@CalMatters Administrative law judges are not executive branch judges. They’re employees of the executive branch who report to the elected insurance commissioner. They don’t even issue binding opinions. They produce “proposed decisions” that the Commissioner can accept, reject or modify.
@ConsumerWD@ICRicardoLara There is no judicial branch of the department of insurance. They’re in the executive branch… where all employees, including all lawyers, report to the elected insurance commissioner… in the executive branch…
@DanCALmatters I don’t understand this perspective. There are new reform regulations in effect and they’re working. The FAIR Plan grew less than 1000 policies/month in Q3. State government policies from 2010-2020 caused the disruptions and price spikes, so now the answer is more government?
@ConsumerWD@ICRicardoLara@latimes ALJ’s have no jurisdiction over a rate filing unless there is a rate hearing. Even then, they only make a “proposed” decision that the Commissioner can ignore. What a preposterous position to suggest that an ALJ must approve a rate filing that is not in a hearing. Pathetic.
@guy_public@RussellLowery10 Sensible. One of the professors advising policymakers at the end of session rejected that idea b/c it would “upset a century of utility rate regulation.” He wanted, instead, to shift utility fire liabilities to others & claim credit for fixing the system. I thought, oh my…
@guy_public@RussellLowery10 Do you mean it would be good not to include the costs of utility-caused fires in utility rates? If not there, what would be the appropriate way to fund those fire damages?
@BenAllenCA It’s not getting worse. FAIR Plan growth has already slowed. There were announcements in the last two weeks that Allstate made a rate filing that would enable new growth, and State Farm just announced a path forward. Let the market heal instead of “helping” it.
@MattBakerEnergy Reform? What a laugh. That proposal would have immunized utilities for fires that they negligently, recklessly, and even intentionally cause. Intentionally cause. Yes, that was what the proposal would have done. They could have intentionally caused a fire and not paid for it.
@ProdanStatev@MattBakerEnergy@ZavalaA I readily agree that the CPUC created open-ended utility wildfire exposure that has had profound consequences: https://t.co/KavWz0qbdF
@s_w_campbell@ZavalaA@MattBakerEnergy I’ll try. Sorry about the technical speak… Utilities argue they cannot function if their shareholders have to pay for each of these big fires. But, many feel like electricity rates are already too high. So, they’re looking for other pockets to pay: https://t.co/KavWz0qbdF
@415FirePhoto@ZavalaA@MattBakerEnergy Exactly, which is why the case against Edison for Altadena just got through the motion phase over a year and half after the fires. Trial is set for January (2 years after). Acting like these cases are simple or inexpensive ignores reality.
@MattBakerEnergy@ZavalaA Are you for real? I want whatever they’re passing around at the CPUC. In what world can the Legislature require fault-based tort theories under Art. 1, Section 19 of the CA Constitution? They didn’t even try that after the Paterno decision. We should focus on what is possible.
@MattBakerEnergy@ZavalaA The Legislature cannot change the constitution. Where have you been? We’re so far past this. You may view the Takings Clause as inconvenient, but the Legislature cannot legislate it away any more than it can repeal the 1st amendment. Focus on the real issue: tail risk.
@MattBakerEnergy@ZavalaA Insurers have spent 3 1/2 years negotiating the Sustainable Insurance Strategy with the Insurance Commissioner, with explicit attention to climate impact. Ignoring actual utility dynamics and, instead, shifting IOU fire costs to insurance customers hurts both systems.