PG&E doubles down again vs. local energy choice
By Josh Richman
Wednesday, September 16th, 2009 at 2:55 pm in 2010 governor's race, ballot measures, campaign finance, energy, Gavin Newsom, Meg Whitman, Tom Campbell.
Now comes the serious money. Pacific Gas & Electric Co. on Friday contributed $1.5 million to its somewhat euphemistically named “Californians to Protect Our Right to Vote,” doubling the $1.5 million with which it already had seeded the committee in July and August. As reported here at the times of the earlier contributions, the “Taxpayers Right to Vote Act” that this committee is pushing would require local governments to obtain the approval of two-thirds of their voters before providing electricity to new customers or expanding such service to new territories if any public funds or bonds are involved, or before providing electricity through a community choice program if any public funds or bonds are involved. Critics say PG&E is playing on populist themes in order to block local governments from abandoning the utility giant in favor of power contracts with smaller, greener energy producers – a movement that’s been gaining steam in recent years. The proponents have until Dec. 21 to gather the 694,354 signatures needed to place this on the ballot next year.
Other sizeable chunks of change contributed in recent days include $25,900 from Oracle heiress and real estate agent Nicola Miner of San Francisco to Gavin Newsom’s gubernatorial campaign; $25,900 from former FTD Group CEO Michael Soenen of Chicago to Meg Whitman’s gubernatorial campaign; $25,000 from the Mercury Trust (apparently controlled by financier Saul Fox) in Foster City to Tom Campbell’s gubernatorial campaign; and $10,000 each to Whitman’s campaign from venture capitalist and former Motorola Chairman and CEO Christopher Galvin of Winnetka, Ill., and from retired investment banker James Love of Healdsburg, all last Thursday.
[Both comments and pings are currently closed.]
September 16th, 2009 at 4:18 pm
Is this the same issue so-called progressives always try to place on the ballot in San Francisco before it gets soundly thumped?
September 17th, 2009 at 1:15 pm
NO!! This is NOT a progressive initiative!
This is PG$E’s own initiative to secure itself now at the ballot box as the only game in town. It is set to monopolize all energy franchises that can only be changed by a 2/3 vote at the ballot box.
So, don’t be fooled by this initiative that is being brought to you by PG$E.
**They are paying for it in full with no other contributions.**
It’s PG&E’s way of fooling you into giving up your right to choose. Of course, they will say different.
Don’t support it! Don’t vote for it!
The progressive, and now liberal (supported by the SF Democratic Party), position is to move ahead with state law Community Choice Aggregation (CCA) programs. Actually, San Francisco has already approved this program and is set to be certified by the CA Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) in 2010. (See http://cleanpowersf.org )
Please do contact the Mayor, your district Supervisor and the SFPUC Commissioners and demand that they implement CCA now. Call 415.554.4000 (or 311 if you live in the city).
Once CCA is implemented, PG&E ratepayers will become San Francisco ratepayers.
What does this mean for the ratepayer? PG&E is a private company in the business of making profits. The City is not. So, the mandate of the City is to provide utility services at cost much like how water/waste water, public transportation, etc., is costed out.
But, with CCA, it will be self-sufficient. Currently, PG&E plays two roles with the city. The one they are contracted through franchise (and other agreements illegally held against the Raker Act) is to maintain, distribute and service the electrical infrastructure or grid that reaches every home and business.
The other role by default was to be our power broker and manage our energy portfolio. So, if PG&E, which is also an energy producer who then has this sweetheart deal with the city, is not able to produce enough electricity it has to balance that out by purchasing electricity from other sources.
If you review this portfolio, it is about 85%+ fossil fuel and nuclear. The rest is other sources that may be renewable or other methods like biomass.
Under CCA, the City would take control of the portfolio and the rates it would charge the resident ratepayers thus stabilizing energy rates once and for all, again, because it is not in the business of making profits.
In addition, the purchasing of energy would be completely open, turned on its head, towards as much clean, green energy as possible and very little fossil fuel. What this means is that there then becomes a demand for green energy giving incentive to those struggling producers around the country plus those new technologies that have been in experimental mode for way too many years now. There will be a boom of energy production that will not tax our environment, resources or atmosphere.
There are several municipalities that have already become CCA. Marin County has approved theirs. But, SF has been met with serious political stonewalling by Room 200 and SF Public Utility Commissioners. It has been some 7+ years that plain, regular residents and small business owners have been fighting for this to be implemented.
So, don’t be fooled by this initiative that is being brought to you by PG$E. They are paying for it in full with no other contributions.
It’s PG&E’s way of fooling you into giving up your right to choose. Of course, they will say different.
Don’t support it! Don’t vote for it!
September 17th, 2009 at 2:40 pm
Great piece of reporting! I was pressured outside of a local mom-and-pop-eating behemoth of a store just two days ago over this very issue. The “gentleman” ended by pleading to help him get 70 signatures.
September 19th, 2009 at 11:55 pm
lieberman energy bill…
Now comes the serious money. Pacific Gas & Electric Co. on Friday contributed 1.5 million to it [...]…