PG&E

CA nuke plant on two fault lines

8

by Amanda Witherell

QuakeNukePlant11.21.08.jpg
photo by Jim Zim
zimfamilycockers.com/DiabloCanyon.html

Ahh, a Friday afternoon toast to science. PG&E announced today that its Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power plant is actually situated on two seismically sensitive faults, not just the one previously identified in the 1970s when the plant was sited and built.

“The new fault is thought to be smaller than the other fault off the plant’s coastline, the Hosgri fault, but it is closer to shore. The new fault is less than a mile offshore while the Hosgri fault is about three miles offshore,” according to a story in the San Luis Obispo Tribune.

The geologists are calling it a vertical strike-slip fault with a potential magnitude of 6.5. The California Energy Commission has recommended more seismic mapping and studies and may require them before PG&E can apply for a license to renew the plant in 2025.

“The first fault was discovered before the nuclear plant was licensed, and retrofitting resulted in billions of dollars in cost overruns,” said Rochelle Becker in an Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility newsletter. “While the utility downplayed the significance of the fault on safe plant operations, the new fault is not good news for PG&E and may not be good news for San Onofre.”

In 2006 state legislators passed AB 1632, authored by Rep. Sam Blakeslee, that directs the CEC to assess the potential vulnerability of Diablo Canyon and the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station in Riverside to a major disruption due to a seismic event, as well as the role these older plants play in the state’s overall energy portfolio.

Diablo Canyon serves a key role in what PG&E calls its “emissions free” power mix, a statistic it routinely cites as it tries to kill more progressive renewable energy proposals like Community Choice Aggregation in Marin County and San Francisco. PG&E uses 24 percent nuclear power, which is not renewable, but nattily names it “emissions free.” It doesn’t routinely mention the thousands of pounds of nuclear waste that are also housed at the power plant.

Rally to stop PG&E’s late payment deposits!

2

By Bruce B. Brugmann

(Scroll down for information on the rally and on a consumer survey on PG&E’s late payment policy

The Pacific Gas & Electric Company really does screw residents and businesses on a systematic basis, as Guardian readers and Clean Energy Act (H) supporters know.
For example, the utility often imposes deposits for late payments on residents. For businesses, it often forces a late paying company to buy a bond. For businesses that late pay, PG&E is quick to notify Dun & Bradstreet, the business credit rating service, making it more difficult for the company to qualify for credit. To make matters worse, there is no realistic way for residents or businesses to get help or complain about PG&E’s late payment policies or any of its other abusive policies. On guard!

So it is good to see the The Utility Reform Network (TURN) call PG&E out on the late payment issue and sponsor a rally against PG&E’s late payment deposit policy at noon Thursday (ll/20/08) at the corner of Fremont and Market Sts. in San Francisco. Here is TURN’s press release on the rally and its survey on late payment deposits.

Why penalize customers who are struggling to pay their bills during an
economic crisis?

STAND UP! SPEAK OUT!
Fight for our rights to affordable utility services!
Rally for a Suspension of Late Payment Deposits!

Thursday, November 20, 2008
12:00pm
Corner of Fremont & Market St
San Francisco, Ca 94105

Directions by public transportation: MUNI Bus Lines-F, 38, 7, 14, 21, 6, 71 Metro Lines- J, K, L, N, M, T exit at Embarcadero station

For more information please contact Lotchana at 415.987.4375 or
lsourivong@turn.org

Sponsored by TURN (The Utility Reform Network)

PG&E Customer Survey: Deposits

Have you ever been asked for a deposit because you have paid your bill
late?
Yes No

Are you doing your best to make regular payments?
Yes No

Is your electric/gas service still on?
Yes No

Have you had the same residential billing address and account name for
the past year?
Yes No

Do you have a copy of your bill that shows the deposit charge? Yes No

If you answered YES to all the questions and want the deposit refunded,
please contact Lotchana at 415-987-4375 or lsourivong@turn.org.

Maybe we contact you, if we have further questions?
(Mailing address: 711 Van Ness Ave. Ste. 350, SF, CA 94102)

Name:_____________________________________

Address:___________________________________

Phone or Email:________________________________

Fighting Newsom’s mid-year cuts

0

EDITORIAL If Mayor Gavin Newsom moves forward aggressively with mid-year cuts to the city budget, a lame duck Board of Supervisors with four veterans — including the board president and chair of the Budget Committee — on their way out the door could be voting on harsh reductions in city spending on health care, parks, and other services. That’s not the best way to make policy; we’d rather the cuts go to the new board, which will be dealing with next year’s budget anyway. But if the mayor is pushing reductions now, the current board needs to act aggressively and quickly to be sure that the mayor’s wrongheaded priorities don’t carry the day.

We recognize that the city has money problems. Like every other taxpayer-financed entity in America, San Francisco is getting hit hard by the recession. When retail sales drop, so do local sales taxes. When real estate values plummet, so do property taxes receipts. And while some prominent economists are urging President-elect Barack Obama to pour federal money into cities this spring, nobody can count on that happening.

City Controller Ben Rosenfield is projecting that the city will be around $100 million short of cash by the end of the fiscal year. And since California cities (unlike the federal government) can’t run a deficit, that money has to come from somewhere. (Fortunately, the red ink won’t be as bad as it might have been — with little help from the mayor, Sup. Aaron Peskin got two new revenue measures passed in November that will bring some $50 million more into city coffers).

Newsom’s chief target at this point is the Department of Public Health, which is facing more than $256 million in cuts. That’s on top of all the cuts the department has had to absorb over the past two years — and it will cut deeply into the city’s ability to maintain its landmark Healthy San Francisco program. The Recreation and Park Department, libraries, and Muni will face cutbacks too, and there’s almost certainly a Muni fare hike (essentially a tax on the poor) on the horizon.

But there’s no talk of reducing or eliminating any of the mayor’s pet programs — like the 311 call center, which is a fine service but perhaps not as important as medical staff at SF General — or cutting significantly into his own office spending.

And, as always, the mayor has failed to look at any additional sources of revenue (with the possible exception of new parking meters in Golden Gate Park and at Marina Green). It’s particularly frustrating that Newsom and his hired gun, Eric Jaye, pushed so hard to help Pacific Gas and Electric Co. defeat the Clean Energy Act when public power would be the source of hundreds of millions in annual revenue. (PG&E killed 10 other ballot measures that would have brought cheap Hetch Hetchy public power to San Francisco, the largest source of potential new revenue for the city, and the private monopoly yanks more than $650 million a year out of the city in high rates, according to a Guardian study.)

The supervisors don’t have to wait for the mayor to propose cuts and then react. They can begin to move now. They can begin to identify their own set of cuts and revenue enhancements — and can begin establishing an alternative set of priorities. Is it better to cut 311 and the mayor’s special global warming deputy than to cut nurses at General? Is it better to close some redundant fire stations than cut hours at libraries? Should parking meters and garage fees go up downtown before city parks get meters? Back in 1973, in his first run for supervisor, Harvey Milk proposed eliminating the police vice squad (see "I remember Harvey"). That’s an idea whose time may have come again.

The point is that the mayor, who is weak and more focused on running for governor than on running the city, shouldn’t be driving the fiscal agenda alone. The supervisors need to either agree that they won’t act on cuts until the new board takes office or offer some alternative plans today.

Guardian: ‘Fighting Newsom’s mid-year cuts’

0

By Bruce B. Brugmann

(Scroll down for the Guardian editorial in Wednesday’s edition (ll/19/08), “Fighting Newsom’s mid-year budget cuts”)

Once again, the Guardian is editorializing about the problems of the structural city budget deficit, which of course will be worse because of the economy and because of Mayor Newsom’s moves for mid-year cuts aimed at our lame duck Board of Supervisors.

