Sempra adds $2 Mil - Total utility spending now $29.5 million

Looks like PG&E and Southern Cal Edison were feeling like they were carrying the entire financial burden in defeating Proposition 7. Until now, these two utility-giants had each contributed over $13 million to defeat Proposition 7, while Sempra kicked in just over $100,000.

With Election Day just three weeks away, and most of their war chest already spent on television ads, Sempra has thrown down an additional $2 million dollars to defeat Prop 7, bringing the Big Utilities’ total spent, so far, to $29.5 million. They must be really scared.

$2 million dollars is just enough for a state-wide ad buy. It will be interesting what the Big Utilities come out with next. They’ve been hiding behind environmental front groups and running non-stop smear commercials for months now, and yet they’ve refused to release the results of a single poll.

Stay tuned.

Campaign contributions pay off for Big Utilities

The blog has been a little quiet this week, but not because there hasn’t been plenty going on in the world of Proposition 7. Solar Cali Girl has been under the gun with deadlines at her real job.

So now that I have a minute:

Did you know between 2002 and 2008, electric utilities in California gave $13,291,877 to influence political parties and ballot measures? That, of course, doesn’t include the $27.5 million dropped by PG&E, Southern Cal Edison, and Sempra to defeat Proposition 7. Now we are talking $40,791,877.

Yeah, that's an eye-popping $40 million by the Big Utilities to influence California politics over the last seven years - 2/3rds just on defeating Prop 7 this year!

And were you aware that Pacific Gas & Electric is the 3rd largest industry-contributor to California elected officials and candidates? This isn’t money to the parties (which is included in the above amount) – this is money just to candidates and elected officials. The grand total that our legislative representatives have taken from PG&E? $973,078 this year alone. The distinguished list of utility beneficiaries that you elected to represent you can be found here.

And that's not counting the hundreds of thousands (millions, likely) doled out by PG&E to environmental groups, community groups, and various non-profits, by the Big Utilities to influence California politics and energy policy. This is most recently evidenced by the overwhelming misinformation campaign to defeat renewable energy requirements via Prop 7.

No wonder the Yes on 7 campaign just came out this internet ad:

"Enviros" chastised for fronting for utilities

In a strongly-worded letter sent to the Northern California Solar Energy Association, Dr. Donald Aitken, a former lead scientist with the Union of Concerned Scientists and original proponent of the Renewable Portfolio Standard, chastises his former environmentalist colleagues for their short-sighted attempt at subterfuge of Proposition 7.

The letter, sent via email, is four pages long and makes a really important underlying point. The ‘environmentalists’ who secured the opposition from so many other groups way back before Proposition 7 even had been assigned a number, did so based largely on objections that they had to retract once scrutinized. But it didn’t matter that they could no longer make the false claims that allowed them to secure the opposition in the first place – the lies were already out in the media marketplace, and the average voter doesn’t do that much research on initiatives anyway. This, at least, is the expectation of the Big Utilities, who are greenwashing their campaign against Prop. 7, just like they greenwashed their campaign for deregulation.

Also, Dr. Aitken addresses the other underlying challenge to the campaign for clean and renewable energy and energy independence. The utilities have spent years infusing cash into the coffers of community groups, environmentalists, and both major political parties. Perhaps most disturbing is the dominance of former and current utility executives on the board memberships of “California’s leading environmental groups,” – the tag line Ralph Cavanagh uses every time he is doing the dirty work of the Big Utilities. Ralph doesn’t mention that 5 out of 7 Board Members of California’s leading environmental group the League of Conservation Voters is either a current or past executive of one of the Big Utilities opposing Proposition, or is affiliated with one of the community groups whose economic well-being depends heavily on large utility donations. That might chip away at the credibility of their opposition though, now wouldn’t it?

The Big Utilities found out at the advent of California’s energy crisis that if they greenwashed their message, they could be practically invincible at the polling place. Fortunately, now that we really are at a tipping point, and global climate scientists are frantically educating people about the short time left to make serious changes, more scientists are fighting back against the Big Utilities’ halo-embraced façade against clean and renewable energy.

Dr. Aitken breaks down the myths currently being churned out by the utilities with idiot-proof explanations. He tackles the big lies: That there is a 30 MW size restriction on who can contribute to the RPS, that rates get locked in at 10% above market place (he calls it a FALSELY FLAT lie and effortlessly explains how), and that Prop 7 will be 'costly.'

