It is unfortunate although somewhat accepted that political campaigns can occasionally get heated, but when an individual resorts to slanderous lies and character assassinations an ethical line has been crossed. Most recently, an employment law attorney representing the No Power Plant group and passing himself off as a land-use expert has been crossing that line routinely.
It is true that AES Southland was investigated by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) during the 2001 energy crisis, just as almost every other electricity supplier in California was. FERC conducted numerous interviews, reviewed hours of taped phone conversations and hundreds of emails and ended its investigation without ever finding that AES Southland—or any of its officers or employees—did anything illegal.
We did not pay any penalties or fines, accept any sanctions or have our market authority restricted in any way. There was definitely no fraud or massive blackouts as alleged by the No Power Plant representative. In no uncertain terms, we were completely exonerated—and for anyone to say otherwise is a complete fabrication.
In a nutshell, a “non-managerial” employee of our contractual counterparty, Williams, offered AES Southland an incentive to extend the length of an outage so that we could perform needed repair work. AES Southland refused the incentive and the FERC specifically wrote, “Williams did not ultimately pay to Southland any financial inducement to extend the outages and AES Southland maintained control of the outage schedule.” End of story.
There are only a few more days left in the campaign. Why don’t we let the voters of Redondo Beach decide their position on Measure A based on its merits and not on slanderous lies and baseless character attacks.
Sincerely,
Eric Pendergraft
President, AES Southland
Letters to the editor do not necessarily reflect the views of Redondo Beach Patch. Letters must be less than 500 words and are subject to editing for space, spelling, punctuation and grammar. Also, anonymous letters will not be published, so remember to include your real name. You can email your letter to Redondo Beach Patch editor Nicole Mooradian at nicole.mooradian@patch.com.
Thanks for respecting my research. I respect your service to our country as a Vet. I have done my best to stick with facts and law. Now I must fight to protect my name and reputation against a very powerful man and an $18 Billion company. Anything you can do to help would be appreciated. The power plant people don't play nice, Tim. I cannot have these folks over for tea and crumpets and just talk stuff out. They stand for their shareholders profits only. I stand for democracy, capitalism, and the right of my neighbors and I to vote without fear or intimidation. I have taken a sworn oath to uphold the constitution and the laws of the United States. I drive a Mazda 3 and a beat-up Toyota Mini-van when hauling my 3 kids, not a limousine, haha. I did not vote for President Obama. Thanks for your comments. Enjoy the day. David
Here are the facts: No on A - We get a new polluting power plant Yes on A - We have much better odds of stopping a new power plant. While your wrapping yourself in the American Flag, why are supporting AES's efforts to build a power plant that will benefit their big Chinese stockholders. Why is AES letting themselves be taken over by foreign interests? Why are you supporting a company that appears to selling off America's infrastructure to foreign countries?
http://news.rice.edu/2013/02/17/rice-university-analysis-links-ozone-levels-cardiac-arrest/
When voters stop believing the message the only option left is to attack the other side personally. That's what they're doing. But if you look at the blog they are only screaming to each other. No one believes them, no one cares for their message so they sit on their computer, using electricity, and yelling at the wind..
Kindly tell us any facts from the above that are inaccurate. You know full well that everyone here is a law abiding citizen and would not stand for stealing. You have yet quote one caselaw or reveal your lawyer friends names. Anyone can take anyone else's statement and simply say you are wrong. That is easy. Substantiation of a position is what gives it credibility. Measure A is simple rezoning. Cities do it all the time. Redondo does it all the time. Zoning laws exist to make sure development is compatible and does not unduly affect surrounding uses. A power plant has huge impacts. It pollutes and it blights. It affects the entire harbor area. AES bought the plant knowing it was old and that it only had a contract through 2018. They know they have no right to build a new plant. Perhaps the Breeze sums it up best: "Opponents of the measure argue that the city shouldn't be able to rezone a property to change its future uses. Actually, it is not only well within a city's rights, it is common. Indeed, one the reasons for a city to exist at all is to set the desired land uses in its boundaries. "
I don't think that setting the City up for litigation is a good idea. Apparently you do. That's tyranny of the majority I suppose, if you win.
Even the City Attorney said Light and Brand were not working in the publc good. Nice job Light and Brand. I wonder if they got a commission? Webb said. “They claimed to be acting in public good and they weren’t. The only difference is we don’t spend a lot of time on PR for the lawsuit we won…They filed two lawsuits but the way state law is, the city has to pay their attorney’s fees and they don’t have to pay ours in the one we won.” According to Brand, the council originally estimated that the litigation fees would reach $30,000 – $70,000. Councilman Steve Aspel felt that the amount of money, largely based on Angel’s $550 an hour fee, was wildly excessive.
