My Blog

Urgent Action Alert! Send a letter to CPUC Regarding Basic Telephone Service.

09/18/2012 11:57:00

Your help is needed on this very important issue.

The CPUC will vote on a change to the definition to Basic Telephone Services introduced as legislation by Gwen Moore in the 1990’s. Commission President Mike Peevey wants to include wireless services as a part of the Basic Services definition . Basic Services include Lifeline Services which reduces the cost of telephone services for under served and low income communities.
Technology has improved over the years since this legislation was introduced, it only makes sense that this change be made. Most homes don't even have hard line telephones anymore. They have all opted to have Cell phones and access the internet via their smart phones. Unfortunately low income communities can not afford cell services due to cost. This technology will helped reduce the digital divide in the under served and low income communities throughout the state.
There are Commissioners who oppose this change. We most make sure our voices are heard on this. I am working on a letter writing campaign and planning to get advocates to attend the CPUC hearing on September 27 in San Francisco to support this change.
I need your help ASAP. I have added below sample letters in support of this issue. Please look over the letters pick one, make any changes you feel are needed to make it personal, cut and paste it on your letterhead, sign it, then email it back to me at edwin@lombardmgmt.com or fax it to (916) 231-9512 as soon as you can.
Our voices need to be heard on this. I will send the letter to the CPUC along with the other letters I have received on this issue.
If you would rather please call Commissioners Ferron (415) 703-2444, Florio (415) 703-2440, Sandoval (916) 322-8858, Simon (415) 703-1407 and express your support of the Peevey Decision on Basic Services. Call me with questions (916) 524-8070.

Address letters to:
California Public Utilities Commission

505 Van Ness Avenue

San Francisco, Ca 94102

Dear Commissioners,

As a Community leader and felt a need to write in support of CPUC President Peevey’s decision to redefine Basic Services to include wireless technology.
As it relates to the matter before the Commission on extending lifeline service to wireless technology, has anyone taken a look at their utility bill recently. I am not just talking about the phone bill. Take a look at the phone, cable, electricity, gas, city utility, etc. We need an accountant and a lawyer to translate what those bills include, don’t include and the basis for each charge. It’s absurd. And when I heard that the Public Utilities Commission is considering going down the path of making our telephone service even more complicated by adopting even more categories of customers, I had to say something. All I want to say is, please do what you can to keep things simple, make our bills less complicated, and don’t do anything more to complicate our lives. And PLEASE don’t make the lives of the low income community even more complicated. Establish standards for “basic service” that are basic themselves and easy to understand. Our lives are complicated enough.
The Commission needs to establish a simple neutral standard as it considers including lifeline service under wireless technology. A simple standard will provide an incentive for companies to invest in otherwise under served and disadvantaged communities. And the expansion of digital service can lead to unlimited opportunities. Let’s cut the cord for low income residents and free them to make use of even the most basic modern technology. I am not saying it will have a miraculous effect, but once you free people from technology limitations, even a little bit, who knows where it might lead.

Dear Commissioners;

On behalf of Asian Inc., its board of directors, and more than ________ members; our organization submits this letter to voice our concern about the matter of the definition of lifeline service pending before the Public Utilities Commission. I was surprised to learn that your efforts to change the definition of the lifeline service to include wireless services are becoming considered controversial.
I realize this is an important step to bring low income telephone customers who are tied to their outdated hard telephone lines into the twenty first century. I was even more surprised to learn that Commissioner Florio, who is a former consumer advocate, would put up an alternative that almost guarantees such a simple service addition will not be made available. I hope he has surveys of wireless service, establishing his proposed decision, and proves me wrong. As a person who represents business interests in this state, I know that the best way of making sure that a product is not made available to customers is to make it expensive and burden it with unnecessary bureaucratic requirements.
Please don't burden low income residents with standards that will do nothing but ensure that the technological divide become wider. I strongly support your effort and ask all Commissioners to support this measure.

Dear Commissioners,

As the __________________ of the ______________________ when I heard that the approach now being considered in the matter of Commissioner Peevey’s proposed decision on wireless lifeline service is an alternate decision that would create two classes of basic service, and establish outdated standards for service providers, I felt a need to write in support of CPUC President Peevey’s decision to redefine Basic Services to include wireless technology.
As a small business person, I can appreciate and am grateful for business opportunities created by government regulations. When I hear that those opportunities are loaded up with unnecessary criteria and requirements, I wonder if this is really a move by regulators to cater to the big businesses that have the resources to handle those costs of doing business. I appreciate Commissioner Peevy for watching out for the interests of low income residents, veterans and small businesses.
Please keep things simple and clear in a way that the little guy has a chance to get into this game.

Dear Commissioners,

As it relates to the matter before the Commission on extending lifeline service to wireless technology, has anyone taken a look at their utility bill recently. I am not just talking about the phone bill. Take a look at the phone, cable, electricity, gas, city utility, etc. We need an accountant and a lawyer to translate what those bills include, don’t include and the basis for each charge. It’s absurd. And when I heard that the Public Utilities Commission is considering going down the path of making our telephone service even more complicated by adopting even more categories of customers, I had to say something. All I want to say is, please do what you can to keep things simple, make our bills less complicated, and don’t do anything more to complicate our lives. And PLEASE don’t make the lives of the low income community even more complicated. Establish standards for “basic service” that are basic themselves and easy to understand. Our lives are complicated enough.

