Posts Tagged ‘cca’

District Five Meltdown: Here’s the Entire Ad Against Christina Olague and Julian Davis and “Shell Oil”

Monday, November 5th, 2012

Oh, well, here’s the whole thing, or at least all of the back of the mailer.

(When they say Shell Oil, what they mean is Shell Energy North America.)

 

District Five Meltdown: Republican-Backed Hit-Piece Against Olague and Davis Features Solar-Powered Shell Station

Monday, November 5th, 2012

This is from the already-famous hit-piece mailer regarding Shell Energy and some candidates for District Five Supervisor.

Now, why did the dumb-clucks who made this ad decide to pick the world’s most solar-powered gas station?

Click to expand

I don’t know, because they don’t know what they’re doing?

NB: Your bad cosmetic surgery fools nobody. People laugh at you when your back is turned, you know, at those benefits ‘n stuff. Perhaps just aging gracefully is a better, safer option?

District Five Meltdown: How Linda Voight and Ron and Gayle Conway Spend their Money to Make Olague and Davis Look Evil

Sunday, November 4th, 2012

This is how they do it, with a flyer in the mail talking about how Christina Olague and Julian Davis support  giving nearly $20,000,000 a year to Shell Oil.

See?

Click to expand

Now, is that true?

No.

But it appears that Christina Olague and Julian Davis have run afoul of a few PG&E-loving Bay Area billioniares, et uxes.

Now, I’d call this cabal Conway/Coates, but they, and I’m seriously, call themselves:

“San Francisco Women for Accountability and a Responsible Supervisor Opposing Christina Olague 2012.”

So that’s SFWFAAARSOCA 2012 for short, sort of.

Here’s Tim Redmond’s take:

So-called DV group doing PG&E’s dirty work

Fair ‘nough.

But hey, do you see the orange skies up there, right where the heads of the progressive D5 front-runners have been Photoshopped?

Mmmm…

Hey, I know, let’s take Linda Voight and Photoshop her into a shot of the Great PG&E Pipeline explosion of San Bruno.

Thusly.

I see dead people:

Now doesn’t she look evil?

I think so.

Hey Lawyers, Here’s a Gig for You! Get Paid Six Figures to Represent Indebted California Culinary Academy Grads

Wednesday, June 13th, 2012

Hey, remember Amador v. California Culnary Academy?

Good times.

Well they’re still doling out the cash on this one, so why not get some of it?

Now I’ll tell you, the only worser idea than going to law school these days (ooh, that link is a bit much, non?) is going to cooking school, am I right, GF? So why not use your JD to help the poor souls who were misled by the California Culinary Academy?

It’s a win-win, baby! Get all the deets below.

Sure, cooking school can be sexy, but does it pay off? 

This job is new, this job is you, Counselor:

“Senior Counsel and Director of Legal Aid Firm (downtown / civic / van ness)

This is an opportunity to found a legal aid organization. In Amador v. California Culnary Academy, students alleged they were led to believe the $46,000 12-month culinary education they received would make economic sense based on their post-graduation job opportunities. For most students that proved untrue.

In connection with the $41.8 million class action settlement of the case (judgement is expected to become final later this month), $2 million has been earmarked to provide student-debt-related services to class members. These class members need help dealing with their creditors. The director will set up and manage the firm under the oversight of the trustees of the fund, Ray E. Gallo and Robert W. Mills. The objective is to effectively manage and compromise the class members’ debts by all legal means. Also, through other fundraising efforts, we hope this new firm may live beyond its $2 million founding budget to become the first agency to focus on providing remedies to the economically disadvantaged when they suffer consumer-related tragedies like those at issue in Amador.

The ideal applicant is an attorney with 10 or more years of experience who enjoys being in a courtroom and has significant experience supervising other lawyers and staff members. Big firm training and top 10 schooling are preferred, but anybody smart and scrappy is welcome to apply. This will be a small firm environment, and effective use of technology will be essential, so you should be someone who welcomes those things.

The job may be available as early as July 1, 2012 and requires a commitment of at least two years. The location of the firm will be determined in consultation with the Director once hired.

