The Power to Lose. The failure of electricity deregulation

February 21, 2017

The Houston Chronicle summed up the Public Utility Commission’s PowerToChoose website perfectly:

Darla Jackson of Coppell, north of Dallas, wanted to change to her retail electricity company, but couldn’t face the prospect of using the state’s comparison shopping site, Powertochoose.org. Like many Texans, she felt overwhelmed by the number of companies, variety of plans and mind-numbing terms and conditions which, even after hours of study, left her confused, overwhelmed and uncertain of the best deal.

Last year the Commissioner, Donna Nelson, realized how incredibly deceptive their website can be and took action to update and improve it so consumers could actually compare prices when selecting an electricity billing company. According to the Texas Tribune:

Donna Nelson, chairman of the Public Utility Commission, said Thursday at a public meeting. “They’ve got all these tricky little things in their prices, and whatever the fact sheets are called – the nutrition label – that makes it really difficult for customers.”

Nelson started Project 45730 to receive comments from interested individuals on how to improve the website. After months of collecting information from 193 parties, the PUC responded with absolutely no changes to the website. In fact the gimmicks have become worse.

It is nearly impossible to make an informed decision based upon the information provided by the PowerToChoose.org. There are just too many gimmicks, fine print, and “gotchas” for the average consumer to wade through. The PUC knows this and yet have taken no action besides calling for suggestions and input from the community and then ignoring them. It was clearly a complete waste of time and resources. 

Especially mine. When it is time to select a new billing company, just remember who lobbied for deregulation on your behalf, Key Lay and Enron.

Enjoy.


For Harris County Democratic Party Chair: Lillie Schechter

February 17, 2017

When I first heard Lillie Schechter was considering running for the Chair of the HCDP I said “You can’t go wrong with Lillie”. Today I can still say it.

Pic From Off the Kuff

Democrats concerned about the continuing success of the Party in the 2018 and 2020 elections cannot go wrong with Lillie. I hope precinct chairs, who are responsible for selecting a new chair, would strongly consider her.

Against a couple of very well qualified candidates Lillie stands above the rest for a number of reasons. Her activism in campaigns starting on the ground turned into a successful political consulting firm helping progressive candidates on all levels of a campaign. The Party will be served well by a Chair that understands campaigns including planning, strategy, technology, activism, and compliance with election laws. What stands out to me is her experience in fundraising and her vast connections with the Democratic community. HCDP has the responsibility to run a coordinated campaign which demands experience in campaigns it also requires money and someone who has the ability to raise significant amounts of it. Lillie has this experience.

In the political world where the average age of participants is about 60, Lillie can’t be consider a young upcoming political activist. She is young but she has been involved and active for many years and has the experience and knowledge necessary to carry this Party in the next elections.

Precinct Chairs have a great opportunity to continue and expand the success of our Party with Lillie Schechter as the Chair of Harris County Democratic Party.

John “I turn 61 in March” Coby


January 20, 2017: From Hope to Hate

January 20, 2017

It’s a sad day for our country. Trump is the most unqualified person in the history of the United States to become President. He is also unqualified to be considered a decent human being.

In 2008 President Obama campaigned on a promise of hope for America. Faced with the greatest downturn of our economy since the great depression, Obama called upon all Americans to rise, as we have before, and work together to rebuild our economy and restore faith in our government.

In contrast Trump campaigned on a promise of hate towards Americans. Faced with an economy that has created 11 million jobs over the last 8 years, an unemployment rate cut in half to 4.6%, a stock market that has solidified retirement accounts,  and a nation healing from the unnecessary wars of the last republican in office, Trump resorted to simple minded attacks towards specific and vulnerable Americans. And it worked.

The list of those he attacked and blamed for America’s short comings was long. He started on day one with his racist remarks against Latinos followed by his attacks on our press, African-Americans, Muslims, Gold Star family members, the Gay community, Hollywood, teachers, government employees and women. If that wasn’t enough, he then mocked a disabled American.

He instigated hatred towards other Americans at times calling for physical harm. His words and actions encouraged the racists and those with hate in their hearts to come out into the open. All while the republican leadership did nothing just like they did when Joe Wilson yelled “You lie” to the President of the United States during a State of the Union Address.

Make no mistake about Trump’s campaign. Trump only yelled what the republican party has whispered since Obama took office. The hatred for Americans Trump successfully used to win the Presidency was endorsed by the so called “conservatives” of the republican party and those who voted for him. They endorsed his racists remarks. They endorsed his mocking of a disabled American. They endorsed grabbing women. They endorsed his hatred towards Muslims. They endorsed targeting of specific Americans based upon religious beliefs and color of the skin. They endorsed this filthy excuse for a human being just in order to win. And they won. This is the new “family values” of the so-called conservative party.

