With global climate change and increasing energy costs, Americans are finally demanding energy independence. In San Francisco, we have long known that charting our own energy future is sound public policy. That is why we are supporting Proposition H, the Clean Energy Act.

In 1913, Congress passed the Raker Act and gave San Francisco the power to determine our own destiny. Since then, we've shown that we are "the city that knows how," successfully running water, power and sewer programs. The Clean Energy Act builds on this track record and adapts for a changing planet.

Despite the extensive advertising campaigns, the sad truth is that Pacific Gas & Electric Co. provides less clean energy today than it did in 2003. On March 26, PG&E filed compliance reports with the state showing that a paltry 11.4 percent of its portfolio meets renewable standards today, compared with 12.4 percent three years ago.

Prop. H puts us on the path to energy independence by requiring that 100 percent of San Francisco's energy come from clean sources by 2040. Prop. H would require expert study and public input to determine whether San Francisco should control more of its energy delivery or maintain the status quo. The choice is: Should San Francisco establish a mandate to switch on clean energy, or continue the failed policies of the past? Opponents of Prop. H - funded by PG&E - argue that the measure allows the mayor and Board of Supervisors to issue revenue bonds, and eliminates your right to vote on them. However, Charter Section 14.102 empowers voters to nullify any ordinance, fiscal or otherwise.

Prop. H updates provisions approved by voters in November 2002 that allow the mayor and board of supervisors to issue water and sewage revenue bonds. This updated approach is an industry standard, allowing the cost-effective issuance of bonds when ratepayers get the best deal. Bonds under Prop. H come with stricter safeguards, because they can be authorized only after expert study, public hearings and fiscal analysis by the San Francisco's budget analyst, currently Harvey Rose. The unelected executives at PG&E never face voters, yet have the authority today to issue revenue bonds. Perhaps that's why they filed a 6.5 percent rate increase in June, just as Californians were paying more at the pump and PG&E executives were taking home millions in compensation. It could also explain why PG&E paid its executives $83 million in bonuses while filing for bankruptcy in 2001. Meanwhile, municipal utilities all across the state, including Sacramento, Los Angeles, Alameda, Santa Clara and Palo Alto all provide cheaper power. The next time you receive a mailer expressing PG&E's concern about voter oversight, consider this. Without any input from ratepayers, PG&E has already spent more than $5.4 million against Prop. H attempting to turn back the clock on renewable energy. Just imagine the difference a similar investment could have made in meeting renewable goals, undergrounding utilities in our neighborhoods, stopping blackouts or increasing energy efficiency. Are hefty fees for campaign consultants and millions in executive compensation among your priorities?

Voters always have the final say when the government runs a public works program in an honest, transparent and accountable manner. That's been the vision since the Raker Act in 1913, and it can continue in our "cotu that knows how." For our energy future, we encourage you to vote yes on Prop. H.