PG&E
SEE CORP BAD ACTOR GAS PIPELINE KIA
MERRI OK
see local power utility
1st amend case TURN
3 uscap utilities pulled out of US chamber: exelon, pg&e and PNM; USC of C called for skopes trial on GW
defections;
===
---
REV DOOR
gmail 12 25
Who's Funding Kyrsten Sinema's AI Front Group?
Corporate America’s former ace-in-the-hole in the Senate is now lobbying for AI interests including Google, Meta, Microsoft, and ExxonMobil.
when Kyrsten Sinema was a senator, she was corporations’ ace-in-the-hole. Now, she’s their AI lobbyist.
Sinema has been pushing the industry’s interests at the local level in Chandler, Arizona, where she’s tried to bully city officials into approving her client’s AI data center. Using a public records request, Zeteo’s Akshay Gokul obtained documents showing that Sinema has been quietly lobbying politicians in Chandler for months, attempting to sell them on “our AI data center project.”
The former senator has separately launched an AI-industry front group in Washington, DC, called the AI Infrastructure Coalition, where she’s now representing corporate giants like Google, Meta (Facebook’s parent company), Microsoft, and ExxonMobil; the venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz; and utility firms PG&E, Next Era, and Pinnacle West.
In this must-watch video,Zeteo’s Frank Cappelloreviews Sinema’s lobbying for the AI industry, sharing the mobster-style pitch she made to officials in Chandler, and his own hope that she manages to “cash out before the AI bubble completely bursts.” We’d hate to see her lose the bag.
===
---
thom
It’s time to bring back the corporate death penalty - Alternet.org
...now consider what happens when a corporation behaves like that.
Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) has already been nailed for “speeding”—ignoring laws that require them to operate in a way that’s safe—and people have already died, on multiple occasions.
- PG&E was found guilty for the 2010 San Bruno pipeline explosion that injured more than 50 people and killed eight. They were fined $1.6 billion and are on probation now.
- Two years ago, the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of California noted in a public statement that the company had continued to break that same law. “The jury found PG&E guilty of six felony counts—five willful violations of the Pipeline Safety Act and one count of corruptly obstructing the federal investigation…” As an additional penalty, they were ordered to perform 10,000 hours of community service, pay a $3 million fine, and another five years was added to their “probation.”
- In 2017 alone, PG&E’s failure to properly maintain and operate their equipment and rights-of-way caused 17 fires in California; while investigators referred 11 of those cases to prosecutors for code violations, so far there have been no new indictments.
- In December of 2018, PG&E was again busted by the California Public Utilities Commission for not only refusing to mark and warn people of the locations of their gas pipelines in a timely fashion, but, as CNN noted, they “[P]ressured workers to falsify data…”
And the crimes of PG&E pale in comparison to those of the tobacco industry, the asbestos industry, and companies like ExxonMobil that promoted lies about global warming while continuing to profitably and massively pollute.
The Corporate Death Penalty Is Not New
While the human death penalty has largely disappeared in the world and is fading in the U.S. (a good thing), the corporate death penalty needs a revival.
The corporate death penalty, widespread in the 19th century, is a political and economic Darwinian process that weeds bad actors out of the business ecosystem to make room for good players.
The process of revoking corporate charters goes back to the very first years of the United States. After all, the only reasons states allow (“charter”) corporations (normal business corporations can only be chartered by a state, not the federal government) is to serve the public interest.
As the Wyoming Constitution of 1889 laid out:
“All powers and franchises of corporations are derived from the people and are granted by their agent, the government, for the public good and general welfare, and the right and duty of the state to control and regulate them for these purposes is hereby declared. The power, rights and privileges of any and all corporations may be forfeited by willful neglect or abuse thereof. The police power of the state is supreme over all corporations as well as individuals.”
When a corporation does business ethically and legally, it serves its local community, its employees, its customers, and its shareholders. For over a century, American corporations were held to this very reasonable standard.
Beginning in 1784, Pennsylvania demanded that corporations include a revocation clause in corporate charters that automatically dissolved them after a few decades so they couldn’t grow so large or so rich as to become a public menace. It also authorized the state to dissolve any corporation that harmed the state or its citizens, including customers and employees.
It was pretty explicit:
“Nor shall any charter for the purposes aforesaid be granted for a longer time than twenty years; and every such charter shall contain a clause reserving to the legislature the power to alter, revoke, or annul the same, whenever in their opinion it may be injurious to the citizens of the commonwealth…” (Article I, Section 25)
As the United States grew, the federal government passed laws requiring corporate-death-penalty revocation clauses in the state corporate charters of insurance companies, in 1809, and banks in 1814. By the late 1880s, every state required them for all business corporations.
From the founding of America to today, governments routinely revoked corporate charters, forcing liquidation and sale of assets, although it’s been over a century since such efforts have focused on corporations large enough to have amassed financial and, thus, political power.
In the 19th century, banks were shut down for behaving in a “financially unsound” way in Ohio, Mississippi, and Pennsylvania. And when corporations that ran turnpikes in New York and Massachusetts didn’t keep their roads in repair, those states gave the corporations the death sentence.
In 1825, Pennsylvania passed laws making it even easier for that state to “revoke, alter, or annul” corporate charters “whenever in their opinion [the operation of the corporation] may be injurious to citizens of the community,” and by the 1870s, 19 states had gone through the long and tedious process of amending their state constitutions expressly to give legislators the power to terminate the existence of corporations that originated in those states.
Presidents have even run for public office and won on platforms including the revocation of corporate charters. One of the largest issues of the election of 1832 was Andrew Jackson’s demand that the corporate charter of the Second Bank of the United States not be renewed.
Following that lead, states all over the nation began examining their banks and other corporations, and in just the year 1832, the state of Pennsylvania pulled the corporate charters of 10 corporations, sentencing them to corporate death “for operating contrary to the public interest.”
Oil corporations, match manufacturers, whiskey trusts, and sugar corporations all received the corporate death penalty in the late 1800s in Michigan, Ohio, Nebraska, and New York, among others.
President Grover Cleveland invoked the mood of the times in his 1888 State of the Union address, when he said:
“As we view the achievements of aggregated capital, we discover the existence of trusts, combinations, and monopolies, while the citizen is struggling far in the rear or is trampled to death beneath an iron heel. Corporations, which should be the carefully restrained creatures of the law and the servants of the people, are fast becoming the people’s masters.”
The Oligarchs Rise Up
When, in the 1880s, the State of Ohio began threatening Standard Oil Trust of Ohio with the corporate death penalty, John D. Rockefeller and his oligarchic buddies publicly called for states to change their corporate governance laws to get around all of the restrictions that Ohio and most other states had placed on them.
New Jersey heard the call, and thus became the first state to engage in what was then called “charter-mongering”—changing its corporate charter rules to satisfy the desires of the nation’s largest businesses. In 1875, its legislature abolished maximum capitalization (size) limits.
In 1888, the New Jersey legislature took another huge and dramatic step to help out Rockefeller by authorizing—for the first time in the history of the United States—New Jersey-chartered companies to hold stock in other companies. The Standard Oil Trust was legally still in business (Ohio outlawed trusts in 1892, but by then Rockefeller had moved his corporate governance to New Jersey), renamed “Standard Oil Company of New Jersey.” (It’s now ExxonMobil, the company that has funded lies about climate change for decades.)
As New Jersey and then Delaware threw out old restrictions on corporate behavior, allowing corporations to have interlocking boards, to live forever, to define themselves for “any legal purpose,” to own stock in other corporations, and so on, corporations began to move both their corporate charters and, in some cases, their headquarters to the charter-mongering states.
By 1900, trusts for everything from ribbons to bread to cement to alcohol had moved to Delaware or New Jersey, leaving 26 corporate trusts controlling, from those states, more than 80 percent of production in their markets.
There was pushback in New York, though. In 1894 the Central Labor Union of New York City campaigned for the New York State Supreme Court to revoke the charter of Standard Oil Trust of New York for “a pattern of abuses,” and the court agreed and dissolved the company.
In 1912, New Jersey Governor Woodrow Wilson was alarmed by the behavior of corporations in his state, and “pressed through changes [that took effect in 1913] intended to make New Jersey’s corporations less favorable to concentrated financial power.”