Dear Commissioners,

When I heard that the approach now being considered in the matter of Commissioner Peevey’s proposed decision on wireless lifeline service is an alternate decision that would create two classes of basic service, and establish outdated standards for service providers, I had a few thoughts:

· Who is going to provide service under this alternative decision?

· When otherwise simple matters are made more complicated, that sounds to me like things only become more expensive

· Setting a simple standard for businesses to meet seems to set the stage for competition and the opportunity for low cost service providers to meet this new demand, thus setting the stage for potential lower costs.
As a small business person, I can appreciate and am grateful for business opportunities created by government regulations. When I hear that those opportunities are loaded up with unnecessary criteria and requirements, I wonder if this is really a move by regulators to cater to the big businesses that have the resources to handle those costs of doing business. I appreciate Commissioner Peevy for watching out for the interests of low income residents and small businesses.

Please keep things simple and clear in a way that the little guy has a chance to get into this game.

All God's best,

Edwin A. Lombard III

President/CEO

Save our Jobs Send CARB a message today!!

09/18/2012 11:42:00

Send CARB a Message Today:

Protect California Jobs and Businesses from Cap and Trade Auction Costs

As part of its new cap and trade regulation The California Air Resources Board (CARB) is planning to auction greenhouse gas emission (GHG) allowances starting in November, requiring California businesses and employers to spend billions of dollars for the right to continue operating in the state.On September 20, the CARB board will consider giving California businesses some degree of protection – called transition assistance. By increasing the number of free allowances distributed to energy-intensive businesses like refiners, food processors and other industries regulated by the new cap and trade program, CARB can reduce the cost of cap and trade on California’s businesses, protecting the state’s economy and jobs.

The non-partisan Legislative Analyst’s Office has confirmed that providing increased free allowances will NOT impact California’s ability to meet GHG emissions targets established by AB 32. It WILL protect jobs and our economy without comprising our important environmental goals.

HERE’S HOW YOU CAN HELP NOW!

Please click here NOW to send a message to CARB to protect California jobs and businesses AND the environment.For more information and to make your voice heard, go to www.SaveOurJobs.org.Send your message today!

Thank you!

No on SB 568

08/06/2012 21:20:00

This Bill is not good for Black and Latino owned small restaurants. The increase in cost will cause job lost and maybe even closure. Contact your Assembly Member and ask for a no vote on SB 568.

CARB hearing Thursday 5/24/12

05/22/2012 08:25:00

It has been said in regards to major policy decisions that “you are either at the table or on the menu”.

I am putting together a group of Black Leaders to attend the CARB hearing listed below in order to have our voices heard on a very important matter. CARB is hosting a panel to help them determine how the funds they receive from Cap & Trade are going to be invested.

Let’s be clear, these funds are going to be paid by utility companies, oil companies and major manufacturing companies. This means that these funds are actually coming from you and me because these companies will pass these costs down to the consumer. If anyone should receive the benefit of these funds it’s us. Let’s make sure we get groups to show up and voice our opinion on who should receive these funds. I will prepare talking points and help organize any groups that are willing to attend. Call me with questions (916) 524-8070.

Leonard Robinson has been requested by the Air Resources Board to participate one of the panel to discuss the investment plan strategy. Representatives from the South Coast Air Quality Management District; Nature Conservancy; Ag Council of California; Coalition for Clean Air; Latin Business Association; UC Office of the President; California Manufacturing and Technology Association, will be participating as well.

The panel is charged to address the following question:

What criteria should be prioritized in the development of an investment plan and why?

The hearing will be May 24, 1:30pm -5:00pm, in the Byron Sher Auditorium of the Cal/EPA Building at 1001 “I” Street, Sacramento, 95814. The meeting will be webcast as well at:http://www.cal-span.org/

Public comment period will follow the panel. This will be our time to express our feeling on this issue. Don’t wait until it’s too late to get involved. The time is now. We need pastors, teachers, small business owners, people that can’t afford to pay high utility bills or who’s gas bill is so high they can’t afford to drive anywhere but to work.

We do have a place at the table at this and other discussions to decide how $500 million to $1 billion in revenue from the cap-and-auctions will be utilized. Let's show up and show out!!!

Either email me at edwin@lombardmgmt.com or call me on my cell (916) 524-8070.

Thank you in advance.

All God’s best,

Edwin A. Lombard III

Edwin Lombard Management, LLC

455 Capitol Mall, Suite 317

Sacramento, CA 95814

(916) 231-9851 off

(916) 231-9512 fax

(916) 524-8070 cell

edwin@lombardmgmt.com

www.lombardmgmt.comWrite your post here.