Here is the text of the letter:

“Yes, it is I (Dr. Donald Aitken, co-founder and second President of NCSEA, as well as two-time chair of ASES) who is strongly in favor of Prop. 7.

The first thing I did after being reached by the Prop. 7 supporters was to spend about two weeks in lengthy email and telephone communications with my own former colleagues in the enviornmental organizations- Alen Nogee at UCS, Ralph Cavanagh at NRDC, and many others. I also flew to California and had a nnumber of face-to-face meetings. They are still my friends, so we could speak frankly. Their uniform opposition made it a sad decision for me, but the more I talked to them, the more thoroughly convinced I became that their objections either don’t hold water, or can be overcome by adminsitrative and procedural actions following the passage of Prop. 7. Further, I remain convinced that the more aggressive goals of Prop. 7 are absolutely necessary (I daresay a minimum) in beginning to turn the world to a meaningful response that transcends the little Kyoto-type international efforts.

“It is now a correct statement that we are nearing – and perhaps have already passed – “tipping points” of the greatest potential impact to humans and to the global ecology in general. And you, an anyone else who has seen me speak in public, know that I am also convinced that a 100% renewable energy transition for California and for the nation is a perfectly feasible goal, and hence one which must be pursued aggressively, while there may still be a chance economically and environmentally.

My conclusion is that we have to abandon the incremental legislative approach and reach for more aggressive goals, while still keeping them attainable. Proposition 7, and the initiative that it supports, spells out achievable goals, while taking an important leap forward.

I am aware that the environmental organizations are putting all their eggs in the basket of the pending legislation for a 33% goal by 2020 (the same legislation that was killed by the utilities last year). I am also aware that the utilities are against this year’s version too. It is unacceptable to me to even consider putting all of our eggs in a basket which may vanish yet again, leaving us with one more year lost in meeting the challenge of global warming and climate change, and the opportunity to jump-start a much more effective and sure response.

To their objections:

Initially the environmental organizations loudly proclaimed that Prop 7 would allow municipal trash burners to qualify for the RPS. They had to withdraw that objection after they were told to read Prop 7 more carefully, but only after they had gone public with that objection.

Then came loud objections that reducing the penalty on the utilities for non-compliance from 5 cents/kWh to 1 cent/kWh would completely remove the utility incentive to meet the goals. But after they were told to do the math, including the impact from the removal of the $25 million cap that is presently imposed on the utilities in association with the present 5 cent/kWh penalty, they discovered that Prop 7 actually provides for a much more expensive and onerous penalty schedule on the utilities, so they withdrew that objection, too, but again only after their initial objections had been tossed around in public.

My interpretation at that time was that the opponents were being pretty hasty and sloppy, indicative (to me) that there must be a much deeper underlying reason for their opposition, and the particulars of the initiative were at least in part some sort of cover. Now to the big ones that are domination what I find to be a dismaying misleading of the public in the TV ads (funded by the utilities, but fronting with representatives of the environmental and solar community.

What has Gary Gerber and others in the business of installing systems smaller than 30MW so upset is the allegation that Prop 7 would rule them all out from being able to participate in meeting the more aggressive goals of Prop 7. They have a legal opinion that alleges to support that. The supporters of Prop 7 have an equally reputable legal opinion that denies that. When the environmental organizations that challenged that very portion of Prop 7 in the Sacramento Superior court, the judge of that Superior court ruled that there was not sufficient evidence in Prop 7 to support that allegation! Yet, it goes on, and on, for it is a very effective tactic to scare the Hell out of Gary and others like him.

The definition of “eligible renewable” under the initiative wording is maintained as presently defined in California law, which includes renewables of all major types and all sizes. In a separate portion of the initiative, incentives are offered to stimulate the construction of large systems (greater than 30 MW) in desert area where they would be feasible (provided they meet all environmental requirements, including the Desert Protection Act.) Those incentives include possible “fast-track” approval, if the initial three month review does not show any major potential environmental issues. (If that initial environmental review reveals problems, the process reverts to the present 12 -18 months procedure, so there is no compromising the ultimate environmental integrity of the projects.) This will be a great benefit to the developers of renewable less than 30 MW from continuing to ply their important roof-top trade, and from addling their achievements to meeting the RPS goals.

