Hopefully this will prevent anything similar or untoward happening again. However, I have my doubts.

When will the first refund be issued?

Too bad you didn't bother to mention that most current PA residents will get $50 deducted from our bills for the next THREE -- 3 -- years instead of getting a lump sum payment with interest.

That's about TEN -- 10 -- years the city's sat on our money AND charged us for their legal fees to contest the judge-ordered settlement.

Maybe the next time the city rips us off AND proposes new rules to legitimatize their ripoffs that people start following the news instead of being shocked when our utility rates soar because CPAU sees no resistance. It was truly amazing to read the shocked UNINFORMED reactions when people finally paid attention.

The same applies to the upcoming election: pay attention!

I wish the city could instead spend this money on upgrading our electrical transmission equipment.

I disagree with the decision. Further, the attorneys are the big winners, it seems. "The settlement also authorizes attorneys representing Green to claim $4.3 million in revenues from the common fund and to get an additional $1.3 million through the "lodestar" method, which is based on how much time the prevailing party's attorneys spend on the case. Green was represented by the firm Kearney Littlefield, LLC."

And some other good news for those using abundant, clean, efficient and much less expensive natural gas for heating and cooking purposes. ... the 9th Circuit appeals court refused Tuesday, January 2nd to allow Berkeley to enforce its first-in-the-nation ban on installing natural gas appliances in new buildings, a case that could affect dozens of communities in California and other states, saying Berkeley was trying to ban appliances that a 1975 law allows the federal government to regulate.

Maybe, just maybe sanity in government is experiencing a reawakening.

To Online Name. I am paying attention. Are you paying attention to comparable PG&E rates? I am. Are you paying attention to the overall city budget and the cost of creating more sustainable utilities infrastructure that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions to minimize further contribution to climate change which, (again, are you paying attention?) is escalating and reaching levels we cannot control?

As baby boomer who loves her children, I think about future generations and our responsibility to leave behind a planet that can support them as it has supported us. to What, exactly, are you paying attention to, besides your personal pocketbook?

Yes. Please do pay attention.

The article leaves out a lot of background. Palo Alto’s policy was approved in its charter using utilities to help fund city services, preceding many of the new utility laws by decades. The court essentially gave a split decision finding that Palo Alto’s practice with the electric utility was valid but with the gas utility was not. Palo Alto voters overwhelmingly reapproved the practice at the ballot box last November, allowing gas transfers to continue going forward. These payments that are being refunded were found to be owed over some quite technical arguments for a limited number of years. I agree that the ones who made out were the attorneys.

We are quite lucky that Palo Altans had the foresight to create all their own utilities. Not only do we enjoy lower rates than PG&E customers but we have funded many of the city services we all enjoy because of the return on investment in those utilities. A double win.

The attorneys will benefit. Everyone else, not so much. Interest on $156? Nickle and diming...

I agree that one of the best things about PA is the utility. I’m not saying it’s perfect but it’s pretty darned good.

The issue of transferring fees and fines into the general fund does deserve discussion, though. Are people aware that fines for parking infractions and library fines go to the general fund? This creates all kinds of bad incentives. While the library no longer charges per day late fees, they do leverage hefty replacement cost and collection fees if an item is 15 days late, and they charge $1.00 if someone puts a hold on a book they can’t pick up. In the past, when I questioned their stiff late fees, the answer was always that the City set those fees and didn’t want to give up the $60,000 annually into the general fund from library fines. The money never went to benefit the libraries. While I applaud them for eliminating daily late fines, since fines turn out to discourage people who most need the libraries from using them, the way they are structured now still represents a hefty “gotcha!” that the City has no incentive to fix because the general fund not the libraries gets the money.

With this settlement, should Palo Alto be looking at each one of those revenue streams and either putting them up for voter approval, or admitting the City benefits inappropriately and finding other revenue streams?

With all the wealthy residents we have, why do we not have something like the Los Altos Community Fund/Fndn?

Of course it's nickle and diming; it's just meant to send a message since we never ever hear about fiscal responsibility or cost-effectiveness from this city unless they're threatening to cut critical services like emergency dispatch unless we approve their latest proposed increases, the Fiber-to-The Home project that's already commercially available via proven providers..

But re CPAU, whatever happened to undergrounding the utilities so we don't suffer constant outages whenever a branch falls, a mylar baloon hits the wires, etc.... and why was there no public discussion of whether this should be a priority>

Oh, silly me. PA conducts its City Priority Survey, gets 312 responses and then laughably pretends that's a valid way to conduct business.

Those who are upset about the amount going to the attorneys in this case please consider there was no other way this suit would have been filed and the investment of time and money made to reach a settlement. Attorneys are occasionally the good citizens who act as private attorneys general as no other enforcement mechanism exists.

Until the early 2000's, built into our utility bills was a small amount of actual costs to the city that was reimbursed by Utilities. Having lived here for 50 years, I can remember that after the the 2000 crash the city's budget was crunched. The city manager and then council looked at the required Utilities reserve fund and decided to siphon off a relatively small additional amount over and above the city's costs to boost the general fund. Of course, that had come from our monthly utility bills as a reserve is required. (Anyone remember how much the city reimbursed Enron for nothing?!).

Over the next few years, as the economy and the city's revenue improved, the extra money that could be quietly siphoned off from our monthly utility bills into the general fund, without anyone noticing, became addictive. It has now increased to the tune of over $20 million a year. All without a single line item that our bills are padded to divert money the general fund, essentially a tax.

I would much prefer that the city was honest and transparent that our bills were padded and have a line item as to how much each month of my monthly bill was earmarked and diverted to the general fund. Year after year the utilities and the city have claimed costs have gone up and utilities and the city must increase the price we pay. But what they are really doing is every year increasingly padding our bills with a secret tax so council members can indulge pet projects and city manager and his senior staff can have ever higher salaries all without any accountability.

I wish the city would create a buy-back program for all of the spoiled contents of the freezers and refrigerators every time there's an outage. AND, have barbecues that circle city hall where thawed food could be cooked and fed to anyone who is hungry. It's a dumb idea for an individual but imagine all of the eateries whose profit margin is so low they can't afford to throw away food.

@Tom DuBois

When a court says you broke the law, that's bad. Very simple.

It's quite silly (I'll be nice and call it 'silly') to call it a split decision" ... by that logic, Trump is a-okay, some he wins, some he loses. He said, she said, ya know!?

"I would much prefer that the city was honest and transparent that our bills were padded and have a line item as to how much each month of my monthly bill was earmarked and diverted to the general fund. Year after year the utilities and the city have claimed costs have gone up and utilities and the city must increase the price we pay. But what they are really doing is every year increasingly padding our bills with a secret tax so council members can indulge pet projects and city manager and his senior staff can have ever higher salaries all without any accountability. "

Absolutely. And if you take the time to review your bill, you'll find that about 1/3 of the bill is a combination of fees, user fees, surcharges, seasonal fees, administrative fees -- anything the city can dream up to keep siphoning the money from us to them. They even had the nerve to keep applying a drought surcharge long after the state had decreed that the drought had ended -- until people started protesting loud and long.

Gotta give them credit for creativity. And city council keeps awarding top raises to our highly paid leaders with their huge "communications" staff that's so great at stonewalling press inquiries.