Ammiano's power plan
 	 		 		 		
Ammiano's power plan | May 23, 2001 | SFBG News
 						 						
SUP. TOM Ammiano introduced a City Charter amendment 
[http://sfbg.com/News/pgande/charter.html] May 21 that would 
create an independent water and power authority with control over 
water, sewer, and electricity service in San Francisco. The 
proposal – which is still very much in draft form – was 
introduced in response to a deeply flawed charter proposal by 
Sup. Gavin Newsom that would have left Pacific Gas and Electric 
Company in control of the city's power system (see Editorial 
[http://www.sfbg.com/News/35/27/27edpge.html] , 4/4/01). It's a 
far better plan that what Newsom offered.
 						
Ammiano says his proposal is designed to be a companion to the 
municipal utility district proposal already set for the November 
ballot. That's crucial: if the charter amendment can be part of a 
joint campaign with the MUD – and if the proposal emerges 
improved, not damaged, by board debate and amendments – it will 
deserve support.
 						
Ammiano's proposal has some similarities to the MUD plan: both 
would create independent agencies, controlled by elected boards, 
that would have the ability to replace PG and sell electricity 
directly to customers in the city.
 						
The charter plan contains a lot of the sort of specific details 
that MUD proponents are including in their platform. The 18-page 
proposal includes language describing everything from the 
qualifications for agency consultants (they can't have worked for 
PG or any other private power company in the past 10 years) to an 
ambitious environmental mandate (200 megawatts of conservation 
and renewable energy in the next 10 years, almost a quarter of 
the city's power usage).
 						
MUD proponents should be cheered by this latest development: if 
it weren't for all the heroic work MUD organizers did to get that 
proposal on the ballot, up against a PG-friendly city hall, 
public power wouldn't even be on the board's agenda. And since 
Newsom's plan was already out there – and could, potentially, 
have garnered enough support to make the ballot – Ammiano did the 
right thing in offering a far better alternative that can preempt 
both the Newsom plan and any last-minute sneak attack Mayor 
Willie Brown or the PG forces may launch.
 						
Newsom's charter amendment would have left the city's water and 
power operations under the control of city hall (and thus, if 
history is any guide, of PG). Ammiano is calling for a 
seven-member district-elected board.
 						
The basic premise of the charter amendment – abolishing the 
city's Public Utilities Commission and replacing it with an 
elected board – makes good sense. The PUC has historically been 
on the side of PG and private power, and just last year the 
commission gave Bechtel a $45 million management contract that 
reeks of an effort to privatize San Francisco's water.
 						
Ammiano says he's open to further amendments as the measure goes 
through the public hearing process. There are plenty of items 
that will, and should, be open to debate. (The MUD, for example, 
would have the legal authority to seize utility property by 
eminent domain – without the approval of the supervisors, the 
mayor, or anyone else. Shouldn't a charter-created power agency 
have the same ability?)
 						
The most important missing element is the big picture: Ammiano's 
charter amendment needs clear language stating that the goal of 
the new power agency is to bring the city into compliance with 
the federal Raker Act 
[http://www.sfmuseum.org/hetch/hetchy10.html] of 1913 and the 
U.S. Supreme Court decision 
[http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&court=US&case=/u
s/310/16.html] of 1940, to eliminate any private power franchises 
in the city and to ensure that the city's future energy needs are 
met to the greatest extent possible through renewable energy and 
publicly owned and controlled generating facilities.
 						
The MUD initiative is already on the ballot, and the campaign for 
it should and will continue to gather steam. Ammiano's proposal 
is just starting to go through the legislative process, and many 
potential pitfalls remain. But the overall goal is, and should 
be, to bring public power to San Francisco in perpetuity, and 
there are good reasons to take a joint approach on this issue. 
Ammiano's plan is an insurance policy, a second option that will 
provide a backup if there are legal challenges to the MUD.
 						
Ammiano needs to continue to make it clear that he wants to work 
with (and not let his charter amendment compete against) the MUD 
campaign. Meanwhile, the MUD backers have plenty of time to go 
over Ammiano's plan and offer positive changes. There are, of 
course, some tricky legal questions to address – what happens, 
for example, if they both win?
 						
But this is a historic moment, an opportunity to end forever PG's 
stranglehold on San Francisco. If the MUD and charter campaigns 
can work together, in a cooperative effort, they can increase 
each other's assets, limit each other's liabilities, and fortify 
the public power movement against the expected PG legal and 
political onslaught.
 						
[http://www.sfbg.com/searchit.html]