Aug. 12--Beatrice Azevedo of Ripon said she and her neighbors are upset by power bills from Pacific Gas and Electric Co., even though the senior development where she lives is served by the Modesto Irrigation District.

"I think it's a scam. I really do," she said Monday. "I'm against paying for something I'm not using. That's what the majority here in Chesapeake Landing is against, paying for something they're not using."

And they're not alone. Hundreds of customers of the Modesto and Merced irrigation districts in San Joaquin, Stanislaus and Merced counties have protested, withheld payments and begun organizing over the past couple of months as PG&E began sending bills to about 8,300 residential and commercial customers, averaging about $9 a month, according to the utility. The Ripon City Council approved a resolution July 1 asking state legislators to take action against the charges.

PG&E argued the bills are justified to pay off costs incurred by the state during the energy crisis of 2000 and 2001, when rogue wholesale traders such as Enron manipulated the market to send electric prices soaring. After amassing a huge debt and filing for bankruptcy court protection, the utility was unable to get credit to continue to buy power, so in early 2001 the California Department of Water Resources used its borrowing power and made the purchases instead.

Now those debts need to be repaid, PG&E spokeswoman Darlene Chiu said.

"We are collecting the money to pay back DWR," she said, noting that PG&E's regular electric customers have long had similar charges included in their bills.

Another portion of the charges is meant to cover the utility's cost for planning and developing major new generating capacity and is extended to irrigation district customers on the theory that PG&E is the regional power provider of last resort.

"What PG&E is required to do is we provided a safety net for all electrical users in Northern California," Chiu said.

Modesto Irrigation District officials have contested that argument over the past six years in regulatory hearings until the state Supreme Court declined to hear their appeal, district spokeswoman Melissa Williams said Monday.

"This is like Wal-Mart billing people who choose to shop at Target instead," she said.

"We don't agree that PG&E planned for these customers, because they've always been ours."

Jennifer Sanguinetti, who moved into her new Ripon home in February 2007, said the charges seem unfair, because her home didn't even exist during the energy crisis and because MID is the only utility that's ever provided electricity in the area.

"I don't feel it's justified at all to charge a location never served by PG&E," she said, and she chided the California Public Utilities Commission for approving PG&E's attempt to collect.

"It's really wrong," she said.

Azevedo said she has refused to pay two months' worth of PG&E bills so far but is worried about it.

"I'm not paying it," she said. "I'm just keeping my fingers crossed they don't take me to court."

Chiu suggested the utility company won't take such reprisals, at least for now.

"We understand the frustrations involved," she said. "We're working with our customers to see what would be the easiest way for them to pay for these charges."

But she also noted, "By law, PG&E is required to collect these charges."

Contact reporter Reed Fujii at (209) 546-8253 or rfujii@recordnet.com.

-----

To see more of The Record, or to subscribe to the newspaper, go to http://www.recordnet.com.

Copyright (c) 2008, The Record, Stockton, Calif.

Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services.

For reprints, email tmsreprints@permissionsgroup.com, call 800-374-7985 or 847-635-6550, send a fax to 847-635-6968, or write to The Permissions Group Inc., 1247 Milwaukee Ave., Suite 303, Glenview, IL 60025, USA.

NYSE:PCG, NYSE:ENE, NYSE:WMT, NYSE:TGT,

Story Source: The Record