On Friday, I attended the Ballot Simplification Committee (BSC) hearing. This committee drafts the language voters read describing each ballot measure, and Friday's hearing was held to draft a voter summary of the so-called "Clean Energy Act" put on the November 4 San Francisco ballot by members of the Board of Supervisors (Ammiano, Daly, Dufty, Maxwell, Mirkarimi, Peskin and Sandoval). The text of the measure is online at http://www.sfgov.org/site/uploadedfiles/elections/candidates/Nov2008_LT_SFCleanEnergyAct.pdf . Unfortunately because it is a PDF document, I cannot copy and paste the text here.
Other opponents of the measure attending the BSC hearing were political consultant Jim Ross (I presume there more or less on behalf of PG&E) and his attorney (a woman whose name I don't know), Rob Black of the SF Chamber of Commerce, and Brian Browne of the SF Taxpayers Union. There were also two proponents present, whose names and affiliations I do not know. After much tinkering, the committee produced draft language -- copied and pasted at the bottom of this email. The draft is also online at http://www.sfgov.org/site/uploadedfiles/election/Meeting_Information/BSC/SFCleanEnergyActApprovedDigest.pdf .
Any interested parties (I think you must be eligible to vote on the measure, i.e. a San Francisco voter or local organization) have until 1:00 p.m. tomorrow (Monday August 4) to submit any requests to the committee that this language be reworded. A description of the BSC and what it does is online here -- http://www.sfgov.org/site/elections_index.asp?id=21619#agendas -- and here is a sample "motion to reconsider" filed by Supervisor Ammiano on another measure, to give you some idea of what one looks like: http://www.sfgov.org/site/uploadedfiles/election/Meeting_Information/BSC/JROTC%20Request%20for%20Reconsideration_Sanchez.pdf [note - for some weird reason, making this a hyperlink doesn't seem to work, but if you copy and paste it into your browser window, it should]. I don't see documentation on the Elections Dept. website listing the specific rules for such motions, but BSC chair Betty Packard told us verbally at the hearing that a motion of this nature needs to state the language the filer wishes to change or remove, along with the specific language being requested to replace it if any.
The intent of the so-called "Clean Energy Act" appears designed to pave the way for the municipalization of power delivery in San Francisco, so that energy would be delivered to consumers by the city government rather than by the quasi-government public utility company PG&E which currently delivers electricity and gas to most homes and businesses in SF. Most troublingly, the measure appears to authorize the Board of Supervisors to issue revenue bonds for certain purposes without getting the voter approval that this would currently require (see pages 11-12 as per the official page numbers at the bottom right of each page or pages 12-13 as you would print the document) -- http://www.sfgov.org/site/uploadedfiles/elections/candidates/Nov2008_LT_SFCleanEnergyAct.pdf.
According to a mailer I received from PG&E, "the minimum price tag to take over the power system is more than $4 billion. That means the average customer would need to pay over $400 more per year." Admittedly PG&E is not exactly unbiased here, but their mailer notes in seemingly sound logic that the company "pays the city nearly $20 million per year in taxes and fees. That would disappear if the city took over and forced PG&E out of San Francisco. We would need to raise taxes, cut services -- or both -- to make up for this lost revenue." (The measure guarantees that "employees of the utility who become employees of the City as a result of this measure" shall not forfeit any pay or benefits.) The mailer further states that "PG&E is investing hundreds of millions of dollars per year in upgrading the San Francisco power system so it is safer and more reliable. Under the Board's plan, that burden would be passed to the San Francisco public power agency."
I can find nothing in the text of the "Clean Energy Act" that would appear to contradict these claims or provide guarantees that what PG&E warns against would not come to pass. So I'm opposing the measure, and am aiming to make sure that the language on it put before voters gives them as much warning as possible. Of course the BSC is required to provide a fair and impartial summary, so nothing that is blatantly biased against the measure is going to fly with them. I've spoken with Jim Ross, who is also planning to file a motion to reconsider, and he says their main concern is to get the language about the Board of Supervisors receiving new powers to issue revenue bonds moved higher up in the summary. I agree with this, and will seek to make that point. I'm open for other suggestions on revised wording to draw attention to this point, or to mention other negative aspects of the measure that may have been overlooked.
Having now attended a couple BSC hearings, I've observed that committee members (a) don't receive that much input or feedback on their draft language from members of the public, and (b) what input they do receive, they tend to seriously listen to and often act upon. They also tend to weigh more heavily input coming from multiple persons who agree with each other's recommendations. Even if they adopt none of my recommendations, my letter will go into the public file on this measure, the contents of which may be read by anyone who visits the Department of Elections and takes a look at it. So I think this is very much a worthwhile effort, and thank you in advance for any advice or assistance. Any San Francisco voters who wish to add their name to mine on the submission are also welcome and encouraged to do so. If you want to wait until after I've gotten final language to do this, please be proactive and call me tomorrow to let me know at (415) 621-7932, or (415) 368-8657, as there may be a narrow window between the time when I finish writing a motion and when I submit it, especially if I try to attend tomorrow's BSC hearing (the schedule for that hearing is below, for anyone else who may want to attend).