What's PG's plan? (against mud)
 	 		 		
What's PG&E's plan? | September 5, 2001 | SFBG News
 						 						
OVER AT THE San Francisco Democratic County Central Committee 
meeting Aug. 22, Frank Gallagher, the paid consultant for Pacific 
Gas and Electric, was busy bad-mouthing the municipal utility 
district measure when committee member Jeff Sheehy raised a 
question. PG is bankrupt and unable to deliver reliable, 
affordable electricity, he said; if the MUD's so bad, Frank, 
what's your plan to get us out of this mess?
 						
Gallagher hemmed and hawed for a moment, then said, "I don't have 
a plan."
 						
That's PG's essential response to the energy crisis in California 
today: there isn't any plan. Instead the company that brought us 
deregulation, rolling blackouts, and soaring rates wants the 
voters to reject the only viable alternative out there – public 
power – and leave things under PG's control.
 						
But that hasn't stopped PG's hired guns from streaming out across 
the city, heading to labor and community organizations' 
endorsement meetings to try to sway votes against the MUD and 
Sup. Tom Ammiano's charter amendment. Among the people now on the 
circuit is John T. Nimmons, a lawyer who describes himself as an 
energy policy expert who has been hired by the San Francisco 
Chamber of Commerce to make presentations on the public power 
issue.
 						
Nimmons's presentation borrows heavily from PG's own information 
and from the flawed study that the Economic and Technical 
Analysis Group conducted in 1997. For example, he quotes PG's 
figures as to how much it would cost to buy out the electricity 
distribution system in San Francisco and never challenges them. 
(Naturally, PG inflates those figures. For years the utility has 
told the tax-levying Board of Equalization that its local 
facilities are old and almost worthless; nevertheless, Nimmons 
boldly cites a figure of more than $1 billion.) He told the 
Brisbane council that "it is not known if the proposed MUD would 
be more or less cost efficient than PG in operating and 
maintaining the electrical distribution system" – which is 
technically true: since the San Francisco-Brisbane MUD doesn't 
exist yet, nobody knows what its track record will be. But 
Nimmons fails to mention that every other public power agency in 
the state is more efficient than PG and offers consumers lower 
rates.
 						
Nimmons also argues that if the city tries to take over PG's 
facilities, the utility will sue and tie the matter up in court 
for years. And PG may indeed do that. But what Nimmons doesn't 
say is that a bill by state senator Nell Soto (D-Ontario) that's 
making its way through the state legislature would make it much 
easier to municipalize PG. Even if that doesn't pass, PG is in 
bankruptcy court, and its creditors – who have considerable clout 
with the judge – are almost certain to be open to a sale. And the 
most recent utility takeover case, in Long Island, took just two 
years to complete.
 						
So if you see Frank Gallagher or John Nimmons out there, standing 
with the bankrupt private utility, ask them two questions: Who's 
paying you? And what, exactly, is PG's plan?
 						
Urgent action for public power: Soto's bill is in danger of being 
killed at a hearing of the California State Senate's Energy Cost 
and Availability Committee Thurs/6. Contact Sen. John Burton 
immediately and ask that he – as a newly avowed public power 
advocate – use his muscle to make sure SBX2 23 survives the 
committee hearing and is then passed by the legislature. 

Call (916) 445-1412 or (415) 557-1300 or send a fax to (916) 
445-4722. The complete text of the bill is at www.sen.ca.gov 
[http://www.sen.ca.gov] .
 						
[http://www.sfbg.com/searchit.html]