Solar Energy Proposal: Higher Rates, No Planning

Ballot Measure B called City Hall power grab

By Katharine Russ
Originally printed in The North Valley Reporter

The Measure adopted by the City Council on November 7, 2008 to be placed on the Ballot on March 3, 2008 as the “Green Energy/Good Jobs Act (Measure B/Prop B)” has little to do with solar energy. The City’s Charter prohibits amendments to the Charter without a vote of the people. Measure B would give City Officials the right to make changes with only a 2/3 vote of the City Council.

Built in to Measure B is a Charter Amendment that will, for the first time in the City's history, give control over DWP's business operations to the politicians. So far, the City hasn’t offered a solar plan. Measure B Section 23.157(a) states, “The (DWP) Board shall present the plan to the Council/Mayor within 90 days” if ballot measure passes.

Noel Weiss, Candidate for City Attorney, successfully defended the people against the proponents' effort to ‘chill free speech’ and convinced the Judge to reject the Schwartz suit. Weiss said, “When the Mayor and Council start dictating to the DWP which business decisions they should make, the ability of the DWP Board to keep rates low, make good business decisions, and otherwise run the Department is adversely impacted. This is a very, very dangerous precedent. Once this bad precedent is set, it will open the door to other potential abuses by the Mayor and Council. The costs have not been evaluated, the legal liabilities have not been evaluated, the revenues are unknown, and the profitability of the entire enterprise is completely up in the air.”

Opponents say the driving force behind Measure B is the IBEW- the union representing DWP employees. Measure B would insure all the solar panels be owned by the DWP, installed and maintained by the utility’s workers, thereby excluding participation from the solar industry and the labor community. Section 23.161 of ordinance illustrates this, “Consistent with Section 675 of the Charter, the Board (DWP) shall have the power and duty to acquire, provide for, construct, extend, maintain, and operate all solar power asset improvements.” Sec. 23.164 is broad, calling for the promulgation of regulations that address the transfer or sale of a customer’s property if solar installations are rendered inoperable but ‘B’ does not explain what regulations might be enacted or why. “Regulations” usually translate into “fee’s” and “fee’s” are, potentially, passed to ratepayers.

Mayor Villaraigosa’s plan touts “the creation of good jobs, and promises to strengthen Los Angeles’ economy, protect ratepayers, make L.A. a Center for Solar technology” but, in contrast, would end up costing ratepayers billions of dollars. Measure B calls for 400 megawatts (MW) of solar power by December 31, 2014- an improbable feat as some estimates project a $7 million dollar per MW price tag. Over the past several years, the DWP has only been able to produce 12 MW after promising 100 MW.

‘B’ does not address how many long-term and short-term “green” jobs are going to be created by a solar plan. Villaraigosa’s plan says that every 10 megawatt (MW) of solar can create 200 to 400 jobs, and projects the opportunity for “green collar’ jobs to be substantial.

Yet ‘Yes on B’ campaign manager, Michael Trujillo said at the Saving LA Project (SLAP) meeting January 3 that the DWP would import electrical workers from New Mexico and Arizona for installations if the DWP could not train enough people locally to do the work. Where is the long- term benefit under the guise of “green collar” work if the City imports labor from other states and exports payments for solar cells to China?

Nick Patsaouras, past president of the DWP, now a candidate for Controller, said in Court documents, “There is no provision under the Charter for the City Council or the Mayor to micro-manage the DWP’s operations or issue specific mandates with regard to how and under what circumstances the DWP chooses to initiate a particular program. The fact that such a protocol was even contemplated would and should have been part of an extended public discussion before the Board itself. However, that did not occur in this instance. Given the fact that the City Council had to act by November 7, 2008, in order to meet the deadline to put a Charter Amendment and Ordinance before the voters, it was simply not possible for the Board to have the kind of public hearings necessary to consider such a far- reaching proposal and mandate as is contemplated by the Council and the Mayor.”

Patsaouras also remarked that the Department, on its own, had established a solar program designed to provide financial incentives to customers who install solar panels. He said programs to install solar panels on City buildings and other structures at a $270 million dollar cost (through 2017) required no Charter Amendment.

The plan to “silence” opposition to Measure B came to a halt December 8, when Superior Court Judge David P.Yaffe tossed out all but one count of the suit filed by Mitchell Schwartz, a political strategist, who has worked for Villaraigosa on past projects. His attorney, Stephen Kaufman, treasurer of the ‘Yes on B’ campaign and attorney/treasurer for Villaraigosa told the LA Times he had asked Schwartz, the only Plaintiff, to join the lawsuit. Yet Kaufman says, “A broad coalition of environmental, labor and health advocates supporting Proposition B made the decision to challenge the opposition's ballot argument to ensure that voters are presented with accurate information about the measure.” Who are these organizations? Kaufman’s client list also includes: Rocky Delgadillo, City Attorney, Eric Garcetti, Council President, Wendy Greuel, Janice Hahn, Jose Huizar, Jan Perry, Bill Rosendahl and Greig Smith- City Councilmembers who voted to approve Prop B.

Ron Kaye, Chairman of SLAP, one of the defendants, said, “Measure B is a charter reform measure that destroys all safeguards against corruption and public oversight by giving the mayor and City Council the ability to revise the plan at any time, in any way, and channel billions of dollars in public money to the special interests that fund their campaigns.”

Chief Legislative Analyst, Gerry Miller, asked by Garcetti to contact PA Consulting Group, who currently has a 5-year contract with the DWP, to provide their views on a DWP owned solar rooftop initiative. Their 26-page report cited “DWP’s critical lack of skills in strategic planning, financial analysis, and complex project management.” The report went on to say, “Given the relatively immature state of this initiative, the risk of failure, significant cost overruns and technology issues is high.” Their report was concealed from the Council by Garcetti until late December, markedly, after the November vote.

Four weeks remain until the election and the second report, this time, from Huron Consulting Group, promised in January by DWP General Manager H. David Nahai has yet to come. Will there really be enough time for “meaningful” dialect on this Measure before the March election?

Patsaouris appealed to the public in his op-ed just three weeks ago, “Let's go back to the drawing board and come up with a renewable energy plan that makes fiscal sense and common sense, that protects ratepayers from catastrophic increases in their bills and delivers what we all want- a renewable energy program that we can afford, that is well-planned and managed and makes Los Angeles the center of a thriving clean energy industry.” Does Measure B do this?

On March 3, voters will decide the merits of wrapping a City Charter Amendment around a solar energy plan that does not exist and without an environmental review under CEQA despite the fact that its provisions have clear environmental implications.