Buying power - Page 5

How PG&E and Mercury Insurance are spending millions to try to trick Californians into voting for corporate interests


It's interesting, given this advice, that a Twitter feed posted recently by Californians to Protect Our Right to Vote, a PG&E-bankrolled front group set up to promote the Yes on 16 campaign, highlights two different op-eds in the Fresno Bee and Sacramento Bee published within two days of one another. Both editorials were written in support of Prop.16 — one from a former sheriff of Sacramento, and the other from a former city council member of Fresno. Both editorials mention budget cuts to police and fire departments in the second paragraph. Both express surprise at the publications' editorials against Prop. 16 in the fourth paragraph. Both cite the same statistic in the second-to-last paragraph. And both conclude with the words: "Taxpayers Right to Vote Act." Is it a strange coincidence?

The playbook contains specific instructions for media-relations techniques, too. "Identify several community and business leaders who are willing to serve as spokespersons for your company," the playbook recommends. "Try to keep the community leadership out in front of the reporters. Your community supporters can be much more effective with the media than perhaps your company's own spokesperson."

In other words: Try not to let anyone know that this is nothing more than a special-interest campaign.

Solem & Associates also suggests planting people at key local government meetings (in case of public comment, "provide them with talking points," Solem & Associates recommends).



How these tactics get played out in real life can be seen this year in the fight between the PG&E and Mercury front groups, and the eclectic coalition of grassroots organizations and public officials who are opposing them.

Jeff Shields, general director of South San Joaquin Irrigation District, a body governed by five elected board members, described how PG&E operates in testimony to a legislative hearing in Sacramento last month.

"PG&E attends every board meeting of SSJID, often taking video and tape recordings of our meetings, and they fund political consulting firms to campaign against our efforts and pepper us with Public Records Act requests," he said. "Never once has a voter in our service area had the opportunity to cast a vote to allow PG&E to provide service and never have our citizens been afforded an option to vote for a PG&E Board member or attend — let alone record — a PG&E meeting."

Yet all of the rhetoric by PG&E's Californians to Protect the Right to Vote perversely casts the measure as about voting rights, even though this undemocratic measure protects an unelected power provider and is promoted with money that ratepayers didn't approve for the purpose. "I am a California veteran," Shields said. "I defended this country in uniform and I am appalled that PG&E has stated in no uncertain terms that its shareholders are paying to amend our constitution. If that is true, then it is important to examine who those shareholders are."

He pointed out that Barclays Global Investors U.K. Holdings, Ltd., a U.K. bank, owns roughly 4 percent of PG&E shares, while JP Morgan Chase & Co. owns around 2.5 percent. "If these foreign banks and Wall Street institutional investors are truly at will to manipulate the California Constitution and this legislature has no ability to prevent that, God help us all, for the greed that motivates PG&E's Proposition 16 is only the first thread to be pulled from the fabric that binds our society."


This is America, is it not? Are you confusing here with communist Russia?

Is your name the San Francisco Communist Guardian?

Posted by helllllooooooooooooo on Mar. 16, 2010 @ 8:41 pm

I'll ask the same question I asked in the Prop 16 story that nobody could answer.

Why does the SFBG single out P,G and E? Why the apparent multi-decade obsession with them?

Most SF'ers couldn't tell you a significant practical difference between their water supply (City run) and their gas supply (PG&E run).

They neither know nor rare whether it is private or public. Which is why they have always rejected voter initiatives designed to change either.

If it works, leave it alone. And if SF can't run Muni and can't manage its current huge fiscal deficit, why does anyone in their right mind want their light and heat dependent on Chris Daly?

Posted by Tom Foolery on Mar. 17, 2010 @ 7:46 am

Hi Tom,

Assuming you would like to have a substantive discussion I will offer this. As a journalist who has covered energy and environment issues for years, it is plain to me that the time to invest in electricity generating sources that reduce our collective, overall carbon dioxide emissions is now. While PG&E has been signing renewable energy contracts, its total renewable-energy content pales in comparison with the high standards for green power sources that have been set by Marin Clean Energy and Clean Power SF, the CCA programs getting underway in Marin County and SF, respectively. I have met a number of San Franciscans who do care deeply about this issue because they perceive it as a critical tool for launching a meaningful response to the challenges posed by climate change. If a municipal electricity program that offers a much greater percentage of renewable power can be successful in San Francisco, it can inspire and embolden others, help small business by encouraging the growth of small-scale green energy providers, and move us toward a more sustainable model. That's why I believe this issue is of interest to our readers.