Please submit cover letter, resume, writing sample, and salary history by email. Potentially qualified candidates will be asked to complete online assessments.

rgallo@gallo-law.com

  • Compensation: $100,000 to $200,000 (negotiable, DOE, etc.)
  • This is at a non-profit organization.
  • OK to highlight this job opening for persons with disabilities
  • Principals only. Recruiters, please don’t contact this job poster.
  • Please, no phone calls about this job!
  • Please do not contact job poster about other services, products or commercial interests.”

Is PG&E Money Going to Google so that Web Searches for “Janet Reilly” Send People to “Not Janet Reilly.com?”

Friday, October 22nd, 2010

[UPDATE: Well, no, it seems. See Byron’s comment. A mystery solved. But I got to tell you that a unique ID number would solve this problem. That way, we could all invoke Thomas Paine without confusion…]

Get up to speed on the whole NotJanetReilly.com issue right here.

Now, who’s paying Google to send searchers to Not Janet Reilly, a tiny website that would get no attention but for a Google “Sponsored Link?”

Oh, it’s Common Sense Voters, SF 2010?” But who are they?

Are they “CommonSenseSF” and/or the “Coalition for Reliable and Affordable Electricity and/or PG&E?”

Don’t know. But the big beef against Janet at NotJanetReilly appears to be the whole Public Power / Community Choice Aggregation issue, one that PG&E would seem to have an interest in. See?

Now, I’m not surprised to hear that District 2 rejected Public Power in the past, but I wonder:

Who would win a popularity contest in D2 right now – Janet Reilly or PG&E?

That’d be something for some area Pigs Giraffes & Elephants(who haven’t been having a good year, to say the least) to consider, mmmm?

The No on Proposition 16 People to Hold an Anti-PGE, Pro-CCA Victory Party on Thursday

Monday, August 2nd, 2010

From Rebecca Bowe comes the news of  the No On 16 Victory Party / Workshop / Awards  Show. You are welcome to celebrate the recent loss of Proposition 16 at an afternoon event coming Thursday, August 5, 2010.

Check it:

NO on PROPOSITION 16
CAMPAIGN VICTORY WORKSHOP
VOLUNTEER HERO AWARDS and
CELEBRATION PARTY
AUGUST 5, 2010

Merchants Exchange Building
Julia Morgan Ballroom
465 California Street  San Francisco

AGENDA OUTLINE

1:00-1:30 p.m.            Registration Check-in

1:30 p.m. Welcome and Opening Remarks

VICTORY WORKSHOP

1:45-2:45 p.m. The Campaign        The Victory

  • Moderator: Nancy Miller Panelists :John Geesman; Gale Kaufman; Jim Pope

3:00-4:00 p.m. The Ongoing Challenges of Obstruction

  • Moderator:  Jim Metropulos Panelists: Ross Mirkarimi; Mark  Toney; Jeff Shields

4:15-5:15 p.m. The Future: Common Ground for CCA and Public Power?

  • Moderator: Cynthia Wooten Panelists: Charles McGlashan; Paul Fenn; Renata Brillinger; Dave Room

4:15-5:15 p.m. The Legal Team: Litigation, Regulation and Support

Panelists:        Matt Jacobs; Ann Trowbridge; Dennis Herrera

** Ample time will  be provided for Q&A, participant statements

VOLUNTEER HERO AWARDS and PARTY

5:30 p.m. Delicious  Buffet        Libations         Talk & Play

6:30 p.m. Volunteer Hero Awards Presentation         Mark Toney

Music  and Party!

REMEMBER                NO COST TO ATTEND                        IT’S FREE

Please distribute to your lists!

A Well-Attended Meeting in Support of Community Choice Aggregation at Harvey Milk Club

Friday, March 5th, 2010

This was the scene the other day at the LGBT Center at a Harvey Milk Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender Democratic Club meeting in support of Community Choice Aggregation.

Here’s a report from KPIX Channel 5 (if you can handle a commercial beforehand.) 

Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi, Supervisor David Campos, Carole Migden, Paul Fenn, John Rizzo, Chris Jackson, and Eric Brooks, among others, were all there:

The fight over Proposition 16 is hotting up, certainly.

Milk Club Community Choice Aggregation (CCA) Town Hall Tonight at LGBT Center

Tuesday, March 2nd, 2010

San Francisco’s Harvey Milk Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender Democratic Club is hosting a Community Choice Aggregation (CCA) Town Hall tonight at the LGBT Center on the corner of Market and Octavia. CCA is:

“a system adopted into law in the states of Massachusetts, Ohio, California, New Jersey and Rhode Island which allows cities and counties to aggregate the buying power of individual customerswithin a defined jurisdiction in order to secure alternative energy supply contracts. Currently, nearly 1 million Americans receive service from CCAs.”

