Don't kill LAFCO!

SAN FRANCISCO BOARD of Supervisors president Matt Gonzalez is quietly asking the members of the Local Agency Formation Commission to consider suspending operations – right in the middle of a crucial feasibility study into public power. It's a terrible idea and shouldn't even be up for discussion.

LAFCO was created three years ago, in the middle of the campaign to set up a municipal utility district in San Francisco. It was, at the time, just another of then-city attorney Louise Renne's efforts to throw bureaucratic roadblocks in the path of the MUD.

But the agency not only defied Renne's wishes and approved the MUD plan, it also turned out to be a valuable tool for public power advocates. LAFCO has the authority to do something the mayor and the supervisors have never done: commission and fund a comprehensive study into the costs, benefits, and feasibility of replacing Pacific Gas and Electric Co.'s local private monopoly with a municipal electricity agency.

That study got underway in January, and R.W. Beck, the respected Sacramento firm handling the project, is expected to report back later this year. In the meantime, LAFCO is looking into solar energy and other alternatives that can help reduce the city's reliance on dirty, dangerous fossil fuels.

But without notice to anyone in the public power movement, the agency put on its May 23 agenda a proposal to consider "the possibility of suspending the activities of S.F. LAFCO."

Gonzalez, who is also LAFCO chair, told us he doesn't want to shut down the agency but put the item on the agenda for discussion because suspending operations, or reducing them – say, having the panel meet once a year – might save the city some money. He acknowledged that the cash savings wouldn't be that substantial.

It's true that not every issue on LAFCO's plate is crucial: the panel held a long hearing recently on desalination, a topic that, while fascinating, might not be on the top of anyone's political agenda right now. But LAFCO's real mission is and ought to be pursuing public power – and since the board doesn't have a regular public power committee, LAFCO is the only forum for discussing and promoting the issue.

Once the agency goes into hibernation, it will be difficult to revive – and although there's nothing on the ballot this fall, public power remains a key issue for San Francisco's future. LAFCO needs to meet regularly to monitor the R.W. Beck study (for starters, the study will need another injection of funding in July, and if LAFCO is in suspension, the study won't be completed) and to keep the public power issue on the political front burner. The members should reject the shutdown plan immediately.

P.S.: The Public Works and Public Protection Committee last October called on the city controller to study the impact Pacific Gas and Electric Co. rate hikes have had on the local economy (see "Supervisors Call for Rate-hike Study," 10/23/02). With the recession only getting worse, and another looming energy crisis, Gonzalez and Sup. Chris Daly, who originally asked for the study, should tell City Controller Ed Harrington it's long overdue and demand action on the issue, fast.

P.P.S.: The real irony in this whole situation: the city is happy to give millions to URS (see "No juicy deal for URS" , 5/21/03) in a sweetheart deal to rebuild Calveras Dam – but nobody wants to spend a few bucks keeping alive the one agency that can defy PG&E and help bring public power to the city (which would help the economy and bring in buckets of new revenue).