One thing I wish I'd gotten to dig into further before the election is Proposition H in California. (Our own Sara Barz covered it briefly in this post.)
The renewable mandates aren't what interest me -- it's more the question of making PG&E a public utility.
I'm told by a friend in San Fran that this is the latest battle in a long, long war over public utilities. Apparently the act that created Hetch Hetchy also granted San Fran public power, but it was never enforced.
Now PG&E is spending something like $10 million fighting Prop H, and they've got San Fran power brokers like mayor Gavin Newsom on their side.
Does public power work? My San Fran friend says yes, and points to SMUD as evidence. Then again, there's a broad coalition fighting H, saying public power will mean higher prices, worse service, etc.
Here's the Yes on H page. Here's the No on H page. [UPDATE: Oops! That's the wrong No on H page, against a Prop H from 2005. The right No on H page is here: Stop the Blank Check.]
As you can tell, I'm basically ignorant on this, and would love feedback from all you smart Grist readers. Educate me. Perhaps I'll dig into it more post-election.
UPDATE: An ingenious Yes on H video:
Comments
View as Flat
wesrolley Posted 9:12 am
03 Nov 2008
In a way, the factual benefits of Prop. H are being ignored and it is a partisan battle for Mayor Newsome to break up the "progressive majority" that currently give him so much grief.
Read the Green Party Press release on the subject here. Sanchez is in a dead heat with a Newsome backed Dem. for the seat.
.
Wes Rolley
CoChair - EcoAction Committee
Green Party US
Permalink
JMG Posted 11:36 am
03 Nov 2008
PUDs are to power companies what credit unions are to banks -- the progressive version that concentrates on serving members rather than owners.
From an environmental perspective, PUDs can be all over the map --- if you elect commissioners who focus only on keeping rates low, then you wind up with environmental concerns shoved to the side, but basically are no worse off than you are with an IOU.
And, conversely, if you elect good commissioners who understand full-cost accounting and the idea of operating the public's utility in a way that benefits the public in the long term (rather than just the investors in the short term), then you really can have a gem.
With a PUD, you can really be creative and innovative, not because it's profitable but because it's the right thing to do. Pay-as-you-save plans (like Berkeley's similar program) become a snap.
The 5% Project
Let's live on the planet as if we intend to stay.
Permalink
NonprofitWatch Posted 2:02 pm
03 Nov 2008
There are so many propositions and they seem to keep their websites up as the case of your link to the 2005 opponents of Prop H in San Francisco which intended to ban sale and possession of firearms -- maybe an interesting mistake in that the supporters of Prop H are driven by a wish to shift us from dangerous fossil fuels and nuclear energy to safe renewable energy.
As I understand, the proposition does not specifically call for the takeover of PG&E though that is how it seems to be commonly portrayed and could be an outcome of the measure. Below the language from the Yes on H website which I think is insightful.
"Yes on H"! The San Francisco Clean Energy Act is a measure appearing on the November 4, 2008 ballot that amends the city and county charter to require the City to transition from fossil fuels to clean, non-nuclear, sustainable energy production at affordable rates.
"Yes on H" directs the SF Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) to establish one document laying out the long-term integrated resource plan for transmission, distribution and electricity resources.
The plan will assess the most effective means of providing clean, sustainable, reliable, and reasonably priced electric services to residents, businesses and City departments.
This Act {"Yes on H"} provides policy direction to achieve the City's existing goals to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to 20% below 1990 levels (per the 2002 GHG resolution) and to procure 51% of the City's energy needs through renewable energy and conservation by 2017 (per the 2007 Community Choice Aggregation ordinance). Specifically, the Act directs the City to analyze, identify and pursue strategies that:
By the way, Prop H in 2005 passed; considering that the planet faces climate-chaos and thinking about the massive recent failure of the free market system driven by the societal elites, I'd like to see Prop H approved this year as well to see how this grassroots-driven alternative to investor-oriented approaches works out. If well, maybe others would be inspired to copy it.
bernardo issel - http://www.NonprofitWatch.org -
bernardo (at) NonprofitWatch.org
Permalink
NonprofitWatch Posted 3:04 pm
03 Nov 2008
but they are probably out trying to make last minute appeals to voters.
Note the below environmentalists and enviro groups supporting Prop H
that I excerpted from the endorsement page.
http://www.sfcleanenergy.com/endorsements/
At the site you'll find a video of Bill McKibben's endorsement.
Apologies if I left out anyone that should have been included as enviro.
Van Jones, founder and President, Green for All
Bill McKibben, environmental author; founder, Step It Up campaign
Carl Pope, Executive Director, Sierra Club
Michael Bornstein, Senior Director, Sierra Club San Francisco Bay Chapter
Rick Galbreath, Member, Sierra Club Bay Area Chapter Executive Committee
Sierra Club
Greenpeace
San Francisco League of Conservation Voters
San Francisco Tomorrow
Green Guerrillas Against Greenwash
Ella Baker Center for Human Rights
Greenaction for Health and Environmental Justice
Literacy for Environmental Justice
Global Exchange
Food & Water Watch
Urban Alliance for Sustainability
H is also supported by the San Francisco Democratic Party,
San Francisco Green Party, ACORN, SEIU, League of Young/Pissed Off Voters,
Gray Panthers and many others. And the Reverend Billy and band Cake support H.
Mayor Newsom's opposition is in part interpreted as resulting from his longstanding opposition
to public power I believe, the fact that his former campaign manager to whom he supposedly remains close is working for the opposition, and his interest in running for governor for which he'd like to have the support and money of private utilities and other business interests.
