Public power OK'd for November vote
City primed to ensure low-cost, reliable electricity for residents.

By Rachel Brahinsky

IN A HISTORIC decision that pits Pacific Gas and Electric Co. against public energy advocates for the second year in a row, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors voted 8-3 July 22 to place a public power ballot measure before voters this November. The move reestablished alliances on the Board of Supervisors, as left-leaning supes banded together, giving voters a chance to establish a fully operational local public power system.

The plan, which would amend the City Charter, offers the city sweeping powers to build new power plants, establish efficiency programs, and take over PG&E's local power grid without an additional vote of the people.

The decision was one of several major issues the supervisors had before them July 22 concerning San Francisco's infrastructure and economy, including approval of a reworked $4.9 billion city budget. Supes also approved a ballot measure that will present voters with the option of OK'ing $1.6 billion in revenue bonds to pay for repairs to the Hetch Hetchy water system. Several other proposed charter changes were dropped, including a plan to improve homeless services and another to create a new city hall watchdog, intended for the fall ballot.

Members who voted for the power plan, several of whom had been divided over fundamental issues days before the vote, said they had reached a compromise over the measure's scope. They added that they intend to get behind it to drum up public support. "We reconstituted the concept of public power," Sup. Tom Ammiano said. "We had debate. We had division. [But] what's wrong with that?... Now there is unity. It's time to circle the wagons and put something on the ballot, and we will have public power."

The measure had been amended July 15 in a dramatic three-and-a-half-hour political show. Written by Ammiano and Sup. Sophie Maxwell, with input from community members, the original proposal was more moderate than some public power advocates wanted. It was also significantly different from Propositions F and I, the municipal power measures that narrowly lost at the polls in 2001. A surprising vote that united the board's left and right flanks forced amendments by Sup. Matt Gonzalez into the measure (see "Public Power Victory," 7/17/02). This week the board chose between two versions, deciding to go with one that would create a power authority managed by an appointed board (rather than an elected one) and that would have broad powers to take over PG&E's grid. The earlier version limited those powers considerably.

One of the plan's intended goals is to finally close PG&E's antiquated and polluting Hunters Point power plant. It would also give the city more leverage in its attempts to stop the Mirant Corp. from expanding its Potrero Hill power plant. Though Mirant's expansion plans are in the hands of the California Energy Commission, not the city, officials believe that if San Francisco can prove it's able to manage long-standing energy reliability problems on its own, the CEC may refuse Mirant the required permit.

"This will provide the city with the ability to enter into long-term contracts ... protect our air ... and provide checks and balances for the [Public Utilities Commission]," said Maxwell, whose district includes both fossil fuel-burning plants. "And it gives us the ability to shut down some of the oldest power plants in the state of California."

Though Maxwell has staunchly advocated against giving any new agency strong powers to seize PG&E assets, in the end she voted for the measure, noting that the sharply contested acquisition clause was written by Gonzalez "in a very thoughtful way." The final vote allied Maxwell, Ammiano, and Gonzalez with Sups. Chris Daly, Gerardo Sandoval, Mark Leno, Jake McGoldrick, and Aaron Peskin.

Sups. Tony Hall, Gavin Newsom, and Leland Yee opposed the measure.

From bankruptcy ... to bankruptcy

Weeks before the July 22 vote, public power advocates heavily lobbied board members to endow the public power proposal with a democratically elected board of directors and strong acquisition powers. Many remained concerned that the bill's chief sponsor, Ammiano, had retreated from the vision of public power they shared last fall. In 2001, Ammiano worked hard to help pass public power propositions F and I. But the two initiatives sank in an election shrouded with questions about management. Still, many advocates hoped to renew the campaign with another ballot measure.

And Ammiano publicly spoke about his commitment to seeing through a similar measure, with an elected board. "I feel strongly about that. That way it is more accountable and more accessible," he said this March (see "Public Power Moves Forward," 3/20/02).

But the brief wave of public anger aimed at PG&E last year – after its bankruptcy filing (which at the time was the third-largest in U.S. history, long before Enron's and WorldCom's) and after it was revealed that energy companies like PG&E played a key role in manufacturing California's energy crisis the year before – had subsided. And as Ammiano began to craft the deal, he began to talk more about reducing opposition to the measure so that it would be assured a win at the polls. He didn't want to risk another loss, a point on which his mayoral challengers in 2003 would surely capitalize.

New influences on the plan began to emerge. The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 1245 (which represents PG&E employees), and the San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association (a downtown business-funded think tank), both of which opposed the measures last year, said they might support a more moderate plan. Staunch public power proponents blanched at the idea of changing their goals to appease those who had fought them in the past. Last year's loss, after all, came after PG&E, AT&T, and other corporate foes of public control dumped some $2 million into an opposition campaign.

Ammiano's hope was to strike a compromise – calling for an appointed board and gentler powers. Still, once Gonzalez's amendments stuck, Ammiano came out with strong support and has said he will be a major part of a winning campaign.

PG&E did not respond to our request for comment for this story, but it is expected to fight just as hard this year to protect its business, and the utility will likely be joined by Mirant.

So it's clear the public power camp will again be faced with the task of marshaling resources if it is to win. As Ross Mirkarimi, spokesperson for San Franciscans for Public Power, told us, "This sets a foundation for what is going to be a hard-fought campaign against PG&E, Mirant, and their downtown allies. It's incumbent on us to shore up a viable campaign – yesterday." Mirkarimi said he was pleased that a supermajority of the board – eight – went for the power plan. "PG&E thought we'd just squeak by," he said. "Now I'll look to every single supervisor to really kick in hard."

It wasn't clear at press time whether some of the most stringent public power opponents – primarily PG&E and its union – would convince major political players like the San Francisco Labor Council to fight public power. Last year the council helped bankroll the public power initiative, donating office space and cash. With the dissent of Local 1245 and after labor favorite Harry Britt's failed bid for state assembly in March, the council has been leaning toward taking a safer political path this year. But last week the council's executive committee voted to support the plan, though some of the more conservative unions weren't present for the vote and the decision didn't represent an actual endorsement. The move reflects what some members say is a good chance that the council could go for public power again, although everyone agrees that resources could be scarce.

Some of labor's more progressive members who support public power told us this week that the council might take a risk. With news of corporate crime in the headlines daily, workers may be getting fed up with depending on companies that are more beholden to shareholders than they are dedicated to providing the public with an essential service. And in a year when the council is expected to leverage significant dollars for Gov. Gray Davis's reelection, issues like public power could get a boost, even if they aren't the council's main priority.

"I would anticipate that the Labor Council will support public power in San Francisco," said David Novogrodsky, executive director of International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers, Local 21, and a member of the Labor Council's executive committee. "Our labor movement has always been interested in the general good. The only thing that's changed this year is that we've had lots of corporate disasters that illustrate why we need this measure. The public knows about Enron, they know about WorldCom and all the others. San Franciscans can make a real statement and show they can run their own business better than these corporate outlaws."

E-mail Rachel Brahinsky at rachel@sfbg.com.