The other objective appearing in the TV ads is how ‘expensive’ this would be, and what a major ‘hit’ this would make on ratepayers. As I recall, the person in the ad states that the utilities would be ‘required to buy ALL of their generation at 10% above market costs.’ THIS IS A FLATLY FALSE ACCUSATION! The initiative requires utilities to sign contracts with renewable energy providers in good faith if they fall within 10% above market cost for generation, but only until they have met their 2% added generation requirements with renewables that year, but not for any more generation than that.

Let us do the math. Suppose the utilities meet all goals, so that, by 2025, 50% of their electricity generation comes from renewable, and suppose that they indeed had to sign all of those new renewables (that is 30% more than the present 2010 California law requires) at a premium of 10%. (Ridiculous, in view of present costs of wind, for example.) Then, in this scenario, 30% of the utility 2025 generation would have cost 10% more, which would be a 3.3% hit on the generation portion of a ratepayers bill. But generation is only about half of their bill, so in reality, this would be half of a 3.3% hit, or a 1.75% increase in their bill. This makes it too expensive to fund California’s renewable energy future?? Either the environmental organizations have again not done their mathematical homework, or they are willing to stand by false TV claims to scare people into voting against Prop 7. My goodness, the rate increases that are going to result from the residual fossil-fuel portions of utility generation portfolios will have long swamped that paltry figure, so that I doubt it will even be noticed.

The initiative language, by the way, allows for up to a 3% hit on 2025 utility bills, or almost twice as great a figure as I derived above, to provide a cushion for the absorption of other costs, such as procedural and staffing changes as some of the present CPUC responsibilities are handed off to the CEC, to put California’s renewable electricity future at more of an arms-length from the utilities.

I am aware that the solar industry also objects to the initiative’s requirements that “prevailing wages” be paid to those who work on and install solar systems. Again, this applies to the large (greater than 30 MW) systems, and reflects the convictions of the drafters of the initiative that meeting the responsibility to provide a living support through prevailing wages for those who work on the large systems is a moral obligation. This does not apply to the installations of their smaller systems.

The opponents feel that the utilities have too many “outs” and would not actually have to meet the initiative’s goals. Certainly the transmission must be provided, and the utilities are not held responsible under Prop.7 for the lack of adequate transmission (an obviously reasonable condition to include) or for its acceleration under CEC jurisdiction. The initiative is also in full support of present CEC studies and work on this area, while boosting transmission opportunities for renewable energies is a major part of the initiative. And if the utilities just kept on signing bogus contracts that were defaulted by solar energy providers, how long do you think the CEC would allow this process to continue in such a ‘transparent’ climate?

And how long would the CEC and the CPUC be willing to allow the utilities to hold up the potential benefits in having California lead the nation – and the world – in the application of renewable to the electricity sector? Billions of dollars of new industry, and at least 375,000 new jobs in the field!

There are other objections and concerns that the environmental organizations have, but on balance, if we dismiss the two or three big ones that I have discussed above, the remaining opposition is on very shaky grounds - that it is a “poorly worded” initiative, for example. This is the argument used by the opposition against many prop initiatives that were clearly in the public interest, such as the restriction of smoking in public places. It dismays me to see the environmentalists resorting to such tactics, and presenting arguments not based on fact, or that distort fact. And it should certainly dismay them to be in bed with the utilities, who are absolutely gleeful that they have a cover for their perennial opposition to more aggressive applications of renewable.

So, yes, I do support Prop 7 now, and would dearly hope that all of the opposing people and organizations would step back, look hard again at the working an intent of the initiative, and ask themselves what it will take – today- to ramp up the goals for the renewable energy transition to the meaningful levels that the world now requires, and to provide an assurance that those goal will remain in California policy through 2025. Should we do any less for our children, and their children?

