- Sustainability - list.sfgreens.org

[Sustain] PRESS RELEASE: Clean Energy Groups Insist CA Governor Discipline Utilities Commission
by Eric Brooks 01 Jun '16

01 Jun '16

Californians for Energy Choice 1104 Polk Street, Suite 225 San Francisco, CA 94109 PRESS RELEASE For Immediate Release: June 1, 2016 Contact: Eric Brooks, Californians for Energy Choice, 415-756-8844 During 7th International Clean Energy Ministerial, Advocates Insist CA Governor Brown Stop Utilities Commission Attacks On Community Based Clean Energy San Francisco, CA, June 1, 2016 – Today, at the opening of the 7th international Clean Energy Ministerial being held in San Francisco, community and clean energy advocates urged California Governor Jerry Brown (who will speak at the ministerial on June 2nd) to demand that his appointed California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) end its attacks on community based clean energy, and reverse its biased support of fossil fuel based monopoly electrical utilities. The ministerial is being convened by 23 countries (including the U.S., China, Brazil, and Saudi Arabia) and the European Commission, to discuss concrete actions to implement climate agreements reached in Paris, France.* Environmental and community groups decried the fact that Michael Picker, Brown’s recently appointed CPUC President, has promoted skewed rules strongly favoring a corporate sponsor of the ministerial, Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E).** PG&E is a fossil fuel based monopoly electricity provider that has spent tens of millions of dollars over the last two decades pushing for ballot measures, legislation, and CPUC decisions, that attack community based clean energy programs which are competing with PG&E and other fossil fuel energy providers. In a March 16, 2016, “Fireside Chat” interview with Greentech Media, President Picker disparaged California’s emerging not-for-profit municipal Community Choice energy programs, which are providing a cleaner and price competitive energy alternative to monopoly utilities like PG&E. Picker misleadingly dismissed the Community Choice alternative as “forced collectivization” when by law, all Community Choice programs allow customers to freely choose between their current monopoly utility and the new alternative.*** Community Choice programs are currently providing a cleaner, less expensive electricity supply to California residents in Marin, Sonoma, Napa, and Contra Costa counties, and in the cities of San Francisco and Lancaster; with scores of other California communities lining up to follow suit. Ed Mainland of Californians for Energy Choice, which advocates statewide for Community Choice, said, “With a majority of California’s monopoly utility electricity customers now poised to adopt cleaner and less expensive Community Choice programs, it is an outrage that President Picker is using reactionary rhetoric to attack these programs, and that he has led the CPUC to enact policies that force unfair anti-competitive fees and regulations on both Community Choice and solar panel owners. We insist in the strongest possible terms that Governor Brown take immediate action to discipline President Picker and the CPUC. The Governor must reaffirm Community Choice as a top priority for California’s low carbon energy transition and demand that the CPUC start serving a true clean energy future, not the interests of polluting energy monopolies entrenched in the past.” Speaking on behalf of 350 San Francisco, an organization working to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and promote clean energy solutions, Sara Greenwald said, “Our organization supports Community Choice, both locally and statewide, as a crucial part of freeing us from climate-destructive fossil fuels. PG&E is a monopoly utility that relies heavily on fossil fuel based electricity generation and has spent millions of dollars opposing Community Choice because it might reduce PG&E profits. Governor Brown appointed the members of the CPUC as well as President Picker; we therefore call on the Governor to direct them to use their regulatory authority to strongly encourage community based clean energy instead of blocking it.” References * http://www.cleanenergyministerial.org/Events/CEM7 ** http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2015/12/17/cpuc-approves-fee-hike-for-opting-out-o… http://www.desertsun.com/story/tech/science/energy/2015/07/01/last-minute-d… *** California’s Distributed Energy Future, Fireside Chat, March 16, 2016: 10:32 to 13:10 at http://www.greentechmedia.com/multimedia/view/fireside-chat ### -- "I am not a liberator. Liberators do not exist. The people liberate themselves." Che Guevara