Looking at the No on H aka Stop the Blank Check's website, one finds no environmental groups
or individuals identified as environmentalists.
http://www.stoptheblankcheck.com/oppose
The CEOs of SolarCity and and BrightSource ( a "utility-scale" solar plant developer) are listed and quoted (click on their names to see) as opposing Prop H, but considering that both companies have business deals with PG&E, would you expect them to have the independence to do otherwise.
In the No On H videos which are probably getting lots or air time considering the money spent to
beat Prop H, one does see a noted "green" reverend who is involved with one of my favorite groups (i'm being facetious) and about whom I could share some critical thoughts, but I will be positive and polite and save these for another day.
This is a very uplifting video supporting both H and Obama
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EiB3zjLc7Ds ,
and this one is incredibly provocative and pure genius -- generously uses a special
four letter word -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZuwXSbb6WA&feature=re ...
Here you find an editorial supporting H.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/10/ ...
PS. There are certain major enviros with a strong San Francisco presence that seem to be quiet on Prop H, and one could suggest interesting reasons for this, but I'm being positive and polite.
:)
bernardo issel - http://www.NonprofitWatch.org -
bernardo (at) NonprofitWatch.org
Permalink
wesrolley Posted 2:21 am
04 Nov 2008
You mention this in regards Proposition H. I have some good information that it is even more true when it comes to the water problems in California.
e.g. The funding for a major "public interest" study of the problems in the California Delta came from the CEO of a company (Bechtel) that had a vested interest in the outcome.
Wes Rolley
CoChair - EcoAction Committee
Green Party US
Permalink
Sean Casten Posted 3:00 am
04 Nov 2008
On the pro-public side, you've heard my rant before about the flaws innate to a for-profit, government-sanctioned monopoly, in that it combines the worst of capitalism with the worst of socialism, and gets none of the benefits of either. A friend who spent many years working for a Boston law firm advising lots of municipal clients showed me compelling data years ago (which I no longer have, sadly) showing that the cost and reliability of energy from municipal utilities and coops is consistently higher than that of the investor owned utilities. Which makes sense, since the munis/coops have no tax (in the form of shareholder dividends) to apply to their rates, have no conflict between their shareholders and customers (in a coop, they are one and the same) and due to their size have a level of accountability an IOU lacks. When Grandma Jones shows up at the coop board meeting to bitch about her flickering lights, she gets attention. When she shows up at a proxy vote for the IOU, she is ignored.
That latter point is also one of the criticisms of public utilities that I have heard from the IOU crowd - and one that is, on it's face, not unreasonable. A small utility is a mom & pop operation, typically run by the local-boy-done-good (or girl) and while it has it's complexities, is essentially a broker with cheap money. (e.g., they buy power from others, sell to customers and may have a little generation that they own or have a stake in to smooth out the peaks... but for the most part, it is a small civil servant.) A big utility is just a bigger, more complicated thing, and the arguments made by the IOUs is that the munis and coops have historically not been able to attract the quality of staff needed to run those more complicated ventures, in no small part because as a non-profit, they don't always have access to the best & brightest. My knee-jerk reaction to that argument is that I've never been all that impressed with the type of folks who the IOUs attract (Google entrepreneurs, they ain't.) But having said that, I think there is a grain of truth in the criticism - and if anything, my knee jerk reaction argues for moving more towards a capitalist solution rather than more towards a socialist solution.
When all is said and done, I think my gut reaction would be in favor of the state takeover as some limited experiment, if only because the current model has proven so terrible. But it's not clear that it's a panacea either.
Permalink
JMG Posted 3:13 am
04 Nov 2008
Since there is zero correlation between corporate results and corporate salaries, why would you think that there's some connection between corporate smarts and salaries? George W. Bush got made rich by his father's cronies -- did his IQ approach room temperature as his wealth rose? Will he get to triple digit IQ if/when he starts getting his payoff for his tireless work on behalf of Halliburton and General Dynamics after he leaves office?
The 5% Project
Let's live on the planet as if we intend to stay.
Permalink
Sean Casten Posted 3:26 am
04 Nov 2008
The way this was articulated to me - and one that I can sympathize with from my time in the hiring chair - is simply that the better the pay package you can offer, the wider the selection of candidates you can find. The causality doesn't necessarily work backwards, but it's very real. The boom in dot-com stocks convinced many smart undergraduate engineering majors to focus on software and electronics, tempted by the huge stock-option rides that a couple of their friends got... to a point that it was damned near impossible to find an EE who was an electrical (as opposed to electronic) engineer. (I personally found myself hiring older, gray-haired folks to do work that was beneath their abilities out of an inability to get junior folks.)
More recently, I will confess that I find the volume of the resumes coming across my desk to have increased dramatically since we got our funding in place, as a high-risk startup with no cash suddenly became a funded venture with the possibility of great personal reward. Such is human nature, and while the % of good resumes in the bunch probably hasn't changed all that much, the increase in volume means that I now have access to a better team than I previously did.
Anyway, that's the only point I was making. A non-profit venture with no ability to take home an equity payday is going to have a shallower personnel pool to draw from than one with profit sharing bonuses and stock options. Whether good comes out of that is a separate question, and I suspect you and I would both agree with Maslow's observation that $ is rarely what really drives people - but it is a necessary evil, noticed most when it is absent...
Permalink
JMG Posted 4:39 am
05 Nov 2008
The 5% Project
Let's live on the planet as if we intend to stay.
Permalink