But as New Jersey began to pull back from charter-mongering, Delaware stepped into the fray, passing in 1915 laws similar to but even easier on corporations than New Jersey’s.
Delaware, over the next few decades, continued to strip away their corporate accountability rules so that, as the state’s website said in 2002, “More than 308,000 companies are incorporated in Delaware including 60 percent of the Fortune 500 and 50 percent of the companies listed on the New York Stock Exchange.” (The site today merely has “corporate-friendly” gibberish.)
Progressives Fight Back
In reaction to public disgust with the predatory and monopolistic behavior of these corporate giants, the “Progressive Era” of Teddy Roosevelt’s presidency (1901-1909) saw numerous laws passed designed to restrain bad corporate behavior. The most well-known was the 1907 Tillman Act, which made it a felony for a corporation to give money to federal politicians’ campaigns.
The Tillman Act was based, in part, on numerous state laws, like this one that Wisconsin passed in 1905 (and was taken off the books in 1954):
“Political contributions by corporations. No corporation doing business in this state shall pay or contribute, or offer consent or agree to pay or contribute, directly or indirectly, any money, property, free service of its officers or employees or thing of value to any political party, organization, committee or individual for any political purpose whatsoever, or for the purpose of influencing legislation of any kind, or to promote or defeat the candidacy of any person for nomination, appointment or election to any political office. [Wis. Laws, Section 4479a (Sec. I, ch. 492, 1905)]” (emphasis added)
The penalty for an individual (even a lawyer or lobbyist representing a corporation) breaking this law on behalf of a corporation was not just a large fine but a two-year prison term, and if the corporation itself was found to be violating the law, it faced the corporate death penalty: “dissolution of the corporation and sale of its assets.”
But 1921 saw the end of all that, when Republican Warren G. Harding successfully ran for president on a platform of tax cuts, deregulation and privatization. His twin slogans were, “More business in government [privatize], less government in business [deregulate],” and “Return to normalcy” (take taxes back down to where they were before World War I).
When elected, he lowered the top tax rate from 91 percent to 25 percent, producing a huge “sugar high” for the economy. It kicked off the Roaring ’20s and led straight to the Great Crash of 1929, which was made much worse by Harding’s successful deregulation of the banks and brokerage houses.
Between the 1920s and the 1980s all U.S. states amended their constitutions or changed their laws to make it easier for large corporations to do business without having to answer to the citizens of the state, without size limits, and with infinite lifespans.
Today, every state still has laws that allow it to impose the corporate death penalty; it’s just been decades since they’ve been used against a large corporation. (Small companies are routinely shut down by Secretaries of State, sometimes for malfeasance but mostly just because they’ve become inactive or failed to pay their taxes.)
Corporations have successfully argued before the Supreme Court that they should have First Amendment rights of free speech, Fourth Amendment rights of privacy, Fifth Amendment protections against takings, and Fourteenth Amendment rights as “persons” to “equal protection [with you and me] under the law,” among other “rights of personhood.”
It’s long past the time that these “persons,” when they become egregious and recidivist criminals (and particularly when they repeatedly kill people), be treated the same as human criminals: remove them from society permanently.
New, smaller, more innovative companies can fill the spaces now occupied by bloated corporate criminals. The result will be (as it was after AT&T was broken up in the 1970s for violating anti-monopoly laws) an explosion of innovation, competition, and opportunity.
If enough corporate criminals are targeted, the American business renaissance could spread across industries including media, pharmaceuticals, airlines, tech, banking, insurance, food, chemicals, oil and beyond.
It would be a real stimulus, meaningful and long-lasting, as opposed to Trump’s tax-cut heroin.
It’s time for our states to start enforcing the corporate death penalty.
---
new bd looks like 1% old bd
https://kpfa.org/episode/project-censored-february-7-2020/
==
https://www.alternet.org/2019/12/taking-back-democratic-power-why-utilities-should-be-owned-by-us-all/
==
TURN interview 2 options to go public
https://kpfa.org/episode/upfront-december-19-2019/
hedge fund tries to make stock worth nothing to take over?
---
biggest utility in US
---
As California Burns Again, Rep. Ro Khanna Calls for PG&E to Become Publicly Owned Utility
==
right to serve can be revoked by state?
TURN https://kpfa.org/episode/upfront-november-4-2019/
"going concern"
licardo, SF maDE bid for part of network
weiner bill on shutdown; prev bill on microgrid local got eviscerated by lobbyists [
some unions mailers on ~ shutdown bill?
grid bill w/ WR nielsen, bill pulled
---
https://www.abc10.com/article/news/politics/most-state-lawmakers-took-pge-money-did-yours-keep-it/103-a7e22e47-b054-4093-bb9e-66562f9e8bcf
POLITICS
Most state lawmakers took PG&E money, did yours keep it?
Eight out of 10 members of the California legislature accepted campaign donations from corporate felon PG&E. Here's who gave it back and who didn't.
Author: Brandon Rittiman
July 11, 2019
EDITOR’S NOTE: This article is part of the ABC10 Originals project FIRE – POWER – MONEY, a documentary series one year in the making. The series breaks down California’s wildfire crisis into its core elements. In FIRE, you’ll learn why California’s forest fires are deadlier than ever and why power lines are connected to some of the worst fires. In POWER, we show how electric company PG&E influences politics to protect its monopoly, despite being convicted of crimes and being blamed for starting many fires. In MONEY, we break down how much it will cost you, including the high-cost fire damage and the price of potential solutions.
SACRAMENTO, Calif. — Ninety-eight sitting members of the California legislature took campaign money from the Pacific Gas and Electric Company — after the company was convicted of six federal felonies and placed on probation with a mandatory court monitor.
The members include democrats and republicans. They also make up a vast supermajority of the statehouse: Eight out of every 10 sitting lawmakers.
The company was convicted in August 2016 and sentenced in January 2017, yet it went on to spend $4.4 million to influence California politics — and it was all legal. But was it right?
RELATED: Governor Newsom, most state lawmakers took money from convicted felon PG&E
“If it’s not illegal, it should be,” said former federal prosecutor Bill Portanova. “If these politicians who are voting on the future of PG&E are taking money from a convicted felon at the same time, then what good is this conviction? Is this all for show? Are we not supposed to pay attention to the man behind the screen?”
After its felony conviction, PG&E also donated $208,400 to help elect Gov. Gavin Newsom, and sent more than $550,000 to both the state Republican and Democratic parties.
That matters because the legislature and Newsom are in the middle of crafting a legislative package to help utility companies like PG&E stay financially solvent after starting wildfires.
In all, state lawmakers received more than $548,005 from PG&E in the last election cycle. All of those donations came after PG&E’s felony convictions for five crimes connected to the San Bruno gas pipeline explosion and a sixth for obstructing the federal investigation into the disaster, which killed eight people.
As of this publication, three members gave up money they’d accepted from PG&E. One only returned part of the contribution he received. The other two chose to donate all the money to charity.
THE 98 LAWMAKERS WHO TOOK PG&E MONEY
NOTE: This list is updated and current as of July 10, 2019. The list begins with senators, followed by assembly members. It is sorted alphabetically by last name.
ABC10 sent emails to all 98 state lawmakers who accepted campaign money from PG&E from 2017 to 2018, after the company’s conviction and sentence of probation. All 98 lawmakers were sent a list of questions and given one week to respond, with a deadline of July 3 to have their responses included in this list. To find the name of your state legislators, click here.
We asked each lawmaker to answer four questions:
Given PG&E’s status as a convicted felon still serving a sentence, do you stand by your decision to accept campaign funds from them? Why or why not?
Are you willing to refund (or give away as a donation) the contribution made to your campaign by PG&E?
If not, how would you assure Californians of your impartiality as we deal with the pending crisis surrounding California’s utilities and wildfires?
Should convicted felons be allowed to contribute to political campaigns? Why or why not?
SENATORS
Total PG&E donations to all senators 2017-2018: $138,774
Name: Benjamin Allen
Contributions: $2,000
Comments: No response
Name: Bob Archuleta
Contributions: $4,400
Comments: Senator’s office said they would return the message at a later point, however, no message has been returned. On Tuesday, Fred Zermeno called ABC10 saying he would try to connect the Senator for a response, however, a call was not received.