1 0

[Sustain] Groups Cheer Historic CleanPowerSF Launch!
by Eric Brooks 15 Jan '16

15 Jan '16

Hi all, After a 12 year battle, the first contracts for the CleanPowerSF community choice program have at last been signed, ensuring that CleanPowerSF will enroll its first customers on May 1, 2016! Below and attached is a press release on the victory. Feel free to forward it widely. For Immediate Release: January 13, 2016 Contact: Eric Brooks, 415-756-8844 CLEAN ENERGY & COMMUNITY ADVOCATES CHEER LAUNCH OF CLEANPOWERSF! San Francisco, January 13, 2016 – After 12 years of diligent advocacy, local environmental and community groups today cheered the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission’s (SFPUC’s) launch of the CleanPowerSF community choice energy program. Shortly after 4 PM on Tuesday, January 12, 2016, following the Commission’s unanimous approval, SFPUC General Manager Harlan Kelly signed the first power purchase contract to officially launch the program. CleanPowerSF will have a cleaner energy mix and lower rates than those of Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) and begins service to customers on May 1, 2016. The program will provide the option for both commercial and residential customers to begin receiving 35% clean renewable electricity at a slightly lower rate than PG&E, or instead opt up to 100% clean energy for a slightly higher price. PG&E’s energy mix is currently around 27% renewable. SFPUC Assistant General Manager for Power Barbara Hale announced at Tuesday’s meeting that both commercial and residential customers can now pre-enroll to join CleanPowerSF at http://cleanpowersf.org Outstanding issues with program implementation include the speed at which the program will be expanded citywide to provide savings to all residents and businesses, as well as the timeline and robustness of plans for comprehensive citywide and regional installations of local renewables. Advocates noted that this buildout must be engaged much sooner than currently planned in order to provide greater savings to residents and secure the program’s workforce development objectives of creating thousands of new jobs in the near term. Rebecca Evans, Chair of Sierra Club’s San Francisco Bay Chapter said, “This action by the SFPUC to sell greener energy at lower rates is truly groundbreaking in a major city the size of San Francisco. Sierra Club’s members, and the planet, thank the SFPUC for launching this program and boldly leading the rest of the nation into a clean energy future. We call on other cities to quickly follow San Francisco’s lead.” Jed Holtzman, Co-Coordinator of 350 San Francisco, said, “This crucial step forward for San Francisco comes at a key moment in the history of our planet. The international community agrees we need to move to 100% clean energy as soon as possible. If fully implemented, CleanPowerSF can take us there, provide a model for cities all around the world to follow, and play an outsized role in making our global renewable energy future a reality.” Bruce Wolfe of the Haight Ashbury Neighborhood Council said, “The strong inclusion of commercial customers from the start in CleanPowerSF is so vital. San Francisco’s small businesses have been crying out for relief from PG&E’s high priced polluting electricity for decades. Now they are finally getting the choice of a cleaner and lower priced alternative.” Eric Brooks, Campaign Coordinator of Our City SF, said, “The gas disaster in Southern California sounds the death knell of fossil fuel energy. San Francisco just made a decisive move toward ending dependence on such disastrous fossil fuels. Now it’s time to hire thousands of local union workers to build an infrastructure to deliver 50% of the City’s electricity from clean local sources by 2025, and 100% by 2035.” ###

2 1

[Sustain] Welcome back to the Bay Guardian!
by Tim Redmond 30 Nov '15

30 Nov '15

We're back and ready to reboot! To view this email online, paste this link into your browser: https://t.e2ma.net/message/v4w8q/3ylmwk add contact information here (https://t.e2ma.net/click/v4w8q/3ylmwk/na823e) WELCOME BACK TO THE BAY GUARDIAN! (https://t.e2ma.net/click/v4w8q/3ylmwk/32823e) Dear Readers, It's been almost exactly a year since you last heard from us. But now the editors and publishers of the SF Bay Guardian are officially announcing that we are back (https://t.e2ma.net/click/v4w8q/3ylmwk/jv923e) 2016 marks our 50th year as the Bay Area's number one alternative, progressive news source -- and we're ready to reboot by: Rescuing and preserving our archives in a public library and protective storage space Digitizing a half-century's worth of newspapers brimming with local politics, culture, and arts history, making them available for all Redesigning our website to bring you new content and allow you to search through five decades of Bay Guardian articles Relaunching key features like Best of the Bay, Clean Slate Endorsement Guide, GOLDIES Arts Awards, Nude Beaches Guide, opinion, editorials, indepth analysis, and more. WE NEED YOUR HELP (https://t.e2ma.net/click/v4w8q/3ylmwk/zna33e) We just launched an IndieGogo campaign to raise enough funds to keep this valuable chronicle of local news and culture alive. AND WE'VE SECURED A $40K MATCHING DONATION! Help us reach our goal and put 50 years of the coolest indepth local history online and keep the Bay Guardian's important, independent voice alive for 50 more! Tomorrow, December 1, is "Giving Tuesday," a perfect time to support this worthy local cause. LEARN MORE HERE (https://t.e2ma.net/click/v4w8q/3ylmwk/fgb33e) Thank you for you continued support. Let's join together to keep the spirit of San Francisco alive! -- Tim Redmond, Marke B, and the Bay Guardian team (https://t.e2ma.net/click/v4w8q/3ylmwk/v8b33e) 176Winfield Street | San Francisco, CA 94110 US This email was sent to sustainability(a)sfgreens.org. To ensure that you continue receiving our emails, please add us to your address book or safe list. manage your preferences (https://app.e2ma.net/app2/audience/signup/1753923/1732653/642188333/?v=a) opt out (https://t.e2ma.net/optout/v4w8q/3ylmwk?r=aHR0cHM6Ly9hcHAuZTJtYS5uZXQvYXBwMi…) using TrueRemove(r). Got this as a forward? Sign up (https://app.e2ma.net/app2/audience/signup/1753923/1732653.28489773/?v=a) to receive our future emails.

