Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Golden State Energy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Unions, students and community groups press Berkeley to support Golden State Energy study; PG&E representative urges caution
Summary
Dozens of speakers urged the council to support a feasibility study for ‘Golden State Energy’—a not‑for‑profit public power alternative—while an IBEW representative and PG&E speaker warned of risks to workers and taxpayers. The council left the item on the consent calendar and approved consent.
A broad cross‑section of Berkeley residents, students, union organizers and climate groups used public comment on Feb. 11 to urge the City Council to support a state‑level feasibility study into a not‑for‑profit public utility often described as ‘Golden State Energy.’
Alex Velez, a UC Berkeley student, asked the council to rate the referral highly to spur progress on limiting cars on Telegraph and on broader transportation priorities tied to the proposal. Jocelyn, co‑coordinator of the local SEIU chapter, said the union—and its international affiliates—support a ceasefire abroad and also urged council action on ethical investments and a principled stance on international human rights; she identified her comments as the official position of her local and as consistent with broader worker justice positions.
Speakers supporting the Golden State Energy feasibility study cited repeated PG&E power‑shutoffs, wildfire costs, and high rates. "Golden State Energy offers a safe, reliable alternative that prioritizes grid upgrades and infrastructure investment," said Hernando Sanchez of the Local Clean Energy Alliance. Reclaim Our Power, 350 Bay Area Action, student groups and other community organizations also urged the council's support and said any transition should be worker‑centered.
Representing labor and utilities viewpoints, Al Fortier of IBEW 1245 urged removing item 6 from consent for fuller debate and warned that a state takeover could expose taxpayers to liabilities and not solve wildfire‑related costs. Brett Bedell, speaking for PG&E, argued a government run utility could increase long‑term public liability and debt and could lose access to certain wildfire funds.
The council placed the Golden State Energy referral on the consent calendar as part of broader agenda items; the consent calendar was approved by unanimous ‘ayes,’ so the council did not debate the referral in depth during the action calendar. Several councilmembers and speakers signaled support for the idea of studying alternatives while acknowledging complex tradeoffs around worker protections, costs, and state‑level governance.
Because the referral remained on consent, implementation would require subsequent staff and legislative steps. Supporters asked the council also to pursue local feasibility studies in parallel with state advocacy.