Name: Patricia Bates
Contributions: $8,800
Comments: No response
Name: Andreas Borgeas
Contributions: $8,800
Comments: No response
Name: Steven Bradford
Contributions: $4,758
Comments: No response
Name: Anna Caballero
Contributions: $4,400
Comments: No response
Name: Ling Ling Chang
Contributions: $4,000
Comments: “If you have been following PG&E, you know that they have admitted responsibility for sparking wildfires in Northern California. As such, I have donated the $4,000 I received from them in 2017 to a nonprofit related to fire disaster relief and several local charities,” Sen. Chang wrote in an email to ABC10.
Donations were given to Orange County Human Trafficking Task Force/Waymakers, YMCA Fullerton, and California Community Foundation Wildlife Relief Fund.
Below are the Senator's full responses to the four questions:
I have given away PG&E's contribution.
Yes. I donated most of their contribution to a nonprofit related to fire disaster relief, and gave the remainder to two local charities.
I am impartial; I gave away the money.
No.
*A spokesperson for Sen. Chang's office responded to ABC10 after the July 3 deadline.
Name: Brian Dahle
Contributions: $8,800
Comments: No response
Name: Bill Dodd
Contributions: $2,258.82
Comments: No response
Name: Maria Elena Durazo
Contributions: $3,400
Comments: “As a state Senator, I took an oath to abide by the legislature’s Code of Ethics. My vote or action are not influenced by a contribution,” said Senator Durazo in an emailed statement.
*The statement provided by the Senator did not address the inquiry regarding taking political contributions from felons.
Name: Steven Glazer
Contributions: $3,758.82
Comments: “When PG&E declared bankruptcy in January I grew concerned that their dire financial status would prevent them from compensating the victims of wildfires caused by their equipment,” Senator Glazer said in an emailed statement.
Senator Glazer had received a 2,258.82 non-monetary contribution and a $1,500 monetary contribution. He had written a check returning the $1,500 contribution to PG&E prior to these questions being asked. The Senator stood by his statement when asked to answer questions about the ethics of accepting funds from a felon.
Name: Shannon Grove
Contributions: $3,400
Comments: No response
Name: Robert Hertzberg
Contributions: $8,800
Comments: No response
Name: Ben Hueso
Contributions: $8,800
Comments: No response
Name: Brian Jones
Contributions: $6,000
Comments: No Response.
Name: Connie Leyva
Contributions: $1,000
Comments: No response
Name: Mike McGuire
Contributions: $1,000
Comments: No response
Name: John M.W. Moorlach
Contributions: $1,000
Comments: No response.
Name: Mike Morrell
Contributions: $2,000
Comments: No response
Name: Jim Nielsen
Contributions: $6,400
Comments: No response
Name: Richard Pan
Contributions: $8,800
Comments: No response
Name: Anthony Portantino
Contributions: $4,000
Comments: “I completely regret and apologize for this circumstance. Today [July 2], I made a $4000 donation to the Butte County Office of Education Schools Fire Relief Fund. I wanted to rectify my error by directing the funds to communities in need as I felt it appropriate to use the contribution for a needy purpose rather then returning it directly to the source,” said Senator Portantino in an email to ABC10.
Name: Richard Roth
Contributions: $3,000
Comments: No response
Name: Susan Rubio
Contributions: $5,000
Comments: No response
Name: Nancy Skinner
Contributions: $1,000
Comments: Senator Skinner declined to comment.
Name: Henry Stern
Contributions: $3,000
Comments: No response
Name: Bob Wieckowski
Contributions: $6,400
Comments: No response
Name: Scott Wiener
Contributions: $4,000
Comments: No response
Name: Scott Wilk
Contributions: $1,000
Comments: No response
ASSEMBLY MEMBERS
Total PG&E donations to all assembly members 2017-2018: $407,700
Name: Cecilia M. Aguiar-Curry
Contributions: $8,800
Comments: No response
Name: Joaquin Arambula
Contributions: $4,000
Comments: No response
Name: Marc Berman
Contributions: $2,300
Comments: The questions were lodged to the Office of Asm. Marc Berman, however, staff redirected the inquiry to his campaign team. A message sent to his campaign team was not returned.
Name: Frank Bigelow
Contributions: $8,800
Comments: No response
Name: Richard Bloom
Contributions: $2,000
Comments: No response
Name: Tasha Boerner Horvath
Contributions: $4,400
Comments: No response
Name: Rob Bonta
Contributions: $8,800
Comments: No response
Name: William Brough
Contributions: $5,400
Comments: No response
Name: Autumn Burke
Contributions: $8,800
Comments: No response
Name: Ian Calderon
Contributions: $8,800
Comments: No response
Name: Wendy Carrillo
Contributions: $3,400
Comments: No response
Name: Sabrina Cervantes
Contributions: $8,400
Comments: The questions were lodged to the Office of Asm. Cervantes, however, they directed the inquiries to Derek Humphrey, who has worked as a campaign consultant for Cervantes. The inquiry was sent to a provided email, but it has not been returned.
Name: Phillip Chen
Contributions: $2,400
Comments: No response
Name: Steven Choi
Contributions: $2,000
Comments: No response
Name: Kansen Chu
Contributions: $2,500
Comments: No response
Name: Ken Cooley
Contributions: $6,400
Comments: No response
Name: Jim Cooper
Contributions: $8,800
Comments: No response
Name: Jordan Cunningham
Contributions: $8,800
Comments: No response
Name: Tom Daly
Contributions: $8,800
Comments: No response
Name: Tyler Diep
Contributions: $4,400
Comments: No response
Name: Susan Talamantes Eggman
Contributions: $4,400
Comments: No response
Name: Heath Flora
Contributions: $8,800
Comments: No response
Name: Vince Fong
Contributions: $8,800
Comments: No response
Name: Jim Frazier
Contributions: $8,800
Comments: No response
Name: Laura Friedman
Contributions: $1,300
Comments: No response
Name: Jesse Gabriel
Contributions: $4,400
Comments: No response
Name: James Gallagher
Contributions: $8,400
Comments: No response
Name: Eduardo Garcia
Contributions: $8,400
Comments: No response
Name: Mike Gipson
Contributions: $5,900
Comments: No response
Name: Todd Gloria
Contributions: $5,000
Comments: No response
Name: Lorena Gonzalez
Contributions: $8,800
Comments: No response
Name: Adam Gray
Contributions: $8,800
Comments: No response
Name: Timothy Grayson
Contributions: $6,400
Comments: According to Matthew Powers, who serves as Asm. Grayson’s Chief of Staff, Asm. Grayson donated the entire amount to Northern California United Way for the benefit of wildfire victims. The donation was made in May 2019, before ABC10 submitted a media inquiry.
Name: Chris Holden
Contributions: $8,800
Comments: No response
Name: Jacqui Irwin
Contributions: $4,500
Comments: No response
Name: Reginald Byron Jones-Sawyer, Sr.
Contributions: $8,800
Comments: No response
Name: Ash Kalra
Contributions: $1,500
Comments: No response
Name: Sydney Kamlager-Dove
Contributions: $2,000
Comments: No response
Name: Kevin Kiley
Contributions: $4,000
Comments: Asm. Kevin Kiley donated all of the money he received from PG&E, including a $4,200 donation from 2016, to the North Valley Community Foundation on January 14, 2019, according to his Chief of Staff Joshua Hoover. The charity helps to support the survivors of the Camp Fire.
*Asm. Kiley's Office reached out to ABC10 after the July 3 deadline.
