Quantcast
Connect with us

Dozens of groups urge California Gov. Gavin Newsom to ‘facilitate a public takeover of PG&E’

Published

on

“PG&E would be in prison, if it were a citizen, given how many people have died at its hands.”

As the West Coast’s wildfire season continues, dozens of progressive organizations sent a letter to California Gov. Gavin Newsom Thursday urging the first-term Democrat to “facilitate a public takeover of PG&E to protect ratepayers, California communities, and our climate.”

ADVERTISEMENT

Calls for a public takeover of PG&E have stacked up in recent weeks as California’s largest energy utility has faced widespread criticism for intentionally shutting off power for state residents and failing to adequately invest in reducing fire risks. Those critiques are outlined in the letter (pdf) signed by representatives of over 50 groups and former California Public Utilities Commission (PUC) president Loretta Lynch.

“PG&E has shut off power to millions of residents, been found responsible for starting numerous wildfires that have killed Californians, destroyed homes, neighborhoods and whole towns, and cost billions of dollars,” the letter says. “This devastation is the result of PG&E’s decision to neglect maintenance and investments in infrastructure in favor of paying out billions in shareholder profits and executive pay.”

Arguing that “it is time for California to take over PG&E and stop letting profits stand in the way of a safe, clean energy future we all need and deserve,” the letter lays out the case for public ownership:

Public ownership will help increase accountability and transparency. Currently, the public cannot attend corporate board meetings and has limited leverage over these boards. Public records laws do not apply to private corporations, which makes oversight and accountability even harder. Ratepayers are also unable to compete with the multimillion-dollar lobbying arm of companies like PG&E that have fostered a weak regulatory environment for electric utilities.

We need major investments in the electricity sector to address fire safety and climate change, including everything from developing local energy resources, to burying lines and cutting trees to replace dirty, greenhouse-gas-emitting power plants with clean, renewable energy from the sun and wind. These investments can be done at a lower cost to ratepayers under a public utility, which can borrow at a fraction of the cost of private power companies. Furthermore, public utilities do not have to pay out profits, taxes, or exorbitant executive salaries.

The letter’s lead signatory, Food & Water Action California state director Alexandra Nagy, said in a statement that in the event of a public takeover of the embattled utility giant, “the public would have an increased ability to advocate for investments in fire safety and local clean energy that would benefit ratepayers and the climate.”

ADVERTISEMENT

Highlighting a nearby example of the power of public ownership, Nagy added, “in contrast to PG&E’s negligence, the Los Angeles municipally-owned utility just approved a historic project that will provide clean solar energy and battery storage to power more than 280,000 homes.”

Other letter signatories include representatives from the groups CodePink, Stand.earth, Friends of the Earth U.S., the Center for Biological Diversity, 350.org, the Democratic Socialists of America, and many state and regional organizations.

The California Nurses Association sent its own version (pdf) of the letter to Newsom. In a statement, co-president Zenei Cortez, RN, suggested that “PG&E would be in prison, if it were a citizen, given how many people have died at its hands.”

ADVERTISEMENT

“We need Governor Newsom to take the utility’s failures more seriously than ever before,” she said, “as we push for a new direction that centers public health and safety and a concentration on more municipal power.”

ADVERTISEMENT

The letter to Newsom notes that “at a recent press conference, you implored PG&E to fundamentally change the way it operates and raised the prospect of a public takeover as a backup option.” However, it says, “given PG&E’s track record and the benefits of public power, public ownership should be plan A.”

Newsom addressed the fires at a press conference on Oct. 24, saying that “as it relates to PG&E, it’s about dog-eats-dog capitalism meeting climate change. It’s about corporate greed meeting climate change. It’s about decades of mismanagement. It’s about focusing on shareholders and dividends over you and members of the public. It’s a story about greed and they need to be held accountable.”

ADVERTISEMENT

PG&E announced in January that it was filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in the wake of devastating fire seasons in 2017 and 2018. Newsom said at the press conference that PG&E is “in bankruptcy already because of their choices. But when they come out of bankruptcy that has to be a completely re-imagined company and we are doing everything in our power to make sure that that indeed is the case.”

Whether Newsom’s criticism of the utility giant will amount to state action, though, remains to be seen.

