Comment on this post

We Can Defeat Measure B: Top 10 Reasons to Vote NO

Editor’s Note: Listen to the Measure B today on KPCC’s Air Talk with Larry Mantle as Councilman Bill Rosendahl and I debate how to get solar energy in L.A. at the best price in the fastest time. Click on Air Talk or click here (airtalk.mp3 ).

We’re in the final days of a long political campaignmantle-airtalk.jpg that has seen community activists from Neighborhood Councils, residents groups, business and labor come together to try to defeat Measure B so we can finally get a solar energy — and not more hot air from City Hall and the DWP.

Even the mayor’s own polls show us within striking distance of pulling off a stunning upset to stop a phony proposal that is nothing more than a blank check to the people who have failed to deliver on promise after promise to deliver green energy and good jobs to Los Angeles.

They know their campaign is in trouble against all odds since there is nearly 100 percent support for solar energy but nearly everyone who actually listens to a discussion of their pie-in-the-sky promises and hears what’s wrong with Measure B as process and policy comes to the same conclusion: Let’s go back to the drawing boards and come up with a better plan than the drawn up in back room deals by insiders who only want to serve their own interests.

Measure B has become the hot button issue of this campaign because it is so seriously flawed that its supporters have only one argument: Solar energy at any price.

The truth is the solar industry, unions, business, the community and everyone else with a stake in the city’s future could come up with a better clean energy program well before the June 3 deadline the DWP has if Measure B passes to actually develop the plan it should have developed years ago.

Larry Mantle on KPCC’s Air Talk revisited the Measure B debate today inviting Brian D’Arcy who heads the DWP’s union, the IBEW, but he backed out. Councilman Bill Rosendahl who ardently supported Measure B, then decided he wasn’t sure and then decided he was for it again, took his place and discussed the issue with me but hung up early for what he said was important business in the City Council chamber. Listen to the show here (airtalk.mp3).

And here’s the Top 10 Reasons to Vote NO on Measure B from the VoteNoMeasureB website:

10) The success of Measure B depends on tax credits and depreciation
schemes that were “listed” by the IRS on October of ’08. In other
words, the plan’s success depends on “tax shelters” that are hardly
attractive to billion dollar investors.

9) The
number of DWP customers having their utilities disconnected for failure
to pay is at an all-time high. These are tough times economically for
everybody. Can we afford rate increases?

8) The DWP
commissioned the Huron report, (favorable to Measure B) while
dismissing the PA Consulting report (unfavorable to Measure B) all the
while ignoring their own DWP report that supports the unfavorable
findings of the PA Consulting report.

7)
Suggestions that a multi-billion dollar program can be implemented with
only a $1 a month impact on the average customer requires us to accept
that the $20 million a year would somehow service the debt. This is
simply bad math.

6) The DWP’s most recent hiring
authorization resulted in 1000 jobs of which 76% remain unfilled. If
the DWP has so many open spots, why the suggestion that Measure B is
necessary for the creation of good jobs? It appears they have
difficulty filling the current openings.

5) With 5
other solar-certified unions standing by and ready to work, the
exclusive relationship with one union hardly seems like the most cost
effective approach to maintaining a competitive labor expense for the
proposed plan.

4) Suggestions by DWP management
that Measure B is necessary in order to lock in the plan through
transitions in City leadership are contradicted by reality. Measure B
actually allows the City Council to make revisions to the plan without
coming back to the people of Los Angeles. City Charter be damned!

3)
Measure B does absolutely nothing to replace any of the fossil fuel
power generation plants now operating and any claims that Measure B
will reduce the air pollution in Los Angeles are simply false.

2)
33 Neighborhood Councils stand in opposition to Measure B and are
joined by the LA County Republicans, the Progressive Democrats,
Chambers of Commerce, Unions, City Leadership and Political Candidates
and our City’s Watchdog, Controller Laura Chick who says “I will be
voting NO on Measure B, because I think the entire process of how it
ended up on the ballot stinks. I don’t think it’s been done in an open
and understandable, much less thoughtful, way.”

1) Measure B is a 3 Billion Dollar Boondoggle!