And once again, the Guardian raises the issue, as we have since our first PG&E/Raker Act scandal story in l969, that the city is losing tens of millions a year by allowing PG&E to control its cheap Hetch Hetchy power and instead forcing the city’s residents and businesses to buy PG&E’s expensive private power. (See Guardian stories and Bruce blogs for details.) And it is most annoying that Newsom and his hired gun, Eric Jaye, worked so hard to defeat the Clean Energy Act (H), when public power would be the biggest potential source of new revenue for the city. Jaye conveniently advises Newsom and runs his campaign for governor at the same time he consults for PG&E and ran PG&E’s campaign against H. Neat.

More: it also annoying that the San Francisco Labor Council allowed PG&E to hold labor hostage in this campaign and in effect allowed PG&E to drum home the charge, without labor counter, that city workers are so dumb, so incompetent, and so lazy that they can’t run an electricity system. This posture puts city workers and their unions at a disadvantage when the budget axe starts falling.

The Guardian editorial: “Fighting Newsom’s mid-year cuts”

Clean energy: the next moves

0

EDITORIAL Pacific Gas and Electric Co., its political hacks, and to a great extent, the San Francisco Chronicle all seem to take the same line on the defeat of Proposition H: It’s done. The people have spoken. Public power has been on the ballot 11 times, and it’s never passed.

And — as is always the case with a losing campaign — supporters of the Clean Energy Act are discussing what went wrong, looking at how the measure was written, the details, the language, the scope to see if there was something that could have been done differently.

But that ignores the central reality of the campaign for Prop. H: PG&E spent nearly $10.3 million to kill it. And it’s very, very hard to fight that kind of money.

The truth is, there was nothing wrong with the language or scope of Prop. H. If it had passed, it would have given the city the tools to create a sustainable energy portfolio that would be the envy of the nation. In fact, there is little doubt that the Clean Energy Act was well ahead in the polls when it was first placed on the ballot.

But as we’ve seen with so many races over time (and as we saw with Proposition 8 this fall) when a ballot measure it becomes a citywide or statewide race, big money has a serious impact. And we’ve never seen this kind of money in a San Francisco initiative campaign. In the end, PG&E spent about $53 per vote. That’s an outrageous sum, dwarfing any political spending that’s ever happened in San Francisco

Yet despite the barrage, the Clean Energy Act got tremendous grassroots and political support. Clean Energy has a strong constituency in San Francisco, including from the Sierra Club, and the power of this campaign won’t go away. Despite the efforts of downtown and PG&E, progressives still control the Board of Supervisors. Three of the city’s four representatives in Sacramento — Senator-elect Mark Leno, Assembly Member Fiona Ma and Assembly Member-elect Tom Ammiano — supported the legislation and will continue to back efforts to replace PG&E’s dirty power with locally- owned renewable energy. PG&E has money but it’s running out of friends in this town — and its illegal monopoly is the very definition of unsustainable.

There’s now an organized constituency for clean energy and public power, seasoned by this campaign and ready to continue the battle. That’s what needs to happen. There are numerous fronts: the city needs to be moving forward quickly with community choice aggregation, which offers the potential for cheaper, cleaner power. (The downside to CCA is that it doesn’t allow the city to make money; PG&E would still own the transmission lines, and thus make all the profits in the system.) Potentially, however, a CCA agency could begin moving toward creating local generation facilities and eventually toward building a local transmission system. A CCA also could directly access the city’s own Hetch Hetchy power and begin delivering it to local customers (once San Francisco can get out of the contracts requiring it to send too much of that power out of town).

The supervisors need a strong Local Agency Formation Commission to keep monitoring and pushing this, and the new board president needs to be sure LAFCO members are committed to and energized about renewable energy and public power.

Several supervisors — Sean Elsbernd, for example — told us they saw no reason for Prop. H to be on the ballot since so much of what it called for could be done by the board. Fine: Sup. Ross Mirkarimi, one of the authors of Prop. H, should immediately introduce legislation to do everything in Prop. H that doesn’t require a city charter change. Let’s see if Elsbernd and the mayor are really just PG&E call-up votes or if they’re willing to support an energy options feasibility study and strong renewable-energy mandates for the city.

And there are still legal options that the board should look at. City Attorney Dennis Herrera never wanted to go to court to enforce the Raker Act, the federal law requiring San Francisco to operate a public power system, but that’s an area the board can push. David Campos, the apparent supervisor-elect in District 9, is a lawyer who has worked in the city attorney’s office and sued PG&E, so this is an area where he can show leadership.

The bottom line is that this battle isn’t over.

There were other disappointments on what was generally a progressive ballot. Proposition V — the phony measure calling on the school board to reinstate JROTC — passed, narrowly. It was mostly a wedge issue to hurt progressive candidates for supervisor, and has been a horribly divisive issue in the schools. The school board, which cut off JROTC last year, is now pushing for an excellent public service alternative and doesn’t need to go back and reexamine the issue. JROTC is a terrible idea for San Francisco, and the newly elected board members shouldn’t even bring this up again.

Of course we were deeply unhappy about the passage of Prop. 8. The repeal of same-sex marriage was such a blow to San Francisco that it dampened a lot of the enthusiasm over the Obama victory. But that one’s not over, either; it has just begun. Statistics show that voters under 30 overwhelmingly support same-sex marriage — and if the campaign is run differently, and the message is positive, it’s likely that Prop. 8 can be overturned. Marriage equality advocates should think seriously about preparing now for a major campaign in November 2010 to restore equal rights for same-sex couples in California.

Money is power

0

› amanda@sfbg.com

GREEN CITY While the latest public power proposal was soundly defeated at the polls, the apparent failure of a pair of electricity generation initiatives backed by Mayor Gavin Newsom and Pacific Gas & Electric Co. is fueling an existing plan to create more city-owned energy projects.

Proposition H, which would have moved the city toward 100 percent renewable energy by 2040 and allowed public power to help meet that goal, lost Nov. 4 by more than 20 percentage points. PG&E spent a record-breaking $10.3 million against the measure, or more than $53 per vote as of the Nov. 10 tally.

For that kind of money, said campaign finance expert Bob Stern of the Center for Government Studies, "they could have taken every voter out and bought them an expensive meal." But, he said, that’s a pittance for a company like PG&E. "They knew spending $10 million was going to save them a bunch of money."

Two days after the election, PG&E announced a 9 percent increase in year-to-date profits over last year, boosted partly by a 6 percent rate increase PG&E implemented Oct. 1, which it argued was needed to cover the increased cost of natural gas.

Prop. H would have moved San Francisco away from volatile fossil fuel prices, although the city is still hoping to procure 51 percent of its energy needs from renewables by 2017 through the community choice aggregation (CCA) program.

Meanwhile a plan to retrofit the Mirant Potrero Power Plant is looking shakier since Nov. 4, when the Board of Supervisors tabled legislation that would have authorized the Mayor’s Office and San Francisco Public Utilities Commission to negotiate the deal.

Prior Land Use and Economic Development committee hearings showed that retrofitting the plant to run on natural gas instead of diesel may not be as technologically or economically feasible as suggested in a report commissioned by Mirant (see "Power possibilities," Nov. 5).

But a recent report on CCA outlines ways the city may be able to procure the baseload energy demand required by the California Independent System Operator (Cal-ISO) without retrofitting Mirant or building new peak-demand fossil fuel plants (known as "peakers"), as city officials originally proposed.

The report by Local Power, the lead CCA consultant hired by the city, suggests that the SFPUC’s current plan to upgrade natural gas steam boilers in large downtown buildings can be modified to capture waste heat and turn it into energy, a process known as cogeneration.

The city Department of the Environment has already identified 106 MW of potential energy — about the same amount Cal-ISO is requiring the city to have on hand for energy reliability. Although this isn’t renewable energy because it’s capturing wasted gas heat, "it’s really clean, good quality brown power," said Paul Fenn of Local Power, noting that it makes use of something that is currently being wasted.

