And now, the controller's big lie
By Bruce B. Brugmann (Scroll down for links to our current editorial on PG&E shenanigans on the Clean Energy Act initiative and a similar l982 Guardian story on PG&E shenanigans on the public power initiative of that era)
To repeat: When PG&E spits, City Hall swims.
In September of l982, public power forces placed Proposition K on the ballot, an initiative that would authorize a city study of the feasibility of municipalizing PG&E's electric distribution system in San Francisco.
The Guardian headlines told the emerging story of the standard PG&E response whenever its illegal monopoly in San Francisco is threatened.
Front page: "Uncovered! PG&E's inside moves at City Hall to squash public power: To subvert Prop. K, the utility sets up a front group, circulates a secret poll and recruits Feinstein, Kopp, Molinari and the city controller and city attorney." (Feinstein was the mayor and Kopp and Molilnari were powerful supervisors. This time around, PG&E won't have that luxury of public officials falling over themselves to run their errands and they have been forced to scramble for political support as never before.)
The head on our inside story: "PG&E attempts a coup against public power in San Francisco, The controller puts a misleading, one-sided and apparently illegal $1.4 billion cost-estimate for Prop. K in the voters' handbook--using PG&E's numbers." The story pointed out that the data submitted by the controller for the handbook was originally supplied by a PG&E attorney and a City Hall lobbyist for PG&E. And the controller never bothered to talk to the public power group nor do any independent investigation of his own. Why? The big PG&E Lie ran in the controller's statement in the voters' handbook and was a major factor in PG&E's victory over the public power initiative. PG&E's major campaign theme, then and now, is the relentlessly repeated argument, "too risky, too costly."
Today, as our current editorial discloses, the situation is much the same in the controller's office.
Controller Ben Rosenfeld wrote in an Aug. 7 letter to the Department of Elections for the voters' handbook that the costs to the city of acquiring PG&E's local distribution facilities are "likely to be in the billions of dollars."
What's his evidence for this astounding figure? The only evidence is a July 24 letter to the controller from David Rubin, PG&E's director of service analysis, who argues that the company's San Francisco system is worth $4.18 billion.
Once again, the controller took PG&E's word without gulping. He didn't check with the public power people. He didn't check with the state Board of Equalization, which sets a much lower value on PG&E property (which PG&E doesn't protest at tax time.) He didn't do his own research. He misinterpreted the initiative (which provides for revenue bonds, which would be paid off through a dedicated income stream and thus would cost the city nothing.) And he didn't discuss revenue (public power cities have cheaper power and lower rates than PG&E and they make gobs of money). In short, public power in San Francisco, with its own power source at the Hetch Hetchy dam, is the biggest potential source of new revenue for the city. Again, why didn't the controller do normal due diligence and research on such a vitally important issue for a cash-strapped city? Why is the controller once again so slavishly buying the PG&E Lie and propaganda line? The public deserves an explanation.
Sups. Ross Mirkarimi and Aaron Peskin, authors of the measure, and the clean energy forces are working hard to get PG&E out of the controller's proposed ballot information and get some honesty in. Our suggested language: "The costs of purchasing or building energy facilities would be substantial--but those costs would be covered entirely by the revenue from operating the facilities. The net cost for the city would, at worst, be minimal and the potential exists for the city to bring in significant new revenue to offset taxes and general fund expenses."
Let's kick PG&E out of the controller's office. Let's kick PG&E out of City Hall. B3
Click here to read this week's editorial And now, the controller's big lie.
Click here to read a similar Guardian story from Sept, 1982, outlining PG&E's mode of attack on a public power initiative
digg •
del.icio.us •
sphere •
google
•
Comments (6)
Hey Im a bit confused. Online advocates of the measure say that it's not about public power at all, it's about "clean energy." But this seems to suggest it is, after all is said and done, a public power initiative. Shouldn't the name of the ballot measure say that?
Posted by greg | August 13, 2008 02:09 PM
Act Mandates 100% Clean Electricity - Community System Possible, Not Mandatory -
To clear up the confusion, the mandate in the San Francisco Clean Energy Act is for running the City on 100% clean electricity within three decades.
The Act directs the SF Utilities Commission (SFPUC) to report on the best ways to get to 100% clean, and then for the Supervisors to take that report and draw up a plan to get to the 100% mandate on schedule.
As part of the process, the Act directs the SFPUC to review municipally owned renewable energy projects, and even full municipal ownership and/or management of our electricity system, to see if those are the best ways to make it all happen.
So there is no mandate for 'public power' per se.
However, let's look at the reality of PG&E and renewables. PG&E has a pitiful 12% renewables right now which unbelievably is even -less- than it had last year because it is so busy building new fossil fuel power plants hand over fist. The California Utilities Commission (CPUC) has also reported that PG&E will not even reach the weak state mandate of 20% renewable by 2010.
So, with a disastrous record like that, it's a pretty safe bet that PG&E is not the answer to a renewable energy revolution, and that San Francisco will have to build our own renewables and an electrical system to deliver them.
