The issue that San Diegans should have the right to vote on creating a municipal utility — even if the idea is not good — is reverberating around our fair city. And reporter Paul Krueger is promoting this view.
Just yesterday, June 13, Krueger’s letter to the editor in the San Diego U-T was published. He had written it in response to their article, entitled,”San Diego City Council shoots down effort to put municipal utility on the November ballot” published on the 11th.
Here’s his letter, followed by a statement from Power San Diego, the group that wants to fire SDG&E.
I don’t trust our mayor and city council to oversee a municipal utility, and would vote “no ” on a ballot measure to oust SDG&E and establish a government utility.
But I strongly support putting this issue before taxpayers and letting them express their opinion at the ballot box. In rejecting San Diego Power’s request for ballot status, council members criticized SDG&E’s profit margins and its supposed deference to shareholders. But those comments were a charade.
When it came time to vote, they unanimously rejected this very legitimate request to place the issue on the November ballot.
In doing so, they sided with two very powerful special interests: labor unions and the investor-owned utility. Labor and SDG&E have the political connections, well-paid lobbyists, influence at City Hall, and — most importantly — the money that helps elect and keep our mayor and council in office.
That outsized power is bad for democracy.
— Paul Krueger, Talmadge
Statement from Power San Diego
City Council Supports SDGE Rate Increases
The San Diego City Council rejected placing the Power San Diego municipal electric distribution utility ballot initiative on the November 2024 ballot by a vote of 8 to 0. In effect, the San Diego City Council voted to endorse planned SDGE rate increases of an additional 40% in the next four years – despite the fact that we already have the highest rates in the nation. If your bill is currently $300 now, in four years it will be $420. “This was a lost opportunity for the City Council to support the needs of San Diegans over those of the corporate giant,” opined Bill Powers, campaign chair of Power San Diego.
In response to Power San Diego collecting the signatures of 3% of the registered voters in the City of San Diego, the Council was required to take action on whether or not to adopt the Power San Diego not-for-profit electricity distribution utility alternative that would replace SDG&E – or to place it on the November ballot for voters to choose.
The Council members voted to endorse the SDG&E status quo instead of supporting the only viable option to reduce rates – or even allow the public to vote on it. The proposed not-for-profit electric distribution utility would immediately reduce electricity rates by at least 20%.
Meanwhile, as of 2024, SDG&E had 26.7% of its residential customer accounts past due for more than one month with an average debt of $704. This is more than 150,000 residents who already cannot afford the rising cost of living.
What is this council’s response: to withhold the voter’s option to even voice their opinion on a matter that touches every one of us.
The Power San Diego campaign is an initiative launched by customers, union supporters, experts and a growing number of environmental and community groups. The campaign encourages utility customers in the City to visit its website, https://wearepowersandiego.com/, to learn how they can support this campaign to replace SDGE and create a not-for-profit electric distribution utility in our community.
Despite whatever excuse, Power had the opportunity to gather the signatures required, without needing the city to acquiesce to 3% of registered voters. Had Power done more to promote how the entity would run, it could have helped them garner more signatures. The city had already turned them down twice. 10% of signatures for a ballot measure is a fair amount. In the meantime, the city is still wasting money doing another study.
Power would have carved a hole in the SDG&E area. After buying the assets with billions in a bond measure, they would spend up to a year, identifying land to purchase (see homeless shelter boondoggle), to then use for battery and solar storage (it’s in the initiative). It’s this system, they believe in conjunction with conservation, that would allow them to sell extra capacity. What is the size/cost of this system? What was the plan say, in a weeks worth of rain, when nobody is producing to the grid, for example?
What were those potential costs, and where would the energy come from while this system is being constructed? After all, 1.5 billion converting toilet water is several years away for example. Additionally what would have also been the costs associated with Power people becoming city employees?
The oversight board would have been members selected by the mayor and council, and the expertise required would have had little to do with running a public utility (see the initiative).
Power advertised savings from the elimination of profit. They made no promises to reduce kWh. They compared themselves with other municipal utilities, that had lower rates. Those utilities have been running for many years. Sacramento for example started producing power in 1946, after a 23 year battle with PG&E. But even their portfolio is a mix of nat gas, hydro, and most recently solar, which is easier to adapt to changing weather patterns.
There comes a time where you have to stop crying about the spilled milk, mop it up, and move on.
Many of us do not think it was a good idea but that was not the point at all. The point was that the council was faced with 20,000 San Diegan signatures wanting this on the ballot. They had the power to do that, the council does not need the maximum number of signatures to put something on the ballot. The people in the city should have been allowed to decide.
As by my first paragraph, I respectfully disagree, that if 2.5%-3% of registered voters were allowed to direct a ballot measure, we’d have much more crap on the ballot then necessary. A be careful what you wish for. This was a knee jerk emotional ploy without enough substance by Power. If there’s a more informative operational plan that evolves, then it can be revisited and get the signatures without the city and would likely stand a better chance. Todd’s done (and is trying to do) enough bad land management already. My personal question to you, and others is, did you sign the initiative? To say, I want this on the ballot to say no and play devil’s advocate?