Local Power’s draft report, which lays the groundwork for what the city needs to do before 2010 to make CCA work, also disputes the conclusions of a tidal power feasibility study conducted for the SFPUC. In July, URS Corp. reported that tidal power in the Golden Gate would cost between 80 cents and $1.40 per kW-hour and only generate a little over 1 MW of power. "We do not consider a tidal power project located in the vicinity of the Golden Gate to be commercially feasible at this time," the report states.

Local Power contends that URS undervalued the potential energy by using computer modeling rather than actual tidal data and overlooked the strongest area for building an underwater turbine. It also failed to account for public financing at a lower interest rate, which would make city-owned tidal power much cheaper.

"We are confident you can get 10 MW," Fenn said. "The whole thing was modeled on PG&E ownership."

Local Power recommended the city get actual tidal data from the best spot and run the numbers again. "The ocean is the ultimate energy resource for San Francisco," said Fenn, who compared the challenge of constructing this kind of infrastructure to the Hoover Dam.

Newsom, who opposed Prop. H but still claims to support CCA, remains committed to tidal power. "Mayor Newsom supports advancing a tidal project at the mouth of the bay," his spokesperson, Joe Arellano, wrote in an e-mail.

The rollout of CCA is expected in 2010, when the city issues a request for proposals from companies interested in building or supplying energy. Several companies have already responded to a request for information. CCA is slated to include a 150 MW wind farm, 31 MW of solar, 103 MW of local distributed generation, and 107 MW of efficiency technologies. Funding would come from $1.2 billion in renewable energy bonds that have already been approved.

Local Power’s report includes concrete actions the city can take, including a plan to finally make Hetch Hetchy power available to citizens, a recommendation that the wind farm be built in the Delta for easy access to the Transbay Cable — a new 400 MW, 59-mile transmission line between Pittsburg and San Francisco that’s scheduled to be completed in 2010 — and urging the city to petition the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) for so-called public good charges collected from ratepayers that currently go to PG&E’s energy efficiency programs.

"We’re trying to put ideas on the table for the RFPs," said Fenn, who stressed that the city should make it as easy as possible for CCA to get underway, a goal that will require a lot more cooperation between departments. For example, the report outlines several hindrances to getting renewable energy up and running, from permit hassles to delayed interconnections to PG&E’s grid.

"Where we see problems in the city for permitting and zoning, we can seek to change them now," Fenn said.

That chance may come soon. The Land Use and Economic Development Committee is hearing legislation Nov. 12 to require conditional use permitting for all power plants greater than 10 MW. Though the legislation originally targeted the Mirant plant, the Planning Department, in its review of the draft legislation, suggested that all power plants be subject to the additional review. Sup. Aaron Peskin, who sponsored the legislation with Sup. Sophie Maxwell, suggested the change wasn’t appropriate. "It just means more public process."

But, Fenn said, "To set standards based on pre-CCA era is at this point confusing. Like [Sup.] Ross [Mirkarimi] said, the CCA program should be the unifying principle of energy policy in San Francisco. Integrating all the pieces is indeed the entire secret of making all the parts perform better so that we can achieve the required meet-or-beat-PG&E-rates outcome."

Mirkarimi told us the program could obviate retrofitting Mirant or pursuing the peakers. "CCA still has not been taken seriously enough by the SFPUC or the Newsom administration."

Memo to the Chronicle’s Matier & Ross

4

Did you censor your PG&E story? Did your editors censor you? Did Hearst corporate censor you? Why is the Chronicle/Hearst so scared of PG&E?

By Bruce B. Brugmann

Memo to: Andy Ross of the Matier and Ross of the Chronicle’s local political column

From: B3

Re: Andy’s naming of the Guardian and me as the big losers in the last election

I see that Andy named the Guardian and me the big losers on the City Desk television show (6/11/08) in the Nov. 4 election because of the loss of the Clean Energy Act (Prop H) to PG&E. We were, he said in his election recap, “tilting at windmills” to go up against PG&E and seemingly ready to continue on “tilting at windmills?”

We appreciate the plug. And we’re sorry that we can’t live up to the standards of PG&E and Hearst. We’ll work on it. (Perhaps my recent blogs on how Hearst has for decades worked in lockstep with PG&E to black out or marginalize the PG&E/Raker Act scandal will explain our problem.)

In the meantime, I do have some questions for you and Phil. Why, if the H citizens forced PG&E to spend more than $l0 million on its Big Lie campaign, the largest in San Francisco history, and the campaign got more than 40 per cent of the vote with very little money, and the Guardian and I are such big losers, isn’t the H story a big story? And if it is a big story, why did you not run anything in your column about the campaign or the underlying PG&E/Raker Act scandal? Did you censor your own copy? Did your editors censor you? Did Hearst corporate censor you?
Who over there at the Chronicle/Hearst is so scared of PG&E? Why?

More: can you tell me specifically why you didn’t bother to correct any of the PG&E lies? And, specifically, just what it is that you find so frightening about clean energy and public power?

Let me add a critical point: even the smarter PG&E officials and campaign people admit privately that the H campaign had good arguments and that it is now just a matter of time before PG&E starts losing, sooner or later. And I think sooner rather than later.

I emailed a version of the above memo to Matier and Ross the day after the City Desk show. They did not respond by blog time late Monday afternoon. I will try again with this blog. B3

Click here to read previous blog, Extra! Hearst tries to bury the clean energy act

Extra! Hearst tries to bury the clean energy act

0

By Bruce B. Brugmann

Finally, two days after the election, Andrew S. Ross provided the first Hearst coverage of the Clean Energy Act initiative (Prop H) on the business page of the San Francisco Chronicle/Hearst.

At the bottom of the business page in the right hand corner, Ross wrote one paragraph in his “The Bottom Line” column:

“The combined piling on by business groups, public policy organizations, and newspaper editorials had its intended effect on San Francisco’s Prop H. But for those endlessly trying to take over PG&E, the motto will likely hold:
If, on the 20th time you don’t succeed, try another 20 times.”

Combined piling on? Did not PG&E’s victory have anything to do with deploying $l0 million plus and massed muscle? Did it not have anything to do with Hearst’s historic role as PG&E’s journalistic arm?
I also asked Ross in an email if he could explain, as a featured Hearst business writer, just how clean energy and cheap public power could hurt business? (It doesn’t of course hurt business in any of the 2,200 cities in the U.S. that have public power.) Ross did not answer by blogtime.

Meanwhile, Heather Knight did a PG&E victory story in the Wednesday Chronicle (ll/5/2008). It took her eight paragraphs to get to the critical point (PG&E’s $l0 million), which she presented as a kind of throwaway afterthought. And she once again retailed PG&E’s Big Lies without giving the Yes on H people a real chance to correct them or to correct them herself, which was the Hearst policy in covering the story. For God’s sakes, don’t correct a PG&E lie. Ever.

Ross and Knight keep thumping away on the number of times the issue has been on the ballot (ll), without mentioning the key issues: the underlying PG&E/Raker scandal. How San Francisco is the only city in the U.S. that is mandated by federal law (the Raker Act) to have a public power system. How the city endangers the entire Hetch Hetchy system by violating the original public power mandates of the act and exposing the system to the tear-down-the dam forces. How clean energy and public power would bring the same advantages to San Francisco that it does for 2,200 other cities in the country: public power that is clean, cheap, reliable, and accountable. How the Clean Energy Act would make San Francisco the world leader in clean and renewable energy and a world class sustainable city. How PG&E and Hearst working in deadly combination defeated ll ballot measures through the years and established the story as the biggest scandal in U.S. history. The Hearst bottom line: this nightmare for PG&E is over, done, those pesky clean energy and public people are gone, we will keep running PG&E greenwashing ads and PG&E greenwashing stories, editorials, and campaign endorsements for the duration. We’re moving on in lockstep with PG&E.

