October 2007 - Sustainability - list.sfgreens.org

Re: [Sustain] CO2 Cap & Trade?
by Eric Brooks 21 Jul '08

21 Jul '08

Well, the idea is that you put a top limit or 'cap' on how much each county/state/corporations can emit. Concurrently with that, you create a market for trading reductions in CO2 emissions such that corporations get 'credits' (which are worth real money) and sometimes (but not always) corporations receive financial penalties or taxes for exceeding limits. The idea is that you make reducing CO2 emissions desirable by making it valuable. Then, you set up a market in which the CO2 credits get turned into electronic trading notes (a lot like stocks). So, one company, say, a carpet maker, figures out ways to greatly reduce it emissions, and its trading exchange issues that company a given amount of credits for free. Then, another company, say, a cement manufacturer, knowing that it is going to exceed its limits, buys the credits created by the carpet company so that, on paper, the cement company has bought enough credits to -not- exceed its limits; and so, it can therefore avoid emissions penalties (if there are any) or the cost of installing pollution controls (if their state requires any). Depending on the current or future cost of pollution control requirements, and taxes and penalties on fuel use or CO2 production, some companies may see the credits as even more valuable and pay more for them than their set value, and this makes the credits rise in value on the trading 'floor'. Now, as we all know, from any quick glance at the stock market, and especially at markets trading currency values, speculators over the last many decades have developed incredibly clever and complex ways of making money from trading even though they aren't creating any value or production whatsoever. Add this to the fact that corporations have high incentives to use tricks to pretend on paper that they are reducing their emissions when they are not, that corporations will continue to get laws passed to reduce pollution controls and penalties and even to change the way CO2 trading systems work, and it is easy to see that such cap and trade systems are doomed to failure. Indeed, the cap and trade system adopted a few years ago in Europe is already failing dismally. See http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=21202 cheers Eric Anne Garrison wrote: I can't even figure out how this cap and trade business is supposed to work. Somebody told me that carbon offsetting meant something fairly simple like paying to plant a tree in exchange for some sort of excess energy use, but I can't even tell how this is supposed to work. If I'm around and anyone can enlighten me at the next meeting, I'd appreciate it. I know it's crap, and don't much feel like sorting it out, but feel like I should.

3 2

[Sustain] Fwd: Financial Arguments Against The Combustion Turbines
by Eric Brooks 31 Oct '07

