Candidate Statement - MUD Director - Ward #5

By Calvin B. "Cal" Webster

Detailed Statement dated August 17, 2001

Many organizations in San Francisco have solicited my views and positions so that they can assess whether I am worthy of their endorsement. I am pledged, as will be stated in the voter's pamphlet issued by the board of elections (see text below):

(1) not to accept any contributions for this election: and (2) not to solicit endorsements from "corporations, politicians, or special interest groups."

It is my view that this is the only way to assure the voters that a professional independent agent will represent their interests. Nevertheless, it is my duty to clearly state my qualifications, opinions, and positions for all to see. This statement should serve that purpose. Should any person or organization then choose to support me, I would be very pleased.

My Qualifications:

I am a registered profession electrical engineer. I have qualified to practice my profession in five states and the District of Columbia # since 1968 in California. My work has included the design of electrical facilities, engineering economics, and many feasibility studies. Some of the projects that I was responsible for include: the electrical design of the electrical and signal facilities of the new 1200 bed Walter Reed General Hospital in Washington; the electrical design of the accelerator rings of the Fermi National Laboratory (presently the world's largest heavy particle accelerator); and the preliminary mechanical and electrical design of the Red Hook Sewage Treatment plant in New York City. The latter assignment included feasibility studies and cost evaluations of purchased power vs. on site generation as well as evaluation of solar and wind power options.

The above and many more assignments were performed as an employee of various consulting engineering and architectural firms. In the 70's I was in private practice in the partnership of Glumac and Webster. In addition to the mechanical and electrical design of many of San Francisco's buildings, we undertook numerous studies and surveys on methods to conserve energy.

I am also a licensed contractor. I operate a small wholly owned electrical contracting firm under the name of Ace Service.

My education includes a degree from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Batchelor of Electrical Engineering, and extensive post-graduate work in the School of Architecture and Planning of Columbia University.

Conflict of Interest:

I favor enshrining a policy at the MUD which enforces the highest ethical standards. No one in any decision making position should be permitted to own any interest in any organization that does business with the utility district or is likely to do so.

Personally, I do not own an interest in any utility or energy company. My security holdings presently include only three corporations: Homestake Mining, Boston Beer, and Hewlett Packard. If elected I would consider selling the latter least they be engaged in business with the MUD. My statement of financial interests is on file with the election board.

I am pledged not to accept any contributions for this election campaign. The required statements available to the public will reflect this reality.

Mud Administrative Policies:

If rates are to be kept low, a cumbersome bureaucracy cannot be tolerated. Appointed offices must be kept to a minimum consistent with the legislative mandate. Professional competence measured by civil service like exams should be the rule. Labor contracts comparable to those existing with P.G. & E. and the City of San Francisco should be executed.

Acquiring P.G.& E. Properties:

I favor acquiring P.G.&E. properties only at the right price. There will be no bail out of the stockholders. As P.G.&E. is presently bankrupt, this may be a unique opportunity. The use of eminent domain should be a last resort. In eminent domain proceedings it would become a `your-accountants-vs.-my-accountants' struggle before the court. In any case, independent accountants would have to be retained by the MUD to determine the value of the properties. The important thing is that this does not occur in a vacuum. Concurrent studies of rate structures, operating costs, financing, etc. must be made and integrated into a feasibility study to ensure that the acquisition costs will not unduly tax the rate payers and will actually result in lower rates.

The Raker Act and Hetch Hetchy:

I do not favor decommissioning the Hetch Hetchy facility and restoring the site to its "original condition." You would have to convince me that a reasonable alternative was available for providing water and power to San Francisco and other communities. It should be remembered that the Raker act gave the City of San Francisco # and not the proposed MUD # certain rights. These rights have been "stolen" over the years. I would advise the City to seek to revisit interpretations of the act in the courts to restore these eroded rights.

Conservation:

I believe that through increased conservation measures there will be little need for additional electric generator facilities. In fact, some old inefficient and noxious facilities should be retired. An aggressive more realistic carrot and stick approach using the rate structure and incentives will succeed in reducing both total energy consumption and peak demand. For example: use of modern time-of-day energy demand meters can monitor usage on a minute-to-minute basis. Higher rates for usage at peak load times will be effective in obviating the need for additional generating facilities. This will be similar to the `do your laundry at night' program only applied to commercial and industrial users who use two thirds of the energy in San Francisco. If it costs a commercial user enough, they will find a way to pre-cool their buildings off of peak times to save money.

