Supervisor David Chiu threatened the use of a procedural motion to reject
the SFMTA’s proposed fare hikes and service cuts due to a $129 million SFMTA budget shortfall,
but then renegged yesterday by tabling his own motion.
Photos by Luke Thomas
May 13, 2009
I spent a better part of 48 hours from Friday through Sunday on the phone with transportation policy wonks from Wingaersheek to Wasilla – well, not really, but you know what I mean – and then penned my piece on how the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (Muni or the SFMTA) could mitigate its money miseries.
And comedy of comedies, we erred, and did not run my story, brimming with suggestions for sticking it to car drivers, those scourges of environmentalists worldwide.
So what happened?
You know – or if you didn’t I’m going to tell you – there’s this global economic crisis going on, and local, state, and national tax revenues are in the proverbial trenches, sucked into the vertiginous black holes of high finance, troubled assets bailout programs, and CEO bonuses. Could be related to the fluctuations in gas prices last year – and probably is – but most analysts are focusing on the deregulation of banks and investment industries over the past several Reaganesque decades.
That means that local, state, and national governments are being forced to raise revenues or cut programs or some combination of both.
And thus we arrive at the Frisco fracas. First Mister Mayor/Candidate for California Governor Gavin Newsom said San Francisco is facing a budget shortfall somewhere in the neighborhood of $400 million, out of discretionary budget of something like $1.2 billion. That’s a big hunk of dough. The supervisors – four of whom are new to the Board – toyed with the idea of a special election with revenue raising measures, but Newsom did not want to risk his political future through support for revenue-raising measures.
Then the SFMTA, which manages both our local mass-transit and our Department of Parking and Traffic, announced a fiscal shortfall of $128.9 million out of an annual operating budget of over $800 million. On April 7, its Board of Directors, all mayoral appointees, declared a fiscal emergency, allowing the directors to waive California Environmental Quality Act reviews in their decision-making – but you wouldn’t know from the way they are operating that there is actually a fiscal emergency.
At a special meeting on April 30, SFMTA Executive Director Nat Ford and SFMTA staffers presented amendments to the two-year budget that the Board of Directors had voted on the year before. The budget included drastic cuts in bus and light rail service, fare increases, recommendations for the renegotiation of the work orders the SFMTA has with other departments such as the police department, and citywide increases in parking meter fees of 50 cents per hour.
SFMTA Executive Director Nathaniel Ford
It also included recommendations to start operating parking meters on Sundays and on weeknights until 10 pm.
Ouch! When the mayor and Supervisors Carmen Chu and Bevan Dufty – and Dufty has mayoral ambitions – got wind of the proposals to expand metering to Sundays and after hours, they shrieked like banshees. In fact, they actually tried to get the staffers to excise the recommendations to charge for parking on Sundays and after hours, but the staffers didn’t budge.
Go staffers!
So it was up to SFMTA Board of Directors Chair Tom Nolan – who was probably beginning to feel the mayor’s vise tightening around his you-know-whats – to mumble a proposal to amend the amended budget to excise the proposal for expanded operation of parking meters. And he did, and the directors voted for the revised budget, six to one.
That was a loss of $9 million that could have been used to restore service, a member of the public pointed out. And a staffer noted that, in fact, transit riders would be feeling the pain of the fare increases and service cuts four to one more strongly than would car drivers during the 2010 fiscal year.
I asked Director Malcolm Heinicke, after the meeting, why he had decided it was ok to excise the proposals to expand parking enforcement. He told me he was interested in revisiting the proposal but at that time, “No one was holding a gun to our heads” – and then the directors slipped into Room 200 for a party with Mister Mayor.
No one was holding a gun to their heads?
The city is in the hole $400 million plus, and our public transit agency, the lifeblood of the city, is in the hole $128.9 million alone, and Heinicke doesn’t think a metaphorical gun is being held to their heads? Not to mention global climate change and war for oil. I don’t get it.
Wonk wonk …
The next morning, the wonks got to wonking. All-round policy wonk/bad ass Marc Salomon started a Facebook group called Transit for San Francisco, Greg Dewar of the N-Judah Chronicles started a Facebook group called Save Muni, and even the moderate think tank SPUR got in on it and produced a letter with suggestions to be sent to Ford with $21.4 million worth of savings suggestions (including expanded parking enforcement).
