Mayor Gavin Newsom came out against San Francisco’s Clean Energy Act on the November ballot – right after giving a passionate “green” speech at Netroots Nation. Far from mandating public power, the Clean Energy Act merely asks the Public Utilities Commission to study the issue. It does, however, require that San Francisco be 100% free of fossil fuel energy by 2040 – a far less ambitious goal than what ex-Vice President Al Gore has called for. At Netroots Nation, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she agreed with Gore’s goal of energy independence by 2019 – and even starred in a video supporting Gore’s initiative. Supporting San Francisco’s Clean Energy Act should be a no-brainer. Will Pelosi endorse it at tomorrow’s Democratic Central Committee meeting?

For decades, environmental advocates have fought PG&E – insisting that San Francisco ratepayers would benefit from a municipal power system like what we have in about 900 cities (including Los Angeles and Sacramento.) Unsuccessful efforts were waged at the ballot box in 2001 and 2002 – despite an energy crisis that should have made the political climate ripe for a takeover. Having learned from past losses, the Clean Energy Act is not public power per se – as it merely requires the Public Utilities Commission to study options for providing “clean, secure, cost-effective electricity” and identify “the most effective and economic means” of doing so.

If public power is the best way to do attain that objective, so be it. But if PG&E can prove they can deliver energy in a more cost-efficient (and energy-efficient) way, they can still provide San Franciscans with electricity – like they have for over a century. Ultimately, the Board of Supervisors will have final say after the PUC conducts their study, and expect PG&E to do as much arm-twisting as they can. The Clean Energy Act’s only mandatory portion is that San Francisco must produce 51% of its energy from renewable sources by the year 2017, 75% by 2030 and 100% by 2040.

Those numbers sound ambitious, but they’re really not. Former Vice President Al Gore has called on the United States to be 100% free of fossil fuels by 2019, and has launched a clean energy campaign to get there. At the Netroots Nation convention three weeks ago, where Gore was a surprise guest at a session with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, an attendee asked Pelosi if she endorsed Gore’s clean energy goals – which are far more radical than San Francisco’s measure.

Pelosi responded that she did, and even appeared in a video with Newt Gingrich to promote Gore’s new website to combat climate change. “We need cleaner forms of energy, and we need them fast,” she said. Tomorrow, she’ll get the opportunity to match her words with action – by instructing her proxy on the Democratic County Central Committee to cast a “yes” vote endorsing the local Clean Energy Act.

Meanwhile, PG&E has stepped up a massive campaign effort to derail the Clean Energy Act – even sending out mailings to voters before the Board of Supervisors put it on the ballot. And they already have Mayor Gavin Newsom (whose political consultant, Eric Jaye, is doing work for PG&E) opposing the measure. “I don’t support the public power initiative,” said Newsom – once again framing the issue as if it were like prior ballot measures that mandated a public power system.

When I approached Newsom at Netroots Nation after he gave a well-received speech on climate change, I asked him if he supported the Clean Energy Act. His initial response was “yes,” but he added that he didn’t think it was all that substantive. Eric Jaye was standing next to us at the time – and as I started to walk away, Jaye said something to Newsom. The Mayor then called out to me and asked, “did you mean the one about PG&E?” I said “yes,” and he then said: “oh, it’s horrible. I don’t support it.” Newsom wouldn’t explain why, and denied that Jaye working for PG&E had anything to do with his position.

Newsom initially thought I was referring to Proposition 7 – the statewide Clean Energy Act on the November ballot, which some environmentalists oppose because they don’t believe it is very substantive. But it’s disturbing that Newsom referred to the local Clean Energy Act as “the one about PG&E” – as opposed to setting modest goals for energy independence. (For the record, PG&E opposes both local and statewide initiatives.)

Pelosi, on the other hand, has taken a more progressive stance on energy independence than what San Francisco’s Clean Energy Act would call for. How can she claim to have legitimacy on this issue at the national level, if she doesn’t endorse a local measure in her own district that is far less ambitious? Stay tuned for tomorrow’s Democratic County Central Committee – where the vote should be extremely contentious.