Public power in 2004

SUP. CHRIS Daly has released a Feb. 4 opinion from City Attorney Dennis Herrera that offers a number of promising avenues for pursuing public power – including some steps the supervisors and the mayor could take without going through an expensive ballot campaign. The opinion, combined with Sup. Tom Ammiano's move toward community aggregation, should jump-start the public power movement for 2004. And a top priority for that movement, and for its supporters on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, is preserving the funding for a full study on the costs, benefits, and feasibility of bringing San Francisco into compliance with the Raker Act through the creation of a full-scale public power system.

Since the 1920s public power activists have been fighting a brutal battle against Pacific Gas and Electric Co. – and the toughest part of the battle involves ballot campaigns. Every time a bond measure, or a plan to create a municipal utility district or public power authority, goes before the voters, PG&E pours huge amounts of money into defeating it.

The other key problem the public power forces face is the lack of hard, credible evidence from an independent outside expert demonstrating that a municipal electric system would save the city money and help the economy. As we head into a year when five supervisors will be up for reelection, there's a real chance to undercut both of PG&E's advantages.

The most obvious step the city can and should take is to implement a community aggregation system, with the city buying power in bulk and selling it to residents at reduced rates, as well as building and operating its own generating facilities. According to Herrera's opinion, San Francisco can issue bonds to finance the construction of renewable-energy facilities – like solar, wind, and cogeneration projects – without going to the ballot. Building a set of city-owned and -run environmentally sound power plants would not only generate tremendous economic benefits but would also provide the foundation for a full-scale city power agency.

But the key to all of that is the creation of a public agency that has the ability and the mandate to pursue every possible option and step toward creating a municipal electric utility. This isn't that difficult: plenty of other cities do it. But the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission – dominated for years by allies of PG&E – has never shown any interest in the job. So the supervisors should hold hearings to investigate the creation of a new public power authority that would be directed to build and operate new clean-energy facilities (starting with the $100 million the voters have already approved for that purpose) and pursue every other possible step toward eliminating PG&E's role in the local energy system entirely.

All of this will be much, much harder if the city doesn't have a comprehensive feasibility study. The Local Agency Formation Commission has been working with R.W. Beck and Associates, a respected consulting firm, to prepare that study, but the price tag – some $600,000 – has become an issue in this tight budget season. But the potential revenues and economic benefits – hundreds and hundreds of millions every year – are so huge that $600,000 is almost a pittance in comparison. The supervisors simply must find the money to have LAFCO pay R.W. Beck to complete that study. The city's energy future – and the local economy – is at stake.