31 Oct '07

Right, but Cal ISO is irrelevant since the new 200 megawatts is just as polluting as the old. 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. 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.) 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. 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.' cheers Eric Joshua Arce wrote: > Hey Eric, > > 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. > > 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. > > 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. > > 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. > > See you today, > > Josh > > > > Joshua Arce > Executive Director / Staff Attorney > Brightline Defense Project > 240 Golden Gate Avenue, Ste. 102 > San Francisco, CA 94102 > 415-837-0600 (phone) > 415-837-0660 (fax) > > > *From:* Eric Brooks [mailto:info@our-city.org] > *Sent:* Tue 10/30/2007 8:51 PM > *To:* Guillermo Rodriguez; Michael Boyd; Joshua Arce > *Subject:* CT Strategy (Private - Do not Forward) > > Hi all, > > Here is a recent email that I sent to fellow organizers that might help > inform the legal injunction efforts that you all are pursuing... > > My thoughts, > > 1) Most importantly the irrational fear of Cal ISO's stubborn > recalcitrance should simply drop off of our radar screen. Why? Because > if we as organizers and City officials simply decide that the real goal > is to close down only the Mirant diesel turbines, we can easily > accomplish that goal -without- Cal ISO. The only reason anyone gives a > damn about the Cal ISO position is that, if we don't comply with it, Cal > ISO will not remove the RMR for Potrero Unit 3 (the existing gas turbine > which generates 97% of the Mirant facility's electricity). Since neither > Mirant nor Cal ISO will want to spend the money to upgrade the diesel > turbines, and they won't be able to credibly argue that those diesels' > measly 3% production is necessary for grid security, all we have to do > is reject or constantly delay the CT project, and let the new 2009 air > regulations -force- the shut down of the diesel turbines. Before that, > at the end of 2008, Mirant and Cal ISO will also have no other choice > than to pay for water emission upgrades to Mirant Unit 3 so that it can > keep running. > > Meanwhile, we get a smaller project passed that will replace the diesel > turbines by the time they shut down, and also run them on waste > biodiesel until that time. > > With this strategy, we will get both the shut down of the Mirant diesels > -and- sufficient water upgrades to ensure that Mirant 3 is no worse than > the CTs would be in environmental impact. Then, we can all go home and > rest for a while while Cal ISO gripes to the roof tops... > > Our primary focus in all of this, should be to get the Supervisors to > properly envision the Mirant plant as two separate entities, the gas > turbine, and the diesel peakers, and to stop worrying about the > therefore irrelevant opinion of Cal ISO. > > Remember the most important words of Steven Biko. 'The most powerful > weapon in the hands of the oppressor, is the mind of the oppressed.' > > The SFPUC staff and Cal ISO are playing head games with us and creating > an imaginary fear in our minds of Cal ISO's power over decisions, when > if we just let go of that fear and focus on actual pollution levels, the > Cal ISO bogey man will simply disappear like the imaginary puff of smoke > that it represents... > > As to holding back our opponents while they try to -force- the > construction of the CT plant: > > 2) Our main tactic should be delay. If we just keep delaying the actual > contract negotiations and adoption, and then keep challenging the > geographical and environmental placement of the turbines, we might be > able to tie the thing in knots for years, until considerable local > renewables and load capacity come on line. > > 3) We should also consider legal action and injunctions under the Clean > Air Act and CEQA, and before the EPA, CEC, CPUC and Bay Area Air Quality > Management District, to both challenge and block the Combustion Turbine > approval, and to force the early closure of the Mirant diesel turbines. > > 4) Don't give up hope yet. It is quite possible that tomorrow's SFPUC > hearing will go very badly for the JPower proposal, and that will then > give us a lot more time to organize and prepare legislation and > alternatives. Let's see what happens tomorrow. > > 5) If the situation becomes desperate and imminent, would could push the > SFPUC Commissioners to adopt a plan that will put out a new RFP for > contract bids, on a scaled down project that will erect only one of the > CTs and/or run the Mirant diesel peakers on waste biodiesel. > > 6) While all of the above is proceeding, If the CT proponents manage to > ram the CTs down our throats, we do everything in our power to make sure > that in the project contract, the City of San Francisco solely controls > the on/off switch of the CTs, and is only required to switch them on in > the case of emergency peak power demands. It would be very hard for the > project proponents to bs their way around that one, because they have > just claimed in public hearings that their intention is to -never- turn > on the CTs; to only have them in place for emergencies... > > Keep in mind all, that the reason they are ramming this thing through so > fast is that they know we have them by the cajones. > > So let's just keep our grip firm on those cajones. > > At the very least, this will get us the closure of Mirant. > > Now I better send this, before the next earthquake tremor knocks my > laptop off the desk.. > > cheers > > Eric > > -- > > "I am not a liberator. Liberators do not exist. The people liberate > themselves." – Che Guevara > > -- "I am not a liberator. Liberators do not exist. The people liberate themselves." – Che Guevara

1 0

[Sustain] CT Update & Reminder, SFPUC City Hall Rm 400, 2:30pm Today (Wed, Oct 31)
by Eric Brooks 31 Oct '07