This is classic Hearst over the generations. The founder William Randolph Hearst was a key crusader for the Hetch Hetchy dam and public power for decades.
Then he made a shameful deal with a PG&E-controlled bank in t he mid-l920s to get much needed capital. In return, he agreed to reverse his position on Hetch Hetchy and support PG&E. Then he and his papers reversed field and became the major media players in helping PG&E defeat ll ballot measures through the years to buy out PG&E. And forever after the deal, Hearst worked with PG&E to black out and marginalize the scandal story. And today, in this election, Hearst tried its best to help PG&E bury the scandal for good.

Sorry, that won’t work any more. The battle goes on. B3, still watching PG&E doing all it can to keep the Potrero Hill/Mirant power plant pumping away and putting out poisonous fumes that I can see from my office window

Click here to read more about the Raker Act, Hearst and public power in San Francisco.

The Chron notices Prop. H — when it loses

1

By Tim Redmond

Isn’t it interesting that the Chronicle, which mostly ignored the Clean Energy Act when it was on the ballot, suddenly gives it a big headline — lead story on the local page — when PG&E beats it?

Ya think the result might have been different if the daily had covered the issue all along like this and reported on PG&E’s big-money lies? Ya think?

Prop. H: $10 million and it’s this close

2

By Tim Redmond

Well. Prop. H, the Clean Energy Act, is going down to defeat. But the public-power campaign — against very little money, with $10 million in PG&E cash against it — made a remarkable showing. In the end, Yes on H will have about 45 percent, which demonstrates both the ability of the organizers (great job, Julian Davis) and the willingness of nearly half of the voters to defy the most expensive campaign in San Francisco initiative history. It appears the progressives will still have control of the Board; this isn’t going away.

First results from City Hall

0

Tim Redmond calls in:

The absentee votes are now in – and they show interesting trends in D1 Eric Mar and Sue Lee are in a virtual dead heat, with Lee about 1% ahead. Since the absentee voters tend to run conservative, this is good news for Mar.

In D3, David Chiu is well ahead beating Joseph Alioto, Jr., by 12 points.

In D9, David Campos is 7 points ahead of Mark Sanchez, with Eric Quezada a distant third.

In D11, John Avalos and Myrna Lim and Ahsha Safai are within 1 percentage point.

Prop 8 is going down 67 to 33 in SF.

On the ballot measures it’s a mixed bag:

Prop A is well ahead with 80 % of vote and will pass easily.

Prop B losing 55-45 anfd that will tighten up but be close.

Prop H has taken a beating from the $10mill PG&E campaign – it’s behind 67-33 …

The three revenue measurea — N, O, and Q — are all ahead and looking to pass.

It appears we will not be naming a sewage treatment plant after G.W. Bush: It’s down 70-30

If the trends hold as they usually do, with progressives picking up considerably on election day, this could turn out to be a very strong night for progressive candidates.

at this point it does not appear that downtown has successded in its efforts to buy the board.

The shame of Hearst (continued)

2

In covering PG&E over the years, Hearst has established a new journalistic maxim: When PG&E spits, Hearst swims!

Scroll down and compare a Hearst pro-public public power editorial of July 25, 1925, and a pro-PG&E editorial of Oct. 13, 2008

By Bruce B. Brugmann

Well, let’s see now. The day before the historic vote on the Clean Energy Initiative (Prop H), under vicious multi-million attack by the Pacific Gas &Electric Company, the Hearst-owned San Francisco Chronicle continued its campaign of decades to censor and marginalize the underlying PG&E/Raker Act scandal story.

As attentive readers of the Guardian and the Bruce blog know, this is the biggest urban scandal in U.S. history: how PG&E has used its money and muscle to corrupt City Hall and and in effect steal the cheap, clean Hetch Hetchy public power the city produces from its Hetch Hetchy dam in Yosemite National Park in violation of the public power mandates of the federal Raker Act..

Fake Demo slate mailer

2

1103slate.jpg

By Tim Redmond

These things show up in mailboxes every year, but since some people are still fooled by them, let me set the record straight.

The “Voter Information Guide for Democrats” is NOT the Democratic Party’s slate card. This misleading piece of junk comes out of a political consulting firm in Sherman Oaks, where hack Larry Levine has been using it for years to trick voters. There are no real endorsements here; the piece is a giant campaign ad, a for-profit operation where endoermsements are either for sale to the highest bidder or just stuck on there randomly to give credibility to the paid positions.

This year’s card says No on H; the Democratic Party has endorsed Yes on H. But PG&E paid a lot of money to be on the card, so the card carries PG&E position.

Ignore it. Toss it in the recycling bin. Vote Yes on H.

The Green Energy Revolution

4

A well-thought-out piece by the manager of the Yes on H campaign:

By Julian Davis

The United States of America and the Planet are teetering on the edge of economic and environmental collapse. We are now well aware of the threat of global warming and the catastrophic climate change it is causing. We know we have to curtail greenhouse gas emissions to heal the planet and sustain life on Earth. We are also in the midst of a serious financial crisis the depths of which we are coming to understand more and more as the days go by. But the economic instability we are experiencing is not just a result of toxic mortgage backed securities and the credit crunch. It’s not just the folly of Wall Street, it’s the folly of Big Oil, it’s the folly of our energy policy, and it is the folly of war.

We borrow trillions of dollars, mainly from China, to violently secure fossil fuel energy resources in the Middle East. This is not only environmentally unsustainable, it is economically unsustainable. Our current energy consumption and geo-political existence are destroying the planet and the American economy.
We are actually amazingly fortunate that there is one answer to our biggest problems. Clean Energy. We cannot save the planet from environmental disaster without developing clean and renewable sources of energy and we cannot save our economy in the long-term without becoming energy independent. Building a massive renewable energy infrastructure will heal the planet, stabilize the economy, create jobs, lift people out of poverty, and relieve us from war.

Our generation has a responsibility to figure this out now. San Francisco has the immediate opportunity with Proposition H to lead the world in the fight against global warming and lead the nation in the quest for energy independence.
Let’s not underestimate what one city can do. San Francisco has been out in front on so many issues in the past, from gay marriage to the most progressive minimum wage in the country. Two years ago a bunch of young workers in San Francisco past a paid sick days measure and now Barack Obama is talking about implementing it nationally. Just a few months ago a rag tag group of San Francisco activists put a 100% Clean Energy initiative on the ballot. A few weeks later, Al Gore issued his now famous energy challenge to America. If San Francisco passes Prop H, other cities and other states and countries around the world will follow.

We now face the biggest economic crisis since the great depression. It has become glaringly apparent that the free market and unregulated rule by private profiteering financial institutions and corporations is not a model that will sustain a healthy economy in this country. Wall Street’s greed has been matched only by Big Oil companies that have made windfall profits while moving at a snail’s pace towards developing alternative energy sources. In San Francisco, financial mismanagement of the private-investor owned utility PG&E has left us with skyrocketing electric rates for natural gas and a paltry supply of renewable energy. It’s time for the public accountability and stewardship of our energy resources and infrastructure that we will get with Proposition H.

At this pivotal moment in history we are faced with profound choices about our place in the world and our future on the planet. We can continue with the folly of national debt, oil profiteering and war or we can create a new clean energy economy, a fearless new ‘new deal’ that builds the next great public works projects, employs the next generation of workers, and ensures peace and stability in the 21st century. With Proposition H, San Francisco will be ready to work with the next President and the federal government to lead the clean energy revolution and build the renewable energy infrastructure that we need to sustain life on earth.

Yes on Prop H rally at PG&E’s house

1

by Amanda Witherell

Clean Energy Act supporters gathered in front of Pacific Gas & Electric corporate headquarters on Wed., Aug. 29, to mock the $10 million the utility company has spent opposing the legislation.