Name: Tom Lackey
Contributions: $8,800
Comments: No response
Name: Monique Limon
Contributions: $1,300
Comments: No response
Name: Evan Low
Contributions: $13,500
Comments: No response
Name: Brian Maienschein
Contributions: $4,000
Comments: No response
Name: Devon Mathis
Contributions: $8,400
Comments: No response
Name: Chad Mayes
Contributions: $8,800
Comments: No response
Name: Kevin McCarty
Contributions: $3,000
Comments: No response
Name: Jose Medina
Contributions: $4,000
Comments: No response
Name: Melissa Melendez
Contributions: $2,000
Comments: No response
Name: Al Muratsuchi
Contributions: $7,400
Comments: No response
Name: Adrin Nazarian
Contributions: $2,000
Comments: No response
Name: Jay Obernolte
Contributions: $3,000
Comments: No response
Name: Patrick O’Donnell
Contributions: $8,800
Comments: No response
Name: Jim Patterson
Contributions: $8,800
Comments: No response
Name: Bill Quirk
Contributions: $8,800
Comments: No response
Name: Sharon Quirk-Silva
Contributions: $6,400
Comments: No response
Name: James Ramos
Contributions: $4,400
Comments: No respnse
Name: Anthony Rendon
Contributions: $8,800
Comments: No response
Name: Eloise Gomez Reyes
Contributions: $2,000
Comments: No response
Name: Luz Rivas
Contributions: $6,400
Comments: No response
Name: Freddie Rodriguez
Contributions: $8,800
Comments: No response
Name: Blanca Rubio
Contributions: $8,800
Comments: No response
Name: Rudy Salas, Jr.
Contributions: $8,800
Comments: No response
Name: Miguel Santiago
Contributions: $8,800
Comments: No response
Name: Mark Stone
Contributions: $1,000
Comments: No response
Name: Phillip Ting
Contributions: $8,800
Comments: No response
Name: Randy Voepel
Contributions: $2,000
Comments: No response
Name: Marie Waldron
Contributions: $3,000
Comments: No response
Name: Shirley Weber
Contributions: $1,000
Comments: No response
Name: Jim Wood
Contributions: $2,000
Comments: No response
*Editor's note: This list has been updated to include lawmakers who responded after the deadline that they had donated money received from PG&E.
---
1/19
icn
Clean Economy Weekly: The Bankruptcy Felt Round the Clean Energy World
:{:{BY: DAN GEARINO}:
Anyone with a vested interest in clean energy has reason to feel uneasy as PG&E plans to file for bankruptcy protection, Dan Gearino writes. Read More}:
--
I am deeply concerned with the current residential rate design proposal from PG&E to change how we pay our bills. PG&E is completely out of touch with us, its customers. Rather than working to provide better access efficiency and solar programs, their proposal to add a $10 fixed charge and collapse tiers would have the impact of discouraging rooftop solar and energy efficiency measures so essential to fight global warming. If successful, their proposal unfairly blames their customers and punishes them for being clean energy leaders.
---
Incredibly, a harmful bill in the state legislature is only two steps away from becoming law. Assembly Bill 2145 could stop cities from being able to meet their climate action goals and prevent you and local businesses from paying less for electricity.
Please call your Senator today and tell them to Vote NO on AB 2145.
Authored by a former Southern California Edison executive, AB 2145 makes Community Choice energy programs harder to form and more costly and bureaucratic to operate. T he sole purpose of this bill is to derail the growing Community Choice movement. Community Choice programs are allowing cities around California to make decisions to increase the amount of renewable, clean energy in their electricity making a big stride forward on addressing climate change and protecting our future.
Thanks to Community Choice, ratepayers in the Marin program will save $5.9 M this year while getting electricity with more than twice the renewable energy content as PG&E's standard residential mix.
:{:{}:
}:
Community Choice could help cities reduce greenhouse gas emissions quickly. But despite the opposition of over 150 groups and cities, this bad bill has continued to advance.
:{:{}:
}:
:{Please call your Senator today and tell them to Vote NO on AB 2145.:{ }:
}:
:{:{}:
}:
Consumers and business should have a choice. This bill solves no problems and does nothing good. It's solely focused on harassing and limiting Community Choice programs.
In 2010, PG&Epoured $46 M into Prop 16, a measure designed to make it harder for communities to form Community Choice energy programs. They outspent opponents 500:1, but the measure failed—and then PG&E outrageously attempted to recoup its campaign expenses from ratepayers.
Foiled at the ballot box, this is the latest attempt by the monopoly utilities to attack Community Choice energy programs. Don't let them succeed.
---
pg&e asked for CA dereg; envir pushed for more new plants in CA than enron[nat gas?] but FERC blocked 102 strat
declared bankruptcy?
===
Pacific Gas and Electric v. Public Utilities Comm'n, 475 U.S. 1 (1986)
In PG&E, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a corporation has the right not to be associated with
the speech of others. In this case, PG&E was not required to include a message from Toward
Utility Rate Normalization (TURN) with PG&E's bill to customers.
Issue: Does compelling a private corporation to provide a forum for views other than its own
infringe on the corporation's freedom of speech?
Rule: The First Amendment states “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of
speech . . .”
Application: An independent consumer group, TURN, urged the Public Utilities Commission
(PUC) to require that PG&E include a pamphlet from TURN four times per year, in the PG&E
billing envelope, provided that the pamphlet use space not used for the billing and required
notices. TURN proposed to use their space to provide alternative information about PG&E
issues to the PG&E customers.
The PUC's order required PG&E to associate with speech with which PG&E may disagree. For
corporations as for individuals, the choice to speak includes within it the choice of what not to
say.
The Supreme Court concluded that the envelope, bill, and postage were paid for by the
corporation and therefore were property of PG&E, not the customer. Thus, the Court decided
that the PUC's order for PG&E to disseminate TURN's speech with potentially hostile views in
envelopes that PG&E owns risks forcing PG&E to speak where it would prefer not to speak.
Burdens on free speech can be valid, if they are a narrowly tailored means of serving a
compelling state interest. The Court concluded that the PUC's order did not meet this
requirement.
Transformation: This decision gives a corporation negative speech rights under the First
Amendment, which protects it against state regulatory action. Any person or group that wishes
to speak out against a particular corporate policy or activity must do so through independent
news media or independent mailings. Reaching the particular customers affected by the
corporation is now extraordinarily expensive, therefore usually beyond the means of any
citizens group.
Effect: The First Amendment has been extended to protect a corporation from being required
to transfer information other than what the corporation itself has deemed appropriate to its
customers. No PUC or other regulatory body may impinge on that negative free speech.
Fictional Representational Story: I own a small, four-generation farm in West Virginia,
where we raise and support the family with vegetables and fruits and the sale of hogs, chickens,
and eggs. The farm is near a coal mine operated by a major corporation, the Freedom Mining
Company. Weekly, I and many of my farming neighbors receive a multi-color brochure from
Freedom outlining all the "benefits" of selling our farms to them so they can rip up the soil in a
big strip-mining operation. The brochures are filled with statements from various politicians
and "scientists", explaining the need for “energy independence” for America, and questioning
why so many Americans are opposed to their efforts. I want to tell my own story, but I know
there is no way that Freedom would print my story alongside theirs. Our newspapers, mostly
owned by big corporations, all seem to tell the Freedom story: the few opposing views that get
printed appear as letters to the editor. To make it worse, most of my neighbors are inclined to
sell out, leaving me and a few others to fight off this wealthy corporation on our own.
Written by: W. A. Barrett Disclaimer: For educational purpose only.
---
https://digital.sandiego.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3007&context=sdlr
San Diego Law Review
Volume 41 | Issue 2 Article 2
2004
“The Corporate Conscience” and Other First
Amendment Follies in Pacific Gas & Electric
recommended Citation
“The Corporate Conscience” and Other First Amendment Follies in Pacific Gas & Electric, 41 San Diego L. Rev. 483 (2004).
