Laura Chick: Will Vote "NO" on Measure B

I've written before about both the intelligence and the principled nature of the Honorable Laura Chick, the Los Angeles City Controller. If there is one elected official that can claim the title "honorable", it's Laura. Time and time again, our city controller has stood up for fiscal accountability from all of our city agencies and departments, even when it may not have always been politically popular to do so. I'm sure there are issues that I disagree with Laura on, given her choice to register with the left party over the right. However, I have always preached the political philosophy of knowing your values, including at which elected level each value should have heavier weights, and for city government, the values of fiscal accountability and protecting citizens come before positions on the War on Terrorism and Abortion. On the city government level, I wholeheartedly support City Controller Laura Chick and other Democrats like her who "get it".

During a press briefing yesterday on the status of the Department of Water and Power yesterday, Laura Chick announced that she would oppose Measure B, the sole-source solar energy project on the March ballot.

The consultant group that completed the city charter-required 5-year analysis, PA Consulting, was also the group that completed the initial objective analysis on Measure B, and they defended their projections that the measure would cost two to three times the current estimates being reported by the replacement consultant group, Huron Consulting. The report from Andrew Rea of PA Consulting Group estimated that Measure B would cost up to $3.6 billion, far more than the $1 billion estimate by Huron Consulting, hired by the Department of Water and Power after rejecting the PA Consulting analysis.

As reported by Rick Orlov of the L.A. Daily News:

"Rea said he made more conservative assumptions in his study, while the DWP's own report by Huron Consulting made more optimistic assumptions about the future of technology and the economy.

"We modeled the world using prices today, projects today and the technology we thought was deployable," Rea said.

"The Huron Report assumed a much more favorable economic climate and much more favorable technology. I think Huron did a report based on what the future might be and developed its figures based on that."

Measure B would require the installation of solar panels around the city with a goal of generating 400 megawatts of rooftop solar power by 2014. The Huron report estimated its cost at $1 billion, which would be about $1 a month for the average residential DWP bill. Michael Trujillo, manager of the campaign to support Measure B, stood by the accuracy of the Huron report and its assumptions. "All the recent figures show that the cost of solar is declining as the technology improves," said Trujillo.

As the PA Consulting report was officially released, Chick announced she would oppose Measure B. "I support renewable energy. I have been supporting it since I was elected controller in 2002," Chick said. "We know this will cost something, but the costs are unknown. I will be voting no on this because I think the entire process of how it ended up on the ballot stinks. I think it was not done in an open, understandable or thoughtful way."

Measure B was developed by a group known as Working Californians, which included leaders of local IBEW unions. One provision of the measure would require all the installation work to be done only by those unions.

The PA Consulting survey, conducted over six months at a cost of $800,000, made a series of broad recommendations - many similar to a survey conducted in 2002 - calling for the DWP to do better in long-term planning and upgrading its information technology systems.

One of those I talk to frequently about Measure B made this interesting observation: If the Huron Consulting report was indeed true that the average increase per electric bill was only 1%/month, the DWP would fall way too short in raising the necessary funds even for their $1B project estimate. Here's how the math works:

12 months X 1.6 million DWP ratepayers = 19.2 million rate-months

At 19.2 million rate-months per year, it would take the DWP over $52/ratepayer per month to raise the funds in one year. This assumes that every ratepayer is paying for full service and that no one is on discounted programs. The average monthly household electricity bill was $52.79 in fall 2006, according to DWP spokesman Joe Ramallo last April. By summer 2010, the various rate hikes and surcharges will bring the bill to $65.04, he said. So even with the low-ball estimates by the DWP, the mathematical analysis shows that the average energy bill for every rate-payer has to be doubled in order to fund this measure.

Factor in the more objective analysis of the PA Consulting group, and we're talking about tripling, or even quadrupling, of energy rates to pay for this boondoggle project.

This is what I believe Laura Chick gets that other Democrats do not. This is the analysis I wish my friend LAUSD Board member Richard Vladovic would have done, or asked those he knows and trusts, including Dr. Soledad Garcia, who has been very open and public about both opposing Measure B and in requesting our local elected officials to contact her regarding this measure. With Laura Chick's announced opposition to this measure, I hope both Richard Vladovic & Councilmember Janice Hahn do the right thing and request a meeting with Soledad Garcia. They know how to reach her, or they can contact me.

