Joshua Arce, Vice President of the SFPUC, Must Act Urgently to Address Treasure Island’s Power Outages
Joshua Arce, as Vice President of the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) and the holder of Seat 2 designated for ratepayer and consumer advocacy, you are in a critical position to tackle the escalating power grid crisis on Treasure Island. With over 500 power outages since 1997—averaging one every two to three weeks—you cannot ignore the severity of this issue. Your extensive experience in labor relations, workforce development, and community advocacy uniquely equips you to recognize the profound impact these disruptions have on the island’s residents, particularly its low-income and minority communities. The resolution titled "Resolution Regarding Emergency Authorizations and Power Outages on Treasure Island," sponsored by Barklee Sanders and Jodi Soboll, demands immediate action, and your leadership is essential to deliver the reliable services that residents deserve.
### **The Crisis at Hand**
Treasure Island and Yerba Buena Island suffer from power outages at a rate four times higher than PG&E-provided power in San Francisco, with each incident averaging four to five hours. This translates to a staggering 500 outages over 25 years, disrupting the lives of 2,500 customers served by the SFPUC. Census data reveals that 60% of Treasure Island residents are low-income, with 50% living below the poverty line, ranking the area in the top 25% of California’s disadvantaged communities per CalEnviroScreen 4.0. These outages disproportionately harm vulnerable populations, causing health risks from inoperative medical devices, property damage from spoiled food, and sanitation issues from sewage backups. Your background in advocating for underserved communities should make this personal—this is a call to action you cannot sidestep.
### **Your Role and Responsibility**
As Vice President of the SFPUC, you have both the authority and the duty to act. Your Seat 2 role emphasizes protecting ratepayers and consumers, aligning perfectly with the resolution’s plea for equitable service. You vote on rates, contracts, and policies, and when the President is absent, you chair meetings, giving you a platform to prioritize this crisis. The SFPUC operates the power system for the Treasure Island Development Authority (TIDA), yet the existing grid—serving current residents—languishes while new infrastructure benefits luxury developments. This disparity is unacceptable, and your advocacy can bridge this gap.
### **Legal and Moral Imperatives**
The resolution cites clear legal grounds for urgent action:
- **City Charter and Administrative Code**: These empower the Mayor, Board of Supervisors, TIDA, and SFPUC to declare emergencies and protect public welfare (Article III, section 3.100(14); Chapter 7, section 7.1(b); Chapter 21, section 21.15; Chapter 6, section 6.60; Chapter 10, sections 10.03 and 10.62).
- **Chapter 99: Public Power**: SEC. 99.1 mandates clean, reliable, and safe electric service for all San Franciscans, a promise Treasure Island residents have been denied.
- **California Constitution and Fourteenth Amendment**: Equal protection demands that these residents receive the same service quality as others in the city.
- **Fiduciary Duty**: Under California Corporations Code § 5231, you are legally bound to act in the public’s best interest—inaction risks violating this duty.
Mayor London Breed’s 2023 statement, “it’s our duty to deliver services San Franciscans deserve,” and the 2017 emergency generator replacement (Resolution R0307-17) prove the city can mobilize when compelled. You must push for an emergency declaration now.
### **The Path Forward**
The resolution outlines actionable steps you can champion:
1. **Emergency Declaration**: Advocate for immediate inspections and grid deployment, as requested by the SFPUC Citizens’ Advisory Committee.
2. **Inspections by July 2024**: Ensure TIDA conducts a comprehensive review per California Public Utilities Commission General Orders 165, 128, and 95, addressing the grid’s deficiencies.
3. **Transparency**: Demand TIDA account for the $15 million allocated for grid improvements within two weeks, ensuring funds benefit existing residents.
4. **Reports and Plans**: Oversee the SFPUC’s “Treasure Island and Yerba Buena Island Failure Mode Analysis Report” (due within 12 weeks) and the subsequent “Recommendations for Power Grid Conformance” (due 6 weeks later), pushing for swift implementation to match San Francisco’s service standards.
5. **Funding and Oversight**: Collaborate with the Mayor, Board of Supervisors, and TIDA to secure emergency funding and hold TIDA accountable.
