The City Journal has an interesting article exploring California’s mandated preference for gay businesses in the energy industry. If the state hits its target, “LGBT-owned businesses” will receive $633 million in contracts. Putting aside the imposition of such agendas on companies at a time of rising energy costs, the certification process for being an LGBT business is astonishing.
This is only one of various categories of preferential treatment under state law. It began in 1986, under Governor George Deukmejian, requiring certain CPUC-regulated utilities to submit annual “plans” for buying goods and services from woman- and minority-owned companies.
The specific LGBT preference began under former Gov. Jerry Brown in 2014, but was expanded by Gov. Gavin Newsom in 2019 to encourage energy companies to favor LGBT businesses.
The law is based on the protected class status under state law rather than proof that LGBT business people are discriminated against in the energy field or that LGBT owners make substantially less than straight owners.
The National LGBTQ+ & Allied Chamber of Commerce informs companies striving to come out of the corporate closet that “certification is a journey, not a destination.”
So here is how you prove that your company is LGBT.
Applicants can secure certification by providing a letter from an “LGBT organization” attesting to their sexual preferences; proof that a newspaper identified them as “LGBT”; or three letters from “personal contacts” written “on company letterhead” attesting to their homosexual orientation. Corporate officials who “falsely represent” their business as gay face up to a year in county jail.
Supplier Clearinghouse also accepts gay-certification letters from the National LGBTQ+ & Allied Chamber of Commerce. The chamber has its own list of accepted documents, including human resources complaints or police records claiming LGBT discrimination.
So a company can submit its own criminal complaint alleging discrimination as proof that it is LGBT, or you can submit letters on some company letterhead on your corporate gayness.
It is not clear if businesses can challenge such benchmarks on the basis of sexual orientation. A company would have to claim that it has a straight ownership and suffers from a real or cognizable injury from the loss of contracts. That is no easy task and would likely produce a consumer and political backlash in California for the company.
For Californians who gripe about having the highest fuel costs, they do not have to look far. California has created layers of taxes and regulations that drive costs for the industry. At the same time, Newsom and others continue to hamper efforts to pursue energy resources within the state.
These types of laws empower a network of activists and groups who tap into an effort worth hundreds of millions of dollars in offering “certification letters.” The website declares that “NGLCC’s exclusive LGBT Business Enterprise (LGBTBE) certification works hard for you, giving you a competitive advantage to succeed.”
What is fascinating about this effort is that it, first and foremost, benefits the owners rather than consumers and employees. Given the percentage of LGBT citizens overall, it is likely that any sizable company will have a majority of non-LGBT employees.
One can certainly argue that an LGBT owner is more likely to have a tolerant company, but there are already robust laws protecting LGBT individuals, particularly in California. This is about a preference going to companies based on the sexual orientation of their owners as opposed to the company as a whole.
The benefit to the consumer is far less obvious in encouraging companies to favor one company over another based on the sexual orientation of owners or management. Rather than encouraging price competition on contracts, Democrats have inserted an additional criterion that impacts as much as $633 million in energy contracts.
Democrats want to divide people!
They give special treatment to the 2% LGBTQ
and they HATE the 98% of Men and Women getting married and having kids to ensure the future of the Country!
Democrats Are a Suicidial Cult, that HATE America!
I have tried to get the attention of gay men for years but none of them are into me. I then became a Trans woman hoping gay men would take me seriously but they did not. Then I tried grindr and used fake photos to see if then gay men would bed me. Nope! One told me after he met me in a back alley next to a sewer that he would have to drink several bottles of vodka so that I would look like the catfish photos I sent him via grindr. I didnt think I looked that bad! so here I am not feeling very pride-ish. At least I have my gerbil
Mine gerbil provides me unlimited pleasure. No judgement here!
Sounds like a uncontrollable compulsion X.
Velly velly intelleshting… but shtupit!
Spent more than 20 years in CA. House in the Bay Area, vacay homes on the ocean up North and in Tahoe. Beautiful state.
But shtupit!
No, worse, malicious morons. Marching.