Available at: https://digital.sandiego.edu/sdlr/vol41/iss2/2
Gas & Electric
ALAN HIRSCH*
RALPH NADER**
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 483
II. THE CORPORATE CONSCIENCE ........................................................................... 485
III. THE DISCOUNTED DISCLAIMER .......................................................................... 492
IV. THE STATE INTEREST ......................................................................................... 496
V. CONTENT NEUTRALITY CONFUSED .................................................................... 498
VI. RECIPROCITY ..................................................................................................... 503
VII. CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................... 504
I. INTRODUCTION
The Supreme Court case of Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. Public
Utilities Commission of California,
1 decided eighteen years ago,
produced arguably the sloppiest First Amendment analysis in modern
times. The case dealt the consumer movement a severe blow, 2
but only three Justices who participated in the decision remain on the Court, and
two of them dissented.3 This combination of circumstances suggests the value of revisiting the Court opinion.4 The case involved a state-regulated utility, the Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E). For many years, PG&E distributed a newsletter in its monthly billing statements containing assorted information of practical value to the company’s customers, such as tips on conservation and information about bills and services, as well as political editorials and news stories.5
In a ratemaking procedure before the California Public Utilities Commission (Commission), which regulates PG&E, a group called Toward Utility Rate Normalization (TURN) argued that ratepayers should not be forced to bear the expense of PG&E’s political speech.6
TURN urged the Commission to forbid PG&E from using billing envelopes to distribute political editorials.7 Instead, the Commission chose a different remedy—permitting TURN to insert its own materials into the mailing, four times a year, in order to raise funds and communicate with ratepayers.8
TURN was required to display a bold statement that its message was not that of PG&E.9 PG&E brought suit, asserting that the Commission’s order violated PG&E’s First Amendment right not to help spread a message with which it disagreed.10
After the California Supreme Court denied discretionary review of the order, the United States Supreme Court heard the case and held that the mandatory insert was unconstitutional.11 This Article argues that the Court’s opinion was flawed in various respects, especially in applying the First Amendment right not to speak to a commercial corporation. Such a holding has no grounding in any valid policy and does not follow from the Court’s stated rationale for protecting corporate speech. Indeed, the Court’s misguided analysis undercuts core First Amendment interests. ...
==
Corporations can legally put carcinogens in our food without warning labels. Here's why
Cheerios has so much glyphosate in it, it should be labeled as toxic. Corporate free speech precedents prevent that
MATTHEW ROZSA
JULY 14, 2019
A recent study by the Environmental Working Group revealed something horrifying: Glyphosate, the active ingredient in the popular weedkiller Roundup, was present in 17 of the 21 oat-based cereal and snack products at levels considered unsafe for children. That includes six different brands of Cheerios, one of the most popular American cereals.
I've written before about the limits of corporate free speech when it comes to public safety, but on that occasion I discussed this insofar as it involved corporate-sponsored climate change denialism. Yet here we have something more tangible, more direct: The safe glyphosate limit for children is 160 parts per billion (ppb), yet Honey Nut Cheerios Medley Crunch has 833 parts per billion and regular Cheerios has 729 ppb. While the potential risks of glyphosate are fiercely debated, many scientists believe that it is linked to cancer.
So if there are unsafe levels of glyphosate in a cereal popular with children, why isn't this disclosed on the cereal boxes? The complicated answer has to do with a legal case that defined free speech as something that non-human persons, like corporations, have a "right" to, in a sense. That sounds absurd, perhaps, and probably not something the framers of the constitution intended. Indeed, the idea of "corporate constitutional rights" is a relatively new one, yet one that corporations' legal arms fight tooth and nail to preserve.
There are several activist groups working to amend the constitution to undo the notion of corporate personhood and make it so that this mind-bending and harmful interpretation of corporate free speech is no longer enshrined in law. Move to Amend — as in, the constitution — is one such group. Salon interviewed ...What does glyphosate do to weeds?
There are several activist groups working to amend the constitution to undo the notion of corporate personhood and make it so that this mind-bending and harmful interpretation of corporate free speech is no longer enshrined in law. Move to Amend — as in, the constitution — is one such group. Salon interviewed Kaitlin Sopoci-Belknap, the National Director of Move to Amend, to understand how this weird legal situation came to exist.
Glyphosate is a non-selective herbicide, meaning it will kill most plants, not just weeds. It prevents plants from making certain proteins that are needed for plant growth.
What do peer-reviewed studies indicate it does to human beings and animals if they ingest it?
The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has labeled glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic” and the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment categorized it as a “chemical known to the state to cause cancer.”
How did glyphosate wind up in foods like breakfast cereals?
According to the U.S. Geological Survey, 250 million pounds of glyphosate are sprayed on American crops each year. Glyphosate is primarily used on Roundup Ready corn and soybeans that are genetically modified to withstand the toxin. Glyphosate is also sprayed on other non-GMO crops, like wheat, oats, barley and beans, right before harvest.
What have Monsanto and other companies done to suppress knowledge of its effects (lobbying, suppressing science, etc.)?
Monsanto has waged a sophisticated PR campaign to bully scientists and undermine findings that glyphosate is cancerous. In addition Monsanto and agribusiness leaders protecting the company's interests have a revolving door relationship with many agencies that are supposed to be overseeing and regulating the corporation. Monsanto and agribusiness associations have also made significant political contributions to Congressmembers like former Rep Lamar Smith from Texas who chaired the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee where he used his platform to undermine the [International Agency for Research on Cancer] when their cancer findings came out, accusing the agency of using "cherry-picked" science when determining that glyphosate is “probably carcinogenic.” ...Monsanto has argued that California's Prop 65 labeling law is a violation of the company's First Amendment right not to speak.
What is the boundary separating corporate free speech between their responsibility to the public health? Have those boundaries shifted over the years?
The courts have expanded the ability of corporations to overturn labeling requirements on a number of occasions over the last 35 years. In 1986 the Supreme Court decided that the Pacific Gas and Electric Company in California was not required to allow a consumer advocacy group to use the extra space in their billing envelope, upholding the corporation's right not to speak and protecting the corporation's “freedom of mind.” [scu 1987 https://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1838&context=lawreview ]
In 1996 the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a Vermont law requiring the labeling of all products containing bovine growth hormone and ruled that the right not to speak inheres in political and commercial speech alike and extends to statements of fact as well as statements of opinion.
In Nike v. Kasky in 2003the Supreme Court heard arguments on whether purposeful untruths in advertising are protected political speech before sending the case back to a California courtwhere it was settled in Kasky’s favor, finding that the state laws requiring truth in advertising had been violated. The question of whether the First Amendment gives a corporation the right to speak lies remains unsettled.
Legally speaking, why are companies allowed to have poisons in our foods without warning the public of that fact?
The Supreme Court never had the authority to determine that corporations have any Constitutional rights, including First Amendment rights. By granting corporations these powers, meant to be the ultimate protections for people from government overreach, it in effect means that in many ways regulatory agencies have no authority over corporate actions — even when those actions are determined to cause public harm. In cases involving the First Amendment right not to speak it is even more insidious because it means that their so-called right not to warn the public about their toxic products trumps our right to know what's in our food.
The only solution to this problem is to pass an amendment to the US Constitution to make clear that only human beings have Constitutional rights, and that government absolutely has the right to regulate corporations like Monsanto, so that they can no longer use the Constitution as a shield against public oversight and protection. The We the People Amendment will do just that.
MATTHEW ROZSA
Matthew Rozsa is a breaking news writer for Salon. He holds an MA in History from Rutgers University-Newark and is ABD in his PhD program in History at Lehigh University. His work has appeared in Mic, Quartz and MSNBC.
==
===
since merger exxon spent most on direct lobby after GE and PG&E 625 coll
--
j leopold:
In a televised speech to California residents on April 5, 2001, Davis resisted Cheney's and Hebert's calls to increase electricity rates for average consumers to keep the state's public utilities afloat, opting instead to increase electricity rates of the state's largest power customers such as manufacturing plants. The next morning PG&E filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.
Davis publicly railed against the Bush administration's refusal to launch an investigation into wholesale energy companies trading practices, and its position on price caps. Davis's rhetoric started to impact the Bush administration's approval ratings. Rove, working closely with Cheney, entered into discussions on how the White House would respond to criticism by Davis that the Bush administration was turning its back on California.
"Karl [Rove] started to talk about using the resources of former Republican National Committee staffers to put together an attack campaign against Davis, and pin the power problems on the governor and his administration," according to one former high-level Energy Department official who was privy to the conversation between Rove and Cheney.
Rove enlisted the help of former RNC staffers Ed Gillespie, then a lobbyist who was working for Enron and other energy companies, and Scott Reed, who used to work for the RNC and was the former manager of Robert Dole's presidential campaign, to start devising a strategy to attack Davis and lead people to believe that the energy crisis was entirely his fault. Gillespie was recently tapped by President Bush to replace Dan Bartlett as White House counselor.
Reed and Gillespie, who was doing double duty advising Cheney's energy task force on behalf of Enron, advised Rove and the vice president that the PG&E bankruptcy left Davis vulnerable and the best course of action for the White House was to take advantage of Davis's vulnerability by stating that Davis single-handedly, in refusing to raise electricity rates, caused one of the largest bankruptcies in American history. Gillespie went a step further, according to Energy Department officials familiar with his conversations with Rove and Cheney, by suggesting that the White House start courting Republican gubernatorial candidates to replace Davis in the 2002 election.
