The Public Safety and Neighborhood Services Committee will hold a hearing Thursday/12 on the recent PG&E blackouts—and will also hold a vote to reaffirm the city’s mandate to take over the private utility’s assets in San Francisco.
PG&E will send a representative, who will say how terrible the company feels and how it’s making amends and upgrading the system and will pay businesses for lost revenue—the usual line.
And Sup. Alan Wong, who represents the Sunset, where the damage was the worst, will ask some questions, and get the usual answers, well-honed by PG&E’s high-paid communications experts.
The next item will be far more interesting. The resolution by Sup. Connie Chan states, among other things:
WHEREAS, Meanwhile, PG&E continues to prioritize the enrichment of senior management even as the company continues to cause death and destruction across California, with notable examples including the 2012 state investigation that concluded that PG&E illegally diverted more than $100 million from funds designed for safety operations to executive compensation and bonuses; and
WHEREAS, In 2022, at the end of PG&E’s five-year probation following the San Bruno gas pipeline explosion, Federal Judge William Alsup concluded that “While on probation, PG&E has gone on a crime spree and will emerge from probation as a continuing menace to California” after setting at least 31 wildfires, burning nearly 1.5 million acres of land and over 24,000 structures, killing 113 Californians, and failing its commitment to prioritize safety over profit for its executive management; and
WHEREAS, The City and County of San Francisco has sought to provide electric service to all of San Francisco since at least 1913, has provided electric service to City facilities since 1918, and launched CleanpowerSF to provide electric service for more than 380,000 residential and commercial customers since May of 2016; and
WHEREAS, The City and County of San Francisco is already providing more than 75% of the electricity consumed in San Francisco through CleanPowerSF and its Hetch Hetchy Power municipal utility, which includes all of the City’s major infrastructure, including the San Francisco International Airport (SFO), the San Francisco Zoo, public libraries, Muni, the General Hospital, San Francisco City College, the DeYoung and Asian Art Museums, the Ferry Building and other port facilities, public schools and public parks; and
WHEREAS, In a letter dated January 14, 2019, Mayor London Breed asked the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission to prepare an analysis of the options for ensuring safe and reliable electric service within the City, including the possibility of acquiring the PG&E electric distribution and transmission infrastructure assets that serve the City (PG&E Assets) ….
RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the City and County of San Francisco re-affirms its support for the City’s efforts to acquire the PG&E assets necessary to provide clean, green and affordable electric power delivery and service in San Francisco.
The board file includes a letter from former Mayor London Breed, who in 2019 called on the Public Utilities Commission to move toward acquiring the local grid.
Mayor Daniel Lurie has not taken a public position on municipal power, and his pal Gov. Gavin Newsom is making sure the state PUC is slow-walking the process of establishing the value of the PG&E grid in San Francisco, which the city says it needs to move forward.
The potential revenue is massive:
After costs, PG&E’s statewide, systemwide profit is about $5 billion a year. San Francisco has about ten percent of PG&E’s customers.
As a dense city, the costs of providing service are the lowest in the system. So at the very worse, San Francisco would be clearing at least $500 million in profit from a public power system; at the very worst, based on today’s rates, the interest on a $3 billion revenue bond (more than the city says the system is worth) would be less than $200 million.
So the city would get at least $300 million a year in extra revenue. That would more than pay for teacher pay equity, a lot of affordable housing, and a big chunk of the deficit.
At a certain point, the city needs to stop waiting for Newsom’s CPUC to act. Just file an eminent domain action, seize the property, and use revenue bonds to buy it. PG&E will challenge the valuation in court, but that’s going to happen anyway, not matter what the CPUC does.
It will be interesting to see what position Lurie takes on the resolution.
The full Board of Supes will vote on a measure Tuesday/10 that would give away $40 million in tax abatements to a private luxury hotel company—and that, as far as I can tell, is illegal.
Sup. Connie Chan was dubious about this deal in committee, and at her suggestion, it went to the full board without recommendation. But nobody has raised what seems to me is a critical question:
Under the Sunshine Ordinance, the city can’t give money to a private entity for a development project unless that developer gives the city, and the city makes public, all its finances—profit and loss projections, financing costs, audited financial statements, the whole deal. From Section 67.32:
The City shall give no subsidy in money, tax abatements, land, or services to any private entity unless that private entity agrees in writing to provide the City with financial projections (including profit and loss figures), and annual audited financial statements for the project thereafter, for the project upon which the subsidy is based and all such projections and financial statements shall be public records that must be disclosed.