The special guests will be Assembly Bill 117 (2002) author Carole Migden, District 5 Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi, District 9 Supervisor David Campos and San Francisco Bay Guardian Executive Editor Tim Redmond.

The whole shebang starts at 6:45 PM: 

STOP the PG$E Power GRAB!

PG&E is spending MILLIONS of YOUR dollars in this June’s election to prevent Local Control and Community Choice regarding electricity rates & renewable energy!

Confused about Community Choice Aggregation & SF Clean Energy Program?

That’s okay! Former State Senator Carole Migden, author of the Community Choice Aggregation legislation, and many others will be at this special Milk Club PAC Forum to help explain these issues and show you how to educate our communities and take DIRECT POLITICAL ACTION!

This event is OPEN to the PUBLIC!

Please invite EVERYONE YOU KNOW to attend this SPECIAL FORUM and STOP PG&E!

Tuesday, March 2, 2010 @ 6:45 p.m.
LGBT Community Center
1800 Market Street @ Octavia
4th Floor Ceremonial Room

Special Guests Include:
Former State Senator Carole Migden, San Francisco
Supervisors David Campos & Ross Mirkarimi, San Francisco

Featured Presenters:
Paul Fenn, John Rizzo, Chris Jackson and Eric Brooks

Moderators:
MILK Club Political VP Linette Peralta Haynes
SF BAY GUARDIAN Editor-in-Chief Tim Redmond

Convener:
Tom Taylor, Milk Club Environmental Caucus Chair

HISTORY + ACTION = PROGRESS
Harvey Milk Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender Democratic Club
Celebrating 35 Years of Progressive Political Action and Fighting for our Communities

Dennis Herrera vs. PG&E’s Campaign Against Community Choice Aggregation

Monday, January 11th, 2010

I’m seem to recall addressing a public meeting to speak out in favor of Community Choice Aggregation (to the chagrin of a mayoral representative, who tried to block me from saying anything) - can’t remember if I was doing that was as a volunteer or not. Oh well.

Irregardless, this one speaks for itself. There are pros and cons to CCA, needless to say.

The latest:

“City Attorney Dennis Herrera has petitioned the California Public Utilities Commission for tougher regulations to prohibit electric utilities from engaging in marketing campaigns and other abuses of their monopoly position to undermine Community Choice Aggregation, a program intended to enable local governments to develop cleaner, renewable energy sources and ultimately stabilize consumers’ electricity costs. The move comes in reaction to recent efforts by PG&E to kill consumer choice, contrary to promises the company repeatedly voiced to state regulators.

“We cannot let Californians be denied the benefits of cleaner, cost-effective energy alternatives — consumer choice is simply too important to ratepayers and the environment,” Herrera said. “The California Public Utilities Commission exists to police giant utilities, to assure that their monopoly advantages aren’t abused to exploit consumers or frustrate the policy objectives of our state lawmakers. Yet that is exactly what has happened since PG&E locked CCA into its crosshairs. It is critical for state regulators to move quickly and decisively to tighten regulations, and restore teeth to the law as the legislature intended. I am enormously grateful to Sup. Ross Mirkarimi for his longstanding leadership on CCA as LAFCo chair, and to SFPUC General Manager Ed Harrington and his staff for their expertise and hard work to fulfill the promise of consumer choice.”

Links:

  • Read the news release “Herrera seeks rule change to block PG&E efforts to kill consumer choice; Utility’s deceptive campaign, broken promises on Community Choice Aggregation demand expedited action by regulators, City argues” (Jan. 11, 2010)
  • Download the PDF of the City Attorney’s CPUC petition to halt anti-CCA marketing drives (Jan. 11, 2010)
  • Download the PDF of City Attorney’s CPUC Petition Appendices A-C (Jan. 11, 2010)
  • Download the PDF of City Attorney’s CPUC Petition Appendices D-G (Jan. 11, 2010)
  • Download the PDF of City Attorney’s CPUC Petition Appendices H-L (Jan. 11, 2010)