At the White House in April 2001, Rove met with Brad Freeman, President Bush's California finance chairman during the 2000 presidential campaign, and Gerald Parsky, an investment banker, who was Bush's top adviser in California. The discussion centered on Parsky and Freeman's interest in courting actor Arnold Schwarzenegger to discuss his bid for governor in 2002.
"That would be nice," Rove said about the possibility of Schwarzenegger, a Republican, to replace Davis as governor, according to people who were briefed about the meeting. "That would be really, really nice."
Davis said he could see now see how the energy crisis created a political opportunity for the White House in California.
"In retrospect I could see how that happened," Davis said. "There's no question that the energy companies saw me as an adversary when I wouldn't buckle under their demands. I was vulnerable and the [energy companies and the White House] took advantage of it. This crisis took place in the early days of the Bush administration. I figured these guys are too busy picking out furniture for their offices. I didn't think they [the Bush administration] were spending their days in office involved in some full-scale conspiracy. But it turns out they were."
Cheney Takes Aim at Davis
Meanwhile, Cheney continued to meet with energy company officials who were instrumental in drafting key aspects of the National Energy Policy. At the same time, the usually reclusive vice president was granting interviews to numerous reporters discussing his take on the California energy crisis which continued to spiral out of control.
In May 2001, the PBS news program "Frontline" interviewed Cheney who was asked by a correspondent whether energy companies were acting like a cartel and using manipulative tactics to cause electricity prices to spike in California.
"No," Cheney said during the "Frontline" interview, even though he was personally briefed about energy companies manipulating the state. "The problem you had in California was caused by a combination of things - an unwise regulatory scheme, because they didn't really deregulate. Now they’re trapped from unwise regulatory schemes, plus, not having addressed the supply side of the issue. They've obviously created major problems for themselves and bankrupted PG&E in the process."
---
LAT n there's Pacific Gas & Electric Co. In 2009-10, PG&E spent $53.5 million on politics in California. Less than $600,000 went to candidates. Most of the rest financed the utility's majestically dishonest ballot initiative to kill public power programs.
---
In September 2010, scientists at the Environmental Protection Agency came to a startling conclusion: Even a small amount of a chemical compound commonly found in tap water may cause cancer.
The compound, hexavalent chromium, gained infamy in the Oscar-winning film Erin Brockovich, based on the David-vs.-Goliath legal duel between desert dwellers in Hinkley, Calif., and Pacific Gas & Electric Co. The film ends in Hollywood fashion, with the corporate polluter paying $333 million to people suffering from illnesses.
But in real life, the drama continues. More than 70 million Americans drink traces of chromium every day, according to the Environmental Working Group, a nonprofit research organization.
TOXIC INFLUENCE is an ongoing series of reports exploring the nexus between industry, science and policy.
This story is being produced in partnership with the Center for Public Integrity.
And now, more than a decade after the film, EPA scientists cite “clear evidence” that the chemical compound, also known as chromium (VI), can cause cancer. The federal agency was poised to announce its findings in 2011, a step almost certain to trigger stricter drinking-water standards to prevent new cancers and deaths.
The chemical industry’s trade association and chief lobbyist, the American Chemistry Council, urged the EPA to wait for more research, a common practice to delay action on toxic chemicals. However, Vincent Cogliano, the soft-spoken head of EPA’s chemical-assessment program, rebuffed the powerful group, writing in an April 2011 letter that “strong” new research was already available.
Ten months later, the EPA reversed itself, quietly posting a notice on the Internet that it was pushing back the release of its findings for at least four more years. Environmentalists were stunned at the reason: The agency would wait for the results of new studies costing $4 million and paid for by the American Chemistry Council.
The EPA decided to wait at the urging of a panel of scientists chosen to give an unbiased review of the chromium findings. But the EPA doesn’t vet these scientists directly, instead handing the task over to outside contractors. An investigation by the Center for Public Integrity found that several of the panelists had worked on behalf of PG&E to defend the company in the Brockovich lawsuits.
President Obama pledged during his 2008 campaign to halt meddling and interference in government science. The president put restoring integrity to science on his short list of priorities in his first inaugural address, right after fixing the economy and before health care reform. “We'll restore science to its rightful place,” he said.
Ouster of Scientist from EPA Panel Shows Industry Clout
The story of chromium (VI), full of twists and turns, offers a case study in how the Obama administration has failed to shield science at the EPA from industry influence.
Companies with a stake in chromium have borrowed from the Big Tobacco playbook, using science to create doubt. Ever since the brassy Brockovich knocked on doors in Hinkley to organize a class-action lawsuit, scientists paid by industry have tried to convince the courts and regulators that chromium (VI) poses no health risk.
Some of those scientists ended up on the panel chosen to review the EPA’s chromium findings, the Center for Public Integrity found:
Three of the five panelists who urged delay had worked on industry's behalf in the Hinkley court cases.
One of those scientists was retained by PG&E in the company’s ongoing chromium cleanup in Hinkley at the same time he was serving on the EPA panel.
Another scientist who urged the EPA to wait for the American Chemistry Council studies served as a consultant on those studies.
“You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to realize that this is corrupt and unacceptable,” contends Rena Steinzor, a law professor at the University of Maryland and president of the Center for Progressive Reform, a think tank that recently published a report on the chemical industry’s influence.
Companies with a stake in chromium have borrowed from the Big Tobacco playbook,
using science to create doubt.
Those members served on the EPA’s toxic-chemical-assessment program, the Integrated Risk Information System. IRIS, as it is known, is the pure science upon which clean air and water rules are based. But IRIS has become a major bottleneck, delaying new federal and state air and water standards amid industry influence and other factors. Critics say the EPA has only itself to blame.
Since October, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson has declined interview requests to discuss IRIS or loopholes that open the door for potential conflicts of interest. Yet Jackson is pushing reform before she leaves office this week that would address some of the conflicts unearthed in the Center’s review, and cited by environmental activists.
And recently the EPA decided to move up its timetable to complete its chromium assessment to later this year.
Case study of industry’s muscle
The issue of scientists with industry ties serving on special EPA peer review panels goes beyond chromium. One out of every six scientists appointed to such panels since Obama took office had been a primary author of research articles funded by the American Chemistry Council over the past dozen years.
In all, 11 of the 68 members appointed to EPA panels assessing chemical health hazards were significant authors on studies funded by the ACC, a review of the council’s research database reveals. That number does not capture all scientists backed by industry, just those with work funded by the ACC. The authors of the hexavalent chromium studies, for example, are not included.
One scientist who has served on several EPA panels and co-written more than a dozen ACC-funded studies said that working with industry does not necessarily suggest a conflict.
“Scientists by and large want to get at the truth, so this really becomes more a matter of a perception of a problem than a real problem, in my opinion,” said Frederick J. Miller, an independent consultant who once worked at the Hamner Institutes for Health Sciences, a North Carolina research institute formed in the 1970s by leaders from 11 major chemical companies.
“The people that serve on these panels ... know if somebody is trying to make an argument that doesn’t hold water,” said Miller, who began his career in government.
However, studies have shown that when industry pays for research, it may influence the outcome. A 1998 analysis of more than 100 articles published on secondhand smoke reported that 37 percent found no health risk. At least 74 percent of the articles exonerating cigarette smoke were written by scientists with ties to the tobacco industry.
The American Chemistry Council has a stake in the outcome of research. Lobby disclosure forms from 2011 reveal that the ACC lobbied the EPA on its assessments of three highly controversial chemicals: dioxin, formaldehyde and chromium (VI). The group boasts on its Web site that “in 2012, we helped defeat or amend 281 chemical regulation and product ban proposals.”
The ACC, whose members such as ExxonMobil, Dow Chemical, Merck and Procter & Gamble are a who’s who of the Fortune 500, is one of the freest-spending lobby groups on Capitol Hill. In 2011, it laid out $12.6 million on lobbying, four times the amount spent by the National Rifle Association.
David Fischer, a senior director at the ACC, defended the group’s research program. “We feel we have an obligation to step up and fund studies to assist the agency — whether it’s EPA or others — to answer questions that might be posed about chemicals that we manufacture,” he said.