Rate Structures:

I favor continuing subsidized rates for low income users. I would replace existing meters with modern types which can record and automatically send minute by minute usage to computers for billing. Rates should be structured to discourage usage at peak demand times. Wholesale contracts at low rates, which put the small user at a disadvantage, should be eliminated. The true cost of providing electric power should be borne equally by all users who are financially capable.

Finances:

To finance acquisition of property, bonds will have to be issued by the MUD. No one is going to buy these bonds until a realistic study outlines specific uses of the funds, revenue streams, expenses, etc. Professionals would have to be engaged to make these studies. Accountants, engineers, lawyers, financial experts, etc. will have to be paid. It would be imprudent to rely on pro bono services. You get what you pay for. Favors are expected to be returned. Interim financing will be necessary. A grant or loan, possibly from the City or State, should be considered to cover these expenses.

New and Existing Facilities:

Both new (replacement) and existing facilities must meet two tests:
1. Are they environmentally friendly.
2. Are they sufficiently efficient and cost effective.

I do not favor new facilities that do not meet the test of the second criteria and unduly raise the rates of users. On the other hand we cannot put a price on the health of the community. Old noxious inefficient facilities should be decommissioned or replaced with those that meet the above standard. I would apply this reasoning to solar and wind facilities also. It would be nice to think that all of our new facilities could use renewable resources. I am not sure this is realistic at this time. If not, there are ways to reduce the use of fossil fuels besides conservation. Total energy facilities are more efficient if the bi-product, heat, can be used. If the heat from a gas turbine driven generator can be used it will be more efficient that a similar diesel engine generator. Believe it or not, this heat in the form of steam can be used to operate air conditioning by means of a piece of equipment called a steam adsorption chiller instead of using electricity. Some utilities sold this heat bi-product for use in both heating and cooling to increase overall efficiency. Possible alternatives such as this should not be overlooked by a MUD.

Text of Candidate's Statement in the Voter's Pamphlet:

Since 1968 I have been registered by the State as a professional electrical engineer. My work has included feasibility studies, engineering economics, and utility rate analysis.

The office of MUD director demands an independent professional held to the highest ethical standards. To maintain this independence, I have not # and will not # accept any contributions for this election. Similarly, I have not sought endorsements from any corporations, politicians, or special interest groups. As a director, I will not tolerate conflict of interest at any level.

To deliver affordable power to the ratepayers, a lean professional MUD administration is required. It should be free from political influence and patronage appointments. A fat bureaucracy will cost the consumer.

To keep rates low, conservation should take precedence over costly new facilities wherever possible to maintain reliable service. Where new facilities are required, they should be clean renewable resource types wherever economically feasible.

If the voters approve creation of the MUD, and they elect me, I would be honored to represent the interests of the residents of the district and diligently execute the duties of the non-paying office of director.

Brisbane and San Francisco:

The enabling legislation for organization of a municipal utility district requires that more than one political entity be included. The organizers in San Francisco selected Brisbane. Brisbane had no choice in the matter. This has created a considerable amount of ill will in Brisbane. It is my opinion that the majority of Brisbane voters are not necessarily opposed to a MUD. But they are opposed to being in a MUD with San Francisco. Brisbane is a small city with a population of only 3500 and a fierce tradition of independence. The voters would look more favorably upon a MUD formed with the other smaller cities to the south with which they have interests more in common.

If San Francisco votes for the MUD and Brisbane votes against forming a MUD, a court will decide which of the following will occur:
1. Brisbane will be included in the MUD against those voters' wishes.
2. San Francisco will be permitted to form a MUD without Brisbane.
3. San Francisco will not be able to form a MUD.
4. The voters of San Francisco will approve the Charter amendment in March and the point may become moot.

My position is this:

I favor a MUD and will vote for it. But I also will support the preference of the voters of Brisbane and will move to extricate my City if that is the local consensus as expressed on election day.

Summary:

I do not have all the answers. I do not know all the facts. But I am willing to listen, learn, and act in the best interests of the residents of the district. If the voters favor me, I will apply my judgment and energy to best serve them.