Power for the people
 	 		 		 		
SFBG News | January 24, 2001 | Power for the people
 		 		 		 		
editorial
 						
THE NEW YORK Times weighed in Jan. 19 with a comprehensive story 
[http://www.nytimes.com/2001/01/19/national/19FRAN.html] on the 
battle for public power in San Francisco, giving national 
prominence to the issue. The Los Angeles Times has already 
devoted a considerable amount of space 
[http://www.latimes.com/business/reports/power/] to the success 
stories of publicly owned utilities. Public power has been 
discussed at some length on KFPA, 88.5 FM, and KMEL, 106 FM.
 						
And yet the San Francisco Chronicle continues to ignore the real 
story behind the worsening energy crisis: the fact that the 
entire mess is the direct consequence of a deregulation plan 
written and promoted by the private utility companies, in the 
name of less public oversight and control of the energy market, 
and that the only real, long-term solution to the crisis involves 
public control and ownership of the electric utilities.
 						
As Rachel Brahinsky reports, most of the political debate in 
Sacramento has focused on temporary fixes and relatively minor 
policy changes: public bailouts, perhaps a public purchase of 
some of Pacific Gas and Electric's hydroelectric dams (which is a 
public bailout of another sort), perhaps the creation of a state 
power authority to manage the power grid.
 						
But in a growing number of communities around California, the 
energy crisis has given new life to the venerable idea of 
publicly owned electricity systems. It makes perfect sense: at a 
time when private price-gouging and a lack of conservation 
programs are crippling the state, public power agencies are 
thriving, with low rates, reliable supplies – and efficient, 
effective programs for renewable energy and conservation.
 						
So far there's little being done in Sacramento to help those 
efforts. State senator John Burton is talking about creating a 
statewide power agency that would finance conservation efforts 
and new power-plant development, which is a plan that has some 
merits. But the Burton plan stops far short of giving local 
communities the ability to control their own electricity 
distribution systems. Assemblymember Fred Keely (D-Monterey) is 
pushing the state to buy PG's hydroelectric plants (which the 
ratepayers have already paid for over the years); it makes more 
sense to make the transfer of those plants (at nominal or no 
cost) to community-based public power systems a condition of any 
taxpayer bailout.
 						
Meanwhile, San Francisco – the only city in the country with a 
federal legal mandate for public power – should be leading the 
way, showing the state of California (and the rest of the nation) 
how communities can create a sustainable, reliable, locally 
controlled energy future. The petition for a San Francisco 
municipal utility district is scheduled to be heard before the 
Board of Supervisors Rules Committee Feb. 8. The committee, and 
the full board, should vote to put the MUD matter on the November 
ballot without delay.
 						
[http://www.sfbg.com/searchit.html]