This won't cost taxpayers or ratepayers because it will be done with self funding revenue bonds that will be paid off by renewable energy profits and efficiency savings as they come in. This is doable because once the up front cost of renewables are paid for, over a decade or so, the system will be generating free electricity to sell to all of its customers. The profits from that free electricity will pay for the system - even if PG&E falls down on the job and we have to build a new one from scratch.
Posted by Eric Brooks | August 14, 2008 01:32 AM
It is time the Board looked into the role of the Controller and the research, calculation and conclusion requirements for his estimated cost to the public issued in the ballot handbook. This kind of unexamined power is easily abused and can undo, with one stroke, hundreds of hours of work by dedicated volunteers who collect signatures to get something on the ballot as well as well-considered measures put on the ballot by elected officials. If the estimated cost cannot be justified, it should not be there to confuse the public, since they apparently assume that it is an unbiased fact, when that is often far from the case.
Posted by Doug Comstock | August 14, 2008 11:21 AM
Hmmm...this concerns me"
"So, with a disastrous record like that, it's a pretty safe bet that PG&E is not the answer to a renewable energy revolution, and that San Francisco will have to build our own renewables and an electrical system to deliver them."
Doesn't this make several assumptions, based on past evidence, and not looking forward? Or to quote a line from financial disclaimers "Past performance is not indicative of future results?"
It seems like by writing this initiative and then saying that "safe bet" statement, this is in fact a public power initiative, and the promoters are simply using this extra layer of language to avoid saying "public power" which has lost every time it's been up for a vote.
And, what happens if PG and E does comply? All of those who keep saying "yay public power" will have to move the goalposts once again to get that accomplished or accept that PG and E is doing the right thing (as they are with the massive solar plants announced this week).
Posted by greg | August 18, 2008 05:01 PM
PG&E Won't Step Up To The Plate...
Prop H, The SF Clean Energy Act, does not mandate municipalization, period. It leaves the door open for all possible ways to get to 100% clean electricity, including the possibility of PG&E seeing the light and stepping forward with a legitimate renewable energy plan.
The point is, PG&E is highly unlikely to do so. The vast majority of PG&E's energy business model is based on delivering fossil fuel energy, specifically natural gas electricity. PG&E is so dependent on natural gas for profits, that instead of building a new renewable energy infrastructure, it is not only building new natural gas power plants, but is also partnering with Williams company to build a 230 mile pipeline from Oregon to Northern California to deliver massive amounts of -new- natural gas to our energy market.
These are not the actions of a corporation which intends to go renewable. In fact, according to PG&E's newest power mix report to customers, its stubborn perpetuation of natural gas power plant construction has caused its renewable energy portfolio to plummet from 12.4% in 2006 to a pathetic 10% in 2007.
PG&E's renewable energy mix is going -down- not up. So the point is that with such a failed record -and- such a future trajectory of failure from PG&E, a community based renewable power system will likely be our only option for reducing green house gas emissions quickly enough to effectively take the lead in fighting the climate crisis.
The ball's in your court PG&E. Let's see if you can stop free basing fossil fuels, and join us in the 21st century.
In the mean time we are going pass Prop H and make sure that the survival of the planet is the top priority, not your corporate profits.
Eric Brooks
Posted by Eric Brooks | August 19, 2008 10:32 AM
PG&E's Announced Solar Plants A Response To Prop H - Not Altruism -
PG&E's announcement of a big proposed solar power facility is a clear response to the threat of Prop H, not a bold move for change. In fact, PG&E is predicting that plant will take 5 years to install! And PG&E is already back-pedaling in very the same announcement by saying that if Washington DC doesn't renew solar incentives, it won't even build -that- facility.
We need a power infrastructure -based- on renewables, not based on cynical press releases about a couple of new facilities that may or may not be built depending on the whims of the federal government. Remember PG&E's promised tidal power project under the Golden Gate Bridge? Fairy dust...
PG&E cynically announced that fake project in order to draw attention away from a huge renewable energy project called Community Choice that the Board of Supervisors went on to pass the same day which will build enough solar, wind power and efficiency in San Francisco to get us to that first 51% clean energy within the next decade.
The media almost exclusively reported on the faux tidal project, ignoring the solid and real Community Choice project, which has now been fleshed out and will go for bids in the next six months. The tidal project is nowhere to be seen...
There's another important point to understand about PG&E's new proposal. Even if it -is- built, it once again cynically serves PG&E's corporate interest.
The reason that PG&E is promoting big distant solar installations out in the boondocks is that allows them to maintain their monopoly control over energy supply and transmission.
PG&E vehemently opposes localized solar, wind and distributed generation(DG). For details on DG see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributed_generation
PG&E opposes such programs (which are built in to Prop H) because these would make local customers their own providers for electricity and make local communities new transmitters and distributors of energy; thereby undercutting PG&E's sole control of our energy supply and its selfish, excessive profit taking.
So PG&E wants to build big private installations on distant isolated land that it controls, making sure that it therefore solely controls all of the electricity, and is the single paid toll master at the gates of the transmission cables which deliver our energy supply.
San Francisco can do better. Let's pass Prop H and give PG&E the local community based competition that will force it to end its hegemonic complacency and get with the program.
Posted by Eric Brooks | August 19, 2008 11:13 AM