And despite cries for civility you dredge up a three year old lawsuit and misassign the blame as your colleagues always seem to do. It is your city council who cost taxpayer money as a judge found they illegally violated the City Charter. Over 100 residents testified they would sue the Council if they ignored the charter, but our Council did it anyway. Over 200 residents contributed to get the lawsuit going. One resident had to put their name on it. So I did. The illegal actions of the Council cost the city the legal fees. And then they doubled the cost by filing a frivolous appeal that three judges threw out by a unanimous vote. You are pointing the finger the wrong direction. If the No on A crowd wants to keep this civil, they need to stop the personal attacks and stick to the pros and cons of Measure A and a new power plant.
I hardly call ending a use that blights the whole harbor area, pumps out tons of pollutants each year, and generates a paltry $400K in city revenues from 50 prime waterfront acres "tyranny". I call it common sense. But to each their own.
Thank you for your question. The short answer is: I got involved because my wife asked me to speak out. Four weeks ago I did not know my Councilman's name. My wife asked me to do some legal research on Measure A to assess the truth or falsity of what AES was saying on its mailers and what City Councilman were telling voters. So I spent 20+ hours reading Measure A, researching Supreme Court case law, reading the history of zoning for AES acreage, and looking at land use success stories of other coastal areas. Then I talked to real estate lawyers, land use lawyer, and real estate developers. I concluded that the AES campaign is pure propaganda. It's bullshit. My wife asked me to speak out, because neighbors were afraid of the lawsuit threats. I am a self-made man, from humble beginnings, with a wife and three kids. I work for myself. I have my own law office with many business clients. My wife and I want to retire in Redondo Beach. Our neighbors are like family. Even "Bob" from Wisconsin, the guy who blasts away at me, was like family. Bob has a wonderful family. Once I put my conclusions in public, strangers attacked me and my professional reputation. My reputation is important to me. Any other questions? Good. My question to you: Is your opinion more worthy than my21 years of experience and my extensive research and investigation?
I work from 8:00 a.m. - midnight most nights. My clients can call my cell phone up until midnight. I live my work. If you don't think the most important local election issue of my life and my kids' lives is worth the extra effort, and you prefer to pop up on a blog the night before an election to question my motives, I feel sorry for you. Your post makes you sound terribly cynical and unhappy. I hope you see that life has more wonderful possibilities than just doing something for a quick buck. I also serve on my son's soccer club's Board of Directors, and I enjoy that and other volunteer work. It gives me balance. I will get more sleep and spend more time with family and clients after March 5. Good evening to you, Dana Strauss.
I am a very positive person. I am also very good at calculating risk. Every day we wake up is a calculated risk. We could get hit by a bus. We could get called out by an energy company VP. Living a full life is worth the risk. The people who hear the word "lawsuit" and go into a shell are people who do not fully understand risk vs, reward. I speak out so that voters can focus on the rewards of no power plant without fearing the small risks. If AES Southland convinces the California Energy Commission that people of California need its power, I am fine with result. If not, AES Southland has many positive incentives to work with City Council and the residents of Redondo Beach, in order to maximize shareholder value. As a Mediator, I always look for ways to create a bigger pie and a win-win situation. I wish more people would focus on that. Enjoy your evening, Mr. Light, and good luck to you and all the other candidates for office. We'll be paying closer attention from now on, haha.
John, I hope one day you will learn that most people can connect the dots on their own. When you try to bludgeon your audience, your message is lost. I am surprised AES Southland hired a local who has no clue on the art of persuasion. It makes no sense to continue to "beat up" your opponent until morale improves, John. You should also take a cue from the "Kelly Sarkisian" persona. The person behind that name knows how to bait people and is much more effective than you in getting her message across and victimizing her opponents. My two cents..... Have a pleasant evening, John. It's not personal. It never was.
Thank you for the kind words. High praise from a neighbor, for sure. My wife appreciates it, too. Hope to meet you and the many other Measure A bloggers some day, even the ones who disagree. Seriously, we should have a Measure A blog party and even invite Eric Pendergraft.
I have patiently answered your questions. Now, would you kindly answer mine? Do you think your legal opinion is superior to a lawyer with 21 year of litigation and trial experience who has talked to land use lawyers, real estate lawyers and developers on this very issue AND studied the history of AES zoning and patiently listened to the concerns of folks who disagree? That would be a Yes or No, sir.