<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Right, but Cal ISO is irrelevant since the new 200 megawatts is just as
polluting as the old.<br>
<br>
We need to spend our energies on getting the public and the Supes to
realise this. As soon as we have them focused on the diesels as the
actual problem, Cal ISO drops from the picture. They can keep the RMR
on Mirant and it doesn't matter. We don't have to care. Because the
diesels will be forced to close in 2009 regardless.<br>
<br>
When you talk to fiscal conservatives, just point out to them that
either way we end up with the same level of pollution by 2010, but
under the CT option we pay $200-$500 million more dollars in City
money. However a solution to just build the 34 megawatt capacity to
replace the Mirant diesel turbines will cost considerably less. (It
will cost -zero- if Cal ISO is forced to admit that the Transbay Cable
is enough to cover that much smaller amount of in-city generation.)<br>
<br>
If we simply do nothing and just wait until 2010, my guess is that the
diesels will be forced to shut down and neither Cal ISO nor Mirant will
upgrade them.<br>
<br>
If someone comes back at you and says 'But Mirant will get another
water quality waver to keep running while destroying the Bay.', just
respond with 'Water quality upgrades would cost only a few tens of
millions. The City could just pay for the water emission upgrades with
1/5th of the money we would have spent on the CTs.'<br>
<br>
cheers<br>
<br>
Eric<br>
<br>
Joshua Arce wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:7D3C8BF4CE68DE4C93ABEA80EB0752E5017AC8@liverpool.brightline.office"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Context-Type"
content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<title>CT Strategy (Private - Do not Forward)</title>
<div>
<div> Hey Eric, </div>
<div> </div>
<div> This is good stuff. Just FYI, CAISO is a significant problem
in this equation for a couple of reasons. They are insistent on a
replacement of the in-City generation to be lost when Mirant shuts
down. There's no way around it. The City, together with CAISO, have
opted for the CT Power Plants as the replacement to provide 200
megawatts. </div>
<div> </div>
<div> The important question that CAISO unfortunately will not answer
is: how much generation do we need? Our position can be summarized
as: no CTs in the Bayview, no CTs in Potrero. The same environmental
health concerns do not apply to the airport CT, however. The nearest
residents are one mile away. There is a homeless shelter nearby, but
the site of the shelter benefits from wind patterns that direct all
pollution away from the shelter. </div>
<div> </div>
<div> So how much generation do we need? Would one 45 megawatt CT at
the airport be enough? CAISO will not speculate as to what is "enough"
because they have to do their own study of an alternative that the City
would put forth to them. </div>
<div> </div>
<div> I think we make the assumption that there is an opportunity to
allow J-Power to build the airport CT plant, then allow all of us, the
opponents of the SFERP CTs to be built in Southeast San Francisco, to
push the SFPUC to build renewable generation at the proposed location,
that the City will still own and control, but that will be green. </div>
<div> </div>
<div> See you today, </div>
<div> </div>
<div> Josh </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
</div>
<div>
<div> Joshua Arce<br>
Executive Director / Staff Attorney<br>
Brightline Defense Project<br>
240 Golden Gate Avenue, Ste. 102<br>
San Francisco, CA 94102<br>
415-837-0600 (phone)<br>
415-837-0660 (fax) </div>
<div> </div>
<div><br>
<b>From:</b> Eric Brooks [<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="mailto:info@our-city.org">mailto:info@our-city.org</a>]<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tue 10/30/2007 8:51 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Guillermo Rodriguez; Michael Boyd; Joshua Arce<br>
<b>Subject:</b> CT Strategy (Private - Do not Forward)<br>
<br>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p> Hi all,<br>
<br>
Here is a recent email that I sent to fellow organizers that might help<br>
inform the legal injunction efforts that you all are pursuing...<br>
<br>
My thoughts,<br>
<br>
1) Most importantly the irrational fear of Cal ISO's stubborn<br>
recalcitrance should simply drop off of our radar screen. Why? Because<br>
if we as organizers and City officials simply decide that the real goal<br>
is to close down only the Mirant diesel turbines, we can easily<br>
accomplish that goal -without- Cal ISO. The only reason anyone gives a<br>