In just a few hours Trump will asked all Americans, even those he attacked, to put aside our differences, let bygones be bygones, and to join hands to sing Kumbaya. It’s like kicking someone in the whatnots then expecting them to shake your hand to work together.

I can’t do it. I’m still on the floor trying to get over his mocking of a disabled human being.


Who is running for Chair of the Harris County Democratic Party?

January 19, 2017

Inquiring minds what to know.

Lane Lewis is stepping down as Chair of the Party. I’ve heard a couple of names being kicked around and confirmation of a few. The Chair has a number of responsibilities such as raising significant amounts of money for the Party, finding and training candidates to run for office, and my favorite, running a coordinated campaign concentrating on straight ticket voters.

I personally would like to see a coordinated campaign with all volunteers trained to use the latest technology. I would like to see the satellite offices being run as if they were an extension of the Party HQ. I would like to see a plan for the campaign with analysis, goals, schedules, and everyone knowing where we are going, how we are getting there, and how we know when we get there.

The position of the Chair has a huge responsibility. It’s not a position for a rookie. It requires experience in the field, behind the desk, and the ability to reach out to the diverse community of the Democratic Party.

It’s early but here is my blunt and uninformed take on those who are running or rumored to be running:

Lillie Schechter. Lillie brings a lot of experience to the table in fundraising capability, field, and politics in general. She should be seriously considered.

Eartha Jean Johnson. I haven’t heard of Eartha before but based upon her resume she recently sent via email she has some good credentials. Another one to watch.

Rony Escobar. This is not an office for a rookie. There is little if any on the job training. You have to love his enthusiasm but this is a very serious position that requires a very serious candidate.

Dominique Davis. I believe Dominique has worked at the HQs before but she might want to consider running for the Executive Director before jumping onto the Chair. Baby steps. Baby steps.

Chris Spellman. I do not know Chris.

Art Pronin.  Art was great as the Club President for Meyerland Democrats but the jump to Chair might be a bit too big.

Anyone else running? Charles Kuffner has his own take on it. Maybe the party will have a candidate forum in the near future.


Just remember. When you tell me you voted for Trump….

November 8, 2016

Just remember.

I have friends who are gay.
I have friends who are Muslim.
I have friends who care for their disabled child.
I have friends who are disabled.
I am married to a woman.
I have a child who is a woman.
I am Latino.

So when you tell me you voted for a man who says the gay community are second class citizens, who labels all Muslims as terrorists, who mocks the disabled,  who makes horrible comments towards women, and who paints all Latinos as rapists, murderers, and criminals, then you will understand when I respond with the ole Dick Cheney statement: Go F*ck Yourself.

Jackass.


Shocking. Volt Electricity Provider

November 2, 2016

A quick break from politics.

A few months ago the Public Utility Commission (PUC) requested comments from consumers on how to improve their website the PowerToChoose.com. The Chairman of the PUC stated in the Texas Tribune article:

Donna Nelson, chairman of the Public Utility Commission, said Thursday at a public meeting. “They’ve [electricity resellers] got all these tricky little things in their prices, and whatever the fact sheets are called – the nutrition label – that makes it really difficult for customers.”

Today the tricky little things continue. For example, look at the rate for Volt Electricity Provider (Volt EP)

Volt EP advertises a plan that charges a fixed rate of 7.7 cents per kWh across the board but the details of the plan is something different. According to the Fact Sheet the rate is a type of “average” I have never seen before. For instance if a homeowner uses 500 kWh the bill is $38.50 (7.7 cents per kWh). But if that same homeowner uses only 250 kWh the bill is the same $38.50. (15.4 cents per kWh) Here is a pic from their fact sheet:

So the true cost of Volt EP really isn’t as easy as kWh X 7.7 cents because it depends upon your real usage for the month. Based upon my usage over the last year my real average would be 9.9 cents per kWh about 30% higher than what is advertised.

Welcome to the Texas deregulation market.


The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is considering banning pre-dispute arbitration clauses.

August 21, 2016

It’s time to put an end to the kangaroo courts. you have till Monday at midnight to submit comments on the subject. From the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau:

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau last year issued a detailed report on arbitration clauses, and it has proposed a rule covering many financial products and services — including bank accounts — that would bar arbitration requirements that preclude consumers from joining in class-action cases. 

You can submit comments online by Monday the 22nd at this link and the CFPB has published tips on submitting comments. All comments are public record. I submitted the following. Feel free to cut and paste if you agree. The New York Times also wrote an excellent article on the subject.

