September 30, 2013
Michael R. Peevey, President
California Public Utilities Commission
505 Van Ness Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94102
RE: Consideration for a GO 156 Graduation Process
Dear Mr. Peevey:
Just as governmental tax programs are regularly reviewed in determining if the original purpose for levying a specific tax remains viable, consideration may be in order for the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to more closely review the validity of public assistance provided to the designated group members described in General Order (GO) 156. In evaluating the business strategy adherence and achievements of GO-156, established by CA Assembly Bill 3678, bringing to light the successful socioeconomic advancements of the targeted groups that it is designed to aid may in some cases warrant a type of exit strategy from this public assistance program.
As reported by the U.S. Minority Business Development Agency, Asian American business enterprises have consistently obtained and exceeded entrepreneurial parity when evaluated to the number of firms and paid employees. Further, Japanese Americans’ poverty level is steadily trending downward from 8.6% compared to 9.4% of white group members experiencing an unfavorable upward trend, perhaps contributing to why nearly 5% of Japanese Americans have advanced college degrees compared to that of white group members at 3%. Very similarly, the average medium family income of Japanese Americans annually is $61,630, an amount far exceeding that of whites earning much less each year at $48,500.
During a nearly two-year period of constructing and formalizing the parameters of GO-156 a few requests were entertained to include citizens with a majority of Portuguese and Armenian heritage. The State chose to leave out these group members based mainly on their respective ease of access to capital. This decision was not much unlike how the GO-156 socioeconomic inclusion standards opted to embrace Disabled Veteran Business Owners to ensure equal access to utility purchasing opportunities, which occurred well after the GO 156 start date. These are plain examples that serve to broadly reference how an in-and-out participatory process unofficially exists for this program.
The State of California embarked on the development of minority business enterprises for reasons that included how a portion of this precise citizenry fell significantly below the most common levels of socioeconomic standards, particularly as they faired to the majority of white Americans. The GO-156 prescribed legislative directives were created from a myriad of anecdotal statistics that pointed to veiled racism and calculated contracting barriers that were impediments to emerging businesses. In view of that, GO-156 has successfully helped to promote improved contracting transparencies which significantly changed the landscape of utility outsourcing, thereby warding off objectionable utility supply chain management practices to subsist.
And so, GO-156’s overall inclusionary objectives will be strengthened from a formal graduation course of action. At your convenience, I would like to speak with you in person to receive your feedback on this proposed procedure. Feel free to call and/or email me at (310) 637-7248–firstname.lastname@example.org.
Dean L. Jones, CPM
Southland Partnership Corporation