The next meeting was the May 6 Budget and Finance Committee meeting where Ford and staff were to present their amended budget to five members of the Board of Supervisors. They did, and Board President David Chiu did all us future-thinking self-proclaimed progressives proud by proposing a motion to reject the SFMTA budget. Termed-out former president of the Board of Supervisors President Aaron Peskin could be seen running around City Hall making sure that all his ducks – supervisors whom he would count on to support Chiu’s resolution – were in a row. And they were. Chiu’s motion passed four to one, and was sent to the full board with a motion to reject.
Bullshit wins the day
Peskin, who had served on the Board for eight years, four of them as Board president, had told me over the phone, “The Board has [to have] the courage and the fortitude to say ‘bullshit’.”
He told me that he wanted to make sure that the additional $26 million that the voters had dedicated to the SFMTA through the passage of Prop A in 2007 was his highest priority, and that if the SFMTA did not come back to the supervisors with a revised budget, that the supervisors could rewrite the budget themselves – they could cut the mayor’s expensive 311 call service center and direct riders to use the less costly 511 instead, or they could cut the mayor’s light bulb program.
I wrote my story, and we didn’t publish it, and when the matter came before the full board on Tuesday, May 12, Peskin was nowhere to be seen. Yeah, he’s short, but I’m still sure I would have seen him were he there. And he shoulda been.
The motion to reject the SFMTA budget was Item 8, and the supervisors got to it fairly quickly – but President Chiu postponed deliberation on the item, because …
One of the supervisors slipped up to me during the meeting and told me that the supervisors were in negotiations with the mayor over a giveback. The mayor was willing to give back $9 million, the supervisors wanted $20 million, and …
I ran out into the hallway to find my folks. One of them told me an SFMTA staffer had come up to him and said, “You’re an advocate. What do you want?” We started texting our friends and fellow travelers, and posting messages on Facebook via iPhone saying ‘contact the supes: tell them what you want, tell them you want a transit first city, tell them that the pain needs to be spread more equitably so that drivers get hit more’ — after all, no one has ever suggested that Muni riders get to ride free after hours or on Sundays …
At about 5 pm, Prez Chiu called the meeting to order and announced that a compromise had been reached. The supervisors – supposedly representing Muni riders across the city – got a giveback of about $10 million.
Nat Ford presented the details:
– $2.8 million from renegotiated work orders, including an MOU to be signed within the next 24 hours between the SFPD and the SFMTA so that SF leadership is no longer in a position of not knowing …;
– $2.5 million in proof-of-payment program reductions. Explanation: Chiu noted at the May 6 meeting that the PoP program was costing the SFMTA about $8 million but it was only making a ‘profit’ of $350,000 in fare evasion fines. But then someone on the Car-Free Living discussion list pointed out that the purpose of the PoP program is not to make more for the agency through fine collection – but to speed up the boarding process, and in that respect, the $8 million is money well spent;
– $3 million in unspecified salary savings;
– $1 million in unspecified efficiencies; and,
– A dedication of $1 million to a study of what would happen were meters to operate in downtown commercial areas from 6 to 8 pm on weekdays, study to be completed in the next 90 days.
Then the supervisors got to speechifying and voting. Supervisor David Campos said he was utterly disappointed.
“We’re still using $63 million for purposes that have nothing to do with transportation,” he said.
Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi said, “We can’t continue to fix Muni on the backs of its riders.”
But Chiu himself made a motion to table his own motion, and at the end of the day, six out of 11 supervisors voted not to reject the budget.
Six ayes: Supervisor Michela Alioto-Pier, David Chiu, Carmen Chu, Sean Elsbernd, Bevan Dufty, and Sophie Maxwell.
Five Noes: Supervisor Eric Mar, Ross Mirkarimi, Chris Daly, David Campos, and John Avalos.
Bullshit! Say it ain’t so, Chiu.
“Did we just die and go to hell?” Salomon asked me this morning.
The Hunger Site
May 17, 2009 at 6:55 pm
Tami,
Thank you for your added post above.
You say:
“Your post was not worthy of a comment – â€
Then why do you proceed to comment on it?