As a consumer activist in Texas, I have witnessed some of the worst abuses in mandatory binding arbitration especially with the home building industry. I understand the home builders will not be affected by this regulation but the experiences and abuses are relevant nevertheless. I am in favor for the following reasons:

1) Not one individual, attorney, or anyone commenting on this regulation can claim arbitration is faster, cheaper, or better than our time honored court system because at the time of signing the agreement no one knows the details of the future dispute. How can anyone defend arbitration when they do not know how much the dispute is about? It is literally impossible to do so. As we have learned here in Texas the rules of arbitration can vary based upon the monetary value of the dispute. Consumers expect their day in court and many believe their complaint will be heard by an arbitrator, someone they can talk to and present their case to. Unfortunately consumers are not aware that some arbitration companies will only have a “desk review” with documents provided through the mail. Others are not aware that the arbitration will be heard by multiple arbitrators and a substantial cost. At the time of signing the arbitration clause these details cannot be disclosed because the details of the future dispute is not known by either party.

2) Consumers are too ignorant to know what they are signing. As someone who has followed this issue for 2 decades I continue to learn new problems with arbitration by attending hearings and listening to attorneys. To this day I am still ignorant of the impacts of signing these agreements. The vast majority of consumers have absolutely know idea what arbitration only that it is suppose to be “faster, cheaper, and better” as claimed by the proponents of arbitration.

3) The use of mandatory arbitration is an abuse of not only the ignorant, but of the elderly. Many are not aware of the details and do not have the time to research.

4) The legal decision to opt for arbitration and/or mediation is a decision best left to an attorney. Most consumers do not know that the use of arbitration as an alternative to a civil trial has been mired in controversy for decades. A simple Google search results in pages of articles. They may incorrectly believe that arbitration is faster, better, and cheaper yet studies after studies show otherwise. Few consumers will understand they are giving up their rights to the 7th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States without first consulting with an attorney at the time of a dispute. The arbitration clauses are full of legal loopholes that an average consumer could not adequately understand. The selection of arbitration as an alternative to a civil trial is a legal decision that should not be made by consumers ignorant of the law and it’s consequences.

5) Arbitration and mediation are already available to consumers if they so choose. The right to arbitration and/or mediation is already available to the consumer and their attorney. If they have a dispute they can always opt for arbitration upon advice from their attorney. It is clear why industries want to have this abusive clause buried into a contract at the time of signing without knowing the details of the future dispute. The only reason is because they know this is abusive and will benefit themselves and is far from being fair.

6) As you are aware the choice of arbitration has been removed by the industry. Since most every organization has this mandatory clause, there is no longer a choice. Consumers can not simply go to a different vendor. Much like the home building industry most every builder has the clause. Buyers must give up their American Constitutional rights in order to by the American dream.

7) We pay taxes for our court system. We should have the right to use that system when a dispute arises. This is truly taxation without representation.

8) The consumer will always be at a financial disadvantage to the corporations. They have enough money to fight consumers every step of the way. They corporations do not need any more help by allowing arbitration clauses.

9) Most consumers are not aware that the right to a trial is protected by the 7th Amendment of the Constitution. If they had a choice at signing they would NEVER give this right up.

10) Realize that in the mid-90’s the auto dealers lobbied congress to ban the use of mandatory arbitraition between auto dealers and auto manufacturers because it was not fair to the dealers. Unfortunately the dealers have left the clause in the consumer contract. The CFPB should review this and rule accordingly. If it is good enough for the dealers it should be good enough for the consumers.

I urge you to pass this regulation and ban the use of mandatory arbitration.


Recap of the TX Dept of Insurance hearing on Arbitration

July 7, 2016

It’s worse than you think.

Yesterday the Texas Dept of Insurance conducted a “discussion” concerning the use of mandatory binding arbitration clauses in home insurance contracts. In my opinion the consumers of Texas won the discussion but the decision will not be made any time soon.

Background
Farm Bureau insurance has asked TDI to allow them to offer a mandatory binding arbitration clause that would require policy holders to take their claims to a private justice system instead of a civil court as guaranteed by the 7th amendment of the Constitution. In exchange the policy holder would receive a discount in their premium.

Key points

There was about 7 hours of discussion in a very crowded room. Here are some key points. 
  • The industry tried to pass legislation last session to allow them to use arbitration but the bills failed. Now they are trying an end around hoping the Commissioner will bite. 
  • The representative from The Center for Economic Justice claimed the arbitration clause to be used by Farm Bureau was discriminatory against Hispanics in the counties of south Texas. He seemed to have data to prove his claims. 
  • The main concern was that most consumers do not understand exactly what they are signing. After listening to the entire day of testimony I am convinced that consumers have absolutely no idea what they are agreeing to. There are enough loopholes in the example language submitted by Farm Bureau to confuse the vast majority of consumers and even some attorneys.
  • The other concerns about arbitration was discussed including the hidden costs, the secrecy of the proceedings, the bias of the arbitrators, and the fact that arbitration has been mired in controversy for decades. (Do a google search!)
  • As with the home builders, the insurance industry claimed arbitration was “overly” fair which drew a chuckle. They claimed it was faster, better, cheaper but gave no supportting evidence. 
  • The president of Conflict Solutions of Texas, the arbitration firm that would benefit from adoption of this clause and selected by Farm Bureau was in favor of the clause. Imagine that. 
  • No consumers voiced their support for the arbitration clause. 
  • Consumers voiced their opinions against arbitration. 
  • Consumers urged TDI to focus their resources on lowering premiums instead of auctioning off our Constitutional rights. 
  • Many attorneys believe TDI does not have the authority to allow one company to offer this change. It would require a rule change which requires a different process. 
For the consumers
Consumers of Texas have a very respectable organization fighting to protect them from consumer scams like Arbitration, that being Texas Watch. Texas Watch is the premier consumer organization in Texas and did a great job in presenting the case against the arbitration clause.