1 0

[Sustain] [350 SF] Web Site For No on G, Yes on H Campaign to Protect CleanPowerSF - http://www.nodirtyenergyscam.com
by Eric Brooks 08 Oct '15

08 Oct '15

Hi all, There is now a web site created by Sierra Club for the No on G, Yes on H campaign to protect and promote CleanPowerSF at: http://www.nodirtyenergyscam.com -- "I am not a liberator. Liberators do not exist. The people liberate themselves." Che Guevara

1 0

[Sustain] Fwd: CNRA AND CCST RELEASE STUDY ON FRACKING IN CALIFORNIA
by Don Eichelberger 03 Feb '15

03 Feb '15

In case you need some FRACKING reading material, Don -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: CNRA AND CCST RELEASE VOLUME I OF AN INDEPENDENT SCIENTIFIC ASSESSMENT REGARDING WELL STIMULATION Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2015 19:10:29 +0000 From: DoNotReply@DOC <DoNotReply(a)CONSERVATION.CA.GOV> To: DOGGR_REGULATIONS_INFORMATION(a)LISTSERV.STATE.CA.GOV On behalf of the California Natural Resources Agency (CNRA), please see the following information: Pursuant to Senate Bill 4, the California Natural Resources Agency (CNRA) commissioned the California Council on Science and Technology (CCST) and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) to conduct an independent scientific assessment of well stimulation, including hydraulic fracturing, in California. On January 14, 2015, CCST released Volume I of the assessment to the public. Volume I, which is titled "An Independent Scientific Assessment of Well Stimulation Technologies in California: Well Stimulation Technologies and their Past, Present, and Potential Future Use in California", provides the factual basis describing what well stimulation treatments are, how they are conducted in general and practiced in California, and where they have been and are being used for oil and gas production in the state. The full independent scientific assessment will be issued in three volumes. Volumes II and III will be released in July 2015. To view or download the report, please visit the CCST website at: http://www.ccst.us/projects/hydraulic_fracturing_public/SB4.php

1 0

[Sustain] Fwd: Victory On Candlestick, Now Let’s Win Something More!
by Eric Brooks 19 Jan '15

19 Jan '15

Subject: Victory On Candlestick, Now Let’s Win Something More! Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2015 00:21:35 -0500 From: Shirley Moore <sammy988(a)aol.com> Thank you everybody for your hard work and dedication to this cause. We have succeeded in our effort to stop the implosion of Candlestick Stadium, which, as you know, would have exacerbated the already burdened air quality of our neighborhood. Your stepping to the plate to take a swing for the safety of our community was a giant step. Hooray for us! We deserve a celebration and to congratulate ourselves. Now that we know that we can make a difference, it is time for us to use the powerful momentum and coalition we have created in order to win larger victories. The Bayview Hill Neighborhood Association was the lead group in the fight against the implosion. Now it is time to form a new larger group to carry forward a new mission to ensure developers are working closely with the needs of the community in -every- case, not just on this demolition. Several groups and organizations that were involved in this effort are getting together to form a grassroots organization that can oversee construction projects in our neighborhood and our city, and to make recommendations for legislative changes that would serve our communities. Our first step is to ensure that the demolition of Candlestick Park is done in an environmentally and socially responsible way. Even though we have secured a mechanical demolition, this does not guarantee that it will be safe. Lennar Urban is planning to begin demolition at the end of this month so we have only two weeks to shape the talking points on our safety concerns with this process. We want the demolition and reconstruction to move forward on a good schedule, we want to see a new era for this neighborhood. However, we must ensure that this happens in a way that is healthy and beneficial for all of us, and to workers. Please join us in attending the OCII Commission meeting on January 20th. At this meeting we will be focusing on the following talking points: 1) Dust control - as an Air Care Community, we require the most state-of-the-art dust control methods. 2) Local hiring - we want to see apprentice and journeyman hires from the local area. 3) Enforcement - we are concerned that some regulations are unenforced or "good-faith" and would like to see all regulations have teeth, with our own people brought in as direct observers of the demolition and construction. Where: City Hall room 416 When: January 20th 1:00 pm Thank you again for your dedication to this cause. We look forward to continuing our work with you. STAND. Together we are strong. Shirley and Julia