### **Why You Must Act Now**
The human toll is undeniable—outages threaten lives and livelihoods. The resolution notes that while new infrastructure is built for future developments, the current system, expected to serve residents for another 10-15 years, remains neglected. This is not just a technical issue; it’s a moral failing. Your experience tells you that low-income communities bear the brunt of such disparities, and the data backs this up. The economic cost—lost work, damaged property, and health crises—compounds the urgency. Legally, regulatory action or liability looms if standards aren’t met. Politically, public outrage and the Mayor’s own words amplify the pressure. You have the tools, the platform, and the responsibility to act—delay is not an option.
### **Call to Leadership**
Joshua Arce, this is your moment. Use your vote, your voice, and your influence to rally the SFPUC, TIDA, and city leadership. Declare the emergency, fund the fixes, and restore equity to Treasure Island. Your legacy as a champion for ratepayers hinges on this—act with the urgency this crisis demands. The residents of Treasure Island have waited 25 years; they cannot wait another day.
Proposal: SFPUC Board Living and Operating on Treasure Island
SFPUC board should be required to live and operate from Treasure Island—potentially in Building One or another location—until outages fall below three per year is a bold call for accountability. The idea is that by experiencing the outages firsthand (e.g., disrupted utilities, health risks, and daily inconveniences), board members would be more motivated to prioritize and expedite solutions.
Pros:
Increased Awareness: Living on the island would give the board direct insight into residents’ struggles, fostering urgency.
Symbolic Commitment: It signals to the public that the SFPUC takes the issue seriously.
Clear Target: Limiting outages to fewer than three per year sets a measurable goal.
Cons:
Practicality: Requiring board members—appointed officials with defined roles—to relocate and work from the island may not be feasible. They have personal lives and existing offices at the headquarters.
Legal Constraints: Forcing such a move could violate employment terms or city regulations governing the board’s duties.
Effectiveness: Punitive measures might breed resentment rather than collaboration, and outages stem from complex infrastructure issues (e.g., aging systems, funding delays) that board residence alone won’t solve.
Our SFPUC could mandate regular board engagements on the island—holding meetings, establishing a temporary office, or conducting site visits. This would maintain accountability without logistical overreach.
Funding Until Outages Drop Below Three Per YeaT
Propose that the city or state cover costs until outages are reduced below three per year. However, the SFPUC operates on a self-sustaining budget funded by ratepayers (customers like those on Treasure Island), not general city or state tax revenue. Grid repair costs—estimated in the tens of millions for Treasure Island—would typically come from the SFPUC’s capital improvement budget, which is separate from operating funds or headquarters financing.
City Role: As the SFPUC is a city agency, San Francisco could theoretically allocate emergency funds or pressure the SFPUC to prioritize Treasure Island. However, this would likely still draw from ratepayer-derived resources.
State Role: The state has no direct authority over a municipal utility like the SFPUC unless it intervenes via regulatory bodies (e.g., California Public Utilities Commission) or emergency declarations, which is unlikely for a localized issue.
Thus, while the city could advocate for or expedite funding, the financial burden ultimately falls on the SFPUC’s budget. Requiring the board to live on the island wouldn’t inherently shift costs to the city or state unless explicitly legislated—an unlikely scenario given budgetary structures.
A Path Forward
Rather than mandating residence, a balanced solution could include:
Emergency Action: The SFPUC should declare an emergency, as allowed under city codes, to fast-track grid inspections and repairs.
Board Engagement: Hold regular meetings or establish a temporary office on Treasure Island to keep the board connected to the issue.
Funding Prioritization: Allocate a specific portion of the SFPUC’s multi-billion-dollar capital budget (e.g., from projects like the $4.8 billion Water System Improvement Program) to Treasure Island’s grid.
Transparency: Report progress publicly, ensuring the $15 million already allocated for grid improvements is effectively used.
The $202 million headquarters, while a significant outlay, is a sunk cost from over a decade ago. The focus now must be on redirecting current and future resources to infrastructure, not reallocating past expenditures.
Conclusion
The SFPUC’s new headquarters cost approximately $202 million, a figure that highlights past priorities but doesn’t directly detract from today’s grid funding. Your proposal to have the board live and operate on Treasure Island until outages drop below three per year is a striking idea to enforce accountability, though it faces practical and legal hurdles. Instead, increasing the board’s presence on the island and leveraging the SFPUC’s ratepayer-funded budget to expedite repairs offers a viable path. While the city could push for action, the SFPUC must lead—ensuring Treasure Island’s residents finally receive the reliable power they deserve.