Strongly Oppose SB 1455

04/09/2012 14:58:00

Here we go again! Last year it was AB 638 (Skinner). This year it's SB 1455 (Kehoe)

SB 1455 is an ill-conceived bill that promotes alternative fuels and alternative fuel vehicles without regard for their feasibility, availability or cost, and could lead to unconstitutional tax increases. It puts California’s competitiveness and economic recovery at risk, and jeopardizes the jobs of California workers.

Our state already has numerous existing or pending state laws and policies that will reduce fossil fuel usage and promote more widespread introduction of alternative fuels and alternative fuel vehicles, such as the Pavley tailpipe emissions standards, Low Carbon Fuel Standard, alternative vehicle requirements for public fleets, and various subsidies and incentives for the purchase of alternative fuel vehicles.

Why would we want to give CARB and the CEC open-ended authority to implement California’s alternative transportation fuels goal? This authority would lack sufficient oversight, and any alternative fuels regulations adopted by these agencies that are reliant on tax increases, user fees, fuel cost increases or other costs to consumers would likely be in violation of the constitutional requirement for a two-thirds vote to increase taxes.

Stand with me and Strongly Oppose SB 1455.

I will send a coalition letter via email opposing this legislation. Please reply and give me permission to use you name and logo as a supporter of this letter.

Please post your comments by March 22!!!

03/14/2012 16:11:00

Bay Area Water Policy Proposes Product Bans as “Credit” Toward Trash Load Compliance Goals

The San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board is currently accepting public comments on a report by the Bay Area Storm water Management Agencies Association (BASMAA) concerning Baseline Trash Loads and Trash Load Reduction Tracking Methods.

These documents are intended to be a blueprint for how local jurisdictions will meet a required 40% reduction of “trash” that is found in creeks, roadsides and local waterways by 2014. Incredibly, BASMAA has suggested that “credits” for banning specific food service products be used to help meet the reduction goals. If adopted, this proposal could have sweeping long-term ramifications for a host of manufacturing, retail businesses, local restaurants and food trucks.

In addition to credits for banning these products, the report further proposes even greater credits be issued to jurisdictions that ban and/or adopt a mandatory fee for ALL single-use food and beverage products; OR adopt policies that require vendors to provide a discount for “Bring your Own” service ware (knives, forks, spoons) or charge a fee on those products.

Bans on arbitrarily specified products so localities can “claim” trash reduction credits -- without implementing demonstrated measurable trash reduction programs -- sets a dangerous precedent for any consumer product manufacturer, restaurant operator, or retailer doing business in California. Product bans can result in higher operating costs for businesses, which can mean higher costs for consumers and lost of jobs – all without any demonstrated impact on reducing overall trash in local creeks and waterways.

Edwin Lombard Management, LLC (ELM), is in the process of developing detailed comments and will be circulating a draft in the coming days. These comments are due March 20, 2012. ELM encourages you to file comments on behalf of your organization, opposing the “credits” proposed for product bans, so localities can “claim” trash reduction credits -- without implementing demonstrated measurable trash reduction programs. Please send all comments to dbowyer@waterboards.ca.gov with the words “Trash Plans” in the subject line.

If you have any questions, please contact Edwin Lombard at 916-524-8070 or via email at edwin@lombardmgmt.com .

Thank you

Edwin A. Lombard III

City of Sacramento makes history!!!!

03/08/2012 16:46:00

On March 6, 2012 the City of Sacramento made history. The City Council voted to accept the Downtown Arena funding plan. The plan calls for the City, The Maloof family (owners of the Kings), AEG and the NBA to provide a portion of the funding to build a downtown arena, located at the old rail yard adjacent to HWY 5 freeway, in the heart of downtown Sacramento. That means the Kings will stay in Sacramento.

For those of you who are not familiar with the history of the City of Sacramento, this was a momentous occasion. For years this has been a fight between Mayor Kevin Johnson and city officials. The old guard did not want Sacramento to change. They like the City as it is and do not want change. They also felt that the cost associated with the arena should be the sole responsibility of the owners of the Kings, the Maloof family since they will benefit the most from the arena.

The fact is this arena not only guarantees that the Kings are staying in Sacramento, it also brings AEG as the facility manager. That means Sacramento will have major concert tours, big ticket entertainment, the possibility to host the NBA All Star Game, National Political Conventions and on and on. This City has lacked those things and Sacramentans have always had to go to the Bay Area for first class entertainment. Not anymore. This is the Capitol of the greatest state in the United States of America and its about time it looked the part.

But most importantly, this means business opportunities for small business owners. This is a $391 million dollar project that will not be finished until 2015. It also means jobs during the planning and construction fazes of the project. Once the facility is completed there will be even more jobs available that will help the local economy. There will also be opportunities for local support companies such as restaurants, bars, night clubs, convenience store, etc. What an awesome opportunity for minority owned businesses.

Thank you Mayor Kevin Johnson for your vision for the future of Sacramento and thank you City council members for making the right decision.

Click the link to read the Sacramento Bee article.

http://www.sacbee.com/2012/03/06/4317430/sacramento-city-council-approves.html