Help the Public Press grow — become a member today!
Propositions G and H: Defining ‘Clean’ or ‘Green’ Energy
To wrap your head around these dueling ballot measures, you need to understand CleanPowerSF, San Francisco’s forthcoming municipal utility system that breaks Pacific Gas & Electric’s monopoly on delivering electricity to city residents. To understand why this matters for the environment and ratepayers, read the “backstory,” below.
Why are they on the ballot?
After Proposition G was put on the ballot by one of PG&E’s unions, the Board of Supervisors fired back with Proposition H, which, as initially drafted, would have forced PG&E to stop applying the “green” label to nuclear energy, one of its primary power sources. Following negotiations between the board and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 1245, the two sides agreed to remove the clause that stigmatized nuclear energy and put their mutual support behind Proposition H.
CleanPowerSF will secure alternative-energy supplies by aggregating individuals’ buying power, will compete directly with PG&E and will automatically assume the utility’s San Francisco customers unless they opt out. Years in the making, the service is finally slated to launch in early 2016.
PG&E will still deliver residents’ electricity, maintain the grid, deal with power outages and handle billing, with certain charges changing hands.
Through so-called community aggregation, CleanPower SF intends to boost the amount of electricity generated from renewable sources and reduce the city’s emissions of climate-changing greenhouse gasses. The new program will seek to meet or exceed California’s Renewable Portfolio Standard, which requires that by 2020, one third of all electrical power come from “green” sources. Beyond that, the Board of Supervisors has set an ambitious 2030 goal of delivering greenhouse-gas-free electricity.
Compared with PG&E’s energy portfolio, CleanPowerSF will draw from more renewable sources without charging customers more than they currently pay, according to the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, which will be in charge of CleanPowerSF.
CleanPowerSF claims that between 33 percent and 50 percent of its “green” electricity will come from renewable sources. PG&E’s current energy mix is 27 percent renewable and projected to be roughly 31 percent by 2020.
In 2002, the state first began allowing cities and counties to shift their residents’ energy sources to different providers, which those governments could select. In accordance with the new regulations, San Francisco began forming CleanPowerSF five years later. The program faced opposition from PG&E and one of PG&E’s three unions, which worried that CleanPowerSF will siphon away customers and revenue, potentially forcing the company to shed jobs to meet profit targets. Mayor Ed Lee also initially criticized CleanPowerSF for not creating enough local jobs and for sending taxpayer dollars out of state to Shell Oil, which would supply the program with renewable energy from its own sources. Lee ultimately reversed course and backed it earlier this year, on the condition that the city contracts directly with energy providers.
PROPOSITION G: Disclosures regarding renewable energy
Proposition G attacks the “green” image of CleanPowerSF.
If passed, Proposition G would (1) change which energy sources could be called “clean,” “green” or “renewable, greenhouse-gas-free electricity,” consequently making CleanPowerSF seem less environmentally friendly; and (2) force City Hall to send San Francisco residents mailers describing CleanPowerSF’s lower “green” rating, prior to the deadline for them to opt out and stay with PG&E.
But after a compromise with the Board of Supervisros, Proposition G no longer has the support of its authors — the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 1245. Although Proposition G remains on the ballot, the union has promised to campaign against this measure.
PROPOSITION H: Defining clean, green and renewable energy
Proposition H’s sole purpose is to nullify Proposition G.
What would they do?
Both G and H must pass by simple majorities. If Proposition H gets more “yes” votes, then Proposition G would be nullified. Other than that, Proposition H would have no immediate or direct effect on existing policy, nor on the environment.
Is there a catch?
Voters who read Proposition H closely might think that, if it passed, it would force PG&E or CleanPowerSF to be “greener.” The measure specifies that those energy providers must follow the state’s laws by progressively drawing more and more of their electricity from sustainable sources like wind, solar and hydropower. But they already follow state laws, and so this aspect of the measure would have no real effect on policy, according to Tyrone Jue, communications director at the agency that will be in charge of CleanPowerSF.
Would they increase the cost of government?
Proposition H would have “a minimal impact” on the budget, according to the city controller’s estimates.
Who officially proposed them?
London Breed, president of the Board of Supervisors, and supervisors John Avalos, Scott Wiener and Julie Christensen.
Who officially opposes them?
Terence Faulkner, the former chairman of the San Francisco Republican Party.
Follow the money
We want your questions. If you’re still wondering about how propositions G and H will work or impact San Francisco, ask! Use #election2015 and our Twitter handle (@sfpublicpress) and we will do our best to get answers.
Photos by Stella Sadikin / San Francisco Public Press
2015 Nonpartisan Election Guide
All told, hundreds of millions of taxpayers dollars are on the line on the November 2015 ballot. And if this year mirrors previous off-year elections, then a minority of San Franciscans will decide the outcome. Stay tuned. A lot is at stake.
For the full guide: sfpublicpress.org/election2015
would create a fund with up to $310 million for helping people remain in, and move to, San Francisco if they otherwise could not afford to do so.
would increase paid parental leave for qualified city government workers.
would require more people to register as official lobbyists, potentially increasing transparency in government.
would make it possible for the Mission Rock waterfront development to move forward in the Mission Bay neighborhood.
would give members of the public more access to, and control over, the meetings of San Francisco government’s “policy bodies,” which direct City Hall’s agendas.
would actively regulate the city’s short-term rental industry, much of which currently operates outside of City Hall’s knowledge and control.
would either restrict the defintion of “clean” or “green” energy (G) or nullify that restriction (H).
would suspend nearly all housing construction, demolition or conversion in the Mission District for 18 months to give politicians time to create a long-term plan for helping low- to middle-income people who live in the neighborhood.
would help longtime businesses continue operating in San Francisco.
aims to make it easier for developers to build affordable housing using city-owned land.
Three candidates are vying for the District 3 supervisorial seat on Nov. 3.
Mayor Ed Lee is running for a second four-year term and is likely to be re-elected, but is being challenged by five eclectic political newcomers.
Incumbent Ross Mirkarimi faces challenges from two candidates with experience in the department.
The city attorney, district attorney and treasurer are all running unopposed.
Four candidates square off to lead City College of San Francisco through a rocky transition.