damn about the Cal ISO position is that, if we don't comply with it, Cal<br>
ISO will not remove the RMR for Potrero Unit 3 (the existing gas turbine<br>
which generates 97% of the Mirant facility's electricity). Since neither<br>
Mirant nor Cal ISO will want to spend the money to upgrade the diesel<br>
turbines, and they won't be able to credibly argue that those diesels'<br>
measly 3% production is necessary for grid security, all we have to do<br>
is reject or constantly delay the CT project, and let the new 2009 air<br>
regulations -force- the shut down of the diesel turbines. Before that,<br>
at the end of 2008, Mirant and Cal ISO will also have no other choice<br>
than to pay for water emission upgrades to Mirant Unit 3 so that it can<br>
keep running.<br>
<br>
Meanwhile, we get a smaller project passed that will replace the diesel<br>
turbines by the time they shut down, and also run them on waste<br>
biodiesel until that time.<br>
<br>
With this strategy, we will get both the shut down of the Mirant diesels<br>
-and- sufficient water upgrades to ensure that Mirant 3 is no worse than<br>
the CTs would be in environmental impact. Then, we can all go home and<br>
rest for a while while Cal ISO gripes to the roof tops...<br>
<br>
Our primary focus in all of this, should be to get the Supervisors to<br>
properly envision the Mirant plant as two separate entities, the gas<br>
turbine, and the diesel peakers, and to stop worrying about the<br>
therefore irrelevant opinion of Cal ISO.<br>
<br>
Remember the most important words of Steven Biko. 'The most powerful<br>
weapon in the hands of the oppressor, is the mind of the oppressed.'<br>
<br>
The SFPUC staff and Cal ISO are playing head games with us and creating<br>
an imaginary fear in our minds of Cal ISO's power over decisions, when<br>
if we just let go of that fear and focus on actual pollution levels, the<br>
Cal ISO bogey man will simply disappear like the imaginary puff of smoke<br>
that it represents...<br>
<br>
As to holding back our opponents while they try to -force- the<br>
construction of the CT plant:<br>
<br>
2) Our main tactic should be delay. If we just keep delaying the actual<br>
contract negotiations and adoption, and then keep challenging the<br>
geographical and environmental placement of the turbines, we might be<br>
able to tie the thing in knots for years, until considerable local<br>
renewables and load capacity come on line.<br>
<br>
3) We should also consider legal action and injunctions under the Clean<br>
Air Act and CEQA, and before the EPA, CEC, CPUC and Bay Area Air Quality<br>
Management District, to both challenge and block the Combustion Turbine<br>
approval, and to force the early closure of the Mirant diesel turbines.<br>
<br>
4) Don't give up hope yet. It is quite possible that tomorrow's SFPUC<br>
hearing will go very badly for the JPower proposal, and that will then<br>
give us a lot more time to organize and prepare legislation and<br>
alternatives. Let's see what happens tomorrow.<br>
<br>
5) If the situation becomes desperate and imminent, would could push the<br>
SFPUC Commissioners to adopt a plan that will put out a new RFP for<br>
contract bids, on a scaled down project that will erect only one of the<br>
CTs and/or run the Mirant diesel peakers on waste biodiesel.<br>
<br>
6) While all of the above is proceeding, If the CT proponents manage to<br>
ram the CTs down our throats, we do everything in our power to make sure<br>
that in the project contract, the City of San Francisco solely controls<br>
the on/off switch of the CTs, and is only required to switch them on in<br>
the case of emergency peak power demands. It would be very hard for the<br>
project proponents to bs their way around that one, because they have<br>
just claimed in public hearings that their intention is to -never- turn<br>
on the CTs; to only have them in place for emergencies...<br>
<br>
Keep in mind all, that the reason they are ramming this thing through so<br>
fast is that they know we have them by the cajones.<br>
<br>
So let's just keep our grip firm on those cajones.<br>
<br>
At the very least, this will get us the closure of Mirant.<br>
<br>
Now I better send this, before the next earthquake tremor knocks my<br>
laptop off the desk..<br>
<br>
cheers<br>
<br>
Eric<br>
<br>
--<br>
<br>
"I am not a liberator. Liberators do not exist. The people liberate
themselves." – Che Guevara<br>
<br>
<br>
</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
"I am not a liberator. Liberators do not exist. The people liberate themselves." – Che Guevara</pre>
</body>
</html>