Pacific Gas & Electric – the giant investor-owned utility that serves 16 million Californians – appears to be facing its gravest crisis since its founding in 1905.

The initial indications that PG&E’s equipment may have sparked the Camp Fire that killed at least 88 people in Butte County – the deadliest blaze in state history – initially led at least some state lawmakers to consider new legislation to try to insulate PG&E from potentially devastating liabilities. Earlier this year, the Legislature passed and Gov. Jerry Brown signed into law a measure that lets PG&E spread out the costs from 17 Northern California wildfires in 2017 and have its customers pay some of its bills.

The Bloomberg news service reported that Assemblyman Chris Holden, D-Pasadena, may introduce legislation to help PG&E in coming days.

But a federal judge and the president of the California Public Utilities Commission have shaken PG&E’s hopes that it can avoid crushing new blows.

Judge demands answers on PG&E, Camp Fire

U.S. District Judge William Alsup has ordered PG&E to provide evidence proving its negligence didn’t cause the Camp Fire – raising the prospect that the utility could be found guilty of violating the terms of its five-year criminal probation that began in January 2017.

The probation was imposed then by U.S. District Judge Thelton Henderson – along with the maximum possible fine of $3 million – after PG&E was convicted of six felonies related to the 2010 San Bruno disaster (pictured above). A PG&E natural gas pipeline that was found to have been poorly maintained exploded, killing eight, injuring more than 50 and wiping out 38 homes. The utility was convicted of five felonies for failing to keep the pipeline safe and a sixth felony for impeding investigators.

Judge Alsup was assigned to monitor PG&E’s probation. In a statement, Alsup said his goal was determining what “federal, state or local crimes might be implicated were any wildfire started by reckless operation or abandonment of PG&E power lines” or “inaccurate, slow or failed reporting of information about any wildfire.” If Alsup concludes that PG&E violated its probation, the utility could face unprecedented punishment from the judge.

Two days after Alsup’s announcement, CPUC President Michael Picker said he had concerns about whether PG&E’s “culture” had enough of a commitment to public safety. At a CPUC board meeting in San Francisco, the utility was ordered to implement 60 safety recommendations from a commission consultant.

Picker’s critique came less than two weeks after he stuck up for PG&E, challenging the idea that the Camp fire could or should put the utility into bankruptcy. “It’s just not good policy,” Picker told the San Francisco Chronicle. “It doesn’t work out.” This stabilized PG&E’s stock price.

The new tone from Picker was a departure from the normally close relationship between the CPUC and PG&E.

Those who have called for the CPUC to be reformed and to be much tougher with the utilities it oversees often cite the $1.6 billion “fine” the utility commission levied in 2016 on PG&E for the San Bruno disaster. More than half of the fine – $850 million – was actually a requirement that the utility upgrade its natural gas pipeline system.

Critics said this amounted to likening the improvements that PG&E had to make to a penalty.

Picker joined in the 4-0 CPUC board vote for the “fine.”

Chief among the provisions in Assembly Bill 2747, introduced by Assemblyman Chris Holden, D-Pasadena, is amending the Student Athlete Bill of Rights to include the “right to self-organization” and potential unionization.

“College athletes are playing in an exploitive system where the NCAA makes billions in profits while they are forced to pursue higher education without the same rights and financial freedoms as any other student on campus,” said Holden, a former college basketball player, in a statement. “These athletes are not able to self-organize like any other student group on campus, and can face retaliation by university officials and coaching staff for expressing their opinion or reporting any abuses.”

The legislation would pave the way for athletes to potentially profit from the use of their likeness and sponsors, and it also would strengthen protections from abuse and exploitation in the aftermath of botched handling of abuse at Penn State University and Michigan State University.

The issue of self-organization is a contentious one, and goes back to whether student-athletes are in fact employees.

On one hand, the National Labor Relations Board’s general counsel published a non-binding memo last February declaring that certain football players are employees because “they perform services for their college and the NCAA, subject to their control, in return for compensation.” On the other hand, two separate judicial rulings last year concluded that student athletes are not employees.

The NCAA has yet to comment on the bill.

Public figures such as Kareem Abdul-Jabbar have already signaled their support for AB2747.

The bill has been referred to the Assembly Committee on Higher Education, which is scheduled to discuss the bill during its next hearing, on April 17.

A bill sponsored by Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de Leon, D-Los Angeles, would have added three members to the South Coast Air Quality Management Board, which regulates air quality in Los Angeles, Riverside, San Bernardino and Orange counties.

And while that probably seems as dull as watching paint dry to nearly everyone who just read it, the measure had major implications for Republicans, local governments, business interests, environmentalists and residents of the broad district that has some of the most toxic air in the nation.

De Leon introduced the board-packing plan shortly after Republicans engineered a takeover of the board, swinging the focus from environmentalists to business interests. In December, the board disregarded SCAQMD staff recommendations and instead adopted rules on refineries backed by the oil industry, and in March it ousted the the longtime director who had been seen as anti-business.  

