Renewable energy—energy from sources that are replenished even as we use them—is a good, environmentally sound idea. The notion that we can power our society through wind-, solar-, hydro-, biomass- and geothermal-based power is neither new nor unfeasible. Rather, it is a matter of economics and scale: can renewable (“green”) energy provide enough power at a practical cost and on a large-enough basis so that it can significantly cut into our use of coal and gas-fired generators?

It is all well and good to denigrate coal and gas as non-renewable (fossil) energy sources that, ultimately, are limited in supply (and, in the case of coal, is somewhat environmentally unsound). But in today’s vastly powered society, especially here in greater Los Angeles, if “green” energy cannot now power more than a few homes, small commercial buildings or selected pilot projects, it is impractical as a replacement source to coal and gas. If users cannot be sure that renewable-source energy will always be there, at an affordable price, then, for now, it is a relatively unreliable supply of power.

We fully support an expanded, rational “green” power policy that is owned and operated by DWP. But we don’t see the value of renewable power just for the sake of being able to brag that we have it, that we are “environmentally correct.”; “green” power must be amply available, affordable and reliable—just like non-renewable sources are at this time.

The Economics of Selling A Coal-Fired Plant

Local 18 endorsed DWP’s proposal to sell the Mojave coal-fired plant (co-owned with SCE) in 2001, in order to use that money to re-power in-basin gas-fired facilities, which burn more cleanly. The City of Los Angeles, however, arguing that it could sell energy around the state at a nice profit, dragged its feet and ultimately sold only half of its share in the plant, leaving us with a 10% ownership position.

Now, it turns out, Edison wants to shut down the Mojave plant because it is leeching into the underground water supply there and causing a severe environmental problem, which could escalate into a disaster.

Clearly, non-renewable energy vs. “green” sources is a double-edged sword: on one hand, there are many coal- and even gas-fired power plants that pose real environmental problems. On the other hand, there’s that on-going bugaboo of renewable energy not yet being widely available, affordable and reliable.

Again, we fully support increased use of “green” power and the construction of appropriate power facilities as long as they are union-built and operated (by us).

DWP and Renewable Energy

The Los Angeles Department of Water & Power has unfairly been criticized as the “dirtiest utility in the country.” Critics are not referring to dusty windshields on our vehicles, rusting facilities and unsanitary rest rooms, either. They’re saying that DWP relies too heavily on environmentally unsound coal-fired plants and gas-fired (cleaner, but still not renewable) facilities. Let’s look more closely at these charges.

First, DWP relies disproportionately on non-renewable energy because it has the responsibility to serve millions of customers with reliable and affordable energy, and these sources are the only proven ones as of today (and let’s not forget that nuclear power has its own set of problems).

Second, the Department has been using far more “green” power that is realized by its critics. The goal is to have renewable energy comprise 20% of our power supply. In fact, if DWP were credited with its extensive use of renewable hydro-based power, then it is already using far more “green” power than the 2.2% that is “officially” acknowledged. We have absolutely no problem with aiming for—and attaining, even surpassing—that 20% “green” power goal, as long as that energy supply is ample, affordable and reliable.

DWP General Manager David Wiggs noted in a recent interview in the Los Angeles Times that “the idea of phasing out most of the fossil-fuel plants in favor of green power is not practical. It is unrealistic in my lifetime,” he added. “We rely on the coal plants. They are what kept the lights on and the rates down during the state energy crisis.”

That pretty well sums it up. By all means, let’s pursue practical, affordable, reliable “green” power. Let’s research and experiment and conduct whatever necessary pilot projects. Let’s aim to someday use renewable energy for as much of our power supply as possible. But, until then, let’s be thankful for the energy supplies we have.

Local 18 Is Increasingly DWP’s “Institutional Memory” Resource

With the apparent departure of DWP General Manager David Wiggs to the new challenge of restoring the greater Minneapolis, Minnesota, power system, the tenth Department G.M. in the last 13 years (since 1990, when I became Local 18’s Business Manager) will soon take over the nation’s largest municipal utility. We cannot, at this point, predict if the new general manager will be promoted from within, or if a nationwide executive search will be held to find a new person to run DWP on a day-to-day basis.