In a report Monday that referenced the October press conference, the Washington Post revealed that over the past two decades Newsom and his wife, Jennifer Siebel Newsom, “have accepted more than $700,000 from the Pacific Gas & Electric Co., its foundation, and its employees as the utility has supported his political campaigns, his ballot initiatives, his inauguration festivities and his wife’s foundation, including her film projects.”

“Records show PG&E has spent at least $227,000 on Newsom’s political campaigns and committees supporting them over his two decades in public office, helping to fund his rise from San Francisco mayor to one of the country’s most influential Democratic leaders,” according to the Post. “PG&E employees have spent an additional $70,000 on his campaigns. The company gave $25,000 for his mayoral inaugural costs and $25,000 to city ballot measures that he supported.”

ADVERTISEMENT

PG&E, the Post pointed out, is “one of the most politically active companies in California state and local politics and a prolific contributor to Bay Area charities.” From 2017 to 2018, the company spent $5.3 million on state and local campaigns.

Although Newsom declined to be interviewed by the Post, his spokesperson Nathan Click said the governor has “used every tool at his disposal” to hold PG&E accountable and that he stopped taking contributions from the utility after his November 2018 election.

ADVERTISEMENT

When a local reporter asked Newsom about PG&E’s campaign contributions during a press conference earlier this month, he responded: “If the suggestion is somehow I’m influenced by that, you’re wrong—absolutely, unequivocally wrong—and there’s not one thing you can point to during my tenure as governor which suggests otherwise.”

by

Report typos and corrections to: [email protected].
READ COMMENTS - JOIN THE DISCUSSION
Continue Reading

Breaking Banner

Two House Democrats push a clever plan that calls Republicans’ bluff on their Biden attacks

Published

on

Democratic Reps. Katie Porter of California and Max Rose of New York introduced a clever plan this week that will expose whether Republicans’ criticisms of former Vice President Joe Biden in the Ukraine scandal reflect good faith — or if, as many assume, they are just a shameful distraction and a bluff.

The lawmakers announced a bill on Wednesday called the Transparency in Executive Branch Officials’ Finances Act. It has two key components:

First, it would require all politically appointed executive branch officials, as well as the president and the vice president, to “disclose any positions they or any members of their extended families hold with foreign-owned businesses, any intellectual property they own that is protected or enforced by a foreign country, and whether any members of their families have stakes in companies that engage in significant foreign business dealings.”Second, it will “require the President and Vice President to disclose their tax returns for the previous five taxable years and prohibit political appointees from accepting payments from foreign entities.”

What’s clever about the proposal is that it latches on to two important issues, creating a wedge for Republicans. As part of the GOP’s defense of President Donald Trump in the Ukraine scandal, Republicans have argued that the president’s patently corrupt efforts to get a foreign country to investigate Biden, a political rival, were legitimate because the former vice president’s son created a conflict of interest by taking part in business in Ukraine.

Continue Reading

Facebook

Giuliani’s potential witness tampering in Ukraine is impossible to separate from Trump: Judiciary Democrat

Published

on

On Thursday's edition of MSNBC's "The Beat," Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA) broke down how Rudy Giuliani's misconduct in Ukraine is "inseparable" from President Donald Trump's.

"To everyone who asks whether we are moving too quickly, I say the president's lawyer is moving quickly to continue to ask a foreign government to cheat our elections, and doing nothing is completely off the table," said Swalwell, who sits on the House Intelligence and Judiciary Committees, the two most crucial committees in the impeachment inquiry. "We have to secure our elections. We have powerful, uncontradicted evidence now. And now is the time to hold the president accountable and determine just which impeachment articles we should proceed with."

Continue Reading
 

Facebook

Financial groups gave $745 billion for 258 new coal power plants: Report

Published

on

Financial institutions have chaneled $745 billion over the past three years to new coal power projects worldwide despite effort to reduce fossil fuel use to fight climate change, a report released Thursday said.

The amount was calculated using data covering both lending and underwriting between January 2017 and September 2019 for all 258 coal plant developers identified in the Global Coal Exit List, drawn up by the Urgewald and BankTrack groups.

Altogether, the report cites more than 1,000 new coal power stations or units in the pipeline.

"Most of the top banks providing loans or investment banking services to these companies acknowledge the risks of climate change, but their actions are a slap in the face to the Paris Climate Agreement," said Greig Aitken, climate campaigner at BankTrack.

Continue Reading