31 Oct '07

Hi all, First a quick update. As expected we could not stop Maxwell's CT resolution from escaping the Land Use Committee on Monday. SFPUC staff spouted the same extremely clever and deceptive illusions that they presented to the SFPUC Commissioners, but the Committee members (Maxwell, McGoldrick and Sandoval) bought it. Infamous Health Dept. Director Mitch Katz was also on hand to claim with the SFPUC staff that the CTs would vastly decrease pollution, and he justified his statements in part by describing plans to both use street cleaners to suck particulates off of the streets, and to also buy pollution credits to technically offset the CTs' NOX emissions! Recall that this is the same sort of evil nonsense that Katz spouted about the Lennar construction site. Dr. Katz is fast becoming public health enemy #1. Katz and the SFPUC's Barbara Hale described these measures as resulting in a total zeroing out of of the pollution from the CTs. SFPUC Assistant GM Tony Irons claimed that the SFPUC's plan was to -never- turn on the CTs and to only have them available for emergencies! Looking at the JPower contract term sheet, that statement is clearly, blatantly false. Yesterday, Tuesday Oct 30, Maxwell's resolution went before the full Board of Supervisors. Sierra Club, Our City, the SF Green Party, and APRI did extensive lobbying and succeeded in really shaking up the issue; and we came one vote away from getting a one week continuance on the resolution. Michela Alioto-Pier, Ross Mirkarimi, and Chris Daly stood strongly on our side, and in the first continuance vote Tom Ammiano, and Gerardo Sandoval had been sufficiently convinced to doubt that they sided with us on that vote. Throughout the hearing, Jake McGoldrick totally betrayed us and repeatedly threw softball questions to the SFPUC staff and strongly pushed for the CTs. Then, something shocking happened. After a very long hearing of several Supervisors asking tough questions of the SFPUC staff and being dealt the same extremely clever lies that the Committee had heard the day before, the Supervisors then prepared for a final vote. Mirkarimi and Ammiano first introduced an amendment to the resolution which mandated that Mirant be guaranteed to close before the CT's would be turned on. Then, at the very moment the final vote was about to take place, Board President Supervisor Aaron Peskin suddenly announced from his podium that he had just heard from the Mayor's office that, AT THAT VERY MOMENT, they were completing negotiations with Mirant corporation to 'guarantee' that the Mirant plant would be shut down when Cal ISO released it from RMR status. Peskin went on to state that Mirant would be signing the agreement in about '27 minutes' AFTER the Board vote. Based only on this verbal hearsay by Peskin, the Board then took up the final vote, and Ammiano and Sandoval abandoned us on that final vote. This enabled the Resolution to pass 8 to 3 and sending a much stronger pro CT message to the SFPUC Commissioners for today's meeting. During the preceding dialog, SFPUC staff stated that the resolution needed to be passed that day, because the State Department of Water Resources had recently sent the SFPUC a letter saying that it would back out of its agreement to buy the electricity from the CTs unless the Board of Supervisors showed immediate support for the CTs. (SFPUC staff hadn't mentioned one word about this in the Land Use hearing.) This letter puts high pressure on the SFPUC Commissioners to approve the finalized JPower contract today. The upshot of all this is that we who are in leadership on this campaign need to be in Room 400 today to strongly urge Sklar, Hochschild, Normandy, and Cane to stand firm with us and continue demanding another alternative to the CTs, especially if the Mayor was telling the truth and Mirant has agreed to close. Our key arguments will likely best focus on Normandy's remaining three unresolved questions (assuming that Mirant has agreed to close) - - Will the City have the power to mandate that the CT plant will never be turned on except in the case of peak power emergencies? - Are these CTs the best option for -today- when there are likely other completely non-polluting alternatives available? and - How much will the CT plant cost the City? (And can we use that money to build an alternative solution instead.) (At this point the CTs will cost the City at least $60 million, up to $190 million total if we have to buy the CT electricity that PG&E has refused to buy, and $230-$500 million if the City owned alternative that was put back on the table is chosen.) The SFPUC staff claimed on Monday that Commissioner Sklar -will- be at the meeting, however after reviewing all of the hearing videos, I believe that this is still unclear. So we especially need to be there to demand that the vote be postponed until Sklar is present, if he is in fact out of town today. Here are the details again for the SFPUC meeting: *AGENDA SPECIAL MEETING * Wednesday, October 31, 2007 *2:30 P.M. NOTE DIFFERENT DAY/START TIME* City Hall, Room 400 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place *ORDER OF BUSINESS* 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call *CLOSED SESSION* 3. Public comments on matters to be discussed in Closed Session. 4. Motion on whether to assert the attorney-client privilege regarding the matters listed below as Conference with Legal Counsel. THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION WILL GO INTO CLOSED SESSION TO DISCUSS THE FOLLOWING ITEMS: 5. Conference with Real Property Negotiator -- Pursuant to Sunshine Ordinance Section 67.8 (a)(2), Govt. Code section 54956.8: Property: located at 25th Street and Maryland in San Francisco, California. (Hale) Negotiator for the SFPUC: Barbara Hale Negotiator: JPower. 6. Conference with Legal Counsel -- Pursuant to California Government Code Section 54956.9 (b) and (c) and San Francisco Administrative Code Section 67.10 (d) (2) Anticipated Litigation: As defendant. (Ambrose) FOLLOWING THE CLOSED SESSION, THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION WILL RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION. 7. Announcement following Closed Session. 8. Motion regarding whether to disclose the discussions during Closed Session. 9. Staff presentation, discussion and action related to matters addressed in the SFPUC Resolution No 07-0137, including the proposed San Francisco Electric Reliability Project (the Combustion Turbines (CTs) and related facilities), the JPower agreements and leases, and any related agreements, authorizations and permits required from other City Departments or federal, state or local agencies pertaining to this Project, and adopting findings pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. (Leal, Irons, Hale). ADJOURNMENT of the Special Meeting