Herrera seeks rule change to block PG&E efforts to kill consumer choice

Utility’s deceptive campaign, broken promises on Community Choice Aggregation demand expedited action by regulators, City argues

SAN FRANCISCO (Jan. 11, 2010) — City Attorney Dennis Herrera today petitioned the California Public Utilities Commission for tougher regulations to prohibit electric utilities from engaging in marketing campaigns and other abuses of their monopoly position to undermine Community Choice Aggregation, a program intended to enable local governments to develop cleaner, renewable energy sources and ultimately stabilize consumers’ electricity costs.  The move comes in reaction to efforts by Pacific Gas & Electric Company to kill consumer choice, contrary to promises it made to state regulators to support CCA, the consumer energy alternative made possible by state legislation in 2002. 

Despite the company’s public commitments to CPUC as late as Nov. 2005 that “PG&E has stated before and states again that CCA is a consumer choice alternative that should be enabled,” a PG&E-controlled political committee last month targeted San Franciscans in a direct mail campaign that savaged the City’s consumer choice plan as a “risky scheme” that “will establish new bureaucracy,” and enroll unwilling customers “whether you like it or not.”  Last October, a PG&E Corp. executive vowed to shareholders that the company would “stand up and resist efforts to take over our customers, and those efforts by municipal government.”  The San Francisco-based utility also emerged last year as the primary financial backer of a proposed statewide ballot measure to impose a two-thirds majority vote requirement to authorize a wide variety of energy services programs, including CCA — an all-but insurmountable electoral burden.

“We cannot let Californians be denied the benefits of cleaner, cost-effective energy alternatives — consumer choice is simply too important to ratepayers and the environment,” Herrera said.  “The California Public Utilities Commission exists to police giant utilities, to assure that their monopoly advantages aren’t abused to exploit consumers or frustrate the policy objectives of our state lawmakers.  Yet that is exactly what has happened since PG&E locked CCA into its crosshairs.  It is critical for state regulators to move quickly and decisively to tighten regulations, and restore teeth to the law as the legislature intended.  I am enormously grateful to Sup. Ross Mirkarimi for his longstanding leadership on CCA as LAFCo chair, and to SFPUC General Manager Ed Harrington and his staff for their expertise and hard work to fulfill the promise of consumer choice.”

Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi, who as chair the Local Agency Formation Commission, or LAFCo, led the successful effort to adopt a Community Choice Aggregation plan for San Francisco aimed at developing a significantly greater share of energy from clean and renewable sources, said: “We know from its long history that PG&E will act ruthlessly to protect its monopoly, which already charges some the highest rates for electricity in the nation.  But this time, it’s not just consumers who will pay the price for PG&E’s tactics — it’s also our environment.  PG&E’s misleading direct mail campaign in San Francisco and its statewide push for a self-serving constitutional amendment make clear that regulators must act quickly to defend a state law that has frankly been undermined by CPUC’s lax regulations.  Today’s petition by City Attorney Herrera, which is supported by San Francisco Public Utilities Commission General Manager Ed Harrington, demonstrates that City leaders are united to demand that regulators restore the promise of Community Choice Aggregation — to protect consumers as well as the environment.”

“Consumer choice is one of the most important goals of CleanPowerSF,” said SFPUC General Manager Ed Harrington. “San Franciscans deserve the opportunity to clearly choose and compare their energy providers based on facts like transparency, price stability, and renewable power generation.” 

The California law that enables local governments to offer an electric supply alternative already provides that monopoly utilities must cooperate with Community Choice Aggregation.  But regulatory rules intact since PG&E’s previous professions of support for CCA are now widely exploited by the state’s largest utility, according to Herrera’s petition, “rendering the Legislature’s carefully crafted CCA law a meaningless piece of paper.”  Given the urgency created by PG&E’s multi-million dollar bid to kill consumer choice alternatives statewide, the City is requesting the CPUC to give expedited consideration of its petition to tighten regulations and protect consumers as soon as possible.

A copy of Petition of the City and County of San Francisco to modify decision 05-12-041 and request for expedited consideration (Rulemaking 03-10-033, To Implement Portions of AB 117 Concerning Community Choice Aggregation); California Public Utilities Commission, January 11, 2010, is available on the City Attorney’s Web site at http://www.sfcityattorney.org/.