Solar energy is a great idea.  Charter Amendment B is not.  Just because you support solar doesn’t mean you should support this particular proposal at this particular time.  We already have a variety of state and federal programs to promote solar power.  We don’t need to add this one at this time.  Here’s why you should vote “no” on the proposed charter amendment on March 3, 2009:

1. 
   

2. 1.   How Much Will Your DWP Bill Go Up?  Are you prepared to pay $150 more per month on your DWP bill?  According to the Los Angeles Times, the “DWP has already agreed to impose increases of nearly 24% on electricity bills between 2006 and 2010,” and, according to one study, if this charter amendment passes, it could result in additional “annual surcharges of up to 12% per year.”  It may cost even more.  There is no maximum price built into the proposal.
   

3. 
   

4. Indeed, City Hall admits it cannot tell you how much this proposal would cost you. Section 23.159 of the proposal specifically calls for the DWP to figure out “any potential rate impact” within 90 days after it is adopted.  Since when do we make multi-billion-dollar commitments without knowing the price in advance -- especially in a recession?  The costs might be reasonable or unreasonable, but we just don’t know right now.  No one does.  So we should vote “no” for now on this grounds alone, and find out the cost before committing to this plan.
   

5. 
   

6. 2.   Why Give The DWP A Virtual Monopoloy On Solar Power?  Section 23.151 of the proposal states that the “solar power installations shall be installed, owned, operated and maintained by the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (DWP)” except as needed to get tax breaks. But why should we give DWP a virtual monopoly on installing, owning, operating and maintaining solar power systems?  Unlike giant power plants built to serve entire communities, solar power systems installed on rooftops lend themselves to private ownership and operation. Why not always get the best price for rate-payers by soliciting competitive bids?  Wouldn’t that be better for rate-payers and the local economy?  Of course it would.  Competitive bidding and private ownership should be the rule, not the exception.
   

7. 
   

8. 3.  Why Exclude All Other Renewable Energy Sources?  This proposal would put all of our “eggs” in the solar photovoltaic “basket.”  Indeed, it does not even allow funding for solar thermal systems.  (Section 23.153(l).)  City Hall, however, has not shown that this is the most cost-effective approach to provide renewable power for our homes and businesses.  This important decision should be based on an objective comparison of the costs and benefits of the major forms of renewable energy, including, for example, a review of the French and Japanese experience with nuclear reactors (from which those countries get approximately 75% and 30% of their electrical power, respectively), and Germany’s experience with wind power (from which that country generates over 14,000 megawatts per year).  Solar energy, moreover, may generate a tremendous amount of hazardous waste because of the materials used to make the cells.  Solar may turn out to be the best way to go, but our decision should be an informed decision, not a hasty one.
   

9. 
   

10. 4.  The Proposal Was A Politically Motivated “Rush” Job.  The Daily News says this proposal’s sponsors, i.e., Villaraigosa, Garcetti, Perry and Greuel, scrambled to put it on the ballot to tout their “green credentials” as part of their re-election campagins, and because “all have accepted campaign contributions” from the DWP union that would benefit from the monopoly it would create.
    

11. 
    

12. Likewise, Tim Rutten, of the Los Angeles Times, says the union and its consultants drafted this measure so as to guarantee more members for the union, and more fees for the consultants.  Then, Rutten says, the union “enlisted Villaraigosa’s support to bypass the DWP commissioners, who normally would have held hearings on such a proposal and passed on its merits.”
    

13. 
    

14. Haste makes waste.  With a recession in progress, we cannot afford any new wasteful multi-billion dollar government programs.  Solar may well turn out to be the best way to go, but let’s not be rushed into making a bad decision.  Vote “no” on this proposal for now, and insist that City Hall do its homework before committing us to higher DWP bills.
    

15. 
    

Text of Proposed Charter Amendment      -      Additional Background Materials

Home -  A - Fire Dept.  B - Solar   E - Subsidies  -  About

Text of Proposed Charter Amendment     -     Additional Background Materials