A NO vote will send a strong message to state legislators that they cannot unilaterally divest San Francisco of its infrastructure assets.

A NO vote on A, D, and E will also mean that finally the PUC will be forced to develop a "real" long-term strategy with full public input.

San Francisco owns and operates the Hetch Hetchy system. Hetch Hetchy supplies San Franciscans with water and wastewater services and sells water to 29 wholesalers (i.e., municipal water companies) for redistribution to their suburban retail customers. The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (PUC) manages the system.

The PUC is a self-regulating multi-service utility (power, water, and wastewater) that provides electric power to two irrigation districts, City customers, and some private entities. The power comes from Hetch Hetchy hydro-generation and aggregation (bulk purchases of power).

The city charter permits San Francisco to sell electricity to both public and private customers. The PUC collects rate-revenues from the City and the 29 wholesale customers to cover system costs. In turn, voters must approve capital improvement program (CIP) revenue bonds issued by the PUC for the entire system that are then repaid by rate increases collected from both the city and 29 suburban wholesale customers. The wholesale customers pass on Hetch Hetchy increases to their retail customers in the form of cost of service components, which include a return on investment (profit in the private sector) to the wholesalers.

Wholesalers continue to benefit greatly from San Francisco's investment in the system. Now they want to take it over for FREE in order to ensure and enhance their own 29 sub-system investments. The PUC has historically operated, consistent with other similar type California municipal enterprises, without managerial meddling from the state.

Proposition D will not only create another municipal power authority with exclusive monopoly service area rights, but will vest this new proposed authority with broad powers for financing and building a city/regional owned energy utility system charged with providing uninterrupted power. We have a municipal power system - Hetch Hetchy Division of the PUC. We don't need another. Have the existing system expand its sales of public power to all sectors. Compete ("creeping municipalization") versus another bureaucratic morass without experience or a plan.

Clearly the 29 suburban wholesalers through effective legislative lobbying by their trade organization - Bay Area Water Users Association (BAWUA) - envision a regional system with managerial and financial control passing to peninsula politicians and their city collaborators.

The governor recently signed SB1870, AB1823, and AB2058. These bills permit suburban customers to create a new Peninsula Funding Authority based on San Francisco's Hetch Hetchy assets. Among most California cities, the state singles out San Francisco for specific legislative oversight measures (with draconian outcomes) that significantly dilute our ownership and managerial prerogatives, while ceding to BAWUA a dominant say in the operation of the Hetch Hetchy system. The system we bought and paid for is being ceded by decree!

Propositions A, D, and E reverses the right of SF voters to issue revenue bonds (Charter Section 9.107). Proposition A divests voters by allowing the PUC and suburban customers to borrow from the proposed Peninsula Funding Authority. This Authority was created by the legislature to issue debt on our Hetch Hetchy assets without voter approval and to give the illusion that some of the debt has been shifted to suburban customers. In reality, this is basically a zero sum shell game!

By artificially dichotomizing the huge debt between the suburbs ($2 billion) and the City ($1.6 billion) for a CIP that does not have a viable plan, the politicians have ensured that they will have authority to issue debt for years to come.

Propositions D and E both specifically target the oversight provisions of Section 9.107 which permit voters to approve or disapprove of utility revenue bonds. To maintain voter rights over debt issuance - you must vote no on A, D, and E.

Proposition D enables this proposed power authority to issue revenue bonds without voter approval including joint power sharing agreements, rights to buy and build power and transmission systems, and negates the right of the Board to review contracts in excess of $1 million (Section 9.118 City Charter - Contract and lease Limitations). Also, Proposition D mandates that 25% of load must come from renewable sources. A name change or mandated supply portfolio do not guarantee the availability of lower cost and reliable power.

Proposition E like D, will not only take away voter’s rights on revenue bonds but will strip the Board of Supervisors of oversight on water contracts. This fact cannot be uncoupled from the reality that in 2009 the "master contract" for the 29 water wholesalers with the PUC is up for renewal.

Water rates for both the city and wholesalers will increase by multiples of 3 or more. These increases will be passed on to you. Without a "real" plan it is impossible to quantify within reasonable limits exactly what this will cost the consumer. Power rates? Difficult to predict. Depends on what facilities they purchase and how efficiently this new power authority operates. Without real plans - just propagandized qualitative statements - bottom line costs to consumers are impossible to project.

Another potential rate hike looms in the form of approximately $1billion SF sewer improvement plan. This program was removed from November's ballot because plans were allegedly not finalized. Many believe it was held back to see if Charter Section 9.107 (voter approval on revenue bonds) was overturned via the mechanisms of A, D, or E. With one or all winning, it would be easy to pass through another billion dollars by political versus voter acquiescence.

Defeat of Proposition A, D and E will result in the Mayor’s Infrastructure Task Force Plan finally being considered by the PUC. This plan will initially call for a $800 million bond measure based on current estimates for priority infrastructure projects and the PUC's ability to plan and implement CIP projects on time and on cost. The Task Force demand for the development of a long-term strategic plan (LTSP) will be mandated in the bond measure and will be developed with full public participation and within a relatively short timeframe.

This $800 million bond measure mandates that progress be reported at regular intervals and that an oversight mechanism ensuring accountability be set in place. Task Force members believe that with planning milestones being met on time and on cost the citizens of San Francisco would uphold their time-honored practice of granting revenue-bonding authority to the PUC. Accountability and the hiring of key people with resumes matching job descriptions would be pivotal to this plan.

This $800 million bond measure would mandate that all Hetch Hetchy contracts be revisited and that where possible public power be immediately made available to the private sector as a viable alternative for San Francisco residents.

These Taskforce members believe that the discriminatory "San Francisco only" legislation aimed to dispossess us of our Hetch Hetchy system must be challenged on constitutional grounds ASAP. Hetch Hetchy must remain with San Francisco. We do agree that a leaner, meaner, more responsive business model must replace the politicized entity now running our system.

Vote NO on propositions A, D, and E.