I’ll go ahead respectfully and say the quiet part out loud. If you wanted to vote on the initiative this fall, but personally didn’t sign it, not helping to get numbers to the council, then I don’t think criticism, by those people, about the council’s action is valid IMO.
So, how do you know who signed the petition and who did not? And, the issue is not what was on the petition, the issue is that put politicians can ignore 20,000 people who wanted it on the ballot. What possible reason is there for not voting to put it on the ballot? How would a public vote have affected any of those nine councilmembers negatively? No, the issue here is politicians voting as their financial supporters want, not how the regular citizens want them to vote.
You ignored my question. Did you sign the initiative? And if not, then why is your criticism about not getting to vote on it valid? And if you did, then why would you take the chance something would pass when you didn’t believe in it?
I did not ignore your question, I didn’t answer because it was not relevant. That said, read my comment below that says what I did. And to your last question, I am not a dictator and I do not consider myself to be a person who should speak for an entire city. I believe fervently in citizens having a voice whether I agree or not.
97% had a voice (or should I say, 780,000 people) and did not make that choice. The city did what 97% chose, not to support the initiative (for the third time). Why should they have to put up with what 3% wanted? When is no good enough? Regardless of anyone’s speculative intentions or motives you want to attach to this.
Oh come on, is that a serious comment? Are you saying the proponents contacted 780,000 people and only got 20,000 signatures?
“Why should they have to put up with what 3% wanted?” Really? 20,000 is a big ass number of people. All the council had to do was agree to put it on the ballot, nothing else was required. If 780,000 didn’t want it, then let them say so at the ballot box.
How many are we to believe of the 20,000 that were bad faith actors wanting to waste time, space, money, and effort, for grins and giggles, just to put something on the ballot they didn’t believe in? All you’ve proven is that the city did the right thing. Keep that in mind when complaining about frivolous city expenditures.
780,000 decided to not support the initiative and didn’t sign it. Pretty simple. It shouldn’t go any further.
This was one of the starkest examples of how deaf the city is to the people who live here. There were not just a few proponents at the meting, there were more than 20,000 and the council ignored all of them. And when they want something on the ballot, they ignore any opposition to that.
This city government needs fixing. Councilmembers make a good living these days compared to the past. That makes them all vulnerable. I think there should be a recall campaign in every district.
As much as I don’t like the mayor, the council, and SDG&E, I believe when looking at what details, are in the initiative, that are available, this council being deaf, actually did everybody a favor here. There are too many questions, and you only get to do this right once, and not enough answers from the Power side. They’ve not replied with any of my questions FWIW.
If I had talked with Bill Powers at the Power SD campaign before — instead of after – I wrote my letter to the UT editor, I would have phrased it differently.
I would have said “I’m inclined to vote against ousting SDG&E” instead of just rejecting the proposal.
Yesterday was the first time I had the pleasure to talk with Bill, and I was very impressed with his knowledge of — and insight on — the issues of utility regulation, rates, and the pros and cons of investor vs. rate payer- owned utilities.
We also share a mutual distain of — and anger at — our elected officials (most notably Council President Sean Elo-Rivera who say one thing in the discussions leading up to vote but then abandon all they’ve said and cast a vote that’s totally contrary their “Power To The People” rhetoric.
Real change will only happen at the ballot box, and that means doing all we can to defeat Elo-Rivera, Steve Whitburn, and Mayor Todd Gloria in November.
Remove Elo-Rivera, Whitburn, Campbell and Gloria.
Maybe we don’t want to go to the party but it would be nice to at least be asked.
I’m getting tired of our electeds circumventing and not wanting to listen to their constituents. When did we elect demigods? Let the people vote!
Geoff, I generally agree with what you are saying, but I’m reminded of the petition signature gatherer who told me I should sign a petition for the creation of a public utility, which I opposed due to the incompetence of our city government, so that the “people” could decide.
I remind everyone that the “people” decided Donald Trump should be president. A bad choice is a bad choice, period, full stop.
Point well taken, Paul. I did sign the petition even though I hold the same opinion as you do about how this would actually be managed. But, I knew I could either vote against it or not vote on it if it made it on the ballot.
I thought this was something people should vote on because it would put the issue out there for a lot of attention and thought. This iteration may not have been good enough, but perhaps some better specifics would have been learned for a later effort.
My other reason was to put a scare into SDG&E. This utility needs reigning in and a loss of revenue is what frightens them the most. If the ballot measure failed, but garnered a big vote, I think SDG&E would be looking at changes to be able to look better when the issue came back on the ballot.
So by signing the petition, you make the assumption 97% of registered voters were not giving more attention and thought by not signing the petition? How presumptuous of you!
Maybe Power needs to think of what changes they should make instead?
This really smacks of what MAGA’s do. Slam unnecessary crap down people’s throats to have to stop and deal with by playing whack-a-mole politics. Thank you!
I’m beginning to wonder if you work for SDG&E or if you hold a bunch of their stock.