PG&E pays for Newsom's party in Denver


by Amanda Witherell


Picture 9.png

Just in case you had any questions about our Mayor's relationship with private utility monopolies. And they co-opted Jenny Lewis!


Perhaps he should have honored Generation Obama by supporting him in the first place.

Posted by Oola on Aug. 21, 2008 @ 12:56 pm

So long as the BG, which has been researching public power for 40 years, calls this a public power measure, then so shall I. If you can't quiet 'em, that's your problem.

This is just like when SF voted to "save" the cable car system - only to end up voting to dismantle most of it and make it the tourist ride it is today. If people want to promote public power, great, then let's call it that.

It is inherently deceptive to be calling it a clean energy measure when it's written in such a way, and talked about by proponents, as a way to get public power. Period.

Posted by greg on Aug. 22, 2008 @ 2:01 pm

amanda, you make a good point: just because you get money from PG&E doesn't mean you're corrupt. so, why not extend the same courtesy to ms. lewis?
as for the ads, i'm not suggesting you guys would be influenced by a few dollars. the point is, if y'all really believe PG&E is a lying, greedy, corporate bully that is more interested in profits than communities, why give them a platform to extend their brand?

Posted by mike-o on Aug. 22, 2008 @ 8:35 am

Actually Chris P, I was talking about greg's vague insinuation that the breakdown of the potential costs (in reality essentially zero or even a net benefit) of the SF Clean Energy Act (not public power) is back-of-envelope stuff; but since you raised the issue, I recall an independent study done by R.W. Beck which showed a gain to City coffers of $200 million under community ownership and management of the electricity grid, so I would say that the Bay Guardian's estimate of $18 million is pretty conservative and trustworthy by comparison.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Aug. 22, 2008 @ 2:40 pm

you guys take money from PG&E too in the form of advertising. what's the difference?

Posted by mike-o on Aug. 21, 2008 @ 3:45 pm

Prop H Explicitly Bars Nuclear From Clean Energy Category -

greg, greg... You've at last outed yourself as blurting specious attacks against a measure you haven't even read.

Prop H requires 100% clean, renewable electricity, and specifically, in writing, excludes nuclear power from consideration as clean energy.

And if you -would- actually read the measure you are naively throwing twigs at, you would also know that, regardless of what individual reporters for the Bay Guardian may aspire toward, Prop H mandates only clean electricity, and does not in any section whatsoever mandate municipalization.

As to your back-of-napkin economics claim. What on Earth are you talking about? State your actual claim concretely and back it up with facts.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Aug. 22, 2008 @ 9:28 am

Here are some "Back-of-Napkin" economics:

Posted by Chris P on Aug. 22, 2008 @ 8:56 am

So if the event were sponsored by pot clubs and non profits that take city money, THAT would be OK, but these guys aren't?

And what's wrong with Last I checked they seemed like good folks. I guess we should condemn them too, right?

Posted by greg on Aug. 21, 2008 @ 12:21 pm


it is you as a so called journalist that are mistaken. This is not a public power intiative - at least that is what its proponents today call it.

Unfortunately for you, your editor and publisher call it a public power intiative. It is using a poison pill piece of legal trickery to get it.

Until you realize that in fact the left is as deceptive as the right, you can't honestly say you're the light of truth.

As for me, I'll keep asking questions. Sure I may count many people as clients, but the fact is, as a blogger who has been skeptical of City policy as the one who writes the N Judah Chronicles (voted best local blog by your readers)I'll happily call out what is clearly a public power initiative and say "hey waitaminit" and ask why it is we're not being told what it is.

This is like when voters in SF were asked to vote to "save" the cable cars - and when they "voted" they actually voted to butcher it into the tourist ride it is today (and in the process KILL the profitable Washington/Jackson line among others).

Your bosses have already said this is about public power and not clean energy. That is fine. I just wish the ballot measure said that, so we could decide it on the merits and not on some cocktail napkin based economics that don't guarantee we won't have hydro and nuclear to power a public power they did in Washington State.

Posted by greg on Aug. 21, 2008 @ 5:48 pm


In the interest of full disclosure, I take money from PG&E. Every three months they send me a dividend check for $5.46, profit on the 14 shares of stock I've owned since infancy. Is there any question about how that money is influencing my decision-making as a journalist? Nope. Is there any question that the ads we sold to PG&E had any effect on our coverage? Nope.

Is there a question about how the money PG&E throws at Newsom is influencing our "green" mayor's governance? Well, he opposes the Clean Energy Act, which would move the city more rapidly toward 100 percent renewable energy. Why would our "green" mayor side with PG&E and the Republican Party and do that? Money and power.

Posted by Amanda on Aug. 21, 2008 @ 2:29 pm