Asked if any of the ACC’s studies had ever shown that a chemical was more toxic than previously thought, Fischer replied, “I'm not aware of one right at this moment.”
The ACC said it was not involved in selecting the peer reviewers studying chromium (VI). “EPA’s peer reviewers were selected by EPA. They were vetted in the normal peer review process from EPA and we from the ACC do not have any direct links to these people,” said Ann Mason, the ACC scientist who commissioned the group’s new studies on chromium.
However, few scientists in the world specialize in chromium, a compound used to add color to paints, make stainless steel, add finish to chrome and inhibit rust. During its lawsuits, PG&E hired several of these scientists as expert witnesses; some say the debate over the compound’s toxicity caused lasting splits in the tight-knit scientific world.
One of PG&E’s key experts was Steven Patierno, a former professor of pharmacology at the George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences who had conducted numerous studies on the metal. Patierno, now the deputy director of the Duke Cancer Institute, has been an expert defense witness in seven chromium lawsuits. He hasn’t wavered in his view that drinking low doses of chromium (VI) does not cause cancer.
By early 2011, Patierno was selected for the peer review panel critiquing the EPA’s chromium (VI) findings. At a public meeting on May 12, 2011, he revealed a potential conflict of interest. There’s no recording or transcript of the meeting. Nothing in the EPA’s public record reveals the conflict. Two EPA officials who were there say they cannot recall what Patierno said. Patierno himself declined requests for an interview.
Jennifer Sass, a senior scientist at the nonprofit Natural Resources Defense Council, took notes at the meeting and said that Patierno revealed he was an investigator — though not a principal investigator — on the American Chemistry Council studies.
Asked if any of the ACC's studies had ever shown that a chemical was more toxic than previously thought, Fischer replied, "I'm not aware of one right at this moment."
The ACC’s Mason disputes that Patierno was involved. But Travis O’Brien, one of the principal investigators on the studies and a former colleague of Patierno’s at George Washington University, told the Center for Public Integrity that Patierno was a consultant on the research.
Max Costa, now a professor at New York University’s medical school, knows Patierno well. When Costa taught at the University of Texas Medical School, Patierno worked in his laboratory. The two published research together. Costa said they became rivals when they took opposite sides in the PG&E lawsuit.
He argues that Patierno’s opinions are not credible because he works for the chrome industry. “He’s been a paid a large amount of money by them, and he’s totally biased because of that.”
Patierno levels the same charge against Costa, attacking his conclusions in a lawsuit as “unsubstantiated” and “severely flawed.” Patierno criticized the EPA for even citing Costa’s papers among hundreds of others in its report. In his peer review comments, Patierno said two of Costa’s articles should not be taken seriously because “they were written and published at a time when the senior author was actively engaged as an expert witness for the plaintiffs in high-profile hexavalent chromium lawsuits.”
Patierno was an expert witness for PG&E in the same lawsuits. When he was asked in a 2006 lawsuit if he discloses his expert-witness work for industry when submitting articles on chromium (VI), he answered no. Patierno said his articles were based on laboratory studies that were not relevant to his legal work.
Costa was originally listed as a candidate for the EPA peer review panel, according to documents obtained by the Center through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. Costa says he disclosed his work in the PG&E lawsuit but doesn’t know if that work disqualified him. An EPA official said privately said that Costa’s work as an expert witness may have kept him off the panel.
Industry ties and EPA panel
Patierno was not the only defense litigation expert who served on the EPA's IRIS panel. Two others were John P. Wise Sr., a toxicology professor at the University of Southern Maine, and Joshua Hamilton, a chief academic and scientific officer at the Marine Biological Laboratory in Woods Hole, Mass., which is affiliated with Brown University.
Wise, who worked in Patierno's laboratory as a graduate student, said that in 1997 he worked for a consulting firm and was assigned to do research for an industry client in the Hinkley lawsuit — but that he has not accepted industry money in the past 15 years. Wise said he does not believe that "such limited contact so long ago" influenced his opinion.
Hamilton was a defense expert in a PG&E chromium lawsuit that settled in 2006 and worked for the company as a consultant again starting in 2009, according to PG&E. PG&E acknowledged that it hired Hamilton in May 2011 — the same month the EPA panel met — to consult on the ongoing chromium cleanup in Hinkley. PG&E said it paid him $110,000.
Hamilton appeared before a California Regional Water Quality Control Board on June 8, 2011, to speak on behalf of PG&E about its cleanup of Hinkley. The EPA peer review panel issued its final comments one month later, on July 6, 2011.
In 2001, Hamilton said he was surprised to get a $100,000 check in the mail before doing any work as an expert witness.
Hamilton’s consulting work included criticism of the California EPA’s own scientific assessment of chromium (VI), which was nearly identical to the EPA’s.
In an eight-page statement to the water board dated July 9, 2011, Hamilton wrote that the state agency’s findings did not represent “established science.” He described California’s regulations as “overly protective.”
The PG&E director in charge of the Hinkley cleanup, Sheryl Bilbrey, said Hamilton’s work should not have affected his objectivity. “PG&E expects all of our experts to give us unbiased advice,” she said. “So we would never ask anyone to change their scientific opinion to fit something that we would want.”
Asked whether it was appropriate for an EPA peer reviewer to be working simultaneously for PG&E, the ACC’s Fischer said, “That sounds like a conflict of interest to me. Generally, the way you get around it is you just — you don’t appoint that particular scientist to that particular panel.”
It was not the first time Hamilton had been paid a substantial sum by PG&E. In 2001, Hamilton said he was surprised to get a $100,000 check in the mail before doing any work as an expert witness. According to his deposition, Hamilton talked to PG&E’s lawyers about the check and learned that it was on top of his hourly fee. PG&E ultimately paid Hamilton nearly $300,000 for his work on the lawsuit.
“That’s completely outrageous,” said Francesca Grifo, director of scientific integrity at the nonprofit Union of Concerned Scientists. “I don’t know how anybody could stand up logically and say I got $100,000 but it didn’t affect how I handled this.”
Hamilton declined interview requests.
EPA farms screening to consultants
Working for a chemical company appears to violate the EPA’s guidelines on conflicts of interest. The EPA’s Peer Review Handbook says peer reviewers should appear to be impartial, defined as not having anything that “may cause a reasonable person with knowledge of the relevant facts to question the expert’s ability to carry out official duties without bias or influence.”
The handbook offers, as an example of a conflict, a scientist paid to be an expert witness for a chemical company in a class-action lawsuit.
Yet, the EPA doesn’t ask scientists if they’ve worked as expert witnesses or have taken money from industry. Instead, it turns that job over to private companies, which handle conflict-of-interest reviews in secret. All of the information the vendors collect, including financial disclosure forms, is “considered private and non-disclosable to EPA or outside entities except as required by law,” the EPA policy says.
The contractor examines candidates’ published work, and prospective panelists fill out a questionnaire detailing potential conflicts. Once the panel is picked, the contractor certifies to the EPA that “no unresolved actual or potential conflict of interest issues” remain.
What’s more, the ethics guidelines are not binding on contractors, and the EPA handbook says the agency should not override decisions on conflicts of interest. “EPA should not attempt to make any changes in the contractor’s conclusions as this would compromise the independence of the peer review conducted by the contractor,” the handbook says.
The EPA said it set the system up this way to ensure impartiality. But, the Center found, this structure helps shield the very conflicts the agency aims to avoid.
A year ago, the Center sought information on the screening of IRIS panelists through a FOIA request. The EPA withheld most documents, including emails between the vendors and agency.
Officials at Eastern Research Group Inc., the Massachusetts firm that vetted the peer reviewers on the chromium (VI) panel, did not return emails and phone calls. An official at another company handling peer reviews, Versar Inc., said he was prohibited by EPA from talking.
The EPA’s administrator, Jackson, and its chemical-assessment officials declined requests for on-the-record interviews. But an EPA official acknowledged privately that the agency was not fully aware of the chromium (VI) peer reviewers’ ties to PG&E. The official defended the use of private vendors, contending that if the EPA chose peer reviewers, it could pick scientists it knew would be friendly.