With respect, Donald W. Aitken, Ph.D - Sept. 15, 2008

"The Green Seal" or "The Scam You Never Knew Existed"

In 2001, Alexander Cockburn, in true muckraking style, exposed the “green seal” being used by Enron to pass deregulation. The “green seal,” of course, was Ralph Cavanagh and the NRDC. A snippet from the article (the full text of which you can get here):

“The fall of Enron sounds the death knell for one of the great rackets of the past decade: green seals of approval, whereby some outfit like the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) or Environmental Defense (ED) would issue testimonials to the enviro-conscience and selfless devotion to the public weal of corporations like Enron.These green seals of approval were part of the neoliberal pitch: that fuddy-duddy regulation should yield to modern, "market-oriented solutions" to environmental problems, which essentially means bribing corporations in the hope they'll stop their polluting malpractices. Indeed, NRDC and ED were always the prime salesfolk of neoliberal remedies for environmental problems. In fact, NRDC was socked into the Enron lobby machine so deep you couldn't see the soles of its feet.”

Why, what do you mean?

In 1997, high-flying Enron found itself in a pitched battle in Oregon, where it planned to acquire Portland General Electric (PGE), Oregon's largest public utility. Warning that Enron's motives were of a highly predatory nature, the staff of the state's Public Utility Commission (PUC) opposed the merger. They warned that an Enron takeover would mean less ability to protect the environment, increased insecurity for PGE's workers and, in all likelihood, soaring prices. Other critics argued that Enron's actual plan was to cannibalize PGE, in particular its hydropower, which Enron would sell into California's energy market.


But at the very moment when such protests threatened to rob Enron of its prize, into town rode NRDC's top energy commissar, Ralph Cavanagh, Heinz environmental genius award pinned to his armor and flaunting ties to the Energy Foundation, a San Francisco-based outfit providing financial wattage for many citizen and environmental groups that work on utility and enviro issues.Cavanagh lost no time whipping the refractory Oregon greens into line. In concert with Enron, the NRDC man put together a memo of understanding, pledging that the company would lend financial support to some of these groups' pet projects.

Cavanagh also got the PUC to have a change of heart:

Addressing the three PUC commissioners, Cavanagh averred that this was "the first time I've ever spoken in support of a utility merger." If so, it was the quickest transition from virginity to seasoned service in the history of intellectual prostitution. Cavanagh flaunted the delights of an Enron embrace: "What we've put before you with this company is, we believe, a robust assortment of public benefits for the citizens of Oregon which would not emerge, Mr. Chairman, without the merger."With a warble in his throat, Cavanagh moved into rhetorical high gear: "The Oregonian asks the question, 'Can you trust Enron?' On stewardship issues and public benefit issues I've dealt with this company for a decade, often in the most contentious circumstances, and the answer is, yes."Cavanagh won the day for the Houston-based energy giant.

Oh dear, what happened then?

“…it wasn't long before the darkest suspicions of Enron's plans were vindicated. The company raised rates, tried to soak the ratepayers with the cost of its failed Trojan nuclear reactor, and moved to put some of PGE's most valuable assets on the block. Enron's motive had indeed been to get access to the hydropower of the Northwest, the cheapest in the country, and sell it into the California market, the priciest, and — in part because of Cavanagh's campaigning for deregulation — a ripe energy prize awaiting exploitation.”

Apparently blinded by his own sense of invincibility, Cavanagh actually wrote a letter to Cockburn accusing him of misrepresenting what happened in Oregon. Says our darling Ralph:

San Francisco

I'm still scratching my head after reading Alexander Cockburn's attack on my support for Enron's merger with the Portland General Electric Company (PGE) almost five years ago ["Beat the Devil," Jan. 7/14]. His baffling conclusion that "the role of that green seal of approval [in Enron's collapse] should not be forgotten" is a non sequitur of the highest order.
Natural Resources Defense Council was part of a coalition of environmental and consumer groups that negotiated an agreement with the merging companies on future investment in energy efficiency, renewable energy, watershed restoration and low-income energy services. Cockburn is indignant that I said I trusted Enron to execute the agreement. But Cockburn, who never called me before publishing his diatribe, evidently didn't check to find out what actually happened. Enron and PGE did indeed meet their merger obligations, and environmental and consumer interests were among the winners. Enron left in place a hometown management group with a commitment to improved performance on both environmental and equity issues. Its subsequent decision to leave the utility business, long before its collapse, had no adverse environmental consequences at PGE or elsewhere.
There is no connection between Enron's current calamity and the merger that NRDC and many others supported conditionally nearly five years ago. Only Cockburn's overactive imagination could suggest otherwise.

RALPH CAVANAGH Natural Resources Defense Council

Happily, Cockburn replies:

Petrolia, Calif.


