[Sustain] [SFGP-A] 'Peaker' Plant Vote Delayed - Mayor Preparing Alternative

[Bruce Wolfe]

   Time to push CCA really, really, hard now.  There is no other  
alternative ready.

   Bruce

   ----- Message from brookse32 at aim.com ---------
    Date: Tue, 13 May 2008 10:49:38 -0700
    From: Eric Brooks <brookse32 at aim.com>
Reply-To: Eric Brooks <brookse32 at aim.com>
Subject: [SFGP-A] 'Peaker' Plant Vote Delayed - Mayor Preparing Alternative
      To: GPSF Sustainability Working Group  
<sustainability at sfgreens.org>, Green Active list <active at sfgreens.org>

> Hi all,
>
> Our collective hard work is beginning to pay off.
>
> Mayor Newsom has asked for a delay in the 'Peaker' vote so that he can
> prepare an alternative energy plan to avoid building the Combustion
> Turbine plant.
>
> Now is where we will need to be vigilant. Part of Newsom's proposal will
> be to reduce pollution at Mirant.
>
> So we will soon need to push for a firm closure date on the Mirant plant
> in the very near future (even if it is polluting less), and then hold
> the City to it.
>
> Below is the SF Examiner article that announces Newsom's switch. Also
> see the attached letter from Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to the Board and
> Mayor opposing the plant - sent Monday. (Note that Kennedy and his group
> NRDC are actually a major problem to real environmentalism - but most
> mainstream liberals don't know that, and to them, a letter from Kennedy
> is a -big- deal.)
>
> We're almost at the finish line all. But we'll need a last wise push to
> get there. ;)
>
> peace, Eric
>
> http://www.examiner.com/printa-1388244~Decision_on_Potrero_power_plant_delayed.html
>
> Decision on Potrero power plant delayed
>
> John Upton, The Examiner
> 2008-05-13 10:00:00.0
> Current rank: # 19 of 9,416
> SAN FRANCISCO -
>
> Mayor Gavin Newsom asked city legislators to delay a vote on a
> controversial plan to build a new power plant in Potrero Hill that will
> replace an older, more polluting plant, saying he needs another week to
> work on an alternative strategy.
>
> The Board of Supervisors was scheduled to vote today on a proposal to
> borrow $273 million to build natural-gas-burning power plants in The
> City's southeast and at the airport, but Supervisor Sophie Maxwell, the
> legislation's sponsor, said Monday that she had agreed to the mayor's
> request for a postponement.
>
> The state agency charged with ensuring that Californians have reliable
> electricity supplies, the California Independent Systems Operator
> confirmed in a May 1 letter to the San Francisco Public Utilities
> Commission that The City's plan for the new power plant was "the best
> mechanism" for retiring the old Potrero power plant. The plan to build
> the cleaner power plants and take other steps to replace the Mirant
> plant was approved by the agency in November 2004.
>
> Opposition, to the plan, has grown in recent months, however, with
> groups including the Sierra Club, the San Francisco Planning and Urban
> Research public policy nonprofit and the Bay Area Ella Baker Center for
> Human Rights expressing a desire for a more renewable, less polluting
> option than a fossil-fuel plant.
>
> Newsom, who agreed in November to fast-track development proposals on
> Mirant's land and waive millions of dollars in city fees if the company
> closed the plant, told The Examiner on Monday that while he wants to
> close Mirant, he is "desperate" to avoid building new
> fossil-fuel-burning plants.
>
> "I don't want to live to regret this decision," Newsom said. "We may
> look like fools five years from now."
>
> Newsom said he will try to come up with an "aggressive" alternative plan
> to install new technology at the Mirant-owned plant to reduce pollution,
> increase electricity imports from a plan in the works to bring power
> into The City through a Transbay Cable, create more electricity from
> renewable sources and reduce in-city electricity demand.
>
> San Francisco Public Utilities Commission General Manager Ed Harrington
> told supervisors last week that SFPUC staff hadn't filed proposals with
> the California ISO to take different steps to replace the Mirant plant
> because discussions indicated they would have "no chance of success."
>
> jupton at sfexaminer.com

----- End message from brookse32 at aim.com -----


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://list.sfgreens.org/pipermail/sustainability/attachments/20080513/f7cc6e79/attachment.htm