Dressed as construction workers, activists from the Sierra Club, Greenpeace, Green4All, and Green Guerrillas against Greenwashing, successfully erected three wind turbines in front of the PG&E building.

PG&E employees, penned behind a barricade and standing underneath a “Stop the Blank Check” banner watched the activists wrestle with enormous burlap bags of money, signifying the millions PG&E has dumped into the campaign opposing the measure that would move San Francisco more rapidly toward 100 percent renewable energy. PG&E alleges the measure is a blank check for supervisors because it allows them to issue revenue bonds to finance renewable power infrastructure. In fact, PG&E has written the entire check for the No on H campaign. As we pointed out in this week’s issue, it’s also shunting some of that money into supervisors’ races to support Mayor Gavin Newsom’s picks for the Board in districts 1, 3, and 11. Besides the fact that Newsom’s campaign director, Eric Jaye, also runs PG&E’s No on H committee, why might it be important for PG&E to have friends on the Board of Supervisors?

Well, if Prop H does pass, unlike the “blank check” lies PG&E is telling you about it, the SFPUC will conduct a study to explore the best way toward 100 percent renewables. If that includes a publicly-owned utility system (that would, by default, put PG&E out of business in San Francisco) the supervisors will still have to vote for it and vote for the bonds to do it. So, PG&E needs a board that’s friendly.

Photos from Yes on H rally

0

Clean Energy forces stormed the plaza of PG&E headquarters in downtown San Francisco

Photos and text by Paula Connelly
On site assistance by Alex Jacobs

Storm.jpg
Wednesday, October 29, Yes on H supporters stormed PG&E headquarters at 77 Beale St. in green hardhats to install sculptural wind turbines to protest PG&E’s deficient use of renewable energy, the issue at the heart of the Proposition H debate. The clean energy campaign piled “money bags” in the middle of the sidewalk to dramatize the point that PG&E has spent over $10 million so far on the No on H campaign and is expected to put millions more into it in the last week.

Shades of green

0

› news@sfbg.com

California’s major environmental groups have long called for the state to do more to promote a switch to renewable energy sources, yet they widely oppose two state ballot measures that claim to do so, urging votes to reject Propositions 7 and 10 as false promises. On the local level, however, the environmental community strongly supports Proposition H, the Clean Energy Act, against well-funded attacks by Pacific Gas & Electric Co.

Prop. 7 would require utilities to acquire half their power through renewable energy resources, and Prop. 10 would provide $5 billion in alternative fuel research and development. Dan Kalb, policy coordinator for the Union of Concerned Scientists, believes the basic goal of Prop. 7 is great, but that its execution would not work. "It’s something that sounds very good," Kalb told us. "Everyone is concerned about renewable energy, but we can’t afford to pass a law that isn’t going to work."

Opponents of Prop. 7 have argued that it is poorly written, would decrease current fine levels for noncompliance, and has many loopholes that only the largest producers can take advantage of. Natural Resources Defense Council media director Craig Noble told us, "It just doesn’t make sense. It’s deeply flawed … it’s so poorly written."

Proponents claim that it’s not poorly written, but that opponents have simply misread it. For example, opponents say Prop. 7 could exclude small businesses that generate less than 30 MW of renewable power. But proponents say they have misread Section 14 of the proposition, causing this confusion. Yet on Aug. 7 a Superior Court judge ruled that Prop. 7 could exclude those small businesses.

In all, the Yes on 7 campaign has 25 endorsements from politicians, organizations, and groups while the No on 7 campaign has more than 400 from politicians, organizations, groups, and cities opposing the measure.

"We’re extremely concerned that [Prop. 7 will] set us back, not move us forward," Kalb said.

If passed, Prop. 10 will authorize $5 billion in general obligation funds for alternative fuel research and development, but require $10 billion to be paid back over 30 years once interest has been figured in. Richard Holober, executive director of Consumer Federation, called the measure, "a $10 billion raid on California’s treasury."

He went on to tell the Guardian that public support for research of this kind is important, but that, "Prop. 10 has no accountability. It is filled with incredibly huge loopholes."

Under Prop. 10, a rebate will be given to consumers who purchase clean energy cars. At the same time, they can keep their old vehicles and potentially sell them. Yes on 10 media contact Amy Thoma confirmed this. Holober stated that California already has programs in place that require owners to scrap or donate their polluting vehicles after they receive a rebate; they also require residency in California.

Opponents of Prop. 10 also point out that the proposition requires no net decrease in pollution, meaning that new vehicles can be as polluting as those they replace, as long as they do not pollute more. Yet Thoma claims the measure will reduce emissions by a total of 4.1 million tons per year.

Noble told the Guardian: "We need to be reducing our dependence on fossil fuels, but Props. 7 and 10 are not the way to do it."

As for Prop. H, the measure would require that by 2017, half the energy sold in San Francisco would be from renewable energy sources, rising to 100 percent by 2040. It also calls for the city to study how best to achieve that goal, including if public power projects could play a role.

Corey Cook, an associate professor of political science at the University of San Francisco, told the Guardian that "Prop H is a small but not insignificant first step toward public power in San Francisco. [It] authorizes, but doesn’t actually do anything aside from creating a study to determine the feasibility and cost of buying out PG&E’s electricity grid and having the city generate power."

Environmentalists have rejected Props. 7 and 10 because they are written poorly and counterproductive, but they embrace Prop. H because it simply increases renewable energy standards, includes numerous procedural safeguards, and, as Cook said, "takes a first step toward public power."

Backroom brokers

0

› tredmond@sfbg.com

It’s not the invisible hand of Adam Smith tossing hate mail on your doorstep this fall like ugly confetti. It isn’t a distinct and independent group of candidates and civic organizations that just happen to be saying the same things, either. There is a carefully orchestrated campaign going on to undermine the progressive agenda, block affordable housing and clean energy, and give Mayor Gavin Newsom a majority on the Board of Supervisors.

It’s well funded; it’s serious; it’s based on lies — and it’s a threat to rent control, sustainable environmental policies, universal health care, the city’s living wage law, and the rest of the accomplishments and goals of the progressive majority on the board.

If that sounds overblown, listen to what the organizers of this campaign are saying themselves.

On Aug. 15, after progressives took control of the Democratic County Central Committee and installed Sup. Aaron Peskin as chair, John Keogan, the head of a year-old organization called the San Francisco Coalition for Responsible Growth, a pro-downtown group founded to counter the progressive movement, announced his intentions in a letter to allies.

"CRG are [sic] preparing for an all-out attack with other like-minded groups and now is our time to stand-up [sic] and be counted," Keogan wrote. He asked members to support "taking SF on a sharp turn to the right."

Those "other like-minded groups," according to campaign finance reports, are a Who’s Who list of downtown-based organizations that have consistently fought to roll back tenant protections and slash government spending on social services: the Building Owners and Managers Association, the Committee on Jobs, Pacific Gas and Electric Co., the Association of Realtors, the Chamber of Commerce, Plan C, and the Police Officers Association.

By law, political candidates can only raise and spend limited amounts of money. But organizations like BOMA, the Realtors, and Plan C can put as much cash as they want into supporting and opposing candidates — as long as the efforts are "independent."

But the orchestration of the attacks on supervisorial candidates Eric Mar, John Avalos, and David Chiu, and the support for their conservative rivals, Sue Lee, Ahsha Safai, and Joe Alioto, is so sophisticated it’s impossible to believe that these groups and candidates aren’t working together.

Between Sept. 9 and Oct. 20, public records show, the groups spent a combined $363,754 ($178,177 in District 1, $104,308 in D3, and $81,269 in D11) on independent expenditures attacking Avalos, Mar, and Chiu and supporting their opponents. They also spent $20,000 supporting Eva Royale in her long shot race for the solidly progressive District 9 seat.