Representatives to the board are local city council members and county supervisors, appointed locally. De Leon’s bill would have added three seats to the 13-member board, appointed by the the Senate Rules Committee (which de Leon chairs), the Assembly speaker and the governor.

During floor debate, proponents argued that the measure was about adding diversity to the almost all-white board that had no Latinos, which defies the demographics of the heavily-Latino region. 

“Needless to say, I’m disappointed,” de Leon told CalWatchdog on Thursday. “Any time people of color are excluded from decision-making processes directly tied to their health and wellbeing, fundamental change is needed. This is a textbook example of institutional racism.”

De Leon added that Los Angeles County Supervisor Mike Antonovich, a Republican who also sits on the SCAQMD board, is termed-out and will soon be replaced by “someone far more progressive on the matter,” likely shifting the balance of power back to the environmentalists. 

However, of the current board’s ethnic composition, and the persistent lack of diversity, belies the fact that it’s largely been in Democratic, or environmentalist, control for years. De Leon did not say whether he’d reintroduce similar measures in the future.

Local control

Many opponents of the measure argued that the bill was a power grab by state policy makers at the expense of local control. And the large bloc of Democrats who either voted no or abstained suggest that the matter is not purely partisan.

“State versus local, that’s what this is about,” said Mike Madrid, a GOP strategist who helped devise the SDAQMD takeover. “It happened to be Republicans, but it was a state/local fight.”

But it was still a big win for Republicans, who are steadily slipping in their share of voter registration throughout the state, face the very real possibility of a Democratic supermajority in the Legislature next year and are not considered a consistent threat in any statewide election. For Republicans, local offices are where they can have a policy impact.

And despite several major policy victories for environmentalists, the defeat of the de Leon measure is a big win for the advocates of economic development. 

John Husing, the chief economist of the Inland Empire Economic Partnership, has been studying Southern California’s economy since 1964. His research suggests a correlation between the rise of poverty and the rise of environmental regulations in the state. Husing argues that while the policies have had a positive impact on air quality in the region, the policies are imbalanced in relation to business development and subsequently drive poverty, which affects health. 

“The whole air-quality, green initiative is having detrimental effect on moving people out of poverty and into the middle class,” Husing said of the SCAQMD region and the neighboring central valley.

Environment v. economy

Environmentalists have often said that any job loss associated with these air-quality policies would be offset by job creation in green sectors. However, Husing says statistics say that isn’t true, at least not in areas with high unemployment, like many communities in the SCAQMD.

Citing data from the California Employment Development Department and the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Husing said from 2010 to 2016 the U.S. added 836,000 manufacturing jobs, compared to California which added 42,500 — a mere 5.1 percent. While the growth rate is on pace with with the national average, it lags by over 50 percent behind the state’s share of gross state product.

Husing said that the sluggish growth of manufacturing jobs in the state is attributed to three factors: Companies leaving, companies growing beyond the state’s borders and out-of-state companies refusing to grow in the state.

“Whose affected by that? It’s not the companies,” Husing said. “They’re doing fine some place else. It’s workers whose jobs are never created. … So you’re basically cutting off routes to the middle class for those workers.”

The vote

The measure failed just before the stroke of midnight on Wednesday, 30-36. And while it is seen as a victory for Republicans, the measure was largely defeated by the 14 assemblymembers, all Democrats, who didn’t vote.

Those who didn’t vote were Luis Alejo of Watsonville, Joaquin Arambula of Fresno, Kansen Chu of San Jose, Jim Frazier of Oakley, Rich Gordon of Menlo Park, Adam Gray of Merced (who was not present), Kevin Mullin of South San Francisco and Shirley Weber of San Diego. The six who didn’t vote and live in the region were Ian Calderon of Whittier, Eduardo Garcia of Coachella, Mike Gipson of Carson, Roger Hernandez of West Covina, Chris Holden of Pasadena and Patrick O’Donnell of Long Beach.

Assembly Bill 525, introduced by Assemblyman Chris Holden, D-Pasadena, would make it harder for franchisors to in effect fire franchisees — the owner/operators of fast food franchise locations. “A franchisor,” as the legislation put it, “would need to prove the franchisee had failed to ‘substantially comply with the franchise agreement after being given notice of at least 60 days in advance and a reasonable opportunity to cure the failure.'”

According to Holden, himself a former franchise owner, “the one-sided nature of a franchise relationship quickly becomes apparent after signing these documents. Right now it’s easy for a company to get rid of a franchisee whether they’ve done anything wrong or not. These small business owners invest substantial time and money into the enterprise and deserve to be protected.”

Advancing union strategy

In an unusual paradox, however, the Assembly’s push to portray the legislation as a boon to small business owners has been strengthened by labor unions, which have been banking on winning key advantages of their own.

“The measure has received significant support from the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), and with good reason,” Al Jazeera America observed. “By altering the relationship between franchisors and franchisees, AB525 could indirectly bolster labor’s efforts to organize fast food workers by constraining the ability of franchisors to intervene in franchises.”