You say:
“… you are not interested in dialogue or honest debate. You just want to engage in baseless accusation and counterpoints.â€
I pointed out some implications of your prior comments that seem irrational. Is that “baseless accusation�
You say:
“You are free to reread my post and attempt to understand what I wrote, but I suspect it will go right over your head!â€
I’m just doing the best I can with the brains that nature gave me.
May 17, 2009 at 6:18 pm
Sue,
We thank you for modifying your post! We consider David Campos a political ally and a friend. There may come a time that we, or you, disagree with something he does, and principled criticism is completely understandable, so you know we objected to an attack that we considered personal in nature.
I think those of us on the progressive side need to stick together as the other side will certainly take advantage of any discord.
Now, I thank you for your informative post and you can count on us to support this cause! (You could have before, but with reservations.)
To Ruth-
Your post was not worthy of a comment-of course I know what I said and meant every word, except for my one incomplete thought that I failed to catch before posting:
I wrote, “Immigrants cannot be used as the scapegoats for US policy of exploitation and invasion in THEIR countries.”
It should have said:
“Immigrants cannot be used as the scapegoats for OUR PROBLEMS ONCE U.S. policy of exploitation and invasion in THEIR countries, DRIVES THEM TO SEEK A BETTER LIFE IN THE COUNTRY THAT CAUSED THE PROBLEMS IN THEIR HOMELANDS IN THE FIRST PLACE.”
Ruth-I chimed into address your contentions about David Campos, but you are not interested in dialogue or honest debate. You just want to engage in baseless accusation and counterpoints. I am too busy to do this. Sorry. You are free to reread my post and attempt to understand what I wrote, but I suspect it will go right over your head!
May 17, 2009 at 11:10 am
Tami,
The gratuitous attack on Campos was indeed gratuitous — and it has been deleted.
Mea culpa.
Sue
May 15, 2009 at 9:53 pm
“Only in the world of the conservatives like Arthur Evans, those holding the Rush Limbaugh and Dick Cheney view of the world, are individuals hypocritically exempted from being held accountable for the consequences of their choices and actions.”
– marc
You forgot to mention that Arthur Evans was also responsible for the War in Vietnam!
May 15, 2009 at 3:02 pm
OK; now I want to know what actually happened? I got the impression that this was a done deal, done badly, when I read “voted not to reject the budget” below.
“Chiu himself made a motion to table his own motion, and at the end of the day, six out of 11 supervisors voted not to reject the budget.
Six ayes: Supervisor Michela Alioto-Pier, David Chiu, Carmen Chu, Sean Elsbernd, Bevan Dufty, and Sophie Maxwell.”
Then, yesterday, Paul Hogarth started posting to Facebook about the Budget and Finance Committee possibly turning this around, then published this:
Supes Bring Muni Back From the Dead
http://www.beyondchron.org/news/index.php?itemid=6925#more
I appreciate the first hand accounts of the process here, and, of course, Luke’s pictures, but, could everyone summarizing whole days at City Hall here please make a point of letting us know, as precisely as possible, exactly what happened and what’s next?
May 15, 2009 at 2:15 pm
Tami,
Thank you for taking the time to write your post above, which I have read carefully.
My impression is that you have not thought through the implications of your comments.
Some examples –
You say:
“it is not sanctuary that is to blame for the crime, etc. It is the FAILURE OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM AND THE LACK OF SUPPORTIVE SERVICES that resulted in the criminal behavior to escalate.â€
What about the perpetrators of crimes? Do they have any individual responsibility?
You say:
“the accused [that is, the accused murderer of members of the Bologna family] was not born a demon. He had a hard life in his native country and found trouble upon coming to the US.â€
Do you mean to say that all immigrants who have hard lives in their homelands and who find trouble in the U.S. end up as murderers?
And why is it, by the way, that nearly all the murderers are males?
You say:
“Most of those deported will find their way back to the US, so we would be better off focusing on turning their lives around …â€
Do you mean to say that the U.S. government should let any foreigners come and stay here if they are persistent enough?
You say:
“I went to the first vigil for Aubrey and I support his mother’s efforts to get justice for him.â€
You would do well to convey those sentiments to David Campos, the chair of the Public Safety Committee. He brushed aside his mother when she pleaded with the committee for help.
You say:
“The Mayor, as I write this, is about to catapult the city into further crisis with his budget cuts …â€
Do you mean to say that the mayor caused the current world-wide economic depression? Is SF immune from its consequences?