This is just another anecdote in the bag full which illustrates how “liberals” are among the most bigoted people in the US. Hullbobby summarizes it well in his comment. The bumper sticker now out speaks a truth that no liberal is willing to admit even though just a passing knowledge of southern Democrats in the 50s, 60s and 70s shows it to be so. The sticker “quotes” Abraham Lincoln as saying: “I haven’t seen the Democrats this mad since we took away their slaves.”
BAH HAHA!! California keeps raising the BAR FOR FREAKY ACTION!! Gottal love the land of FRUITS NUTS AND BERRIES!! So a lot of Pink TUTU’s working on State Projects in the coming years? Bah haha! Go for it you MORONS!!!
It use to be a great state, but when the late 80’s hit. Down hill from there.
Isn’t this unfair to little people who are not LBGTQ+++++++ ?
The rage is so predictable. Professor Turley’s rage baiting has gotten to the point it’s like fine art.
First of all he falsely claims it’s mandated. Nope. It’s strictly voluntary.
California General Order 156 (GO 156) does not mandate quotas, nor does it force utilities to hire specific vendors. It establishes voluntary, aspirational procurement goals. Utilities are required to encourage and report on their outreach to diverse suppliers, but they are never penalized if they fail to meet a specific percentage benchmark.
Turley frames the “$633 million in contracts” as if it is a state-funded handout or direct government expenditure. But…
The state of California is not spending this money. GO 156 applies to regulated, investor-owned public utilities (like PG&E, Southern California Edison, and SoCalGas). These are private corporations using their own operational procurement budgets to purchase goods and services. No taxpayer dollars are being allocated to these businesses.
Turley implies that prioritizing diverse suppliers drives up consumer energy costs by “inserting an additional criterion” instead of encouraging price competition.
Diverse supplier programs actually increase market competition and drive costs down. By actively recruiting minority-, women-, and LGBT-owned businesses into the bidding pool, utilities break up corporate monopolies and force traditional suppliers to lower their prices to remain competitive. California’s high energy costs are driven by wildfire mitigation, grid modernization, and global commodity pricing—not vendor diversity programs.
So much misinformation in this article. It’s astonishing. But not surprising.
Yeah right george
It establishes voluntary, aspirational procurement goals.
_______________
You poor libs just can’t stop being racist. Handing out jobs to only certian folks…
You can’t read or do basic research. Turley is lying to your face on the expectation that your’e too stupid to do the most basic thing. Verifying if what he’s saying is true. It’s not. This is what he’s talking about,
https://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/PUBLISHED/FINAL_RESOLUTION/63662.htm#:~:text=requires%20California%20regulated%20utilities%20with%20%2425%20million%20in%20annual%20revenues%20to%20establish%20a%20program%20to%20procure%20goods%20and%20services%20from%20woman%2D%20and%20minority%2Downed%20business%20enterprises
It explicitly states that General Order 156 (GO 156) establishes “procurement goals of 5% for woman-, 15% for minority-, and 1.5% for disabled veteran-owned business enterprises.”
In utility regulation, a “goal” is an aspirational benchmark.
Utilities are legally required to TRY to reach these numbers through outreach, but they are not legally penalized or fined if market conditions prevent them from hitting the exact percentages.
The mandatory language focuses on administrative action rather than forced spending, requiring utilities to “establish a program to procure goods and services… and their progress in meeting the procurement goals”. Utilities must maintain an inclusive bidding process and file annual reports, but they are not required to award contracts if diverse suppliers do not meet standard requirements.
Turley claims this program mandates preference. That’s not true.
Of particular note is Turley “neglected” to mention the article he used to make this one is co-authored by Christopher Rufo. The guy who weaponized CRT. Big surprise there. It includes a wholly made up number referring to the $633 million in contracts. This shows Turley is just peddling rage baiting slop for YOUR consumption. Not genuine concern about a program he likely never read. He just took the word of Rufo and went with it.
Still bull george. When you tell one group you can get contracts and not the other because… Race, color, where you came from or the person in your bed room.
Pay attention to the last Supreme court ruling on black/Mexican redistricting.
Dustoff, again you don’t know how to read. It does say what you think it says. I know it’s a long read, with many adult words. Perhaps you should seek help with AI so it can explain it to you at your level.
