Candidate for
Director; Proposed San Francisco-Brisbane Municipal Utility District; Ward 2

I'm running for MUD director because competence matters.

While most candidates are running on ideological platforms, the fundamental ideological question - whether to have a MUD - will be decided by the voters on November 6. If MUD passes, it is critical that it have directors who understand the legal, financial and operational tasks that lie ahead. I'm running because I have the experience and expertise to ensure that San Francisco achieves the lowest cost power that is reliable and environmentally sound. That's why I've won the endorsement of every mainstream non-partisan group that has endorsed in this race - both those that have endorsed MUD and those that are opposed to it - because all agree that competent leadership is critical to making the MUD a success should San Franciscans decide to pursue it.

That said, there are some ideological issues the MUD board will have to tackle. Here's where I stand:

• Passage of MUD is a voter mandate for public power. I'll move immediately to initiate the acquisition of PG&E's distribution assets through eminent domain and use my legal and financial experience to achieve the best terms possible for the MUD; I'll ensure that voters are presented with a full and thoughtful analysis of the pros and cons before they vote to approve the takeover as required by state statute.

• I'll move to invest in expanded transmission capacity, to eliminate the bottleneck that currently requires that much of San Francisco's energy needs be generated in our city. This makes tremendous sense both from an environmental perspective and from a financial perspective.

Financial: By giving ourselves the option of buying power from producers outside of San Francisco, we are able to take advantage of the impending glut (the result of a number of new plants coming on line) that forecasters project for the California power market. I believe that that glut may make it more cost-effective for us to pit private sector producers against one another and purchase power through long-term contracts, than for us to build new generating capacity to own ourselves. (As with much else, my approach in assessing the alternatives will be a pragmatic, rather than ideological one - I'll evaluate the bottom-line cost and pursue whichever solution achieves lowest cost for our city.)

• The combination of high natural gas prices and substantial government subsidies make wind power cost-effective as well as environmentally friendly. I believe in pursuing such win/win opportunities whenever they present themselves.

• Even though MUD's powers are much broader than electricity - encompassing, for instance, telephone service, cable TV, and sanitation, to name just a few - I don't believe most voters are even aware of these powers, let alone that their approval of MUD reflects desire for the MUD to supplant the private sector in these fields. I'll oppose any move to take over these assets without a separate vote of the people.