The Hearst blackout ends sfbg.com September 18, 2002 HOLY HETCH HETCHY ! For half a century, San Francisco's daily newspapers have blacked out the biggest scandal in San Francisco history, the story of how Pacific Gas and Electric Co. stole the city's cheap hydroelectricity and kept public power out of town, in violation of federal law. But to our astonishment, on Sept. 16, Chuck Finnie and Susan Sward's front-page blockbuster broke the private utility's deadlock on local media and put public power, the Raker Act, and the PG scandal where it belongs, in the forefront of local politics. Most of what Finnie and Sward reported was old news to veteran Bay Guardian readers. But it was a startling breakthrough nonetheless: for the first time since the 1940s, a daily newspaper in San Francisco has actually explained, accurately, in depth, the history of the Hetch Hetchy water and power system and the broken promise of public power. The two reporters deserve immense credit for reporting the story and pushing for its publication; the Chron editors deserve immense credit for running the story and giving it the play it deserved. As Rachel Brahinsky reports on page 11, the political impact of the Chron story will be immediate and powerful, providing a huge boost to the Yes on Proposition D campaign. And it raises a question for every politician, political group, and community organization that has sided with PG or wavered on the issue: When even the conservative daily has shown how San Francisco is required by federal law to sell its cheap power to its citizens, how can anyone possibly still stand with the bankrupt utility and oppose Prop. D? Every organization that has come out against Prop. D – the Coalition for San Francisco Neighborhoods, San Francisco Planning and Urban Research, and others – needs to immediately reconsider that position. So does every candidate for local office who has bought PG's big lies. In fact, prominent politicians and organizations need to be asking candidates where they stand on this issue before issuing endorsements. One example: Fiona Ma, a candidate for supervisor in District Four, has the backing of Sup. Aaron Peskin, a public power advocate. But Ma opposes Prop. D and gave us the official PG line, almost word for word, in an endorsement interview – something that should give Peskin (and her other endorsers, such as John Burton) cause to reconsider his support for her. Another: Key supporters of Proposition A, the $1.6 billion bond act that would pay to rebuild the Hetch Hetchy water system, are actively opposing and sometimes organizing opposition to Prop. D. That endangers their own measure: by trying to defeat public power, the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce and the San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association are infuriating the growing list of Prop. D backers, balkanizing the fall campaigns, and helping ensure that Prop. A goes down ignominiously. The position makes no business sense. Public power could soon provide the sort of revenue needed to rebuild the water system and pay off the bonds without doubling or tripling water rates. How can any business organization support improvements to the water system (Prop. A) and oppose improvements to the power system (Prop. D) and expect to be taken seriously? How can they allow PG's operatives to endanger the water bonds? Before endorsing Prop. A, activists should demand that the Chamber of Commerce and SPUR change their position and actively support Prop. D. San Francisco took the national lead on this issue last year, but this city is no longer alone: in more than 100 communities, big and small, public power campaigns are under way this year to break the grip of monopoly utilities. The tide is turning, and anyone who still stands in bankruptcy court with PG will be little more than a political embarrassment when the movement leaves them behind. P.S. The key question for the Chron: Will Finnie and Sward continue to cover the campaign and expose PG's lies – and will the paper back up its reporters with a Yes on D endorsement?