This entry was posted in Los Angeles, Solar Energy. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to We Can Defeat Measure B: Top 10 Reasons to Vote NO

  1. Anonymous says:

    HTTP://WWW.LATIMES.COM/NEWS/OPINION/EDITORIALS/LA-ED-MEASUREB26-2009FEB26,0,2365192.STORY
    ENDORSEMENTS
    Vote no on Charter Amendment B
    The proposed charter amendment and ordinance proposition is less about solar energy than it is a grab for political power.
    February 26, 2009
    Set aside, for a moment, the secretive and rushed process to get the March 3 solar power charter amendment commonly known as Measure B on the ballot, the disingenuous campaign for it and the outrageous attempts to make voters equate this measure with the city’s entire solar energy program. The question The Times sought to answer in the weeks it has examined the measure was whether, if passed, it would leave Los Angeles and its residents better off than they would be without it.
    We conclude that it would not, and that it would in fact undermine both the city’s solar energy efforts and its political oversight and accountability. The Times urges a no vote on Measure B.
    Let’s start with some basics. First, despite false claims you’ll read in ballot arguments and see on the city’s cable channel, the solar power to be created under the program would not hasten the shutdown of any coal plant or otherwise replace the fossil fuel burning that generates the city’s electric power. It would generate power only when the sun is shining, and although there is nothing wrong with that, that “peaking power” would supplement, but could never replace, the noxious coal burning that has long made the city’s energy so inexpensive. Department of Water and Power officials acknowledge that.
    Second, the warring “studies” on the cost to ratepayers are inconclusive, no matter how the campaigns try to spin them. Sunshine is free, but converting it to usable electricity is not. DWP and union officials acknowledge that solar power will likely never be as cheap as coal is today. But it’s equally true that the cost of burning coal will soon rise to reflect its effect on the environment. The most straightforward statement on costs comes in the financial impact statement in your ballot, which notes that the DWP would draft (and the City Council would approve or modify) an implementation plan, and until then, “the specific costs and financial benefits of the program cannot be determined.”
    And third: Much of what Measure B promises to deliver is good; The Times wants it, and Los Angeles needs it. A program to produce at least 400 megawatts of power from the sunshinethat beats down on the city’s rooftops makes perfect sense, and the DWP should get moving on such a program. There’s also nothing wrong with trying to make the city the capital of solar power generation and manufacturing, or with trying to create new solar-related jobs.
    But here’s the problem: Los Angeles can do all of those things without Measure B. In fact, the DWP is already working on programs to generate about 900 megawatts of solar power, and it didn’t stop to ask voter permission. It should do the same with the 400 megawatts of in-basin rooftop energy.
    So it ought to make voters wonder: Why is Measure B on the ballot, if it’s not needed to produce the energy? Proponents say they’re acting out of concern for full disclosure and transparency. That’s simply laughable.
    Something else is going on here. It’s a grab for power — the political kind, not the solar stuff — by the City Council and the union that represents DWP workers. That might be OK if it got the city its best possible solar program, but it doesn’t. Measure B doesn’t even make clear what the city’s solar program will be. It simply sets a goal, requires the DWP to create a plan, then allows the City Council to adopt it or not, as it sees fit.
    The important parts are not in the ballot arguments or the campaign literature. Measure B, if passed, would transfer oversight of in-basin solar power from a five-member commission, with at least a modicum of political independence, to the City Council. But because the measure would allow the council to change or suspend everything that’s in it, the council’s new authority would not be accompanied by new accountability.
    On the contrary, this measure would give the council sweeping political cover. If it’s in the council’s interest to proceed with the plan, it can claim voters told them to do it. If it’s in the council’s interest to stop well short of the 400 megawatts the voters think they’re getting, they can claim voters told them to do it.
    Meanwhile, instead of having guaranteed themselves 400 megawatts of in-basin solar power, voters, perhaps unwittingly, will have waded into the middle of an ongoing policy battle over whether private enterprise could make solar energy production more efficient by being allowed to sell or distribute excess energy. Measure B would eliminate much of the private role. In so doing, it would protect the city’s utility and its union jobs, and that’s not necessarily a bad thing — but it’s not what most voters believe they have been asked to decide.
    This is an extraordinarily bad way to make policy, and it is becoming typical of the way Los Angeles operates — though Measure B breaks new ground in hiding the truth from the public. It’s a City Hall measure presented as though it were a voter-sponsored initiative to demand that city leaders take some particular action. In fact, it’s the city leaders who crafted this measure, supposedly to instruct themselves to do something, but in fact to get preemptive absolution from the electorate.
    Los Angeles can have smart solar power without a deceptive and rushed charter amendment. The Times urges voters to reject this cynical attempt to manipulate the policymaking process. Vote no on Measure B.

  2. Anonymous says:

    has anybody bothered to check out so.cal.edison’s solar plan? i heard about it yesterday and it sounds cheaper and more sensible.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>