By Bruce B. Brugmann
Coming home after almost two weeks in Sweden with the annual World Association of Newspapers (WAN) assembly and study tour, I was struck once again how nothing seems to change in San Francisco when it comes to the PG&E/Raker Act scandal.
PG&E was still firmly in control of the city's energy policy in the mayor's office. Mayor Gavin "The Green Knight" Newsom had capitulated spectacularly to PG&E and had reversed his policy of supporting a plan by his PUC that would have given the city control over some local power generation at the Mirant power plant (the peaker proposal.) The mayor had met secretly with PG&E executives and stiffed representatives from the Potrero Hill neighborhood and the environmental, environmental justice, public power, and community choice aggregation (CCA) movements.
The Hearst-owned Chronicle continued its long corporate tradition of blacking out the real story of the accelerating PG&E/Raker Act scandal. The utility was beautifully executing its divide and conquer strategy it has honed ever since the days that John Muir and the Sierra Club fought in vain to stop the damming of Hetch Hetchy Valley in Yosemite National Park for the city's public water and power supply. (In that battle at that time, the Guardian would have stood with Muir.)
Amanda Witherell laid out the latest sorry episode in her story in Wednesday's Guardian. Her lead: "Green City Mayor Gavin Newsom finally outlined what he calls a 'more promising way forward than the current proposal' of building two publicly owned power plants in San Francisco. The way forward: retrofit three existing diesel turbines at the Mirant Potrero Power Plant, while simultaneously shutting down Mirant's most polluting smokestack, Unit 2."
Our editorial laid out the political context: "The politics of the deal are complicated, but the driving force is clear: PG&E didn't want the city moving even a small step toward public power, and as usual, the big utility is getting its way...PG&E has been trying for months to derail the peakers--not, of course, out of any concern for the environment, but because the city would own the power plants. At first Newsom stuck by his SPUC but when seven PG&E lobbyists came into his office and gave him the facts of life (see 'PG&E offers Newsom a blank check'), he backed down.
"And now, after meeting with the CEOs of PG&E and Mirant, Newsom is pushing the worst possible alternative: he wants to retrofit the Mirant plant and let the private company operate its own peakers. Same fossil fuel plants in the Bayview. Same type of air pollution. And the facility would be owned by a private company."
Repeating for emphasis: When PG&E spits, City Hall swims. When PG&E spits, the mayor swims.
And so PG&E and Newsom have set the stage for the next phase in this great battle to kick PG&E out of City Hall, enforce the federal Raker Act mandating public power for San Francisco, and bring our own cheap, clean Hetch Hetchy public power to the residents and businesses of San Francisco.
The next stage is the emerging new public power initiative that Supervisors Ross Mirkarimi and Aaron Peskin are working on, with a wide swath of neighborhood and public power forces, aimed for the November ballot as a charter amendment.
This would be the third go at taking on PG&E head-on on the November ballot. This time it has a good chance of succeeding since PG&E and Newsom have gone out of their way to make the case for public power in 96 point Tempo Bold for all to see and savor. The measure will also be helped by massive turnout with Obama, seven supervisorial races, a clutch of solid progressive measures, and a smart, aggressive Obama like grassroots organizing campaign.
Let's roll. B3, who wonders when he will no longer see the fumes from the Mirant plant from his office window at 135 Mississippi Street at the bottom of Potrero Hill
Click here to read this week's article, Newsom's power play.
Click here for this week's editorial, A vote for public power in November.
digg •
del.icio.us •
sphere •
google
•



Comments (1)
Please investigate PG&E, the utility commissions, GE, etc... why LEDs, which are actually green, consume 1/2 the energy and 1/3 the production resources, and never caused a migraine, got pased over in the conservation drive in favor of the Methyl Mercury-laden CFL. Nobody likes how fluorescent lighting looks, either. CFLs make me just as sick as their tube cousins. They definitely are not "twisty fun" as a Comicle reporter put it in their green guide.
By the way, I drive an Econoline that runs on Methane from SF's garbage, reclaimed out at Vasco Road. It's still under $3/gallon equivalent, won't flip with that big tank under the floor and Methane is 128 goddamn clean enough octane. CH4 = a lot less CO2 than a Prius. No importing either if we make it out of garbage and agricultural waste. Pipelines are already everywhere. The terrible [23 times as powerful a greenhouse gas as CO2] problem is actually the solution if we capture it and use it.
Posted by Linus Hollis, ScD | June 14, 2008 10:15 PM