In fact, the SEIU’s support for AB525 has coalesced as part of its broader ambition to unionize fast food workers and secure a $15 minimum wage throughout California and, eventually, the nation at large.

As the Wall Street Journal reported, the SEIU “filed a petition with the Federal Trade Commission to investigate what the labor group claims are abusive practices on the part of major franchise companies including McDonald’s Corp. and 7-Eleven Inc. The union alleges that large franchisers have failed to disclose pertinent financial information to prospective franchisees and have terminated franchises without cause, among other things.”

What’s more, the union recently debuted a new website intended to foster “a national network of fast-food franchisees who want stronger protections for their businesses,” as the Associated Press reported. “The push has the potential to create more unrest within the ranks for companies like McDonald’s, which already are dealing with ongoing demonstrations calling for higher pay and a union for workers.” Those demonstrations picked up momentum in the wake of a failed bid among Congressional Democrats to raise the federally mandated minimum wage. 

Because franchisees, and not franchisors, typically set wages for their employees, they have made a promising target for labor activists.

Fast food fractures

Franchisors have fired back with claims that franchisee relations are so healthy that new regulations are unnecessary. “The International Franchise Association, which represents franchisors like McDonald’s, Subway and Wendy’s, said in a statement that franchisees indicate ‘incredibly high satisfaction rates,'” according to the AP. “It noted that data from the Federal Trade Commission shows franchisees renew their contracts at ‘an extremely high rate.'”

Taken in isolation however, the picture has become cloudier at McDonald’s — long seen as the bellwether in its industry. “The fast-food chain is at odds with some of the estimated 3,000 men and women who operate most of its 14,350 restaurants in the U.S.,” Bloomberg has noted. “A recent survey by Mark Kalinowski, an analyst at Janney Capital Markets, found that acrimony between the restaurant operators and McDonald’s corporate leaders is as high as it’s been in the 12 years the firm has polled franchise owners.”

Top brass at McDonald’s have faced a perfect storm of changing market conditions, according to Bloomberg. “Stung by falling profits, franchisees grouse that McDonald’s headquarters is out of touch with the realities of running restaurants in today’s fiercely competitive market. They also accuse the company of ignoring their concerns on everything from bloated menus to ever-more-costly kitchen equipment to wages for counter workers.” With analysts predicting a swift shift in fast food restaurants toward fully automated ordering and checkout, unions likely faced a narrow window to successfully organize workers before many of their jobs were simply phased out.

“SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — A bill that passed the Assembly with unanimous bipartisan support Thursday encourages California schools to teach students about the racial significance of Barack Obama’s presidency.

“The Assembly approved AB 1912 with a 71-0 vote and no debate or discussion. It now heads to the state Senate.

“The bill by Assemblyman Chris Holden, D-Pasadena, asks state education officials to include Obama’s election in history and social studies standards laying out what students are expected to learn.

“High school history students already learn about recent presidents. But Holden says lessons about Obama also should focus on what his election meant for racial equality and civil rights.

“He said on the Assembly floor that the 2008 election ‘should not just be a mere footnote within textbooks, but rather focus on the significance of Americans overcoming our nation’s past and acknowledging that Americans are moving in the right direction.'”

Just how will ‘racial significance’ be framed?

But flash-forward a few years to when these lesson plans are in place: How will the “significance” be explained?

Republicans, conservatives and libertarians who have witnessed the amazing media protection racket for Obama have every reason to fear the worst.

In normal circumstances, they could assume Holden’s bill yielded a classroom narrative in which Obama’s election was depicted as a societal triumph because it shows how America was now a place where a member of a once-enslaved race could become president.

In our present swamp, however, media assertions and insinuations that racism drives criticism of Obama are everywhere. even though Republicans hated Bill Clinton every bit as much as Barack Obama. So I won’t be surprised if Obama’s election is depicted as a triumph not over historical racism but rampant current racism.

Still, I harbor a tiny hope that historians are less baldly in the tank than the media for our fiasco-in-chief.

Any scholar who is able to pull back and look at the Obama presidency from a bigger perspective than daily journalism is going to notice the absence of foreign-policy triumphs and the groundswell in nations that like the U.S. less under Obama than his predecessors; the list starts with such fundamental allies as Canada, Britain, Germany and Israel.

Any scholar who contemplates Obamacare from a bigger perspective than daily journalism has to see the astoundingly inept implementation of the sweeping law as a presidential debacle — even if one thinks it was a great goal.

Any scholar who looks at the economy from a bigger perspective than daily journalism will see that probably half the counties in the nation never recovered from the great recession — and that the states that flourished the most under Obama (Texas, North Dakota) did so in spite of him, not because of him.

Will he be graded on (absent) accomplishments — or symbolism?

Historians usually — usually — grade presidents more on execution than on their good intentions and/or cultural symbolism. So for now, at least, when it comes to who is in the tank for Obama, this is my equation:

Broadcast media > print media > historians > bloggers > pro golfers

C’mon, academia: Reward my faith by being appropriately tough on the 44th president.