1 0

[Sustain] *BIG* Community Choice News! 8, 100 Jobs Through CleanPowerSF
by Eric Brooks 18 Nov '14

18 Nov '14

Hi all, The following crucial report (in the traditionally pro-PG&E San Francisco Chronicle) is a *huge* step forward for CleanPowerSF and all other Community Choice energy programs in the state. This report will end the nonsensical PG&E posturing that Community Choice somehow will not bring jobs, and the report will make the launch of CleanPowerSF very likely within the next couple of years, because the unions which San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee and PG&E have previously manipulated against us will no longer be able to be able to justify opposing CleanPowerSF to their rank and file members. This profoundly groundbreaking change in Chronicle news coverage is a key validation that the establishing of extensive local clean energy and efficiency installations as the foundation of Community Choice programs, is vital to the next stages of our local and statewide Community Choice efforts in California. It was the diligent work of San Francisco Green Party, Local Clean Energy Alliance, 350 SF, Sierra Club, Our City, Haight Ashbury Neighborhood Council (HANC), and in the mid 2000s Greenpeace, which brought about this incredible victory. Here is the report: http://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/S-F-clean-energy-program-could-gener… SF clean energy program could generate 8,100 jobs, report says By Marisa Lagos Updated 7:19 pm, Sunday, November 16, 2014 A renewable energy program in San Francisco could create more that 8,100 construction jobs by building $2.4 billion worth of proposed solar, wind and geothermal projects, a new report says. That refutes many criticisms made by Mayor Ed Lee <http://www.sfgate.com/search/?action=search&channel=politics&inlineLink=1&s…> when the city killed a previous version of CleanPowerSF, supporters of the plan say. The proposal, which has wide support among the city’s supervisors, would allow San Francisco to generate or purchase its own clean energy and deliver it to consumers through Pacific Gas and Electric Co.’s existing transmission network. The idea is to offer a cleaner alternative to PG&E. Because CleanPowerSF could shake the company’s decades-long monopoly over delivering energy to San Francisco, it has met stiff opposition — including from Lee and his allies. But the program is overwhelmingly supported by the Board of Supervisors <http://www.sfgate.com/search/?action=search&channel=politics&inlineLink=1&s…> and the city’s left, which has long sought an alternative to PG&E. The study by energy consultants EnerNex was commissioned by the city’s Local Agency Formation Commission <http://www.sfgate.com/search/?action=search&channel=politics&inlineLink=1&s…> and states the city doesn’t need to contract with an outside company and could easily administer CleanPowerSF through the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission <http://www.sfgate.com/search/?action=search&channel=politics&inlineLink=1&s…>. The often-fractured Board of Supervisors has coalesced around the program, known as community choice aggregation, or CCA, and continued to push for some iteration of it even after the PUC commission <http://www.sfgate.com/search/?action=search&channel=politics&inlineLink=1&s…> last year refused to set rates and bring in Shell Energy North America to be the city’s power broker for at least five years. The PUC commission is appointed by the mayor. Supporters said the EnerNex report sketches out a plan that avoids many aspects of the earlier proposal criticized by the mayor and others — that it wouldn’t create local jobs, that the power wouldn’t be renewable or cheap enough, and that it would be run by an out-of-state corporation best known for its oil division. *Report affirms job creation* Supervisor London Breed <http://www.sfgate.com/search/?action=search&channel=politics&inlineLink=1&s…> said the report affirms what she and other supervisors “have been saying all along, and what Marin and Sonoma have already demonstrated: that a robust clean power program will not only provide cleaner air and competitive rates — it will create jobs and benefit the local economy.” Marin and Sonoma counties already have CCAs. Supervisor Scott Wiener <http://www.sfgate.com/search/?action=search&channel=politics&inlineLink=1&s…> said the study “demonstrates a clear path for CleanPowerSF, in terms of clean and renewable energy generation, and that it could happen with or without the Shell contract,” and “does a great job talking about all the different opportunities to increase the generation of clean and renewable energy — solar, wind, geothermal, hydro power.” A spokesman for Lee, who has always insisted he does not oppose the CleanPowerSF program itself, seized on the report’s findings that a Shell contract was unnecessary. “After months and months of study, public power advocates have finally concluded that a contract with Shell Oil was never an appropriate way for San Francisco to make progress on our environmental goals,” spokeswoman Christine Falvey <http://www.sfgate.com/search/?action=search&channel=politics&inlineLink=1&s…> said in a written statement. “This latest report confirms that a real clean energy program should include real local jobs and real clean energy ... which is something we can now all agree on. In recent years, these critical elements were nowhere to be found.” *Lee opposes opt-out method * Falvey said the mayor still has concerns over whether a program would rely in part on transferable renewable energy credits rather than 100 percent clean energy generation, and he continues to oppose the opt-out provision that, under state law, automatically enrolls customers who could opt-out if they’d rather stay with PG&E. To ensure that rates are competitive with PG&E’s, the report says the city will have to determine generation prices ahead of time and build a program backward from there. The Local Agency Formation Commission, which commissioned the report, is an agency of the board of supervisors. EnerNex also recommends focusing on local employment, in part by giving “a preference for projects that are physically located within the city and county of San Francisco.” The report lays out at least five large-scale solar projects that could be built in San Francisco and would create about 1,000 local construction jobs. Other potential projects identified in the report would create local jobs, because they are close enough to San Francisco to fall under it’s “local hire” ordinance. EnerNex anticipates the program would create 180 permanent operations jobs. The report notes the program could help the SFPUC stabilize its power division, which has serious budget challenges because most of the hydropower it generates through its Hetch Hetchy water system is sold to city agencies or wholesale at deeply discounted rates. The report recommends using CleanPowerSF to help fund a pet project of Lee’s, GoSolarSF — which provides incentives for property owners to install solar panels. *More local jobs* Those sorts of private renewable energy projects on homes and businesses within the city also stand to help CleanPowerSF improve its green portfolio, lower costs for consumers and create even more local jobs, the report states — up to seven construction jobs for every $1 million spent on build out. The report isn’t the only angle supporters are taking. Supervisors earlier this year approved legislation directing the city to study the option of joining Marin County's renewable power program. Wiener and Breed have also authored what he called “complimentary” legislation that stands to significantly expand the PUC’s power customer base by giving the agency the first crack at providing hydropower to nearly all new developments in the city. Currently, the PUC must compete with PG&E. The legislation is expected to get its first public vetting Nov. 24. / Marisa Lagos is a San Francisco Chronicle <http://www.sfgate.com/search/?action=search&channel=politics&inlineLink=1&s…> staff writer. E-mail: mlagos(a)sfchronicle.com <mailto:mlagos@sfchronicle.com> Twitter: @mlagos /