Rebecca Bowe
SFBG reporter

Posted by rebecca on Mar. 17, 2010 @ 3:27 pm


It may well be that P,G & E is less "Green" than many would like.

But the SFBG's vendetta against P,G & E goes back decades and certainly long before green and climate change issues had the topicality and widespread interest that they currently enjoy.

Moreover, governments can mandate renewal energy requirements and other issues without necessarily owning power plants or power distribution networks. All of the private sector is regulated in various ways.

I can't help feeling that this issue goes a lot deeper than just concern for the environment. After all, if we really cared about the environment, we probably would want to remove the dam at Hetch Hetchy whose valley was regarded as equal, in its day, to Yosemite Valley itself.

Are you sure this isn't really just some good old-fashioned ideology about the government owning and running major services and industries? Painting it as a "green" issue makes sense as a marketing strategy but I think the issue is more fundamental than that. And it surprises me because, unlike a lot of other SFBG positions, it doesn't seem to be one that registers with the voters so much.

Posted by Tom Foolery on Mar. 17, 2010 @ 4:49 pm

I aggree that the time to invest in electricity generating sources that reduce our collective, overall carbon dioxide emissions is now, but few people, including or beloved SFBG reporters, understand renewables and the electric grid.

First, it does not automatically follow that if you want to reduce CO2 emissions you need to all the cities energy renewable. There are far more cost-effective ways to reduce CO2 emissions. Second, passing a "we only want renewables" does very little to reduce CO2 because it pushes off the problem to our neighbors.

You see, except for hydro, renewables are resources that depend on the wind and sun and are not very stable or fully predictable. The demand on the electric grid needs to be balanced instantly or the whole system crashes. Since electricity is extremely expensive to store, there are many generators out there that are built just to meet peak demand. We really only need them a dozen or so hours every few years. Renewables like wind do very little to stop new construction of peaking generators.

The electric grid cannot currently operate on renewables alone. If we say SF only will use renewable that means our neighboring ciites need to have traditional peaking units in place to support the electric system. In order to get more renewables on board, we need to either develop the technology to store electricity, or install technology to better balance the system - i.e., a smart grid. Of course, I fully expect the next article will be on how the smart grid and smart meters are bad for us because a few people incorrectly connected meters with high bills and screamed loudly. It is easy to contradict yourself if you don't know the topic.

Posted by Josh on Mar. 17, 2010 @ 5:07 pm

Yes, Tom, our problems with PG&E do run deeper than just the renewable power issue, but it's not about ideology. This company has used ratepayer money to defy the Raker Act, corrupt the political process, promote disastrous schemes like energy deregulation, maintain high rates, and use a dirty power portfolio (in defiance of state requirements that utilities get at least 30 percent of their power from renewables, a mandate PG&E hasn't met) for generations. And we're the only media outlet that has consistently raised these issues. You may be tired of hearing about it, and we certainly wish that we didn't have to keep writing about it, but it's a serious problem. Frankly, I don't know why there isn't more popular outrage at a supposedly regulated utility that has an extra $35 million of your money to spend pushing something as fundamentally undemocratic as a two-thirds vote requirement. That this is just accepted by you and others bespeaks a real breakdown in people's willingness to resist being controlled by powerful corporations.
Steven T. Jones
Bay Guardian City Editor

Posted by steven on Mar. 18, 2010 @ 9:19 am

The PG&E sponsored Ballot initiative contains false and misleading statements.
This proposition is a fraud upon the people of this State. It violates existing law. It is a monopoly using its captive customers money to wipe out competition and enshrine itself into the California Constitution. PG&E is poised to check mate our governments regulatory authority. The Proposition thwarts renewable energy and the opportunities of AB 32. It perpetuates an industry practice of pollution that disparately affects low income communities of color. The same Communities whose youth fight wars and die for fossil fuels, while the children and elders at home die from the pollution of fossil fuel burning. These are the Communities most harmed by this action. They had the most to gain from the promise of clean, locally harvested, electricity A promise potentially broken by this manipulation of the fossil fuel industry.
Rob Simpson

Posted by Rob SImpson on Mar. 18, 2010 @ 11:25 am

Have people forgotten that other shining example of private utilities, Enron? When corprations run our government, you lose a democracy.