You say:
“I don’t see Sophie Maxwell there†[at the Mother’s Day vigil]
All the politicians down there at City Hall are mediocrities, at best, operating in a dysfunctional system of city government.
May 15, 2009 at 7:36 am
Demonize Sophie Maxwell? Indeed.
Maxwell’s claim to the presidency was supported by the most conservative members of the Board of Supervisors, the ones who are trying to milk the Muni of voter-approved, set aside resources to provide a platform for Newsom’s run for governor.
Unfortunately, Supervisor Maxwell appears to be favoring that approach and she should be made to own that politically if that is her position because it objectively conflicts with the best interests of much of her district.
Only in the world of the conservatives like Arthur Evans, those holding the Rush Limbaugh and Dick Cheney view of the world, are individuals hypocritically exempted from being held accountable for the consequences of their choices and actions.
Arthur Evans has tattooed every slip Chris Daly has made over the past eight and a half years on Daly’s forehead for all to see and ridicule.
Yet whenever one would hold Supervisor Maxwell accountable for approving a rezoning that did not even come close to the affordability standards she appeared to require in her own resolution, or for supporting a Muni compromise that doubles fares on riders over six years and allows the SFPD to siphon off fare dollars for doing nothing, the rules magically change.
Adopting different standards for men and women, where women are held to a lower standard of accountability, is the definition of sexism.
-marc
May 15, 2009 at 7:33 am
I do work a full time plus job and for that reason I am unable to monitor the BoS as closely as others so I am only going to comment on two of your comments. I wish I had the time to spend at City Hall weekdays.
I support sanctuary city and it is not sanctuary that is to blame for the crime, etc. It is the FAILURE OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM AND THE LACK OF SUPPORTIVE SERVICES that resulted in the criminal behavior to escalate. I do NOT condone the tragic murders of the three Bologna family members. I am absolutely devastated for the family, BUT the accused was not born a demon. He had a hard life in his native country and found trouble upon coming to the US. Imagine if when he began getting into trouble at 14 he had been rehabilitated and allowed to heal from the pain he was in, he would have taken a different path and the Bolognas would still be here. Mattie Scott says, “Hurt people, hurt people.”
Most of those deported will find their way back to the US, so we would be better off focusing on turning their lives around, rather than focusing on deporting them as the solution. Better yet, change US government and corporation policy of exploitation in their homelands, and most folks will not even want to come to this country.
And you do not need to tell ME about the youth violence crisis. ALL three of my children have known murder victims. I live one block from the site of many young murders. I am committed to doing whatever takes to stopping the youth violence. I agree this is a top priority for the city. I went to the first vigil for Aubrey and I support his mother’s efforts to get justice for him. All the mothers deserve this. The Mayor, as I write this, is about to catapult the city into further crisis with his budget cuts to the services and programs that our youth need to prevent violence. Newsom opposed Prop. A.
I cannot speak to the fact that this has not yet been put on the agenda of the public safety committee or the Mother’s Day rally, which I saw on the news (I would have attended if I’d known about it), and why Campos wasn’t there, but I know this is an issue he cares about. I am confident that he will be a responsive ally for this issue. The youth homicide crisis is also affecting Latinos, many in his district, as well. The rally reflected this.
Immigrants cannot be used as the scapegoats for US policy of exploitation and invasion in THEIR countries.
And I agree with you-we need justice for the victims of violence we cannot bring back and we need to do everything in our power to prevent any further violence.
So I am looking at the recording I made of the Mother’s Day vigil. I don’t see Sophie Maxwell there either? Since you think Campos should have been there, what about Supervisor Maxwell?
May 14, 2009 at 11:41 pm
“BTW Campos voted for Ross for BoS president four times. That is a progressive voice if ever there was one!”
– Tami
Yes, and when David Campos broke ranks, it opened the door for the election of David Chiu. Campos and the other five progressive guys were prepared to do anything to stop Sophie Maxwell, whom they demonized.
There are other problems with David Campos:
He engineered an attack on the U.S. Attorney through the ploy of suspending the board’s own rules. By this move, Campos was able to circumvent a committee hearing, public comment, and the opportunity for the U.S. Attorney to present material in his own defense. Then Campos turned around and said that this spectacle was an example of “a better process.”