1 0

[Sustain] Excellent Article On CPUC President Peevey Shows Utterly Incestuous Relationship Between PG&E, Peevey, & Governor Brown
by Eric Brooks 09 Oct '14

09 Oct '14

Excellent Article On CPUC President Peevey Shows Utterly Incestuous Relationship Between PG&E, Peevey, & Governor Brown's Administration (two of the most powerful members of which are former PG&E executives). http://www.sandiegoreader.com/news/2014/oct/08/citylights1-peevey-yuck Could Brown reappoint unpopular Peevey? By Don Bauder <http://www.sandiegoreader.com/staff/don-bauder/>, Oct. 8, 2014 <http://www.sandiegoreader.com/news/2014/Oct/08> <http://media.sdreader.com/img/photos/2014/10/07/citylights_Edmund_G_Brown_J…> Jerry Brown <http://media.sdreader.com/img/photos/2014/10/07/citylights_MichaelPeevey_lg…> Michael Peevey <http://media.sdreader.com/img/photos/2014/10/07/citylights_car_t670.jpg?b3f…> Image by Chris Woo Peevey is suspected of backing SDG&E in their attempt to make San Diego ratepayers pick up the tab. <http://media.sdreader.com/img/photos/2014/10/07/citylights_Pipe-from-Sanbru…> Pacific Gas & Electric’s penalties for the 2010 San Bruno pipeline explosion were less than suggested. Shortly after his almost certain reelection in November, Governor Jerry Brown must decide whether to reappoint Michael Peevey as president of the California Public Utilities Commission. Peevey’s term runs out at the end of the year. In mid-August, Brown voiced strong support for Peevey in an interview with editors of the /San Jose Mercury News/. A month earlier, that newspaper had editorialized, “If Gov. Jerry Brown persists in backing his outrageously unethical appointee [Peevey], he might as well change the name to the Pro Utility Commission.” Around the same time, the /San Francisco Chronicle/ called for Brown to oust Peevey. The /Modesto Bee/, citing Peevey’s “overseas junkets” paid for by utilities, said it was time for Peevey to go because he “regards utility company executives as peers and partners.” The Southern California press has also been hard on the commission’s president. Peevey is suspected of pulling strings in such matters as San Diego Gas & Electric’s attempt to make ratepayers pick up the tab for uninsured expenses of the 2007 fires, caused by the utility. Recently, emails between commission and Pacific Gas & Electric officials have shown that the company said it didn’t want administrative law judges who would recommend tough penalties for the company’s role in the 2010 San Bruno pipeline explosion. The commission complied, and the recommended penalties were much less than the staff had suggested. Indignant Bay Area politicians want the attorney general to investigate the commission for its pro-utility behavior. The governor and Peevey (both in their mid-70s) are old friends, dating back to the years in which Peevey was active with organized labor and the Democratic Party. After getting two degrees in economics at the University of California/Berkeley, he worked for the federal government in labor economics and then became chief economist for the American Federation of Labor/Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO). In 1984, he joined Southern California Edison. He was a senior vice president and chief lobbyist for the company in Sacramento. Edison’s chief executive, Howard Allen, himself a former lobbyist, had a fondness for executives with political connections. <http://media.sdreader.com/img/photos/2014/10/07/citylights_John_Bryson_t670…> John Bryson <http://media.sdreader.com/img/photos/2014/10/07/citylights_carl-wood_t670.j…> Carl Wood Peevey shortly became an executive vice president. Another executive vice president was John Bryson, who also had political connections. He was a former president of the California Public Utilities Commission, a graduate of Stanford with a law degree from Yale, and smooth and oily — like politicians. “Howard Allen played the two against each other,” says Carl Wood, a former commissioner, now director of regulatory affairs for the Utility Workers Union of America. “Peevey is not Bryson’s kind of guy, or the other way around. Bryson is Ivy League–looking and educated, suave, friendly, sophisticated. Peevey