Posted by sf24hr on Mar. 18, 2010 @ 8:11 pm

Prop 16's claim that it would assure "the right to vote" is entirely bogus. CPUC Chairman Michael Peavy pointed this out at yesterday's Prop 16 hearing is San Francisco. He said he's never believed in a 2/3 vote, because it means 1/3 plus one can block what the large majority wants. Peavy asked, doesn't community choice, at the opt-out procedure, give all ratepayers a choice? Yes it does. But Prop 16 actually limits and narrows choice. Under a CCA, all ratepayers can either opt for PG&E's dirty mix of fossil and nuclear, or opt for greener alternatives. Under a ballot vote, only 30-60 percent of eligible voters normally show up, and if only 1/3 of that smaller segment gets to veto CCAs under a Prop 16 system, "the right to vote" is not what it seems. In addition, PG&E can use its vast sums of raterpayers' money to swing elections against municipal governments who have neither the budget nor the legal right to fight back. PG&E spent $12 million to turn polling around and defeat a public power proposal for Yolo County. It is prepared to spend $35 million in ratepayers' dollar to foist Prop 16 on the State's Constitution to protect its market share. Ratepayers are funding a monopolistic corporate takeover of the Constitution and of the rights of cities and counties to determine their own energy future. Prop 16's "right to vote" is malarkey.

Posted by Guest Ed Mainland on Mar. 19, 2010 @ 1:30 pm

The negativity toward PG&E that is obvious in the Guardian and many other forums around NorCal is NOT simply a blanket rejection of Investor-Owned Utilities (though a strong economic case can be made that an inherent monopoly like electric supply should be owned and run by a public agency.)

No, PG&E has a unique history of incompetence and corruption dating to the earliest days of electricity in the west. The history of the electricity industry has been the subject of a number of very good studies and books, and in all of them, PG&E stands out as one of the major bad actors - - - virtually a poster child for the ways the private utilities abused the public trust to build their empires.

There are two other Investor-Owned electric companies in the state - SoCal Edison and San Diego Electric and Gas - and part of their business strategy in recent years has been to distance themselves from the positions taken by PG&E:

Item: While PG&E spends millions of their rate-payers' money in a to-the-death fight against Community Choice, the other two are obeying state law and cooperating with CCA efforts in their territories.

Item: PG&E is the only supporter of Prop 16, which would protect the monopolies of all IOUs. The embarrassed silence on Prop 16 from Edison and SDE&G is deafening.

Item: The other two IOUs are serious about carbon reduction and meeting the state mandates on renewable generation. They have both spent big money on innovative renewable projects. PG&E, however, spends mainly on greenwashing PR while their actual capital investments are in new fossil fuel plants and the lunatic idea of importing liquified natural gas from Asia via a pipeline from Oregon.

NO, the jihad against PG&E in these pages isn't a matter of abstract ideology. It's anger and frustration at seeing our planet go down the toilet while we're saddled with an electric company that just doesn't get it.

Posted by Guest: Bob Spofford on Mar. 20, 2010 @ 3:39 pm

It seems as though the author of this playbook took a page from her own writings about getting a "third party with credibility to act as there agents" The author Ann Sobel, got 10 other ex Mayors to sign a letter of opposition to our Marin Clean Energy project, sent it to all the local papers and PG&E is quoting her in their marketing materials. Pretty sick stuff.

Rebecca, would one be able to get a copy of this playbook to share with the Mill Valley Scope newspaper so people can see the letter from ex-Mayors is not an independant source as they assumed?

Posted by Guest on Mar. 28, 2010 @ 7:57 am