I'm confused, as I pointed out on Calitics. People keep saying this is not a public power initiative on the one hand, but in the BG, it is called a public power initiative.

If it's the latter, then it should be labeled that. If it is using the guise of fashionable green rhetoric to get the voters' votes without saying what it really is, then the Mayor should stay away from stealth legislation.

Where do I donate to this campaign?

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.

To Donate To The SF Clean Energy Campaign -

Go to http://sfcleanenergyact.wordpress.com/donate/

and follow the directions on that page.

and Thanks!

Why do I mistrust these cocktail-napkin economics that are used in the midst of a campaign to justify a public power campaign (which we're not calling public power even though that's what proponents want)?

I want public power, and I'm not afraid to say it. Public power is demonstrably the best way to get to a greener energy mix. PG&E will never do anything except what its next quarter's profits demands.

And there's no cocktail-napkin economics here; I have spent more than 20 years researching this issue, and I will match my figures and results with anything PG&E can throw out.

Eric, Tim just confirmed for me what I was suspecting all along - this is in fact a public power measure. That's fine. I just want it called that on the ballot so people can vote it up or down. There is a debate to be had on that issue - let's do so. But let's not cloak it in "puppies and kittens" language to get it passed.

Using these "sleight of hand" tricks in legalese to do so is cheating, and I expect better from people who are telling me they're not only correct, but on the moral high ground.

I am more than willing to consider a full on public power plan. If we could vote on one, up or down, without the linguistic gymnastics that the "Clean Energy Act" uses, that'd be great.

Unfortunately, you're using the current trendiness of anything called "green" to pass something that says one thing and does another.

Prop H Is Clearly And Centrally A Clean Energy Initiative -

greg, Have you actually read the ballot measure?

http://www.sfgov.org/site/uploadedfiles/elections/candidates/Nov2008_LT_SFCleanEnergyAct2.pdf

It is clear that it mandates only clean energy, with options for partial or full community ownership and management only as possible methods in a mix of strategies to get that clean energy built.

The only way that Prop H could possibly trigger 'public power' is if PG&E can't get its act together on renewables. So PG&E better get cracking on more than just a couple of solar plants in five years; especially in light of the fact that it is going to complete four new polluting natural gas plants even more quickly (and is actually still maneuvering to build another five natural gas plants).

And you appear to be calling PG&E's own admission, of its own paltry 10% renewables rate, on its own mailer insert (which references CEC data), as cocktail napkin economics..

Do you only read blogs, or do you actually read the documents that you are debating about...?

"confessed?" I gave that up when I stopped going to Mass and fled the Catholic Church for my life when I was about 15.

There is no secret agenda here, Greg. This is a clean energy bill that recognizes that public power may be the best way to get there and gives the city the right to pursue it. I think that's what the city should do; Prop. H leaves that decision to the supes, the PUC, the mayor and the controller after a detailed study.

greg - Do us all a favor and actually read the text of Prop H instead of continuing your blithering diatribe. And if you -have- read the text, just admit to us publicly that you are working for PG&E and are trying to distort the issue with falsehoods. Let's have an honest debate about that, eh?