There were only 4 consumers who spoke but were powerful because they paid the bills, would be most affected by the change, and could speak from a consumer perspective. Other consumer organizations included Home Owners for Better Building represented by Janet Ahmad who is well versed in the abuse of arbitration by the home building industry. Texas Trial Lawyers Association, Center for Economic Justice, Texas Association of Public Insurance Adjusters, Policyholders of Texas and a group representing attorney who represents both sides. All were opposed to the arbitration clause for many reasons.

For the insurance industry
Those in favor of the arbitration clause included Farm Bureau, the company who instigated the change, a couple of insurance company attorneys, a front group for the insurance industry the Texas Coalition for Affordable Insuranc Solutions and the President of Conflict Solutions of Texas.  Conflict Solutions is the arbitration firm Farm Bureau would use if allowed.


Farm Bureau changes their position on arbitration in home insurance contracts

July 1, 2016

You can’t make this stuff up. (and I didn’t)

Yesterday the Texas Department of Insurance Companies issued a revised “example” language by the Farm Bureau concerning their proposed use of mandatory binding arbitration in their home contracts. Today that revision is gone.

According to the example language provided by Farm Bureau, in exchange for a discount on a homeowners premium, Farm Bureau will pick the arbitration firm, the terms of the arbitration, and will limit discovery. This is what Texas Watch has called a Kangaroo Court. Previously the example had only Conflict Solutions of Texas as their arbitration company of choice. Yesterday they added the grand daddy of all arbitration companies, the American Arbitration Association. Today the AAA have been removed.

In the words of Donald Trump “What the hell is going on?”.

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out who is behind the hearing and use of arbitration. Consumers did not request this change, they are too ignorant on the issue. The consumer organizations did not request this change, they are too educated on the issue. The insurance industry is the only organization that will benefit from the use of this option.

And now just days before the hearing they are changing their proposed language. As we have seen in the home building industry what they say is only valid on the day they say it. If you don’t like it, wait for tomorrow.


Hearing on the use of Arbitration with the Texas Department of Insurance Companies

June 25, 2016

Texas insurance companies have asked the Texas Department of Insurance to allow them to entice consumers with mandatory binding arbitration in exchange for a discount on their premiums. Instead of focusing their limited resources on lowering record high premiums for homeowners, the TDI will  focus on helping the insurance industry prey upon consumers looking for a break.

Selecting an alternative dispute resolution is a legal matter and should be performed only after consulting with an attorney. Consumers should not make this decision and the TDI should not allow the industry to prey upon those who are looking for a reduction in premiums.

From the TDI:

Docket No. 2788 – Notice of Public Meeting 

Location: William P. Hobby Jr. State Office Building  
333 Guadalupe, Room 100 
Austin, TX
July 06, 2016 
9:30 a.m. – 5:00 p.m. 
The commissioner of insurance will hold a public meeting to receive written and oral comments relating to mandatory mediation-arbitration endorsements. The endorsement would be attached to a homeowners policy at the policyholder’s option, with a premium discount.
If you wish to provide written comments, please provide two copies no later than 5 p.m., Central time, July 6, 2016. Send one copy by email to chiefclerk@tdi.texas.gov, or by mail to the Texas Department of Insurance, Office of the Chief Clerk, Mail Code 113-2A, P.O. Box 149104, Austin, Texas 78714-9104. Send the other copy to Marilyn Hamilton by email at marilyn.hamilton@tdi.texas.gov, or by mail to the Texas Department of Insurance, Property and Casualty Lines Office, Mail Code 104-PC, P.O. Box 149104, Austin, Texas 78714-9104.


Indicates that event is scheduled to be available by a live broadcast Link to Live Webcast [Link to audio will be live shortly before the meeting begins.].



For more information contact: ChiefClerk@tdi.texas.gov
 

Bay Area Houston

Hard hitting political commentary always full of wit in Houston Texas.

Skip to content ↓