Just to inject one tiny sliver of reality into Ralph Cavanagh's bland tissue of self-exculpation, which will be read with hilarity in Oregon. Portland General Electric sought and received $340 million in rate hikes on PGE customers for federal income taxes over the past three years. It shipped the money to Enron HQ in Houston. Over that period, Enron paid only $17 million in taxes in 1998, nothing in 1999 or in 2000. In fact, the company got a big tax rebate.

ALEXANDER COCKBURN


Now, Cavanagh is serving as the face and name for the Big Utility-funded campaign against Prop 7, which would require utilities to procure 50% of their electricity from renewable resources by 2025, increase penalties for non-compliance, make those penalties mandatory, and prohibit utilities from passing those fines onto the ratepayers. Just like Enron did in the 90’s, PG&E, Sempra and Edison are now using NRDC to get the green seal on opposing the Solar and Clean Energy Act so that they can keep ripping off consumers. Way to go, Ralph.

PG&E, Edison & Sempra Enabler Exposed

The only funding for the No on Prop 7 campaign is the jaw-dropping $27 million from PG&E, So Cal Edison, and Sempra. So I was of course interested in the revelation that Southern California Edison was fined $146 million for violations associated with rigged customer satisfaction surveys and falsified safety data. The Pasadena Star News reports that:

“Edison employees and management manipulated and submitted false customer satisfaction data that was used to determine Performance Based Ratemaking customer satisfaction rewards during the period from 1997 to 2003.

Edison was ordered to refund to its ratepayers all $28 million in rewards it has received and to forgo an additional $20 million in rewards the utility has requested. Thursday's decision also finds that Edison submitted false and misleading health and safety data - a move that likewise resulted in an order for the utility to refund to ratepayers all $20 million in PBR health and safety rewards it has received and to forgo another $15 million in rewards it has requested.

The commission additionally ordered Edison to refund to consumers $32,714,000, the portion of its 2003-2005 revenue requirement related to the utility's results-sharing program that was affected by fraudulent data.

Lastly, Edison was ordered to pay a fine of $30 million to the state's general fund for violations of the Public Utilities Code.”This is only the most recent time that California’s Big Utilities have been busted for ripping off consumers."

TURN, a utility watchdog, has provided a neatly detailed list of shenanigans by Big Utilities and their enablers. As I was perusing the press releases, however, I noted a recurring theme – that the California Public Utilities Commission often acts as a Big Utilities enabler.

Why is that relevant? The CPUC also made news this week when it came out with a less-than-positive review of Prop. 7. The CPUC is dominated by Schwarzenegger appointees who support deregulation of CA’s electricity market. According to TURN, the Big Utilities foremost enabler of ripping off Californians is the CPUC itself. Here are some highlights of the Big Utilities ripping off Californians, with and without the help of CPUC:

December 20, 2007: California Public Utilities Commission gives “Christmas gift” to Big Utilities: The California Public Utilities Commission today bucked a national trend toward lower profits for regulated utilities, guaranteeing inflated profits for PG&E, Edison and SDG&E. Instead of grabbing the opportunity to lower electric bills throughout California, under today's decision PG&E and Edison will continue to receive profits far above other utilities, and SDG&E will begin collecting inflated profits as well. Says TURN Executive Director Bob Finklestein: "There is no justification for awarding windfall profits that come out of the pockets of hard-working Californians. The CPUC is out of touch with the national trend toward lower guaranteed profits, and is also out of touch with the struggles many Californians already face to afford essentials like heat, light and hot water." Read the rest here.

April 18, 2007: PG&E ordered to return $23 million in illegal back bills to customers: A judge found that over 3,400 customers had their power shut-off for nonpayment of illegal back-bills. PG&E should pay reconnection fees and credits to customers shut off between 75 and 150 days of receiving illegal back-bills. Over 225,000 customers received illegal back bills during the time in question. All customers illegally back billed by PG&E suffered harm, and shareholders should pay illegally billed customers refunds of $23 million. Read the rest here.

