PG&E Truck

Pacific Gas & Electric’s Answers

By Roy L Hales

Screen-shot-2014-03-18-at-3.43.47-PM1Some call California’s Assembly Bill 2145 “the Monopoly Protection Act,” or a “CCA killer.” They believe that it was designed to protect large utilities like Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) from communities that would prefer to form their own utilities (CCA). The origins of this story goes back a few years, but was resurrected through this bill. I recently had the opportunity to ask one of the utility’s spokespersons some  questions. Towards the bottom of the page, you will find Pacific Gas & Electric’s answers.

Screen Shot from IBEW's website
From IBEW’s website, “AB 2145 would protect electric customer choice,” since replaced  (Click on image to enlarge)

Community Choice Aggregations (CCAs) were authorized by the state in 2002.

California’s Public Utilities Commission would subsequently report that “electrical companies hindered” their formation and caused  “community choice aggregation programs to be abandoned.”

Marin Clean Energy did not launch until 2010. As it happened to be an election year, Pacific Gas & Electric sponsored a ballot measure that would have made it difficult for any new community choice utilities to form. If Proposition 16 had passed, local governments  would have needed to secure a 2/3 vote  before they could form a CCA.

An Oakland Tribune story written just after this says:

“Last week, California voters rejected Proposition 16, a statewide ballot initiative that PG&E spent $46 million to promote. Outraged at that use of ratepayer revenues, state Sen. Mark Leno on Monday announced legislation that would prohibit PG&E from using ratepayer funds for future political campaigns.”

The first paragraph of Senate Bill 790, which Leno drew up, ends with the words, “no electric utility may recover from any person other than the shareholders or other owners of the utility, any direct or indirect expenditure by the electric utility for promotional or political advertising, as defined.”

Several communities have tried to form CCAs since 2010. While they have not been openly opposed by PG&E, much of the opposition came from parties in close association with PG&E. That gives rise to the suspicion that PG&E is acting through third parties.

A second CCA recently went online in Sonoma and there are a dozen communities poised to follow.

A screenshot from IBEW's website this morning, four years after the launch of Marin Clean Energy (MCE). According to an article in the local paper, Shell is one of MCE's 24 suppliers.
A screenshot from IBEW’s website this morning, four years after the launch of Marin Clean Energy (MCE). (Click on image to expand)

According to a recent article in the local Marin paper, Shell is one of MCE’s 24 suppliers and IBEW’s business rep Hunter Stern emailed Marlin residents that,

“We have breaking news out of Sacramento — a coalition opposed to allowing Shell Oil to take over California’s power supply has introduced a bill (AB 2145) that would stop Shell from automatically enrolling everyone in San Francisco and other municipalities outside Marin in Shell’s Marin energy program.”

The Marin News dismissed Stern’s statements about Shell’s role in Marlin Clean Energy as “misinformation.”

However there are numerous questions arising from Stern’s statements:

  • Who is in this coalition he mentioned?
  • To what extent were they involved in “introducing” AB 2145?
  • What is their relationship to the bill’s named author Stephen Bradford?
  • How did IBEW come into possession of this inside information? Is it part of the coalition?

I do not think it is a co-incidence that Stephen Bradford, a former utility executive, chose this time to introduce a bill (AB 2145) that makes it far more difficult for CCAs to launch. Up until now, if a community wanted to form its own utility it  automatically enrolled everyone. They could still “opt out” and stay with their old utility, if they wished. Bradford’s bill changes this so that the utility keeps all their customers unless they specifically “opt in” to the new community utility.

This fight really appears to be over the people who probably don’t care enough to “opt out” of whichever program they are enrolled in. Most CCA people think there are enough of them that AB 2145 will kill any future attempt to form a CCA. I suspect the utilities agree, or AB 2145 wouldn’t have been drafted.

That should give you sufficient background to understand the questions I asked PG&E.

Page where IBEW members keep up with their employer’s news (Click on image  to enlarge) – IBEW Local 1245 website

RLH:  According to Senate Bill 790, PG&E has to report anti-Community Choice marketing plans to the California Public Utilities Commission. I realize that at this point, this does not apply to PG&E operating through third parties. Is PG&E operating against CCA’s through third parties?

PG&E: For more than 100 years, it has been PG&E’s privilege to provide our customers safe, clean, reliable and affordable energy, and we look forward to the opportunity to do so for many years to come. At the same time, we respect the energy choices that are available to our customers, and will continue to cooperate with local governments as they consider pursuing and/or developing a CCA program.

RLH: To what extent is PG&E “behind” AB 2145? Does PG&E support it? Did PG&E have a hand in its coming into being? 

PG&E: We support AB 2145 as it was recently amended, and will be working on some additional technical amendments. (emphasis mine)

RLH: The author of this bill, Stephen Bradford, is a former SCE executive. PG&E has contributed to his campaign chest and Bradford has been a speaker for at least one of your events. How closely is he aligned with PG&E’s interests? Was he acting on behalf of utilities when he framed AB 2145?

 (This question was not answered)

IBEW describes its relationship to PG&E - from website
IBEW describes its relationship to PG&E  (Click to enlarge) – from IBEW website

RLH: On their website, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, local 1245, describes itself as being made up of 12,000 PG&E workers. They were active proponents of proposition 16, which you backed. They advocate being politically active on their website and have been outspoken in their opposition to Community Choice utilities in San Francisco, Sonoma and Marin county. What would you say to people who believe Local 1245 is acting on your behalf? To what extent is this true?

PG&E: IBEW 1245 and its 10,000 employees act independently of PG&E. You should contact them for comment.

RLH’s postscript: IBEW local 1245 actually said quite a lot on its website, look at the photos & associated captions above. 

(Image at top of page: Courtesy Pacific Gas & Electric)

3 thoughts on “Pacific Gas & Electric’s Answers”

  1. The PG&E answers and absence of answers is a smoking gun. Where is the outrage? Americans need to take back the power surrendered to corporate oligarchs operating within our borders.

    A monopoly is outlawed by statute unless there is a clear reason for its existence. The “Natural Monopoly” justification for Investor-Owned Utilities is now an abuse of power.

    Our collective future is on the line. We have a law for community energy and now the utilities are attacking this law so as to kill the right of safe energy self-determination.

    At what time do you revolt from the loss of the right of self-determination? Never? Now? I ask the question.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>