We know the developer has given that information to the city. I have asked the Mayor’s Office, the office of sponsor Sup. Matt Dorsey, and the Mayor’s Office of Economic and Workforce Development for the data. I don’t have it.
Perhaps one of the supes will at least request that the city abide by the Sunshine Ordinance before voting to give away $40 million in taxpayer money—without the public knowing how much is needed or where it will go.
The supes will also hear a long-pending appeal of a Planning Commission decision to approve a massive new cell phone antenna in a Diamond Heights neighborhood.
The city describes the plan this way:
the installation of a new AT&T Wireless Macro Wireless Telecommunications Services (WTS) Facility on an approximately 104-foot-tall monopole located at the rear of the San Francisco Police Academy. The WTS facility will consist of twelve (12) new antennas, nine (9) new remote radio units, three (3) tower mounted DC-9 surge suppressors, one (1) GPS unit mounted on proposed outdoor equipment cabinet, one (1) walk-up cabinet, and one (1) 30kw DC generator with a 190-gallon diesel fuel tank on a concrete pad. The ancillary equipment will be surrounded by an 8′ chain link fence.”
Translation: A giant cell phone tower with a huge fuel tank, in a residential area where it’s often very windy. Wind and tall electrical facilities can spark fires—right next to a huge diesel fuel tank.
The city says the project needs no environmental impact report.
The Diamond Heights Neighborhood Association notes:
First, the Project is proposed on a site with a history of seismic activity and within a known landslide zone that is already impacted by foreign soil and infill material, creating potential landslide risks. The Project may exacerbate risks of future landslides and impact nearby structures as the required depth of digging to erect and stabilize the 104′ heavy monopole and bulky macro tower will disturb the earth in an already geographically sensitive area with a history of earth-disturbing activity. Additional analysis should be performed regarding the Project’s implications on seismic activity, potential for landslides, the state of the aquifers below the project area, and potential measures that may mitigate any seismic and landslide safety concerns. Second, the Project poses direct and significant fire risks and hazards given its proposed location in a fire-sensitive area and proximity to combustible materials. Wireless monopoles are known to carry significant fire risks and this Project specifically proposes a 190-gallon diesel fuel tank and proximity to highly combustible trees and vegetation in a location classified as an Urban Wildfire Interface risk area that further augment any inherent risk. The Project’s potential fire impacts are especially concerning in light of the Project site’s proximity to residences, businesses, Glen Canyon Park, and recreational areas.
The Planning Commission was not unanimous on this; the 4-3 vote showed that the issue of environmental review is not trivial.
Yimbys hate the California Environmental Quality Act, which can be used to delay housing development. But in this case, housing is not the issue. It’s AT&T’s profits. And AT&T is one of the most powerful political players in the state.
Planning Commissioner Teresa Imperiale noted that “this is all about the needs of AT&T.” How many supes will stand up to the telecom behemoth?
That hearing begins at 3pm.
Mayor Daniel Lurie has been awfully quiet about ICE operations in San Francisco. But that doesn’t mean ICE is staying away—and we can expect more action in the future. The lessons of Minneapolis can be something of a guide.
Former Sup. Dean Preston has put together a policy guide to how the city can protect its residents. You can read it here.
Among the key suggestions:
Mayor Lurie can issue an executive order–and the Board of Supervisors can pass legislation–directing SFPD to investigate and document alleged illegal activity by ICE agents and refer violations to the District Attorney for prosecution. This is exactly what Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson did last week.
To show they are serious, Mayor Lurie and DA Jenkins must finally break their silence about the incident on July 8 in which federal agents rammed their car into protesters. Their silence is in sharp contrast to Broadview, IL, where the mayor and police immediately announced a felony criminal investigation for a similar incident where ICE rammed an SUV into protesters.
ICE is entirely dependent on their SUVs to detain and box in protesters and move through the city. In San Francisco, we control our streets, not the feds. ICE vehicles routinely violate local laws by parking illegally, disobeying traffic laws, and using bogus plates. The City should tow ICE vehicles the minute they break the law.
City Hall should adopt an eviction ban that automatically activates when ICE surges here. We banned evictions during COVID lockdown, because displacing people in an emergency is cruel and destabilizing. People who are afraid to go to work because federal agents are terrorizing the community shouldn’t lose their homes.
Again: Noting from the Mayor’s Office.
