themail.gif (3487 bytes)

February 1, 2012

Temporary Solutions

Dear Temps:

The city council appears poised to repeal the Internet gambling bill, but only because the underhanded way it was introduced cut many councilmembers out of even knowing what the council was voting for — the bill deliberately avoided mentioning Internet gambling, speaking only of “nontraditional games.” And repealing the provision of the Budget Support Act that authorized Internet gambling only puts it off temporarily, until after the primary election, or after the general election at the latest. The bill introduced by Councilmembers Mendelson and Wells, which passed today in the Committee on Finance and Revenue, prohibits online gambling. But after this temporary reprieve, Internet gambling is sure to be reintroduced in the council; and the councilmembers are more likely than not to pass it again. At last week’s hearing, only two councilmembers (Catania and Wells) announced that they were actually opposed to Internet gambling. Two councilmembers (Barry and Michael Brown) enthusiastically supported it, and the other councilmembers who said anything about it made it clear that they weren't expressing any moral or ethical opposition to the government’s promoting, sponsoring, and running gambling operations. Unless they are pressed hard by opponents to government gambling during the upcoming election campaigns, councilmembers are unlikely to grow a conscience anytime soon. They will simply slip back into their comfortable ways, and they will decide that government should promote any vice it can make a profit from.

#####

Another example of how inadequate the council’s new “ethics” bill is was related by Mke DeBonis today, http://tinyurl.com/824653g. Councilmember Yvette Alexander is facing a challenge to her primary candidate petitions. She’s being represented before the Board of Elections and Ethics by David Wilmot, who is a lobbyist. A provision of the new “ethics” bill provides that, “No lobbyist or registrant . . . shall provide legal representation, or other professional services, to an official in the legislative or executive branch . . . at no cost or at a rate that is less than the lobbyist or registrant would routinely bill for the representation or service in the marketplace.” But Wilmot says his firm has various “routine” billing rates, neither Alexander nor Wilmot will reveal what rate Alexander is paying, and nothing in the bill requires them to report what she’s paying, so there’s no way the bill can be enforced. It’s just another loophole in a bill filled with loopholes, designed to appear effective without actually doing anything.

Gary Imhoff
gary@dcwatch.com

##############

Recall
Dorothy Brizill, dorothy@dcwatch.com

The agenda scheduled for the Wednesday, February 1 public meeting of the DC Board of Elections and Ethics called for consideration of the “intents to recall” filed by Frederick Butler against Mayor Gray (http://www.dcwatch.com/election/init22.htm) and Council Chairman Kwame Brown (http://www.dcwatch.com//election/init23.htm). However, because Butler failed to appear at the hearing, the recalls were tabled and no recall petitions were approved or issued. Although Butler had been personally served with a written notice of today’s Board meeting, in a subsequent telephone interview with Tom Sherwood he claimed that he wasn’t aware that he was required to attend the Board meeting, and he went to work instead.

On January 23, both Mayor Gray and Council Chairman Brown submitted written responses to the intents to recall (see the links above). If and when the recall petitions are issued, those responses will be printed on the petitions that Butler will be given to circulate, and Butler will have 180 days from the day those petitions are issued to collect approximately 45,000 signatures of registered voters (10 percent of all registered voters in the District, with an additional distribution requirement of at least 10 percent of the registered voters in five of the eight wards).

But not only did Butler not attend the BOEE hearing; neither Mayor Gray nor Chairman Brown, nor anyone representing them, appeared at the hearing. So far, Brown and Gray have not explained why they didn’t come to the BOEE hearing, or whether they had any advance notice that Butler wouldn’t appear, so that there was no need for them to come. The events — or nonevents — at today’s BOEE hearing raise the question of whether Butler has the resources, the wherewithal, or even the intention, to run a serious recall campaign, or whether Butler’s recall will be scrapped in favor of what could be a better financed effort threatened by R. Donahue Peebles.

###############

OPC’S Smart Grid Opt-Out Petition
Sandra Mattavous-Frye, info@opc-dc.gov

How was PEPCO‘s smart grid deployment approved? In June 2009, the District of Columbia City Council enacted the Advanced Metering Infrastructure Implementation Act (DC Code §34-1562) (Smart Grid Act). This DC law approved PEPCO‘s deployment of the smart grid on the condition that the Company received sufficient funds from the US Department of Energy’s (US DOE) Smart Grid Investment Grant. In December 2009, PEPCO received $44.6 million, the maximum amount it could receive from the US DOE’s Smart Investment Grant. In December 2009, the Commission determined that PEPCO had received sufficient funds. Thus, PEPCO‘s deployment of the smart grid was approved. PEPCO began installing smart meters in October 2010.