However, the EPA routinely selects scientists for other advisory panels. Critics said it’s not clear how checking financial disclosure forms would taint the process. The Peer Review Handbook does note that checking disclosure forms would activate the Federal Advisory Committee Act, a law meant to make panels more open.
“It’s bizarre,” Grifo said of the EPA’s secretive screening process. “At its core it’s supposed to increase the public trust in the system. If it looks like the whole system is rigged to begin with, then why should a citizen trust it?”
The EPA said it was working to reduce the potential for conflicts. “We are exploring the best ways to provide for public review of contract-managed peer review panels and ensure that contractors are held accountable for their assessment of any conflicts of interest,” the agency said in a statement.
The ‘pure science’ bottleneck
Some 700 new chemicals hit the market each year, adding to the tens of thousands already in use. Yet the EPA has assessed only 557 chemicals since the IRIS program began in 1985. A typical review takes six to eight years, sometimes much longer. It took 27 years for the agency to issue a partial assessment of dioxin, a byproduct of plastics manufacturing and burning.
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) concluded in 2008 that the IRIS program was so bogged down that it was in danger of becoming obsolete.
In 2009, EPA Administrator Jackson made bold promises within her first weeks in office to fix the program. She pledged to finish many more assessments and to try to complete each one within two years. Since May 2009, the EPA said it completed 24 IRIS assessments, “double the number” completed in the same time period prior to May 2009.
Yet its overall progress remains slow, and in the past two years, the program produced as few assessments as ever. Last year, the EPA planned to complete 40 assessments. It finished three.
The reasons for the logjam are complex. But it has become common for industry and its allies inside the federal government to push for delay. “Even a single delay can have far-reaching, time-consuming consequences, in some cases requiring that the assessment process essentially start over,” the GAO reported.
Some 700 new chemicals hit the market each year. Yet the EPA has assessed only 557 since the IRIS program began in 1985.
In the case of chromium (VI), evidence shows that industry worked closely with the EPA as the agency conducted its assessment. On Oct. 8, 2009, a scientist at a law firm representing chemical companies complained in an email that the EPA was pushing ahead on its assessments without waiting for studies to address “gaps” in the science.
“EPA moved Chrom VI up by about two years after ‘we’ entered into a process of planning research with them to address gaps,” wrote Richard Canady, a former scientist at the White House’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB), who was then working at the private law firm of McKenna, Long & Aldridge. “I’d like to make a case for EPA planning ahead in cooperation with industry.”
Canady’s email was sent to Nancy Beck, a toxicologist at OMB who reviewed the EPA’s findings. Beck referred Canady to an American Chemistry Council official for help in gathering data. A 2009 investigation by a subcommittee of the House Science and Technology Committee criticized Beck for improperly interfering with IRIS assessments during the George W. Bush administration. Beck now works for the ACC. She did not return a call last week seeking comment; an ACC spokesman said Tuesday he would seek her perspective.
In a recent interview, Canady said he could not recall the precise details from his email and declined to reveal clients for which he was working. But Canady said he thought the process of planning research with the EPA “wasn’t that formal.” Instead, industry scientists would call EPA scientists to find out what new data would help them in their chromium (VI) assessment, he said.
His 2009 email also said, “Peter made a point to me the other day about how boron and methylene chloride were good examples of working together on developing data ahead of assessments in ways that influenced the outcome.”
Canady said this was a reference to Peter Preuss, then the director of the EPA’s National Center for Environmental Assessment, which oversees IRIS.
The EPA originally planned to issue its chromium (VI) assessment last summer, giving the ACC time to finish its new studies. However, under Jackson’s imperative to quicken assessments, the EPA moved up its timeline by six to nine months.
When the EPA’s Cogliano rebuffed the ACC’s request for a delay, the trade association turned its attention to the peer review panel.
Critics say the industry uses comments on chemicals that are under review to overwhelm the agency.
Of the 49 public comments submitted to the EPA on chromium, the American Chemistry Council and its research partners authored 29 of them, totaling 1,661 pages.
“There’s a very elaborate process that involves multiple opportunities for industry to pick away and blast away and confuse and overload the staff of IRIS, and the IRIS staff reacts by trying to address each and every one of industry’s concerns,” said law professor Steinzor.
“The chemical industry has made IRIS its leading target, one of its leading targets, for spoil in the current age of greed,” Steinzor said
Of the 49 public comments submitted to the EPA on chromium before the peer-review panel met, the American Chemistry Council and its research partners authored 29 of them, totaling 1,661 pages. In addition, 10 other comments totaling 137 pages came from industry urging the EPA to wait for the ACC studies.
As the EPA stood poised to announce potential new safeguards for chromium (VI), the ACC had hired a scientific consulting firm, ToxStrategies, to manage the $4 million studies of mice and rats given the chemical for 90 days.
The panel met May 12, 2011, at a Hilton hotel near Reagan National Airport. Patierno was highly critical of the EPA’s findings and suggested the agency “absolutely consider the extensive new data being provided.” Hamilton and Wise agreed.
In a recent interview, Wise said he wasn’t entirely familiar with ToxStrategies’ findings, which hadn’t yet been published. But he assumed the delay would be short, only a few months. The EPA initially said the delay would take four years. Later, the agency said the assessment would be done this year.
Anatoly Zhitkovich, a professor at Brown University who chaired the EPA peer review panel, was upset with the results and wrote his own review published in the journal Chemical Research in Toxicology, according to Costa, a close colleague. Zhitkovich declined an interview request, but his article supported the findings of the EPA.
In lobbying for delay, the American Chemistry Council quietly enlisted the help of a small office within the U.S. Small Business Administration.
SBA Chief Counsel for Advocacy Winslow Sargeant, an electrical engineer by training, submitted a comment to the EPA on Oct. 5, 2011, challenging its scientific conclusions and urging it to delay its chromium assessment pending completion of the ACC studies. Winslow cited the peer review comments from Hamilton and Wise to support his argument.
But emails obtained through FOIA by the advocacy group Center for Effective Government revealed that the ACC helped shape the SBA letter. An ACC lobbyist, Randy Schumacher, sent an email to Sargeant’s office on June 28, 2011, asking for its help.
“Administrator Jackson calling upon her to stop the Cr6 risk assessment process to do exactly as EPA’s peer reviewers deemed advisable,” Schumacher wrote. “Since it appears EPA needs to hear from more constituents for it to listen to its own peer review team, would SBA be willing to send a letter to Ms. Jackson to weigh in on this matter?”
Later emails from Schumacher suggested editing changes to Sargeant’s letter. The SBA official has not responded to interview requests.
Frustration prompts reform push
Now the EPA is in the process of revamping its IRIS program once more. Cogliano has proposed releasing the names of prospective peer reviewers in advance, giving the public an opportunity to explore conflicts. “This will improve transparency in the peer review process,” the EPA said in a statement. The changes could be formally announced this week, as Jackson departs.
In 2001, siblings lean against the entrance to one of the houses which were bought and razed by Pacific Gas & Electric after the company was found to have polluted the ground water. David McNew/Getty Images
The ACC’s Fischer says he’s in favor of a conflict-of-interest policy that allows industry to participate on peer review panels. “Bias in and of itself should not necessarily disqualify a particular scientist from serving on the panel,” he said. “Industry perspective is a bias but so [is] every other perspective.”
The EPA is also weighing whether to set “stopping points” for new research, a deadline after which no additional studies would be considered. Kenneth Olden, a senior EPA official who oversees IRIS, has proposed announcing assessments two years in advance, giving industry time to complete new studies.
Such proposals drew criticism at an EPA meeting in November, with an environmental group’s scientist stating bluntly that industry seeks delays because it wants IRIS to fail. His comments drew faint gasps from a conference room filled almost entirely with industry consultants.
“The practice of waiting for one more study to be completed, as has happened repeatedly under IRIS — especially when that study is to be conducted by an entity with a vested financial interest in tilting the outcome — simply must stop,” said the scientist, Richard Denison, with the nonprofit Environmental Defense Fund. “Simply put, a decision delayed is health protection denied.”
The Center for Public Integrity is a non-profit independent investigative news outlet.
For more of its stories go to publicintegrity.org.
This story has been clarified to reflect that, as an employee of a consulting firm, John P. Wise Sr. worked for an industry client in the PG&E lawsuit but that he was never told the identity of the client.