March 15, 2007: $170 million from CPUC to PG&E shareholders: The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) today granted Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) a rate increase of $213 million per year, despite strenuous objections from consumer groups that believe PG&E rates are already much too high. "The CPUC could have reduced rates simply by saying PG&E shareholders don't need another $43 million per year on top of rates that are already among the highest in the nation," said Bob Finkelstein, TURN's executive director. "Instead they opted to let the utility siphon tens of millions more each year out of consumers' pockets, knowing these amounts flow directly to shareholders." Read the rest here.

October 31, 2005: Deregulated companies’ tricks cost Californians billions: Sempra Energy goes on trial for manipulating CA electricity prices to cause the energy crisis: Sempra, the parent company of Southern California Gas and SDG&E, is defending itself against anti-trust charges that could cost the company as much as $23 billion.Sempra is accused by California and a coalition of local governments of conspiring to manipulate the gas market in order to drive up prices. Read more here.

December 18, 2000: Backroom Utility Deal Between CPUC and PG&E: Published reports have revealed that state officials are negotiating rate increases with the utilities absent any notice to the public or opportunity for public comment. "This is a gross violation of basic concepts of due process and fair play. If not halted, these discussions could lead to a California Public Utilities Commission decision permitting rate increases as early as this Thursday," said Nettie Hoge, executive director of TURN, The Utility Reform Network. Hoge called on the governor and CPUC president Loretta Lynch to immediately halt private discussions with the utilities and comply with laws requiring public notice and comment. "Utility rates in this state are supposed to be determined via a public process, not through backroom deals between politicians and the utilities," Hoge stated. Read more here.

Apparently, CPUC has a documented history of giving the Big Utilities substantial leeway to force California consumers to fork over more of what’s in their wallet to PG&E, Sempra, and Edison. And while all this is going on, the Big Utilities honestly think (or desperately hope?) that if they greenwash their campaign against Proposition 7 by throwing the names and faces of environmentalists (that they fund) at voters, then CA will overlook the rate hikes, rip-offs, and the environmental degradation that the Big Utilities are most appropriately known for. But this really just harkens back to the point I made in my last post. When you have politically/financially interested parties vs. disinterested Nobel Laureate-winning physicists and scientists, who do you go with? Call me crazy, but I’m still going with the scientists.

PG&E vows to yank funding to enviros who support clean energy measures

I’ve spent a great deal of time on this blog trying to illuminate the connection between Big Utilities and the actors opposing Proposition 7, including the state’s democratic and republican parties and a few big environmental groups. While I think the evidence I’ve unearthed so far is overwhelmingly suggestive of a tit-for-tat relationship, in which the enviros speak for the needs of the Big Utilities as if it were their own in exchange for financial sustenance, I re-read an old Beyond Chron article today and nearly fell off my seat when I read this:

“PG&E and its fellow electric utilities systematically subvert all legislation that would increase clean energy generation. Then they throw their hands in the air and say there is no clean energy to be had in the market, so they can’t meet their goals. Their executives even go so far as to threaten donations to the community should these initiatives pass. In June before the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, PG&E’s manager of government relations, Brandon Hernandez threatened financial blowback for the community should the Clean Energy Act pass, “We no longer will be contributing to San Francisco’s non-profits and service organizations.”

If PG&E is threatening to yank funding to community (including environmental) groups over a city-wide initiative to mandate a higher threshold for electricity that comes from clean energy sources, I can only imagine the conversations PG&E, Edison, and Sempra had with the enviros and democratic party that got them to oppose Proposition 7 before it was even assigned a number. I think the $27.5 million they poured into the opposition coffers gives us an idea.

CA League of Conservation Voters Sponsored by PG&E - Over and Over

I couldn’t help but notice that the Utility-Shill enviros are hyper-sensitive for getting called out as utility shills. That’s probably because they’ve had an extremely lucrative racket for decades: adopt a go-along, get-along attitude with the utilities, and the utilities reward them with thousands of dollars to do things like study polar bears. (Don’t misread that last statement, I love polar bears as much as the next guy, but maybe the ice caps melting all around the polar bears warrants attention too). I’m quite confident the conversation between John White, the ED of CEERT, and Ralph Cavanagh, the NRDC “energy czar” who made rolling blackouts in California possible, was less about the merits of Prop. 7 when they learned of it, and more about how in one fell swoop the utility-enviro racket they’d spent decades developing would be put out of business.

