases are out of line. Please reject this rate increase request and negotiate a much lower one. Thank you.

Aug 17, 2020 11:21 am Flag as Offensive or Inappropriate
Brionna Graves Wildomar , CA92595

I am voting in OPPOSITION Of the rate increase for energy.

Aug 04, 2020 2:44 pm Flag as Offensive or Inappropriate
Joan Gallagher Santa Monica, CA90405

Now, is not the time to raise rates. Due to Covid 19 people are struggling paying bills and keeping afloat. I also don't see a justifciation for raising the rate.

Aug 03, 2020 10:31 am Flag as Offensive or Inappropriate
Stephen Saward Palm Springs, CA92264

The current electric rates, in light of historically low energy costs has vet not been lowered to reflect these costs. Instead, the proposal is to increase rates, which is counter to any general economic principles. Rates should more closely reflect costs of competing energy sources.

Jul 30, 2020 9:36 am Flag as Offensive or Inappropriate
NaeSita Gonzales Victorville, CA92394

OPPOSED, to this ROBBERY from SCE ! They'll do and say anything to "pad" their pockets with NO justification or concern for the people. They should be ashamed of themselves but they're not. RIDICULOUS !

Jul 29, 2020 7:05 pm Flag as Offensive or Inappropriate
row(s) 1 - 15 of more than 500Next