is crude but intelligent,” says a former commission executive. Says a former Edison executive, “They were oil and water.” As executive vice president, Peevey in the late 1980s was put in charge of Edison’s attempted hostile takeover of San Diego Gas & Electric. To many in San Diego, Peevey did not appear so intelligent in his speeches and radio and TV appearances. Edison lost big. San Diegans were surprised when, in 1990, Peevey was named president of Southern California Edison. He also served as president of the parent, Edison International. But — and it’s a big but — Peevey was /not/ chief executive officer. That job went to his foe, Bryson. Peevey lasted less than three years. In 1993, barely in his mid-50s, he “retired” from Edison and walked out with a bundle of stock and possibly severance pay, too; my sources disagree on the latter point. There is agreement on one point, as described by a former Edison executive: “He didn’t want to work for Bryson,” and Bryson didn’t want Peevey around, either. Peevey, not permitted to compete with Edison for two years, went with a public relations/lobbying firm, then began taking equity interests in smaller energy firms. After he raked in a $10 million capital gain from selling one firm, he and his wife Carol Liu, now a state senator, lined up a kinky tax shelter. He was told he would pay almost no taxes using the scheme but would pay $3.5 million if he played it straight. The government went after the tax shelter — and Peevey and his wife took the accounting firm to court for giving them bad advice. Peevey championed competition in the energy business. Unabashedly, he favored deregulation, although he said it had to be tweaked in California. He told others that he had made a bundle of money trading energy contracts. Oh, yes. He also had stock in Enron, the corporate hoax that fleeced California in the 2000–2001 energy crisis before collapsing. Peevey dumped his Enron stock. <http://media.sdreader.com/img/photos/2014/10/07/citylights_Loretta-Lynch_t6…> Loretta Lynch Despite these black marks against him, in March of 2002, Peevey was named a commissioner of the California Public Utilities Commission. Consumer groups howled that a former Edison president and deregulation yahoo would be named to the commission. At the time, Loretta Lynch was president of the commission and was tough on the utilities and a champion of re-regulation. Carl Wood, then a commissioner, was her steady ally in demanding responsibility of the utilities. “We were unpopular with big business, which had a venomous hatred for Lynch,” recalls Wood. “To mollify the corporations,” then-governor Gray Davis named Peevey as president of the commission at the end of 2002, even though he had been there only about eight months. Pro-consumer groups howled again. Peevey’s supporters pointed to his longtime association with labor unions. Insiders knew better. “The only time Peevey is pro-labor is…when he is using labor to maximize revenue for the utilities,” says a former commission official. “He is a corporate liberal. He is not responsive to consumer interests,” says Wood. Brown and Peevey are buddies “because Peevey does what Brown tells him to do,” says Lynch. “Peevey has always been close to PG&E and [Southern California Edison]. So has Brown.” <http://media.sdreader.com/img/photos/2014/10/07/citylights_nancy-mcfadden_t…> Nancy McFadden Indeed, Brown’s executive secretary is Nancy McFadden, who joined the governor after serving as senior vice president to the chief executive officer of Pacific Gas & Electric. In essence, she is Brown’s chief of staff without the title. In 2011, Brown hired Dana Williamson, Pacific Gas & Electric’s director of public affairs, as senior advisor for cabinet and external affairs. Two years later, she was named cabinet secretary — the person to whom other agency secretaries report. It’s often considered the second-most-powerful post in the gubernatorial administration. When Lynch was deposed, Peevey threw a party, to which he invited utility executives. Lynch wasn’t invited. Asked what another Peevey term as head of the California Public Utilities Commission would be like, Lynch had one word: “Yuck.”

