PG&E didn't win | November 14, 2001 | SFBG News [http://www.sfbg.com] ONE DAY BEFORE the New York Times reported that Al Gore may, in fact, have won Florida, the San Francisco Department of Elections finished its counting and concluded that two public power measures had gone down to defeat. But unlike George W. Bush (who is pretty well enthroned in the Oval Office by now), Pacific Gas and Electric Co. didn't really win much: the bizarre Florida-style election was in no way a rejection of public power. Quite the contrary happened: despite a $2 million campaign by PG and its allies and a virtual news blackout by the San Francisco Chronicle and the other major media (see "The Shame of Hearst"), in a very low-turnout election, a grassroots campaign defied the odds and most predictions and came within a few hundred votes of defeating the largest private electric utility in the nation. And although there's no concrete evidence of fraud, the election was so marred by irregularities that veteran political observers agree the defeat of Proposition F is suspect at best. The bottom line: the campaign was a remarkable success. Public power may have lost a battle, but it's going to win the war. The issue is now firmly on the political agenda for San Francisco, and activists are already working to figure out how to take the next step. There are a wide range of possible strategies, and they'll be debated in the weeks ahead. But a few steps are already perfectly clear. On the public power front • The progressive and public power voters must press the two candidates for city attorney to pledge, in writing, to bring an action in federal court to enforce the Raker Act, San Francisco's public power mandate. Neither Jim Lazarus nor Dennis Herrera has been terribly strong on this issue (although Herrera did support Prop. F and Measure I at the San Francisco Democratic County Central Committee and signed a ballot argument in favor of F). But both candidates know that the voters who backed Steve Williams and Neil Eisenberg (both strong public power supporters) will be key to winning the runoff. Make Raker Act enforcement the litmus-test issue, and one of them may come around. • The Board of Supervisors or the Local Agency Formation Commission should immediately hire a reliable consultant with public power experience to do a complete, authoritative study on the financial feasibility of a municipal utility system. The lack of a study was one of the factors used against Prop. F and Measure I and allowed PG to get away with its most gigantic lie: that public power would cost the public $3 billion. The consultant has to be someone who has a strong background in public power economics and no ties to the private utility industry. An obvious example: the firm R.W. Beck, which advises many public power cities. • Another public power measure should be placed on the next possible ballot. An initiative in March would allow the momentum from this election to continue uninterrupted, but if that's not legally or politically possible, then the campaign for November 2002 should be started now. If the state legislature would eliminate some of the obstacles to creating a municipal utility district, the supervisors could put a new MUD plan on the ballot without the delays and legal problems that plagued the last effort. At the very least, the board should call on the city's Sacramento delegation to work actively for the reintroduction and passage of state senator Nell Soto's pro-MUD bill, which died in the last session. But whatever happens at the state level, another charter amendment is always an option and may be the best approach. Prop. F was an excellent piece of legislation and with a little tinkering could be made even better. (One possible idea: draw district lines in advance and have candidates run for the Water and Power Agency Board at the same election; that and get dozens of prospective candidates out stumping for the passage of the measure.) Turnout in both March and November 2002 will be higher than the dismal turnout this fall, and that can only help a progressive measure. (Even a 1 percent increase in voter turnout Nov. 6 could have meant victory for Prop. F.) PG will have to spend another $2 million to fight the initiative – and at a certain point, the judge overseeing the company's bankruptcy may start to ask questions. • There may be steps the supervisors can take now to begin laying the groundwork for public power, and that's worth considering. Sup. Matt Gonzalez has argued that the City Charter already includes provisions supporting public acquisition of utilities. It would be a mistake, however, to set up any public power agency under the control of the Mayor's Office or the existing Public Utilities Commission (as Sup. Tony Hall is proposing). With PG's pervasive and damaging influence on city hall, public power will never succeed unless the agency is controlled by an independent, district-elected board. On the election front • By any reasonable standard, the Nov. 6 election was handled badly (see " [http://07elect.html] " and the supervisors need to hold hearings get bottom of what happened why. Who decided move thousands ballots out City Hall Bill Graham Civic Auditorium Pier 29? Why was there no public announcement that plan in advance? werent any monitors allowed watch counting those ballots? were left unguarded for long periods time? If PG (or one of its allies) wanted to alter the ballots, there certainly was an opportunity – and at the very least, elections director Tammy Haygood failed to win the public's confidence in the outcome. The good news is that under Prop. G, which passed handily, the Department of Elections will now be run by a commission that isn't controlled by the mayor. The director will serve at the commission's pleasure, and clearly Haygood needs to be replaced. The new commission should also adopt clear rules for the handling of ballots, the chain of custody, the presence of election observers, and the dissemination to the public of all relevant information about the ballot-counting process well in advance of election day. • District Attorney Terence Hallinan, should launch a full-scale investigation into possible voting fraud. The bottom line is simple: The fight against PG isn't over. This was just a skirmish in the long march to public power in San Francisco. P.S. The Yes on F and I campaign was a wonderful, historic effort by a tremendous grassroots crew. Next week we'll be running our Hall of Glory to thank all those who deserve it – and a Hall of Shame for those on the wrong side. Nominations are welcome (e-mail Rachel Brahinsky at [=rachel@sfbg.com] . [http://www.sfbg.com/searchit.html]