So the bottom line on Measure B is this - Despite the initial report by PA Consulting months prior to the submission of this ballot measure to the city council that the estimated cost would be between $2.8 and $3.6 billion, the DWP and the IBEW rammed this boondoggle project measure through the city council, and our city council did the typical pandering thing and voted to put it on the ballot. Now, many of them are saying that they did not vote to support it, just to put it on the ballot. I look at it like parents serving their children dinner.

It is my job and my wife's to ensure our children eat healthy. If we feel something will be unhealthy, or worse - will make our kids sick, we don't put it on their plate and then absolve ourselves of the responsibility by saying "they don't have to eat it". Our kids trust us, and will eat the unhealthy foods, especially given how these foods are marketed to our kids. Measure B is extremely unhealthy, and our city council members need to be protecting us from ever having to digest it. They need to protect their constituents from the marketing of this unhealthy measure, and should be held accountable for their lack of action or their endorsement of it.

Measure B is about as healthy as a deep-fried Twinkie to someone with high cholesterol!

Why L.A. Conservatives should LOVE Laura Chick...

[I've attached a column from Rick Orlov that should really open the eyes of L.A. City residents and show them that not all Democrats are fiscally irresponsible. L.A. Controller Laura Chick is an admirable defender of the citizens of Los Angeles, and the Democratic elitists know it!]

Open debate sought on privatization

By Rick Orlov, Columnist

Updated: 12/28/2008 09:40:47 PM PST

City Controller Laura Chick has six months left in office. And, as she
made clear this past week, she will not go quietly.

Chick remains uncertain whether she will try for a return to the City
Council, take a job at a university or go into private enterprise. One
thing you can probably bet on is that she won't become a lobbyist seeking
favors from city officials.

In the past few months, she has taken on, again, her main nemesis, City
Attorney Rocky Delgadillo, the City Council and most recently, Mayor Antonio
Villaraigosa. Her latest action is blowing the lid off what she said was a
confidential effort - Chick called it Chicago-style politics - to study privatizing
city services. "What is needed", Chick said, "is an open debate in which the public can hear all the arguments and decide how it wants the city to go."

Villaraigosa was quick to acknowledge the study being done by Mike Keeley,
one-time budget director to former Mayor Richard Riordan - who was the first
to propose privatizing city services, including the sale of Los Angeles
International Airport and naming rights to city buildings. The latter deal
fell apart when it was proposed to sell the name of the Central Library to
cigarette manufacturer Philip Morris. Ironically, the Central Library
building was named after Riordan when he left office.

Villaraigosa spokesman Matt Szabo said Keeley is providing "strategic
counsel on budget issues and to spearhead public-private partnership
efforts." City unions are prepared to fight off the latest proposal - much as they
did 15 years ago.

For the moment, Szabo said the mayor is looking at privatizing the
management of city parking lots and parking meters. A recommendation is
expected in January or February.

But it also has others on alert.

Golfers, in particular, are concerned about what will happen to the city
courses - where fees already have gone up dramatically for residents and
nonresidents, who are now on a two-tiered system of payments.

The desire for secrecy is also costing the mayor and City Council as they
prepare to ask voter support for Proposition B, the solar initiative on the
March 3 ballot. The City Council put the measure through on a fast track, without disclosing to the public and some council members a critical report on the measure
- which warns that the costly program, now estimated at $3 billion, might not
be practical given the limited number of solar panel manufacturers in the country.

City Council President Eric Garcetti downplayed the significance of the
report as he insisted he used its concerns to question officials on how it
could be improved and to address the concerns raised. And he was forced to later release the review to the public and his fellow council members.

Of course, it happened on a week when the City Council was in recess, with
many members out of town. So there was no major political penalty paid by
Villaraigosa or Garcetti. The biggest question that has been unanswered is why the measure is even on the ballot, since the basic job could be adopted by the DWP and its board.

Villaraigosa and Garcetti will be seeing a lot of each other over the next several weeks. The two, who served as California co-chairmen of the campaign of
President-elect Barack Obama, are both heading back to Washington, D.C., to
attend the inauguration. Garcetti supported Obama from the start, while
Villaraigosa came on after Sen. Hillary Clinton lost the nomination.

Other local officials who are planning to attend the event include new
county Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas, California co-chairman for Obama;
Supervisors Zev Yaroslavsky and Gloria Molina, and Councilwoman Janice Hahn.
A number of state legislators also are said to want to go - but no one knows
if they will have a state budget fix adopted by then.

Rick Orlov's column appears Mondays. For a daily political fix, check
out the Daily News' Sausage Factory blog at insidesocal.com/politics.

rick.orlov@dailynews.com
213-978-0390