1 0

[Sustain] Fwd: // Remove Chair of PUC Michael Peevey // Press Conference and Rally // Thursday, October 2 at 8:30 am Steps of California Public Utilities Commission
by Don Eichelberger 26 Sep '14

26 Sep '14

CPUC Protest, San Francisco, 10/2, 8:30 A.M. Corrupt PUC Chair Michael Peevey needs to leave his job and face investigation of his commission's collusion with regulated utilities to get them friendly administrative law judges more likely to rule in their favor. Pass it on. . . Begin forwarded message: > *From: *Ruthie Sakheim <ruthiesakheim(a)gmail.com > <mailto:ruthiesakheim@gmail.com>> > *Date: *September 25, 2014 9:32:08 PM PDT > *To: *Ruthie Sakheim <ruthiesakheim(a)gmail.com > <mailto:ruthiesakheim@gmail.com>> > *Subject: **OccupySF EJ // Remove Chair of PUC Michael Peevey // Press > Conference and Rally // Thursday, October 2 at 8:30 am Steps of > California Public Utilities Commission* > > *Chair of the California Public Utilities Commission *Michael Peevey > has a long record of conflicts of interest. Peevey has colluded with > PG&E and Southern California Edison to prevent proper regulations of > these privately owned utilities which run nuclear plants and are in > charge of our gas and electricity supply. > > Because of this corruption, San Mateo Assemblyman Jerry Hill has > called for a criminal investigation (by California Attorney General > Kamala Harris) of Peevey and the agency's top officials. Even the > employees of the CPUC are demanding Peevey's removal and an end to the > corruption. Health and safety whistleblowers at the utilities and at > other companies regulated by the CPUC have been retaliated against for > speaking out for the health and safety of the workers and the public. > Governor Brown who is in charge of Peevey continues to stonewall any > action despite this blatant corruption and criminal negligence, and > the people of California have to ask /"Who is Governor Brown really > representing?" > > /We call on Governor Brown to remove Peevey from his position, and > support a criminal investigation of Peevey and his conspirators**who > threaten the health and safety of all people in California --**from > the people of San Bruno (where PG&E criminal negligence caused a > massive explosion, deaths and destruction) to the San Onofre Nuclear > Power Plant (where Peevey delayed investigation into soaring costs > tied to the damaged plant where radiation leakage was reported). (See > links below.) > > *On October 2, 2014 there will be a press conference and protest at > the CPUC to demand the removal of Michael Peevey and call for criminal > investigation and prosecution of all those officials who have > conflicts of interest at the agency. * > > *Join The Press Conference and Rally! > *Thursday October 2, 2014 8:30 AM > California Public Utility Commission > 505 Van Ness/McAllister Street > San Francisco, California > > > BRING SIGNS! > > *Peevey Out Now! > Criminal Prosecution! > End the Corruption! > Protect our worker and community health and safety instead of Utility > profits!* > > *Initial Endorsers:* > > No Nukes Action Committee > http://nonukesaction.wordpress.com/ > United Public Workers For Action > www.upwa.info <http://www.upwa.info/> > GreenAction > www.greenaction.org <http://www.greenaction.org/> > OccupySF Environmental Justice Working Group > > > For information > contact (415) 282-1908 <tel:%28415%29282-1908> > > *Some background information on Michael Peevey:* > https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2012/08/03/18718782.php > http://turn.org/issues/energy/item/478-corrupt-peevey-delays-probe.html > http://stopsmartmeters.org/2013/03/01/cpuc-president-michael-peevey-to-publ… >

