Disclaimer: I do some work for the No on H campaign. But my views on this measure were decided before I took the job.

Today the San Francisco Chronicle was the latest publication to endorse a “No” vote on San Francisco’s Prop. H. It joins the San Francisco Examiner, the San Francisco Business Times, Asian Week, the San Francisco Planning and Urban Research organization (SPUR) and the Bay Area Reporter in opposing the measure.

I think it’s important to note that much of the reasoning behind these endorsements has to do with the fact that the supporters of Prop. H have put forth some of the most misleading campaign material in recent history. The No on H campaign gets pilloried by the so-called “progressives” as “telling lies” but in fact the objections raised have been based entirely on the actual text of the measure itself.

The Chronicle put it best in the lead today when it said:

“The least advocates of San Francisco’s Proposition H could do is be forthright about their motives. This is not about saving he planet by increasing the use of renewable resources, or commissioning a study to determine the best way to achieve it.

This is about stacking the deck to achieve what has become the Holy Grail of certain “progressive” factions of the city: a municipal takeover of electrical service from Pacific Gas & Electric Co.”

That’s an important point to remember. Voters have rejected every single attempt to have San Francisco, a city of less than a million people and only about 370,000 power customers, go into the power business. Since Sup. Mirkarimi (who has been on a crusade against PG&E for years)  and progressive allies could not get a politically motivated takeover passed by asking the voters straight up, they’ve now used the current popularity of all things “green” to cloak the measure in good intentions. People in the know about these issues have agreed that Prop. H is a poorly written law.

That’s bad enough, as it plays on people’s good intentions to pass a law they’ve rejected in the past. What’s worse is that by voting for this measure, voters would be exchanging tough, enforceable, state standards for a new definition of “clean energy” – that it simply be “non-nuclear.” And all city-owned utilities are exempt from California’s tough, enforceable laws that PG&E has to abide by. Supporters deny this is true, but you can read the measure for yourself what it says. Just go to section Section 8B.129.

Also, it’s important to remember that supporters of Prop. H have no idea where they are going to get all this “clean” energy the measure allegedly requires. It is not as if PG&E is simply refusing to buy or produce power from clean sources (in fact, it has signed some of the largest solar and wind contracts in the world) – there simply aren’t the facilities and distribution networks available right now to do the job. Plus, as I’ve mentioned before, PG&E must comply with California’s strictly defined clean energy standards and timetable – a city-owned one can ignore them at will.

Thus, the City of San Francisco will not only have to issue billions in bonds to buy PG&E’s facilities in town – they’re going to have to issue more to start building plants (clean or not) to ensure the lights turn on every day. And right now is not a great time to be trying to finance new construction, as the financial crisis on Wall Street starts to have an impact on new energy plant construction and all City bond costs.

Likewise, the measure allows the Board to issue revenue bonds for any utility they want to take over – the measure makes no requirement it only be for electricity. Thus, if the Board wanted to go into the Internet business, the garbage business, the telephone business, or really any “utility” business they can thanks to Prop. H. The people who voted for this thinking it was just about a study for clean energy will be powerless to stop them from abusing this new power. No one likes it when this is said, but again, you can read the measure for yourself.

Whenever these points are brought up, the supporters of Prop. H refuse to listen and dismiss them as “lies,” and never answer the questions raised. The evidence continues to build the case against the measure, and the only response are vicious personal attacks, vulgar language and deceptive online videos that claim support from Sen. Obama for their cause (the Sen. has taken no position on this local matter, for the record). Is this the best the City’s progressives can do, using the tactics of bully Karl Rove and the foul language of an X-rated movie? I think not.

If Sup. Mirkarimi and allied progressives want the city to take over the power system, they should ask voters if they want to do that, period. Let them make a decision free of the deceptive and dangerous wrapper they’ve put on this measure to try once again to pass something voters continue to reject. There is a time and place for an honest debate on all sides regarding the role of local government in the utility business. Unfortunately with Prop. H, we’re not getting that now.

Disclaimer: I do some work for the No on H campaign. But my views on the issue were decided long before I took the job.

There’s no denying that people want to see Good Things happen in San Francisco, and around the country, when it comes to global warming. People have responded to Vice President Gore’s film, and want to do the right thing. So it’s a bit disturbing when people’s good intentions are manipulated by politicians, as they are with the so-called “Clean Energy Act” (aka Measure H) in San Francisco.

The measure claims simply to be about “clean energy” sources for San Francisco. But once you read the measure, you find out two things. It’s not really about encouraging the use of clean energy sources for San Francisco residents – it’s about a multi-billion dollar take over of a private utility by the City of San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors. But more importantly, the measure would actually replace enforceable state regulations with regards to clean energy, and allow a City-run utility to use any power source – clean or not – so long as it’s “non nuclear.”

Yes, you read that right. The so-called “Clean Energy Act” has two loopholes large enough to drive a fleet of panda-burning Hummers through that allow this to happen. First, publicly owned utilities are EXEMPT from the strict regulations that will ensure private power companies will adhere to rules that require clean energy sources. So while PG and E, a company strictly regulated by the Public Utilities Commission, must comply with these rules, a City-run system will not.

Worse, the act defines clean energy as simply any source that is “non-nuclear.” By that definition, coal, natural gas, diesel, and other fossil fuels could be used by a City owned system. While San Franciscans will go to the polls and think they’re voting for clean energy, in fact they could be voting to open the door to more polluting energy sources if a City-run system can’t provide the power we need to turn on the lights every day.

San Francisco has an unfortunate history of packaging bad legislation in good wrappers – in the 1950s citizens voted to “save” the historic Cable Car system – but the measure in fact dismantled the useful and profitable network and turned it into the tourist ride that it is today.

Likewise, the proponents of the Clean Energy Act use the spirit of Al Gore’s call to fight global warming to package an expensive takeover of a private utility by the Board of Supervisors – one that has consistently been rejected by voters in the past. Voters will need to cut through the packaging and see this plan for what it really is.