If ever any corporation earned regulatory legislation, PG&E did so when they spent nearly $50 million of ratepayer funds to try to pass a constitutional amendment to guarantee the monopoly. And Mark Leno is making it happen.
Senator Mark Leno today announced legislation that would prevent Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E) from using ratepayer funds to finance future political campaigns. The bill allows the corporation to continue participating in political campaigns, but stipulates that money derived from ratepayers cannot be used for political or public affairs expenditures.
Senator Leno’s bill requires PG&E to report its annual political and public affairs spending to the California Public Utilities Commission. The PUC will ensure that all political and public affairs spending identified in this report did not derive from ratepayer funds.
This is already the rule for municipal utitilies. And, frankly, if PG&E wants to guarantee its monopoly so much, they should be totally fine with competing on a level playing field.
What do you think the odds of that are?
What do you think the odds are of Ahnie vetoing it?
Couldn’t PG&E’s accountants just find a way to say that the $50 million they spent isn’t ratepayer funds, by claiming it came from some other source? Interest on their cash-on-hand, or something like that?
Money is fungible, after all.
Leno’s proposal is interesting, but also raises difficult questions.
If ALL of PG&E’s income derives from rate payers, this proposal would effectively silence the company, and that would almost certainly infringe the company’s 1st Amdt rights.
On the other hand, if PG&E has substantial income that is not derived from rate payers, this bill would do nothing. As another commenter said, money is fungible.
Also: If we allowed this proposal to become law, how is it distinguishable in principle from a rule that forbids unions from spending members’ dues payments on political expression—lobbying, issue advocacy, ads, etc.