1 0

[Sustain] Press Release: CA Bill Attacking Local Energy Choice Defeated - AB 2145
by Eric Brooks 31 Aug '14

31 Aug '14

For Immediate Release August 30, 2014 Contact: Eric Brooks, 415-756-8844, brookse(a)igc.org Woody Hastings, 310-968-2757, woodyhastings(a)gmail.com AB-2145 Attack On Local Energy Choice Defeated by Consumer & Clean Energy Advocates In an extraordinary legislative upset, David beat Goliath in Sacramento when Senator Darrell Steinberg brought down the gavel this morning at 3:00 a.m. to close the 2013-14 legislative session, with no vote on Assembly Bill 2145. AB 2145, the proposed law aimed at crushing locally based clean energy efforts known as Community Choice energy programs in California, is officially dead. The newly emerged statewide coalition, Californians for Energy Choice, pushed back the monopoly electrical utilities’ latest attempt to deeply undermine competition from these emerging local programs. Previously, Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) spent over $46 million in 2010 pushing Proposition 16, a ballot measure that would have ended Community Choice in California. Voters soundly defeated the measure. Organizers who fought against Prop 16, joined with scores of new activists to help form the new coalition. “The monopoly utilities made a huge mistake when they forced us to create a coordinated statewide coalition to fight AB 2145. We have now educated thousands of people and legislators to the fact that Community Choice is the state’s most powerful tool to give communities local control over electricity supply, and rapidly build clean energy programs that will put Californians back to work, and combat the climate crisis. We can now use this new coalition to change the game on energy in California,” said Sunnyvale resident Margaret Okuzumi, a key member of Californians for Energy Choice. The defeat of AB 2145 protects the ability of local communities to take control of decision-making about their electricity sources. It also empowers them to access lower rates by leveraging the joint customer buying power and energy market competition that Community Choice makes possible. The door is once again wide open for Community Choice to flourish in California. Local governments throughout the State now have a green light to create successful clean energy-based Community Choice programs. "The defeat of AB 2145 opens the door for everyday ratepayers, residents, and businesses to free ourselves from the grip of the Big Utility monopolies and their accomplices," said Bruce Wolfe of the Haight Ashbury Neighborhood Council and SF Clean Energy Advocates. "It is now time for all this corporate monopoly resistance to stop, and for emerging Community Choice programs like San Francisco’s CleanPowerSF to be implemented immediately.” Erica Etelson, a San Francisco East Bay activist stated, "I hope PG&E and the other utilities finally get the message that Californians want clean, affordable, 21st century electricity and won't stand for monopoly bullying in Sacramento." “This is ultimately about energy democracy,” said Al Weinrub, coordinator for the Oakland-based Local Clean Energy Alliance. “The question is, will the power to decide what kinds of energy we use and who benefits from the system, be in the hands of a small group of powerful players, as it has been for the past hundred years, or will the power be in the hands of the people?” Californians for Energy Choice thanks the Senate President Pro Tem Darryl Steinberg, Minority Leader Bob Huff, and the entire Senate and all of its hard-working aides, who saw through the misinformation put out by 2145 operatives and helped to defeat the bill. For more information: http://no2145.org https://www.facebook.com/noab2145 ### -- "I am not a liberator. Liberators do not exist. The people liberate themselves." Che Guevara

1 0