Let’s play “Georgie the X,who says, “Turley ‘neglected’ to mention the article he used to make this one is co-authored by Christopher Rufo. The guy who weaponized CRT. Big surprise there. It includes a wholly made up number referring to the $633 million in contracts.”
OK, x, —please tell all of us where Christopher was wrong, and what he said was a lie.
Just one thing that RUfo said, georgie. This is the schtick you throw at us everyday. Your turn.
Christopher Rufo’s $633 million figure is a purely theoretical projection, not a hard line item or an actual budget.
He took the private operational budgets of California’s investor-owned utilities and multiplied them by the state’s 1.5% voluntary, aspirational target for LGBT vendors under General Order 156. Rufo and Turley both framed this as a “state-mandated handout”, which is flat-out wrong. The state is spending zero taxpayer dollars, there are absolutely no penalties if a private utility doesn’t hit that 1.5% number, and broadening the vendor pool actually drives utility costs down by forcing corporate monopolies to compete. They took a routine corporate anti-fraud auditing process, slapped a scary, fake-news price tag on it, and handed it to you as a narrative. You took the bait.
X
Great. Now I get to show the readers where YOU lied.
Lie NO. 1
Rufo’s ‘$633 million’ figure was NEVER presented as a “hard-line item or actual budget. Here is the EXACT sentence where Rufo mentioned it: “If ‘large’ CPUC-regulated utilities met these ‘goals’ in 2024, they would have sent roughly $633 million to LGBT-owned firms.”
LIE No. 2
You said that Turley and Rufo “falsely claim it’s mandated. Nope. It’s strictly voluntary.”
Try READING COMPREHENSION when you run across words like “REQUIRED,” like: The Legislature passed Assembly Bill 3678, which REQUIRES California regulated utilities with $25 million in annual revenues to establish a program to procure goods and services from woman- and minority-owned business enterprises. ” Or how ’bout this:
“1.1.1. Purpose-These rules implement PU Code Sections 8281-8286 which REQUIRE the Commission to establish a procedure for gas, electric, and telephone utilities with gross annual revenues exceeding $25,000,000 and their Commission-regulated subsidiaries and affiliates to submit annual detailed and verifiable plans for increasing women, minority and disabled veteran business enterprises’ (WMDVBE) procurement in all categories.”
Do YOU understand what “mandate” means, X?
LIE No. 3
NOWHERE does either Turley or RUfo state that the companies must meet the goals or else be punished, a complete lie on your part. The MANDATE is that they develop and present a plan/agenda for increasing representation of the various minorities, including LGBT, which means they are preferred. Preferred equals this:
“Each utility shall establish and maintain a subcontracting program for the purpose of encouraging its prime contractors to utilize WMDVBE subcontractors.” Get it, Georgie?
LIE No. 4
And yes, there ARE punishments attached. The MANDATE REQUIRES presentation of annual plan, report, and results.
Failing to do so, or for false information, are punishable.
“2.7. Falsification of information on the verification form is subject to the penalties provided by Public Utilities Code Section 8285.” GO156
“If staff’s monitoring and evaluation concludes that the contractor is performing unsatisfactorily, the JU will be directed to terminate the contract.” Resolution CSID – 001. Adopting Proposal of the Joint Utilities to Operate the Clearinghouse of Woman- Minority- and Disabled Veteran-Owned Suppliers for Utilities Subject to the General Order 156 as Revised in (D).06-08-031.\
f you want to wallow in your own ignorance that’s your prerogative.
Well I suggest you leave here, write your own blog and inform everyone of YOUR truth. There has to be five or six other crazies out there that will follow you.
Me, I will stick with Professor Turely, a respected person and a constitutional scholar, over a liberal lying troll.
If you want to wallow in your own ignorance that’s your prerogative.
I prefer to remain here, a free speech forum, where I can criticize and rebut Turley’s misleading claims all day long if I want to. After all it is fair game. Why have a blog of my own when I can just post here just the same?
It is your inescapable compulsion X. but you’re slipping as I have frequently told you.
Compare past utterances and you will see your down-trend.
