<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Hey all,<br>
<br>
San Francisco Supervisor Sophie Maxwell has just introduced the Clean
Energy Act as legislation at the Board of Supervisors! The legislation
will direct the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission to draft a
new plan to close the last remaining fossil fuel power plant in the
City (the Mirant Potrero Hill plant) and to draw up a new energy action
plan which adopts the Prop H mandates; replacing Mirant with only
renewables and efficiency.<br>
<br>
PG&E is going to lean -hard- on the Supervisors so we must not take
-any- of them for granted. Any of you who have good relationships with
any of them should make contact right away to solidify their support.
We must get 8 secure votes at the Board of Supervisors to ensure that
the Mayor's veto will be over-ridden and the measure will become law.<br>
<br>
This move by Maxwell wouldn't have been possible without all of our
hard work. Our campaign laid strong political ground for this moment.<br>
<br>
See Maxwell's legislation attached.<br>
<br>
Here is an article about the measure:<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/cityinsider/index?blogid=55">http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/cityinsider/index?blogid=55</a><br>
<h4 class="pubday">Tuesday, December 16, 2008</h4>
<div class="item">
<a name="entry_id_33704"></a>
<h2><a
href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/cityinsider/detail?blogid=55&entry_id=33704">The
power plant issue that won't die</a></h2>
<div class="postimageright" style="width: 150px;"><img
alt="Sup. Maxwell." src="cid:part1.05050707.04050101@aim.com"
border="0" height="225" width="150">
<p class="source">Liz Mangelsdorf/The Chronicle</p>
<p class="caption">Sup. Maxwell.</p>
</div>
<p>Supervisor Sophie Maxwell has made good on <a
href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/26/BAPM14C7CE.DTL"
target="_blank">her promise to keep the Board of Supervisors involved
in decisions</a> surrounding the future of a polluting power plant in
Potrero Hill. </p>
<p>On Tuesday, Maxwell introduced a measure that would make it city
policy to close the plant at the earliest possible date, and to replace
the power generated at the plant with clean resources. It calls on the
San Francisco Public Utilities Commission to create a plan for doing so.</p>
<p>But the measure goes even further. It sets aggressive clean energy
goals for San Francisco, mandating that the city meet 51 percent of its
electricity needs with clean resources by 2017; 75 percent by 2030; and
100 percent by 2040.</p>
<p>Those numbers sound familiar, you say? Well, it's because they're
exactly what was called for in Proposition H, <a
href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/04/BATD13RC1Q.DTL"
target="_blank">the public power initiative that voters rejected in
November</a>.</p>
<p>At issue is the Mirant Power Plant in Potrero Hill, which was <a
href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/04/BACF13S15S.DTL"
target="_blank">set to close and be replaced</a>
with a newer facility that would only run when necessary. But this
summer, the mayor and the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission,
which regulates the plant, changed their minds, saying it didn't make
sense to build a new fossil-fuel burning facility when renewable energy
sources are gaining ground. </p>
<p>Maxwell and other supervisors <a
href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfgate/detail?blogid=55&entry_id=31999"
target="_blank">balked at the change</a>, pointing out that they have
been working with city officials and the community for years on a plan <a
href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/05/05/EDS110FFM6.DTL"
target="_blank">to close the plant</a>. They also question whether the
retrofit will actually lead to acceptable emission reductions. </p>
<p>The board last month killed a measure that would have allowed the
mayor to move forward with the proposed retrofit. But state regulators
won't let the city shutter the plant without an alternative source of
energy in the city's limits. Maxwell is apparently hoping to have the
best of both worlds -- a shuttered plant and a new, city-owned clean
energy-producing facility -- with this latest legislation. </p>
<p class="credit"><span class="author">Posted By: <a
href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/cityinsider/author?blogid=55&auth=140">Marisa
Lagos</a> (<a href="mailto:mlagos@sfchronicle.com">Email</a>)</span> | <span
class="pubdate">Dec 16 at 05:28 PM</span></p>
<div class="postmenu">
<p class="inlinemenu">Listed Under: <a
href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/cityinsider/category?blogid=55&cat=1945">Being
green</a> | <a
href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/cityinsider/detail?blogid=55&entry_id=33704">Permalink</a>
| <a
href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/cityinsider/detail?blogid=55&entry_id=33704#comments">Comments
(2)</a> : <a
href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/cityinsider/detail?blogid=55&entry_id=33704#commentpost">Post
Comment</a></p>
</div>
</div>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
"I am not a liberator. Liberators do not exist. The people liberate themselves." – Che Guevara</pre>
</body>
</html>