High-voltage debate
Mayor Brown and some labor leaders want to soften Sup. Tom Ammiano's new public power measure. Will he go along?

By Rachel Brahinsky

JUST ONE WEEK before Sup. Tom Ammiano unveils a new public power proposal, the coalition that supported last fall's battle against Pacific Gas and Electric Co. is sharply divided over key aspects of the measure.

The outcome could have far-reaching implications for the public power movement and could signal Ammiano's willingness to risk upsetting key constituencies such as organized labor as he heads into next year's mayoral race. And it will show how much influence Mayor Willie Brown – with just a year and a half left of his final term – will have on a proposal he never supported in the past.

The good news is most players in San Francisco politics concede that the city needs public power, and many have already agreed on the rough outline of a proposal, which likely will include strong environmental-justice and clean-power provisions. The loss of two public power measures last fall has not deterred advocates from moving forward with another attempt to challenge the PG&E monopoly by creating a new public power agency. Even the mayor, who has always supported PG&E and opposed public power in the past, approves of key aspects of the plan.

But the success of the proposed agency will depend on how it is managed and what mandate its board of directors is compelled to follow. And there's substantial disagreement on those two issues.

Most involved agree that the current San Francisco Public Utilities Commission has been a disaster for public power, water, and sewer services. The SFPUC's sewer system is facing financial ruin, and the water system is in need of some $3 billion in crucial repairs. Expansion of the Hetch Hetchy Water and Power enterprise has been stymied despite the city's federal public power mandate, the 1913 Raker Act.

That's why a major goal of last year's public power campaign was to replace the SFPUC with an accountable, independent, elected agency.

But now the mayor and SFPUC officials are aggressively promoting the idea that the current commission should be retained. Last week Ed Smeloff, Brown's top power policy adviser, said the mayor won't support a public power initiative that alters the SFPUC's governance.

"We need to maintain the existing governance structure for continuity," Smeloff said in a presentation to the San Francisco Local Agency Formation Commission June 7.

PUC staffers are working with Ammiano on a separate measure to reform management of the city's water services.

Ammiano and several other supervisors say they're leaning toward eliminating the SFPUC – and they want to replace it with another appointed board. Instead of a group exclusively picked by the mayor, the new board would be selected by several different agencies, with established checks and balances.

A recent survey by the American Public Power Association shows that about a third of the nation's public power agencies are managed by appointed boards. Most independent power agencies (those not directly controlled by a city council) have appointed boards; 12 percent have elected boards, the survey shows.

San Franciscans for Public Power, the community group that has lead the campaign for public power for many years, argues that the board overseeing the city's power agency needs to be elected. An appointed board, members say, would be subject to the same political pressure that has kept PG&E in power at city hall for more than 80 years.

"Shifting to an appointed board may lead to less support for the measure," Joel Ventresca, a longtime SFPP member, said. "I think the closer the proposal is to the Sacramento public power system [which is run by a district-elected board], the better we are."

The other contentious issue is the proposed agency's mandate. The agency could be directed to seize PG&E's entire system from top to bottom. Or it could have a more modest goal: to generate energy and buy wholesale power, which would be transmitted over PG&E's lines with PG&E's cooperation.

Therein lies the bigger conflict: the measure Ammiano sponsored last fall aimed at a total takeover, but some factions of organized labor – a major part of Ammiano's political-power base – totally oppose that alternative. Last year the San Francisco Labor Council strongly backed public power, reversing its historic position against public power and candidates who supported it. The council's move alienated the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 1245, which has always opposed public power. Local 1245 left the council; now some labor leaders hope to woo it back.

"[We need to listen] to key elements of the labor movement, particularly IBEW 1245, which represents most workers at PG&E, so that they feel more comfortable than the last time," said Rich Waller, director of the Labor Council's Labor to Neighbor program.

Indeed, Local 1245 representative Hunter Stern indicated last week that the union, which generally takes the same position as PG&E, might be satisfied with the modest mandate.

That's the vision supported by Smeloff and others who say the agency's first goal should be developing clean-power generation, shutting down the city's aging dirty-power plants, and building a new state-of-the-art energy grid – instead of going after a takeover of PG&E's system.

"I think it's better to have PG&E's cooperation at this time," Smeloff said.

For activists who have fought PG&E for years, it may be hard to imagine the utility as cooperative. After all, under PG&E's influence city hall still resists enforcing the Raker Act, which directed the city to use power from Yosemite National Park's O'Shaunessey Dam to create a public power agency to serve residents at the cheapest possible rates.

"There's no reason that we can't include the proper triggers that say PG&E has to be good actor, or else. But the right [to take over the grid] has to be in it," SFPP's Ross Mirkarimi said.

Mirkarimi and other public power advocates support the more aggressive mandate. "The very first goal should be the takeover, the complete and utter takeover," environmental justice activist Marie Harrison told us. "The second immediate goal should be the total and complete shutdown of [dirty-power plants]. If I can't control it, I can't shut it down."

Now it remains to be seen whether Ammiano is willing to promote a plan he has always supported – a sweeping, comprehensive public power system – even if it upsets some of the people he will need in his mayoral campaign. As he told us, "I want to see if we can reduce the opposition to whatever's out there. I want to hear what everyone has to say, but pretty soon we're going to have to bite the bullet."

Hearings on Ammiano's measure are tentatively scheduled to begin the last week in June or the first week in July. Call (415) 554-4447 for more information. Call Ammiano at (415) 554-5144 to give your input on the measure. See Alerts, page 14, for information on the Local Agency Formation Commission's first hearing on the R.W. Beck public power feasibility study June 17. E-mail Rachel Brahinsky at rachel@sfbg.com.