What we do know is this: With the seemingly “revolving door” at the top of the Department, with general managers serving, on average, about a year and a half since 1990, IBEW Local 18 has increasingly become a primary stabilizing factor at DWP, as well as its “institutional memory.” We have, in effect, been the longest, continuously serving entity at the Department, and our Union, through its members, leadership and records, has probably the best collective knowledge and understanding of how DWP works (and should work) in order to operate effectively and efficiently, while best serving its customers. Hopefully, the new general manager, be he or she from within or outside the Department, will recognize Local 18 as the valuable resource that it is.

Yet something else we can be proud of at our Union!

Recalling Governor Davis: It’s Wrong and Revengeful

The Republicans are at it again. Upset and apparently in a petty and “get him at all costs” snit, the GOP, reeling from a statewide across-the-board political hammering from the voters last November, has decided that if it can’t beat Democratic Governor fair and square at the polls, then it will try to topple him through a maneuver known as a recall (voting him out of office, over a specific issue, before the end of his legitimate term, which is in 2006).

While this is a legal move, it is clearly vindictive and shortsighted. With the State of California facing an unprecedented budget shortfall (and with Republicans in the legislature refusing to take any positive steps to deal with this crisis), the spoilsport GOP thinks it can best “serve” the state and its people by wasting millions of dollars in trying to recall the governor. Not only is this a futile exercise in partisan revenge, it would likely distract Governor Davis and his administration from the critical task of closing the budget gap and restoring the state to fiscal health.

The Republicans sure are tackling the pressing priorities and demonstrating real leadership!

They are basing the recall drive on their “perception” that the governor is solely responsible for California’s budget shortfall. As if Governor Davis personally spent so much money that the state now is in a $32-35 billion hole. As if the Republicans haven’t time and again adamantly refused to consider moderate and sensible revenue enhancements that would help close the budget gap. As if the recall effort is anything more than statewide political “sour grapes” and posturing.

The Mechanics of a Recall

A recall, if it were to happen, works like this: Backers would have to secure almost a million signatures from registered voters. If that were to happen, then a dual statewide election is held. At the same time voters are voting yes or no on recalling the governor, Republican candidates (it is likely no Democrat would run against their sitting governor) would be campaigning for governor. If a majority voted to turn out Governor Davis, then the winning candidate in the parallel race would become governor and serve until the end of the original term (2006).

This political maneuvering and chicanery is much like changing the rules of a game while in the middle of playing it. The Republicans could not beat Governor Davis in the regularly scheduled election last November; they ran a terrible candidate against Davis, and the rest of their statewide ticket was so out of touch with Californian (and union and family) values, that it went down in flames. Well, they think, if we can’t beat him properly, let’s see if we can stampede people into toppling him on trumped-up charges—and let’s waste millions of dollars and tens of thousands of hours in trying to overturn the legitimate vote of the people!

Partisan politics is one thing, it is legitimate and healthy. But pettiness and vindictiveness is entirely another thing. Let’s hope this silly recall drive never gets off the ground and its backers fade into well-deserved oblivion.

Keeping an Eye on our Friends

As noted in a previous report, just because organized labor supports a candidate for office—and goes out of its way to supply that campaign with endorsements, money, mailers, precinct walkers and telephone-bank people—there never is a certainty that that person will respond favorably to our agenda and support us as we hope he or she will.

With seven Los Angeles City Council seats up in March (with runoffs, if necessary, in late May), and with many of the other council members relatively new to the process, Local 18 and the County Federation of Labor will be keeping a sharp eye on how members vote. Especially those we supported. Some of the more veteran council members have already established solid pro-union, pro-working people and family records (some, of course, are against us). But the many on the Council—and especially the newer members—still have to show their true colors. Let’s hope that color will be blue, as in “true blue” to the unions and people that helped elect them. We’ll be watching closely!

In unity,

BRIAN D’ARCY, Business Manager