Currently, can consumers choose not to have a smart meter on their home? No. DC’s Smart Grid Act does not provide consumers with an opportunity to decline participation in PEPCO‘s smart grid program. The opportunity to decline participation is known as an opting-out. Despite the fact that the Smart Grid Act does not allow an opt-out provision, laws can change if there are facts to support a change.

What can the Office of the Peoples Counsel do about the fact that there is no opt-out? In December 2011, after hearing numerous complaints about not having an opportunity to opt-out of PEPCO‘s smart grid program, OPC filed a Petition requesting the DC Public Service Commission require PEPCO to conduct a technical and economic feasibility study for providing an opt-out provision. The study would provide a factual basis to determine the financial and technical impact of allowing consumers to opt-out and determine how much consumers would have to pay to opt-out. In response to a Commission directive, on January 23, 2012, OPC submitted a supplemental document in support of the need for a feasibility study. We are awaiting a PSC decision.

What is OPC’s position on opt-out? OPC believes this is an important public interest issue involving myriad considerations, including public safety, privacy, and cost issues. As the public advocate representing the interests of all DC consumers, OPC has a statutory obligation to first, ensure that the facts are fully aired and second, that a reasonable and rational decision is rendered. At this time, OPC needs more facts on the issue to make a final policy determination. The proposed study will provide the needed facts to determine the impact of an opt-out provision on all DC ratepayers and consumers. At a minimum, OPC believes the public has a right to have its concerns addressed.

Have other states approved an opt-out provision? Yes. California and Maine have approved an opt-out provision for consumers. What can I do to support OPC’s Petition? If you want to support OPC’s Petition, you can do so by contacting the Commission in writing at: DC Public Service Commission, 1333 H Street, NW, 2nd Floor, West Tower, Washington, DC 20005. Attn: Formal Case No. 1056: OPC’s Opt-Out Petition. Or via E-mail at bwestbrook@psc.dc.gov, Subject Line: Formal Case No. 1056: OPC’s Opt-Out Petition

###############

CLASSIFIEDS — EVENTS

Body and Soul: An Evening of Jazz and Art, February 6
George Williams, George.Williams2@dc.gov

This Monday, celebrate Black History Month at the DC Public Library with an evening of art and jazz by African-American women. “Body and Soul” is an exhibit featuring twenty works by local African American artist Desiree Sterbini and J’Nell Jordan. The works include oil on metal acrylic to oil pastels and colored pencils on textured paper. The exhibit kicks off with a reception featuring the Herman Burney Trio and vocalist Akua Allrich on Monday, February 6, at 6:00 p.m., at Martin Luther King, Jr., Memorial Library, 901 G Street, NW. A complete listing of events can be found online at http://www.dclibrary.org/blackhistory

################

MacIntosh Users Group Meeting, February 11
Ken Nellis, NCA-MUG, webmaster@nca-mug.org

The National Capital Apple Macintosh Users Group (NCA-MUG) will hold its February meeting on Saturday, February 11, from 10:00 a.m. to noon, in the first floor meeting room of the Cleveland Park branch of the DC Public Library. February’s presentation will explore less well known features of iTunes. For more information, please refer to the group’s web site, http://www.nca-mug.org.

###############

themail@dcwatch is an E-mail discussion forum that is published every Wednesday and Sunday. To change the E-mail address for your subscription to themail, use the Update Profile/Email address link below in the E-mail edition. To unsubscribe, use the Safe Unsubscribe link in the E-mail edition. An archive of all past issues is available at http://www.dcwatch.com/themail.

All postings should be submitted to themail@dcwatch.com, and should be about life, government, or politics in the District of Columbia in one way or another. All postings must be signed in order to be printed, and messages should be reasonably short — one or two brief paragraphs would be ideal — so that as many messages as possible can be put into each mailing.

 


Send mail with questions or comments to webmaster@dcwatch.com
Web site copyright ©DCWatch (ISSN 1546-4296)