Public power's next step

SUP. TOM Ammiano has begun holding a series of meetings to discuss changes to his public power charter amendment with interested community groups and activists. It's a positive sign that the campaign for a November ballot measure is moving forward and that Ammiano is seeking a range of community input. But he's also seeking consensus – he wants a bill that as broad a coalition as possible can support – and that could be a dangerous prospect: some of the groups involved in the discussions (for example, the San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association, or SPUR) are much closer to Pacific Gas and Electric Co. than to the public power movement. So Ammiano needs to make it clear that there are parts of the proposal that he won't dilute, even if some of his potential allies threaten to bolt.

The very fact that so many organizations – from unions to the Sierra Club, from the Utility Reform Network to SPUR – potentially want to be involved in a public power campaign is a sign of how far PG&E has fallen in the past two years. There are plenty of others who ought to be involved too – particularly groups representing communities of color – and Ammiano and other public power advocates should aggressively work to bring them into the coalition. And while Proposition F, last year's public power charter amendment, lost narrowly, turnout will be much higher this fall with the governor's race on the ballot, which helps progressive measures. So there's every reason to believe that, with an effective campaign, a strong, comprehensive public power measure – one that would get the city out from under the oppressive and expensive PG&E monopoly forever – can win voter approval in November.

But the likes of SPUR (and some of the more conservative, pro-PG&E elements of organized labor) are bound to push for a much more modest plan – and if the goal of achieving consensus and winning an easy victory overwhelms the goal of creating an effective public power system, the final product may be so weak it will hardly have been worth the effort. Even worse, a watered-down plan could give the impression of reform without the reality and delay real public power for years to come.

Much of the language of the new charter amendment is, and should be, negotiable. The ultimate goal – replacing PG&E with a city-owned and city-run water and power system, under the control of an elected and accountable board – should not be.