The landlords and downtown aren’t the only ones organizing. All that spending, and the threat of even more to come considering the hundreds of thousands of dollars these downtown groups still have in the bank, has served to unite tenant and labor groups in ways unseen in previous San Francisco elections.

"There’s an unprecedented coalition between tenants and labor," labor activist Robert Haaland told us. "We’re working together to defeat the landlord candidates, who are also anti-labor."

"We have a tremendous fear that the spending and progress on health care and social services will be rolled back," Tim Paulson, president of the San Francisco Labor Council, told us. "Anything less than our candidates [being elected in each of the three swing districts] will pose a real danger to the movement."

NEWSOM’S SLATE


One of the central players in this attempt to take the city away from the progressives and hand it over to downtown is Mayor Gavin Newsom, who is actively supporting Alioto, Lee, and Safai.

Eric Jaye, the mayor’s chief political advisor, has no formal role in the three district campaigns, but Newsom rarely makes a move in local politics without consulting Jaye. In fact, when reporters call the mayor’s press office to ask for comments on local candidates and initiatives, they are typically referred to the private consultant.

Jaye told us he’s talked to all of Newsom’s candidates. "I told them to run on district issues," he said.

The mayor and the latest member of the Alioto clan to seek office (Joe’s sister, Michela, is already on the board) have walked precincts together. And Newsom is so involved with the downtown effort he’s skipping a major Democratic Party gala (where he was slated to get an award) to spend time instead with the Republican-led Coalition for Responsible Growth (CRG).

Jaye’s main job this fall is running the PG&E campaign against the Clean Energy Act, Proposition H. So far PG&E has spent more than $10 million on the effort, and that number will grow in the final week before the election. Part of that same campaign has been propping up Newsom ally Carmen Chu, who has benefited from thousands of dollars of PG&E spending on her race. Chu’s face is all over PG&E’s No on H fliers.

Another central operator is Alex Tourk, the former Newsom aide who resigned after learning that the mayor had been sexually involved with Tourk’s wife. Tourk is now running the CRG operation.

"They brought me on board to do a volunteer campaign that, yes, they funded, but which seeks to inform voters in a non-partisan fashion where the candidates in D1, 3, and 11 stand on key issues," he said.

That campaign’s goal was to get 10,000 people to mobilize — he called them, using a term popularized by Richard Nixon, the "silent majority."

Tourk maintains that door-hangers the group has been distributing don’t endorse any candidates or push any initiatives. But the messages fit exactly with the overall downtown strategy — they seek to discredit the progressives by linking them with controversial ballot measures such as Proposition V, which would urge the School Board to save the military recruitment program, JROTC.

The supervisors have nothing to do with JROTC, but downtown and the Republican Party are using it as a wedge issue.

CRG is facing some political heat of its own: SF Weekly reported in its Oct. 22 issue that CRG’s recently elected president, engineer Rodrigo Santos, accepted money for professional work from someone who had business before the Building Inspection Commission while he served as commission president. Santos is a Republican, like several key Newsom appointees.

Making matters worse are revelations that Mel Murphy, vice president of the inspection commission and a CRG member, distributed invites in City Hall to an Oct. 17 CRG fundraiser for Safai and Alioto. City officials aren’t supposed to do political work at City Hall.

Alioto’s filings show that on Oct. 17, he received $500 from the firm of Santos and Urrutia’s structural engineer Kelton Finney and $250 from S&U engineer Calvin Hom.

PG&E’S FAKE DEMOCRATIC CLUBS


Political consultants Tom Hsieh Jr. and Jim Ross are involved in the District 1 race (Hsieh also responded to the Guardian on Safai’s behalf) — and are using PG&E and downtown money to support Sue Lee.

Beyond Chron reported Oct. 27 that Hsieh has been sending robocalls in Cantonese to voters saying that Lee is endorsed by the "San Francisco Democratic Party Club." Actually, the Democratic Party endorsed Mar.

What is this new "party club" anyway? Well, the Web site reported, the club started raising money just two weeks ago, and already has collected $30,000 from PG&E, $2,000 from the Chamber of Commerce, $5,000 from GGRA (Golden Gate Restaurant Association), and $70,000 from the Committee on Jobs. Another new club, called the Richmond Reform Democratic Club, is opposing Mar — and has $18,000 from the Committee on Jobs, $5,000 from PG&E, and $2,000 from BOMA.

In television ads paid for by the Realtors, a voiceover tries to link Mar, Avalos, and Chiu to Sup. Chris Daly, whose popularity outside his district is low — although neither Mar nor Chiu has much of a discernable connection to Daly. Avalos was a Daly City Hall aide.

One of the Realtors ads was so utterly inaccurate and deceptive — it claimed Chiu and Avalos support decriminalizing prostitution, when both have publicly opposed the decriminalization ballot measure — that Comcast pulled the ad off the air when Chiu filed a complaint.

Fog City Journal uncovered what appears to be illegal collusion between the police union and Safai. Although candidates are barred from coordinating with groups making independent expenditures on their behalf, POA president Gary Delagnes told FCJ editor Luke Thomas that Safai had given the group a photo of him to use on a mailer, a copyrighted image that Thomas took. Safai denied wrongdoing, but refused to answer further inquiries about the matter.

It’s a pitched battle — labor, the tenants, and the Democratic Party against the landlords, PG&E, downtown interests, and the Republicans. It’s pretty clear which side you want to be on.

Steven T. Jones, Sarah Phelan, and Amanda Witherell contributed to this report.

Downtown’s planner

0

> amanda@sfbg.com

The battle for the district 1 supervisor’s seat is being framed largely by politically conservative groups, funded by real estate and development, that are spending thousands of dollars supporting former planning commissioner Sue Lee over school board member Eric Mar.

An incestuous web of independent expenditure and political action committees have collectively spent enough against Mar to blow the $140,000 cap off the voluntary expenditure ceiling that all the candidates in that district agreed to.

The money’s coming from the Building Owners and Managers Association, Plan C, the Coalition for Responsible Growth, and the San Francisco Association of Realtors. Although these groups can’t legally work directly with candidates, they typically swap funds among each other and receive outside support from the deep pockets at the Chamber of Commerce, Committee on Jobs, and Pacific Gas and Electric Co.

According to Ethics Commission executive director John St. Croix, the $140,000 cap was lifted on Friday, Oct. 24, which means the candidates are now free to spend up to their individual campaign limits, which are different for Lee, Mar, and Alicia Wang, the other major contender for the seat.

All three are receiving public financing — but so much outside money is being spent in support of Lee that, to keep pace, the individual spending caps for Mar and Wang have been raised and are now higher than Lee’s.

AGAINST THE NEIGHBORHOODS


Lee, who worked for Willie Brown’s mayoral administration and was public relations director for the Chamber of Commerce, now runs the Chinese Historical Society of America. Her voting record on the Planning Commission has been consistently pro-development and anti-neighborhood. Some examples from her final months on the commission:

<\!s> On April 10, 2008, she approved a mixed-use development at 736 Valencia St. and removed community benefits and below-market-rate unit requirements — against the wishes of community members and housing rights activists.

<\!s> On March 27, 2008, she was the only commissioner to vote against modifications to a rooftop remodeling project at 1420 Montgomery St. that would have pacified neighbors concerned about the scale and character of the plan.

<\!s> On March 13, 2008 she supported a conditional-use permit for a formula-retail paint store at Cesar Chavez and South Van Ness despite concerns about its effect on nearby small businesses.

<\!s> On Feb. 28, 2008, she approved a remodeling of a two-story flat on Potrero Ave. that opponents, including the next-door neighbors, characterized as a demolition in disguise.

"Her voting record for the past three years is crystal clear," one lawyer who represents neighborhood interests at the commission told us. "Given a choice between supporting neighborhood interests, long-term residents and the interests of the little guy or supporting development interests and the big- money people who are busy in our residential neighborhoods, she chooses the latter every time."