Campos wants to revive the scandalous practice of providing sanctuary to young illegal immigrants who are suspected of committing felonies. This practice has already resulted in the murder of several San Franciscans.
Campos has turned a deaf ear to repeated pleas from an African-American mother for help in bringing to justice the murderer of her son. So far, he has seen no room for such an issue on the agenda of the Public Safety Committee, which he chairs.
Campos pushed through a resolution, again by suspending the board’s own rules, that calls for non-enforcement of federal laws in regard to the marijuana industry if the industry complies with state laws. If put into actual practice, this resolution would junk federal laws covering the environment and workers’ rights, provided the industry followed state laws.
On Mother’s Day, a group of mothers whose sons have been murdered held a demonstration at City Hall, asking for help in regulating male violence in their communities. Campos and his committee have so far ignored them.
Are these examples of progressive politics?
You tell me.
May 14, 2009 at 9:37 pm
I would like to have thanked Sue for an informative article, but since she felt the need to gratuitously attack David Campos, I am now skeptical of her dissemination of information. Not only does she attack David, but his allies, such as my husband and myself. We will certainly have to take this fact into account the next time we are asked to support one of your causes. Do you care that when you attack him you alienate those that support him? He has been a steadfast ally to progressive causes and consistently voted that way.
Speaking of which, I’m sure Chiu is a basically decent and reliable voice/vote, but he was wrong on this. So I hope Chris “Anyone but Ross Mirkarimi for BoS president” Daly is satisfied. I see how that 6 to 5 vote went down and once again my point is proven: Ross should have been supported by the progressives for BoS president! Whereas I will not agree with politicians on every single vote and will be inclined to support them again, Chiu, there are some deal breakers, and Daly is one I won’t ever be able to support again.
BTW Campos voted for Ross for BoS president four times. That is a progressive voice if ever there was one!
May 14, 2009 at 12:41 pm
Marc,
Well, maybe I shouldn’t have said “gladly,†maybe “begrudgingly†would have been a better word to use when refering to the fare increase and I certainly agree the MTA budget should be strictly for the MTA.
Hey, here’s a 4-year-old Muni Fare Flashback from the San Francisco Chronicle, March 1, 2005 concerning the last fare increase. Note, at this time in history, the fares for seniors, the disabled and youth had not been increased since 1992.
“The plan would increase Muni’s base fare from $1.25 to $1.50, the second 25-cent increase since 2003. Fares for seniors, the disabled and youth are slated to rise from 35 cents to 50 cents, the first time in 13 years that class of fare has been increased.
The price of a monthly Fast Pass for the regular adult and discounted rider categories would go up to $50 and $12, respectively. Fare increases are expected to bring an additional $13 million to Muni coffers.â€
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/03/01/MNG76BII1C1.DTL&type=printable
It is interesting to read this article and look at the arguments being made.
I just hope they can keep the 26-Valencia bus up and running.
May 14, 2009 at 12:32 pm
“… riders have no assurance that they’ll get better service. That’s the key point.”
– Brian Wallace
Right you are, Brian.
Riders continue to see Muni stagnate year after year. Nobody in authority – not the mayor, not the supes, not the general manager – has been effective in turning things around.
They can’t. They’re all dsyfunctional hacks in a dysfunctional system of government.
It’s time to shut Muni down and have a private contractor come in and run public transportation for the city.
Otherwise, conditions in buses will continue to rival those in Third World countries.
Some cities in Europe in America have buses and trains that run on time, are free of human waste, and are run by operators who have basic social skills.
Imagine that.
May 14, 2009 at 11:06 am
Brian, why should fares double over 6 years while salaries remain stagnant or drop as Newsom pillages the MTA for his pet projects?
-marc
May 14, 2009 at 9:23 am
You know when you watch a hostage movie there is always the crucial “moment of exchange”? That scary point in time when the money is given to the kidnappers and the child is returned (hopefully) to the parents.
With Muni, most people would gladly pay a fare increase (this is after all San Francisco in the year 2009 with the $2.99 cup of coffee and the $6.50 pint of ale) but riders have no assurance that they’ll get better service. That’s the key point.
Muni has to say, “If you give us more money, here’s how we will wisely spend it and here is where you will see the specific results.â€
May 13, 2009 at 4:24 pm
Nobody should be surprised at David Chiu’s behavior. When he ran for supe, Chiu promised every group, separately, what they wanted to hear – never mind overall consistency.
