San Francisco's Proposition H measure, which goes before voters on November 4, is a complicated measure that requires careful consideration. The arguments for and against it are both strong and convoluted. The impetus for Prop H is likely a global climate change crisis combined with San Francisco's reputation as a progressive city that is willing to make aggressive if controversial moves.

Let's start by exploring the basis of Prop H. It is known and heartily endorsed by the SF Bay Guardian as the "SF Clean Energy Act." "Proposition H is a Charter Amendment that would: require the public utilities commission to evaluate making the city the primary provider of electric power in San Francisco, including a comprehensive study of options for providing clean, secure, cost-effective electricity; mandate deadlines for the City to meet its energy needs through clean, renewable power sources; and allow the Board of Supervisors to approve the issuance of revenue bonds to pay for any public utility facilities without voter approval." The city would be mandated by Prop H to meet these deadlines: by 2012, at least 107 megawatts; by 2017, at least 51% of the City's electricity needs; by 2030, at least 75%; by 2040, 100%. Note that nuclear power is excluded from the definition of 'clean and renewable energy sources.'

Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi recently spoke in favor of Proposition H at a "Yes on H" fundraiser. He gave an inspirational speech, calling upon voters to help San Francisco "put something on the road map of history of winning against a behemoth like PG&E" and "have a seat at the table to chart its own energy future."  Mirkarimi tackled the statement that Prop H is a "takeover," saying that it is a "feasability study," done "so we can really determine what the true path is for charting our own energy independence... It's our gateway to finding answers that are blessed by the City's constitution, so it's meaningful, and it has teeth, and it's binding and it's obligatory."

Beyond the study, Prop H is a Charter Amendment because it seeks to re-evaluate the relationship PG&E has with the City and grant the power to break ties if deemed appropriate and feasible. Although Mirkarimi cites that "we're doing what Sacramento did 55 years ago," it is helpful to understand that the move to shut down a nuclear power plant owned by SMUD and provide cleaner, cheaper energy was done with considerable federal assistance.

The city jumped at the chance a lifetime ago as their costs for acquiring facilities and building infrastructure were quite low compared to what San Franciscans could face in a similar operation today.

Also, those familiar with LA's Department of Water and Power may argue that being an electrical municipality doesn't necessarily make you cleaner than utilities like PG&E. Therefore, Prop H may start with a feasibility study, but the power it grants to the Board of Supervisors as a charter amendment is no small consideration.

If Prop H wasn't a charter amendment, the folks at PG&E might not strongly oppose it. In fact, it appears that PG&E is trying to attain clean energy in accordance with its customers' wishes; for example, the California Public Utilities Commission recently rejected a PG&E contract for wave-energy technology, saying that it would be too expensive and that it is "in a nascent stage."

What remains a thorn in Prop H's side, however, is that it is asking voters to give up their say in revenue bonding. By majority vote, the Board of Supervisors could issue revenue bonding without ever seeking public approval. This could be used to acquire PG&E's San Francisco facilities (although not limited to energy facilities) or construct new ones, with cost estimated "likely in the billions of dollars," according to City Controller Ben Rosenfield.

Personally, I can see several reasons for this significant amendment. One, it could streamline the process by removing the need to consult with voters on smaller decisions. Two, if you believe that we must move to renewable energy as soon as possible because we are in a climate change crisis, Prop H would facilitate swift action. Three, Prop H would give the City the power to purchase facilities that are not for sale, which is a bold and uncommon move.

So is the SFPUC ready to manage our electricity in addition to our water? Yes, it is true that San Francisco enjoys some of the cleanest tap water in the nation. However, the water is pristine at its origin and therefore "exempted from costly water filtration requirements" by the federal government. I previously had the idea that the SFPUC was praised for turning brown water into tasty, clear droplets, but perhaps my imagination bolted with the chance to glorify public works.

San Francisco's Board of Supervisors may already have the power to issue revenue bonding without voter approval, but the absence of a costly filtration system likely keeps cost comparatively low. We should consider that the Board and SFPUC, although not a band of superheroes, has not abused this ability in the past.

The San Francisco Republican Party voices their concern in this election's voter guide, saying, "If Proposition H passes the City would lose the more than $20 million a year that PG&E pays in taxes and fees. That means our taxes would need to go up to pay for this lost revenue or basic services, like libraries, police and fire services would need to be cut."

But is that really true? Consider how much consumers could be saving if SF were to run its own electrical facilities. Isn't the cost of taxes paid by PG&E passed on to the consumer? We could lose $20 million in taxes and fees, yes, but would your cost per kWh be reduced under SF municipal electricity?

The folks at SF Clean Energy sure seem to think so. I am concerned that the cost of purchasing necessary facilities and augmenting an aggressive renewable energy portfolio may easily run into the billions of dollars before taxpayers see relief.

Barack Obama wants to spend $15 billion a year on renewable energy over the next decade. If elected, how much funding can San Francisco hope to win? Can voters really count this chick before the highly controversial hatching process is finalized on Tuesday?

As I have become acquainted with Prop H over time, my opinion on whether to support it or oppose it has changed. In the past, I have heavily supported renewable energy at almost any cost, given my understanding of global climate change. However, in making our decisions we shouldn't forget that we can achieve the same goals via many different pathways.

In this case, my bone of contention is in revenue bonding authority; perhaps if Prop H gave San Franciscans the right to be involved in major funding decisions, I would back the measure 100%. (Simply mandating a feasibility study by the PUC and putting in place clean energy goals do not require a charter amendment.) In addition, I think that maybe a partnership between public and private entities should be emphasized and sought as a way to involve many capable players.

In the thick of political campaigns, enemies are perhaps made of otherwise beneficial partners. All things considered, I am currently undecided, and I'll use every last minute to weigh the risks and benefits before making my choice.