The lawyer, who regularly appears before the planning panel and asked not to be named, added: "She has supported big-box retail in our neighborhoods over the objections of neighbors. She has supported the destruction of rent-controlled housing and low-scale, more affordable housing that is being remodeled out of existence."

"She’s a total pay to play," said Robert Haaland, a labor activist with Service Employees International Union Local 1021, which is deeply vested in independent expenditures supporting Mar. "Her donations can be tracked back to decisions she made as planning commissioner."

For example, Lee voted in favor of a plan by Martin Building Company to convert a city-owned building on Jessie Street into 25 luxury condos that now rent for about $3,000 a month. Martin’s owner, Patrick McNerney is a Lee campaign donor. Also contributing to Lee is Eric Tao of AGI Capital, which helped finance the Soma Grand development, a project opposed by sustainable growth organizations like Livable City, the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition, Walk SF, and the Sierra Club. Lee voted in favor of it.

In 2006, Lee approved lifting the downtown height restrictions from 150 feet to 250 feet for a 189-unit building with ground level retail on Howard Street. The project sponsor, Ezra Mercy, gave Lee’s campaign the maximum legal donation of $500.

In fact, her campaign has received thousands of dollars in individual contributions — and according to our analysis, more than half has come from real estate developers, attorneys, and builders, including some who appear frequently before the Planning Commission, such as executives from Wilson Meany Sullivan, CB Richard Ellis, and Millennium Partners.

Lee did not return a call seeking comment.

MISLEADING THE VOTERS


The same day the spending cap was lifted, Mar alleged the local Democratic Party’s name was being improperly used by a new group calling itself the "San Francisco Democratic Club." First reported by Paul Hogarth on the online news site BeyondChron, the club is apparently composed of Democratic County Central Committee defectors who disagreed with the party’s endorsements for the Nov. 4 election.

The group’s treasurer, Mike Riordan, is also a deputy political director of PG&E’s Stop the Blank Check Committee, which is mounting the $10 million campaign against the Clean Energy Act. PG&E gave $30,000 to this new democratic club, the members of which have not been revealed.

Riordan hired DCCC member Tom Hseih’s firm to send robocalls in Cantonese to Asian voters urging support for Lee over DCCC-endorsed Mar. The endorsement script referred to the group as the "San Francisco Democratic Party Club." Mar said it was a misleading way to align this new club with the DCCC.

When asked if the club’s use of the Democratic Party name and membership to support candidates and issues that haven’t received the party’s vote was their intention, Hsieh told the Guardian, "Yeah, and you know what? That’s covered under the First Amendment."

Sup. Aaron Peskin, who chairs the DCCC and spoke on its behalf in support of Mar at two recent rallies, said, "at minimum, it’s misleading. At maximum it’s a violation of the party rules and punishable by removal." He said there was a credible argument and evidence supporting Mar’s allegation, but that it’s something the DCCC would have to deal with in its own house, likely after Nov. 4.

Voting to save the local economy

0

EDITORIAL On Oct. 21, a string of economists and advisors from the Newsom administration, the Chamber of Commerce, and the Convention and Visitors Bureau appeared before the San Francisco Board of Supervisors to present a picture of the local economy that was stunning in its lack of reality.

The experts talked about how San Francisco isn’t really hurting that much right now. They said the downturn would hit eventually, but that housing and jobs are still relatively strong here. And what we need to do to boost the economy, the mayor and his experts said, is to promote downtown business, cut fees — and further reduce the city budget.

Cut taxes? Cut spending? Boost big business? That sounds a lot like the economic prescriptions we’ve been hearing from the right wing of the Republican Party for decades. And it hasn’t exactly worked out well.

In fact, for many San Franciscans, the recession is already here — and is deep and painful. Small businesses are struggling. People are losing jobs and finding it hard to pay the rent. Like Washington, DC, San Francisco needs to be taking this seriously — but what we’ve seen from Mayor Gavin Newsom is a bunch of hot air. The mayor wants to accelerate capital spending. Fine. But he’s counting on projects like rebuilding Airport Terminal Two that rely on bond sales — and this isn’t a great time to be selling bonds — and that create jobs mostly for big out-of-town construction firms. And he wants to cut fees on business — which has never proven to be an economic stimulus, but would require deeper cuts in city programs and layoffs of city staffers. The worst thing you can do in a recession is cut public jobs.

At the Oct. 21 hearing, the supervisors were a bit dubious. "We need to be straightforward and real," said Board President Aaron Peskin. "Not half-baked schemes and empty promises." But if Newsom and his downtown and landlord allies get their way, the board that takes office in January could be very different. The progressives who have held the line on cuts, pushed for higher taxes on the wealthy, and promoted measures that will actually help the economy could wind up in the minority. And we could see a dramatic shift to the right in economic policy.

The November election is critical — and the top of the ticket isn’t the only vote that matters. Preserving the progressive majority on the board and passing the key ballot measures will take the city a long way toward avoiding the worst of what could be a catastrophic economic downturn.

Let’s look at the ballot from that perspective:

<\!s> Proposition H would inject millions into the economy. San Francisco residents and businesses pay some of the highest electric rates in the country, and money that goes to Pacific Gas and Electric Co. is sucked right out of town and invested elsewhere. Since electricity is a necessity, cutting electric rates would instantly inject cash into the economy. In fact, a 2002 study by Hofstra University economist Irwin Kellner showed that public power expanded the economy of Long Island. by $10 billion over the first four years after that region got rid of its private electric utility.

Based on his methodology and calculations, we estimated in 2002 that PG&E cost the local economy $620 million over the previous two years (see "The $620 million shakedown," 10/4/02). Updating those figures today shows a dramatic impact: In the past decade, PG&E rate hikes have taken 1.015 billion out of the local economy. And if, as we have estimated, a public power agency could cut rates by 15 percent, that would inject $477 million a year into the local economy (see sfbg.com for a detailed calculation). That’s a lot more money than the city would see from any of Newsom’s proposals.

Proposition B would create thousands of new jobs. Building a new terminal at the airport attracts big national construction companies. Affordable housing in a much more home-grown operation. The nonprofits that build below-market housing in San Francisco hire local construction workers, at union scale; that money stays in the economy. Affordable housing also helps stabilize and upgrade neighborhoods, adding small business and cultural institutions that create more jobs and economic impact. "It’s a monster source of jobs," Rene Cazenave, who is working on the Yes on B campaign, told us. In fact, Prop. B alone would create a lot more jobs than the mayor’s entire economic stimulus plan.

Propositions N, O and Q would save jobs. As the city’s budget deficit continues to grow, Newsom is talking about cutting more services — and that means cutting public sector jobs. Many of those workers live in San Francisco; eliminating jobs hurts the local economy. Prop. O would prevent the city from losing $80 million in tax revenue every year; Props. N and Q would bring in millions more. That would save jobs and help stave off a deeper recession.

Preserving an independent board will keep Newsom’s worst economic policies in check. If supervisorial candidates Sue Lee, Joe Alioto, and Ahsha Safai win in Districts 1, 3 and 11, Newsom will have a loyal majority — and the city’s economy will be in trouble. The mayor of San Francisco is a Democrat, but his economic policies are much closer to what John McCain is proposing — and they won’t work. San Francisco needs a strong independent board to keep asking the tough questions and demanding alternatives. It’s critical to elect Eric Mar, David Chiu, and John Avalos in those swing districts.

There’s so much at stake in this election. Vote early, vote often, and vote all the way to the bottom of the ballot.

Lunchtime fun tomorrow

2

proph_sticker_1.gif

by Amanda Witherell

For all y’all who are roaming around the financial district tomorrow or need some diversion from the grind, swing by 77 Beale Street where clean energy activists are going to be installing three enormous wind turbines in front of PG&E’s headquarters.

