No word of that cost increase in the Guardian editorial. On the contrary, that paper's editors, relying on their own calculations, speak of CCA resulting in "price breaks" and a "reduced cost" of electricity.
Just as significantly, the editorial lies by omission. As the Guardian notes, PG&E is now trying to nip CCA in the
bud with a statewide ballot measure requiring a two-thirds local vote
to enact the program. But nowhere is it mentioned that CCA is already facing serious problems in its own right. As we reported here less than two weeks ago, the city officials tasked with implementing CleanPowerSF are asking permission to back off its aggressive goals for clean and local energy.
Mike Campbell, the Public Utilities Commission official directing the program, said he doubts a single bidder would apply for the contract based on the city's current requirements. Yet Ross Mirkarimi, the greatest public power advocate on the Board of Supervisors, said he worries that watering down CCA's goals could lead to a program "almost completely unrecognizable" compared to what advocates had intended.
Whatever your stance on CCA, these are valid concerns and important news developments. Just don't expect to read about them in the Guardian, which once again has chosen to ignore facts marshaled by those on the other side of the political divide.
Image | Courtesy SFPUC