That is right X! You tell them! You can come here and correct Turley about the law, the Constitution! You clearly know better than him! You also know everything about construction, rent, being a landlord, algae, airplanes, hate crimes and more! You are the smarts person you know!
It is always a pleasure to read X’s evisceration of Turley’s daily screed that has no discernible relationship with ACTUAL facts.
As we well know, the MAGA mob much prefers to rely on ALTERNATIVE facts, as famously described by Kellyanne Conway.
It is always noteworthy that X manages to expose the utter hypocrisy of Turley’s rants on a daily basis. These fact-free pieces are a deliberate distortion of reality, designed to stoke the rage of the MAGA mob. He stokes the very rage he supposedly despises, and so hypocritically and disingenuously criticizes in his stupid books.
Everyone shut up while the know-it-all speaks!
This law is on shaky ground, awaiting a claim that would take the case to the Supreme Court. They will decide its ultimate legitimacy, taking into account the 14th Amendment. Eventually, I believe the law will disappear because the type of racism practiced by Svelaz X and this law isn’t moral and promotes racism.
Rights belong to the individual.
As usual, you are not making a lick of sense.
First, it’s not a law. It’s a resolution. Do you know the difference?
Why would the Supreme Court decide? Who is challenging this? Your’e an idiot.
GO 156 stands for General order. It enforces actual law. We are dealing with administrative law. Do you even know what that is? General Orders function as law.
Do the following carry the force of the law? Do you claim they are not mandatory”
Data tracking
Annual filing
Outreach programs
If they carry the force of law I am correct and you are wrong. Your entire response is ignorant. Yes, this has been challenged and yes this is a question that eventually will make it to the Supreme Court based on several things including the 14th Amendment.
Moron’s like you should never throw insults; they end up in your face.
Yes indeed, Meyer the Liar is an idiot.
I will second that motion.
Do we here a third, or should we all vote?
Let’s vote !!
I vote Yes.
Yes, he’s an idiot.
Yes, undoubtedly an idiot
Yes
I vote yes.
Yes, without a doubt an idiot.
Yes, no question he is an idiot.
YES !!!!
Meyer is an idiot
YES!!!
YES!!!
YES!!!
Do I make myself clear ??
Yes, you make yourself crystal clear.
Meyer is an idiot.
Can we vote multiple times, or is that voter fraud???
Yes, idiocy becomes him.
I agree.
I vote YES!!!
I also vote YES!!!
But no one is voting NO. I suspect voter suppression.
Yes, yes, yes !!!!
A thousand times yes !!!
I have no problem with you and your 16 pretend anonymous persons go down with the ship along with George Svelaz X. None of you have more intelligence than a snail.
When you say “anonymous persons”, don’t you really mean “anonymi”???
That was your usual word to refer to more than one anonymous person until someone WAAAAAYYYY smarter and much more intelligent than you corrected your usage.
I’m trying to remember who that brilliant and knowledgeable person was.
Do you remember who that remarkably intelligent and learned person was???
What are the criteria for proving that you are a member of this lgbtq+++ community? I see a major fraud problem in the works.
whimsicalmama——–In the early 1960’s, when I was in High School, if you wore the colors pink and green together on a Thursday, it meant you were homosexual. Maybe that “science” could be dusted-off and re-used as one of the criteria?? Might as well, since this seems to be the silly season in California (as usual).
Prof. Turley wrote “here is how you prove that”.
What homosexual acts does someone have to perform in front of the politicians to prove they are gay or lesbian to get the contract? Or does starring in a gay porno qualify everyone for a state contract? Do the politians get off on watching?
https://thedailybs.com/2026/06/17/are-you-gay-enough-to-get-a-california-utilities-contract-heres-the-test/?
“What homosexual acts does someone have to perform in front of the politicians to prove they are gay or lesbian to get the contract? ”
I think feigning an over-the-top lisp when asking for the contract could possibly do the trick? Just a thought.
for the Dems, who are so delicate and might read my comment and gasp………..it was said in, a little thing humans like to call, “jest”.
in jetht (gathp)
Pardon?
LOL………….
Colostomy bag wearers go to the front of the line.
One can certainly argue that an LGBT owner is more likely to have a tolerant company…
One, certainly. But probably not more than the 5-6% of the adult CA population that identify as LGBTQ+.