Starting promptly at noon, about three-dozen people dressed for green jobs construction success will build three 12-foot wind turbines in front of the headquarters of a $12 billion utility company that sells 89 percent non-renewable energy. They’ll be calling on voters to approve the Clean Energy Act, Prop H on next Tuesday’s ballot, which, if passed, lays out a plan for 100 percent renewable energy for San Francisco that includes a green jobs component.

According to the press release, “Workers in green hard hats and overalls will build the wind generators and then begin to erect them – evoking the image of the WW II victory photo, Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima, illustrating the historic opportunity Prop H offers our country for secure energy. The $9.9 million that PG&E has spent to oppose Prop H will be visually depicted by ten large burlap sacks of money.”

PG&E has been busy blistering the city with lies about what the measure will do — even their vice president quaked when reasonably questioned about the measure.

Proponents call it “the most robust renewable energy policy ever seriously considered in the country, and yet is more modest than Al Gore’s recent call to Americato achieve 100% renewable energy in a decade.”

They may get the big PG&E boot, so be sharp to catch the action. Wed., Oct. 29, noon to 12:30 at 77 Beale Street.

A PG&E VP at the door

0

Steven Hill, director of the Political Reform Program at the New America Foundation (www.newamerica.net) and author of “10 Steps to Repair American Democracy” (www.10Steps.net), sent this over. It’s a fascinating story that shows how PG&E is not only slinging mud but refusing to debate the real issues of Prop. H.

The political mudslide threatening to drown us all

by Steven Hill

You know you are in the height of the political season when you start receiving activists knocking on your door for political campaigns. But I was taken aback recently when the activist at my door was a vice president for Pacific Gas and Electric.

He, of course, wanted to talk about Proposition H, the San Francisco ballot measure known as the “Clean Energy Act” for which PG&E is the main opponent. Before I provide details on that conversation, let me step back for a moment and get something off my chest.

I don’t know about you, but in watching the presidential campaigns wage their mudslinging hack-attacks against each other, it’s clear to me that such “win at all costs” tactics not only degrade the electoral process, but those who participate in and are forced to witness it. From the McCain campaign and their supporters we have heard that Obama is a pal of terrorists, a supporter of infanticide, and a tax-and-spend liberal, with subtle allusions to his race.

From the Obama side we have heard that McCain is too old, too crotchety and too out of touch with Main Street. Both sides feel that their characterizations are fair and accurate — or at least close enough to sling the mud.

But from the voter’s perspective, it’s hard to watch. Instead of finding out what’s good about each candidate, and what stirring vision they have for these difficult times, we are finding out the worst about them. And then, following the election, the tainted winner is supposed to rally the country behind him, even though half the country now detests him.

Something is very wrong with this picture. Sure, we can rationalize it, say that this kind of mudslinging has long been part of American politics. But perhaps that’s partly why the public is so cynical about politicians, and so anti-government. That attitude has contributed to Republicans’ relentless bashing of government, which became the basis for massive deregulation of all stripes, including the financial, banking and home mortgage industries. “Get government out of the way,” was their rallying cry.

So this mudslinging and distorting of facts and information is not harmless or innocent. Those who practice it know exactly what they are doing.

Which brings me back to my curious door-knocker, the vice president for PG&E. I politely greeted him, and he launched into a tirade against Prop H. If passed, he said, this clean energy legislation would “take away my right to vote” (his exact words), raise electricity rates and force San Francisco to buy PG&E’s system (which oddly he implied was antiquated and not worth the money). And besides that, “it’s a power grab by the Board of Supervisors.”

Whew. I had just been doing my own research on Proposition H and other ballot measures to figure out how I would vote. So I knew he was tearing a page out of the Karl Rove campaign handbook. Unlike with the presidential campaigns, however, which happens far away like we are spectators in the 42nd row, here was one of the “candidates” right at my doorstep. PG&E had been spending barrels full of money, over $5 million, to defeat this measure. This was my chance, I figured, to have a real dialogue.

“The proponents of this measure dispute your claims,” I told him. “They say Proposition H will make the City study all possible ways to get to 100% clean energy, and then create a plan to make it happen. PG&E’s system can be part of this plan if you figure out how to deliver low-cost, clean energy. They also say that any bonds issued would have to be approved by the City Controller and the Public Utilities Commission, who are all appointed by the mayor. The Board of Supervisors can’t do anything by itself. What’s your response to that?”

His response was the Sarah Palin “deer in the headlights” look. I don’t think he had been knocking on too many doors of people who had done some homework. Isn’t that what the mudslingers always rely upon?

I was ready to engage and discuss. But instead he said, “I have to go.” And that’s what he did.

In this political season, I urge all voters to do your research, and don’t automatically believe the candidates or their proxies. With the country facing deep economic challenges, too much is at stake to take the word of the sharks at your door or on your TV screens. And please vote Yes on Proposition H.

Wind turbines? On PG&E’s headquarters?

2

The Clean Energy campaign (Prop H) is heating up and PG&E is now running more scared than the company has ever been about any initiative campaign. Here’s the latest media advisory from the campaign’s Julian Davis and Aliza Wasserman:

For Immediate Release Contact: Aliza Wasserman
510-717-6599

MEDIA ADVISORY Tuesday October 28, 2008

PROP H WIND TURBINES INSTALLED ON PG&E HQ

PG&E’s record-breaking $9.9 million opposition to Prop H said to be obstructing San Francisco’s chance for renewable and cheaper energy

SAN FRANCISCO — In front of PG&E’s downtown headquarters at 77 Beale St. at Market, three twelve-foot wind turbines will be constructed by citizens eager to see Prop H pass and begin a green jobs and affordable green energy future. On Wednesday, October 29 from 12:00 to 12:30pm over three-dozen citizens wearing green hard hats and worker overalls will promptly descend on PG&E’s headquarters and construct the wind turbine art installations. PG&E provides the City with only 2% wind energy, and 1% solar, for a total of 14% renewable energy, while Prop H would develop thousands of green jobs and move San Francisco’s energy provider to 51% renewable and clean energy in a decade, 75% by 2030 and will maximize all available and affordable renewable energy possible by 2040.

Joe Neilands’ final words: Yes on H

0

By Bruce B. Brugmann

Joe Neilands, the University of California-Berkeley biochemistry professor who broke the PG&E/Raker Act scandal story in the Bay Guardian in 1969, died Thursday night of a rare form of tuberculosis at Alta Bates Hospital in Berkeley. He was 87.

His son Torsten reported his death in an email to me and asked that a memorial box be placed in the Guardian with this copy:

“J. B. Neilands

September 11, 1921 -October 23, 2008

Final Words: Vote yes on Prop H!”

We will proudly publish the memorial box in the Wednesday (10/25/2008) of the Guardian, our last edition before the Nov. 4 election and the vote on the Clean Energy Act (Prop H). There will be no services. His family suggested that donations should be made to SFCleanEnergy.com.

He was Professor J. B. Neilands, a distinguished professor of biochemistry at UC Berkeley, but to his many friends, colleagues, and fellow activists he was just plain Joe. To the Guardian and to the clean energy/public power constituency, he was the consummate independent political activist. His independent political activities span the trajectory of progressive politics in the Bay Area for more than 50 years, from his successful underdog battle in the early 1960s to keep the Pacific Gas & Electric Company from building a nuclear power plant upwind of San Francisco on Bodega Bay, through the free speech movement at Cal, to the fight against the Vietnam War, to the passionate and unending battle to enforce the federal Raker Act, bring public Hetch Hetchy power to San Francisco, and buy out PG&E.

His specialty was taking on the pioneering great cause himself, personally, when the appropriate institution would not do it. And that’s how he got his scandal story about PG&E into the Guardian and helped make it our signature story through the decades. It all started in Joe’s living room in the Berkeley Hills.