When I started this blog, it was because the opposition to Prop 7 genuinely baffled me. I posed this question in my first post and I’ll present it again now: Why on earth would the environmentalists oppose an initiative that strengthens and extends the renewable standards already in place in CA? Why would the Democratic Party oppose an initiative that not only meets but exceeds its platform position on the environment?

When I started poking around on the internet and seeing all the money, connections and long history flowing between the utilities and the environmentalists opposed to Prop 7, I was alarmed and wanted to know if I was right. But all my suspicions were confirmed by the knee-jerk reactions from Cavanagh and White when they got called utility shills.

For example, there was a comment to an article written by CEERT’s John V. White in the LA Times in which he emphasizes that people should put solar panels on their roofs in order to curb global warming. I gently stated that it was no surprise CEERT would tell consumers, and not the Big Utilities, to change their ways, since the majority of CEERT’s board of directors is comprised of current and past executives from all the major utilities (Enron, PG&E, SDG&E, the list goes on and on and on). I don’t think 12 hours went past before John White was up with a defensive “I am not a utility shill!” response.

Well, Mr. White, Mr. Cavanagh, oh and Brian Leubitz (the calitics blog operator who works for No on 7 and thus takes Big Utility money himself) would be more convincing if the overwhelming evidence wasn’t piling up against them. Let’s take, for example, the California League of Conservation Voters (CLVC). Not only are the Big Utilities applauded as “champion” sponsors of CLVC events on the CLVC website, their Board of Directors reads like a who’s who from PG&E and SDG&E, including a man who started his legal career at PG&E and ultimately won a U.S. Supreme Court case for PG&E’s “Corporate First Amendment rights!”

CLCV and Money from the Utilities – be sure the click to hyperlink to see CLVC’s website lauding PG&E and Sempra!

CLVC’s 13th Annual Environmental Leadership Awards – Sponsored by Pacific Gas and Electric and The Gas Company

CLVC’s 14th Annual Environmental Leadership Gala – Sponsored by PG&E and Sempra

CLVC’s 24th Annual Environmental Leadership Award – Champion Sponsor PG&E

CLVC’s 26th Annual Environmental Leadership Award – Champion Sponsor PG&E

And then there are the direct contributions:

$12,500 - 2007 PG&E grant
$5,000 - 2006 PG&E grant
$5,000 - 2005 PG&E grant
Total = $22,500 over three years from PG&E.

CLVC’s Board of Directors is loaded with Big Utility insiders:

Robert L. Harris is a former PG&E lawyer and the former Vice President of Environmental Affairs at PG&E. Harris began his career with PG&E, and in 1985 he argued on behalf of PG&E to the United States Supreme Court to allow PG&E to send political editorials to its customers (in the envelope that contained the monthly billing statement) on messages PG&E wanted to propagate – USING ratepayer’s money to do it. In other words, the current secretary of the CLCV won the case that allowed PG&E to use its customers’ money to send political messages to those customers, citing Corporate Free Speech rights.

Cliff Gladstein, the CLCV Board President, “used his knowledge and experience in developing and implementing technology deployment programs for… Southern California Gas Company, Southern California Edison, Pacific Gas & Electric.

Anne Shen Smith, a board member, is “senior vice president of customer services for San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) and Southern California Gas Co. (SoCalGas), Sempra Energy’s California regulated utilities. Smith oversees all customer-related activities for SDG&E and SoCalGas, including call centers, in-home appliance services, revenue cycle services, energy efficiency and demand-reduction programs and special customer assistance programs. Smith also oversees the Gas Acquisition department at SoCalGas, which is responsible for procurement of natural gas for all the residential and small business customers. Previously, Smith served as vice president of support services and vice president of environment and safety for SoCalGas. Smith started her career with SoCalGas in 1977.”

***
Now, instead of wondering whether or not there is a connection between the Big Utilities and the environmentalists opposing Prop 7, I demand answers from the CLVC, the NRDC, and CEERT. Explain to me, on behalf of the hundred of thousands of small contributions you’ve taken from your members, how you can say with a straight face that you are fighting the Big Utilities that fund you and make up your board memberships? Doesn’t common sense dictate that you don’t bite the hand that feeds you? Why should we believe your sincerity in opposing Prop 7 when you are so clearer tied to the Big Utilities that Prop. 7 would regulate?

Your members, and the CA voters you are deceiving on behalf of the Big Utilities, deserve better.