One has, I woud expect, never seen an angry tranny trying to use the woman’s bathroom while a father of a daughter is inside. I don’t think much tolerance is displayed by the tranny screaming that he is a woman.
I would imagine it’s relatively easy to become LGBT certified, thereby gain preferential treatment, because, who challenge such a thing? What are they going to say, “Oh no, you’re not gay?” But to force JQ Public to preferentially buy such services or products? Smacks of unfair business pratice to me, on several levels.
I’m sure this won’t pass constitutional muster.
Prof. Turley says to establish standing “is no easy task”.
Just when I did not think CA could get any more absurd, CA proves me wrong.
It causes me to shake my head and mutter “Bend over you ani giganti – you all collectively deserve it!” Does it occur to anyone that living under such rules might cause blowback, e.g., individuals purposely avoiding doing business with “gay” businesses?
Quis Vig……………..shouldn’t you put the word blowback in quotes? 🙂
California isn’t called the land of fruits and nuts for nothing.
Where the nuts hang in pairs the oranges suck back!
Mr Turley uses the word Astonishing! How about illegal, unconstitutional, criminal and perverse. Just Astonishing. Incredible!
Lawful extortion. There is no grft too grifty for Democrats.
How fast would a court enjoin such a scheme if the parameters were you have to be a straight company?
Black graduations-fine
Black dorms-fine
Black Miss America-fine
BET TV-fine
Pride MONTH-fine
Trans day of whatever-fine
Trans week of whatever-fine
Trans month of whatever-fine
Pride night at the ballpark-fine
Bible verses on caps-end of the world
Praying outside a Planned Parenthood-jail time
METOO Movement-fine
Islam goons raping 250,000 British white girls-“we need to censor”
Joe Biden, “white supremacy is the biggest threat to our nation”.
Kier Starmer-“We need to censor disinformation”
X, “I disagree with everything Turley has ever written or ever will write”.
Sorry, just some musings this morning.
What f-ing stupid shit.
Thank you for not spelling out the “f” word. Just wish you had not spelled out the “s” word either.
HullBobby,
Some amusing musing this morning!
Although I would note, #metoo, fine unless you are a Nazi sporting, communist, Democrat, then it is #meh.
Good catch Upstate!
Your musings are spot on observations of the madness we see every day on the Left.
Reading this reminds me of the movie Stripes.
Recruiter: Now, are either of you homosexuals?
John Winger: [John and Russell look at each other] You mean, like, flaming, or…
Recruiter: Well, it’s a standard question we have to ask.
Russell Ziskey: No, we’re not homosexual, but we are *willing to learn*.
John Winger: Yeah, would they send us someplace special?
Recruiter: I guess that’s “no” on both. Now if you could just give Uncle Sam your autograph…
How is this not unconstitutional?
It isn’t. Problem is that you will have to spend 4 years and take it probably as high as SCOTUS before it is deemed as such.
Because it’s not. Turley is lying to your face. This is not a mandate. It’s an entirely voluntary program.
Yeah sure it is…
It’s an entirely voluntary program.
————————
Who sets the standards for this? Are you some what gay, or really hard core.
No it’s not! stop lying!
Try reading again (It’s an entirely voluntary program.)
Even these programs would have conditions.. It’s what Government does.
commies ignore the Constitution and need to be taught a lesson about that.
Think of it as an eviction moratorium for LGBT-owned businesses instead of tenants.
Jimbo….that’s a scream…..I’d forgotten bout that scene!
They need to grease the…wheels, yeah wheels.
Liberals seem to have some brain cells which are out of sync with the other parts of their brains. Since when was the government (e.g., those elected or appointed or “anointed” in power) decided to determine what is best for us (in their terms)? They seem to forget the term. . .”We the people”
They don’t forget, they purposefully ignore, until they need the “people”. Odd how that works so well for them.
It got a little blurry from 2020-2024 when the administration was trying to kneecap freedom in all 50 states, but as ever, California is both the preview and the object lesson for everyone if the modern left are ever given the levers of power again. Madness, misery, and entitlement are pretty much all they know.