No. This is more of a PR gambit, corporate hagiography of the worst sort. It skips past the so-called origin of RG&E's rebirth (a little tale featuring Enron, gaming of the system by GOP-protected energy traders, and the tipping dominoes that led to to Democratic Gov Grey Davis' ouster by recall), as well current controversies such as PG&E's efforts to keep power generation eforts going in poor areas of San Francisco, and SF's potential competition with PG&E over potential municipal power generation. Barely mentioning the latter, it fails to note that PG&E, while indeed doing many things more progressively than its industry peers, is in a reactive position, forced by others in its domain to compete on the level of green power, or lose out. To present the company as some kind of progressive marvel defies the historical record and swallows the corporate Kool Ade rather gullibly.The writer's NY Times (and San Jose Mercury News) experience should have surely produced a more critical approach. Ceryainly, much excellent information appearing in the pages of the San Francisco Bay Guardian is available to anyone seeking a more nuanced view an critical view of this issue. Many more sources could have helped this to become something more than a puff piece. Perhaps side deals such as this for magazines apparently seeking positive spin for its corporate profiles don't demand the same rigor. They should.