David Chiu’s big priority is furthering the career of David Chiu. It amazes me that Chris Daly didn’t see that before making Chiu president of the Board of Supervisors.
Politicians like David Chiu rise quickly in the hierarchy of power. Whether they are admirable is another question.
As to Muni –
The system suffers from gross and systematic ineptitude on the part of both managers and employees.
General Manager Nathanial Ford had a sodden reputation before coming here. He has continued in the same vein in San Francisco. He couldn’t run a candy store.
Thanks to their powerful union, Muni drivers are pampered with outrageous perks and have no real oversight for their performance. Many combine incompetence with attitude, in the style of members of the Board of Supervisors.
Buses are garbage cans on wheels. They often smell of urine and excrement. They are splattered with graffiti and filled with litter.
They just barely keep a semblance of their schedules. Many drivers have the same poor level of social skills as San Francisco progressives.
Muni’s basic problem is not that it needs more money. Muni would be a first-rate system if sound business procedures and standards of excellence were imposed throughout the ranks, from top to bottom.
People would flock to use it, and revenues would go up. As it is, people who regularly use Muni every day (such as myself) only do so because we can’t afford cars.
Muni never going to change, folks. It’s part of a larger problem.
San Francisco is a city that is ideologically correct and dysfunctional.
May 13, 2009 at 3:49 pm
Though his Recurrent Power decision depresses me, I believe that Eric Mar voted with a clean conscience, an independent mind, and a good heart. One could even say that he is courageous. David Chiu? Though it may not be conscious on his part, he has a shadiness about him that makes me very uncomfortable.
May 13, 2009 at 2:16 pm
‘Advocates’ and the School Board’s Equally Lame JROTC Cop Out…
Hi Ann and all,
(By ‘the advocates’ we mean all of the people of the community like ourselves (and you yourself as well) who are pushing our government to serve the public and the environment.)
Yesterday was indeed a day for elected leaders to wimp out on serving the public will. Besides the MTA and Recurrent lameness, the School Board voted to pass an amendment put forward by Norman Yee which has now kept JROTC alive, meaning years more of a grueling battle to get rid of it.
This was after Yee had committed to reject JROTC if it was found to not meet P.E. credit guidelines.
Yesterday Yee bailed on that commitment and a measure to allow JROTC to continue and be given time to meet P.E. credit requirements passed with only the solid progressives on the Board voting against that measure.
May 13, 2009 at 12:30 pm
Also, for my information:
Can someone explain to me what this business of being “an advocate” is? Is there some sort of formal bureaucratic registry process for being “an advocate” these days?
Last time I went to City Hall was for a LAFCO hearing, after the Green Party’s Eric Brooke asked me to come down and speak to the failure to implement Community Choice Renewable Energy Aggregation (CCA), a.k.a., a municipal renewable power infrastructure, which we all know has failed because Gavin Newsom and PG&E, whose assets are now some $40 billion plus, are determined never to see CCA implemented.
When I got there, Eric Brooke and somebody else—Joshua Arce, I believe—told me they were “the advocates,” which left me wondering ‘OK, then what the hell am I doing here?’ Was I supposed to fill out some goddamn forms?’
I’m not being hostile to you, Susan, or to Eric, or anyone else who still has the juice to show up with some homespun testimony at City Hall before getting the unnecessarily rude HONK!!!! that lets us all know we’re just there to look like fools on the goddamn GONG SHOW.
But, what is with this formal status— “the advocates”? I’ve got a growing allergy to bureaucracy and the registration and permitization of everything existing, which is ultimately as life crushing as militarism.
May 13, 2009 at 12:25 pm
That much said, this is as bad or worse than the Board’s decision, also yesterday, to contract with Recurrent Energy for corporate solar, another in a long string of defeats for public power.
This new majority progressive board is turning into as big a local disappointment as Barack Obama is nationally and globally.
And, what’s Gavin Newsom’s transpo solution? Same as his greenwashing mentor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s: electric cars to produce more profit for PG&E and SoCal Edison. http://www.usatoday.com/topics/article/Gavin+Newsom/0aYSaaY4gg1mI/2
We may need some more of that corporate solar power after all.