1 0

[Sustain] Further ALERT! SFPUC This Wed Oct 31 To ALSO Hear JPower CT Plant Contract (without Commissioner Sklar!)
by Eric Brooks 29 Oct '07

29 Oct '07

Hi all, I just found out that the SFPUC is ALSO having a surprise hearing this Wednesday to hear and possibly approve the JPower contract to build the CT plant. Commissioner Richard Sklar, who has been our most active supporter in fighting the plant, will be out of town. Those of you who have not yet spoken at the SFPUC and those of us in leadership of the various campaigns fighting the plant should also attend that hearing to restate our opposition and to demand that the Commissioners make -no- decisions until Sklar returns. Here are the details for that meeting: *AGENDA SPECIAL MEETING * Wednesday, October 31, 2007 *2:30 P.M. NOTE DIFFERENT DAY/START TIME* City Hall, Room 400 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place *ORDER OF BUSINESS* 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call *CLOSED SESSION* 3. Public comments on matters to be discussed in Closed Session. 4. Motion on whether to assert the attorney-client privilege regarding the matters listed below as Conference with Legal Counsel. THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION WILL GO INTO CLOSED SESSION TO DISCUSS THE FOLLOWING ITEMS: 5. Conference with Real Property Negotiator -- Pursuant to Sunshine Ordinance Section 67.8 (a)(2), Govt. Code section 54956.8: Property: located at 25th Street and Maryland in San Francisco, California. (Hale) Negotiator for the SFPUC: Barbara Hale Negotiator: JPower. 6. Conference with Legal Counsel -- Pursuant to California Government Code Section 54956.9 (b) and (c) and San Francisco Administrative Code Section 67.10 (d) (2) Anticipated Litigation: As defendant. (Ambrose) FOLLOWING THE CLOSED SESSION, THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION WILL RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION. 7. Announcement following Closed Session. 8. Motion regarding whether to disclose the discussions during Closed Session. 9. Staff presentation, discussion and action related to matters addressed in the SFPUC Resolution No 07-0137, including the proposed San Francisco Electric Reliability Project (the Combustion Turbines (CTs) and related facilities), the JPower agreements and leases, and any related agreements, authorizations and permits required from other City Departments or federal, state or local agencies pertaining to this Project, and adopting findings pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. (Leal, Irons, Hale). ADJOURNMENT of the Special Meeting

2 1

[Sustain] Exciting Power Plant Report & Sign On Statement!
by Eric Brooks 27 Oct '07

27 Oct '07

Besides the hearing alert I just sent you, there have been exciting and powerful developments in the fight to stop the City from letting multi-national energy corporation JPower build the polluting natural gas CT power plant in the Bayview Hunters Point. Please check out this update and look at the attached STOPPP! Coalition sign-on statement that we need you/your group to endorse so that we can show City Hall and the SF Utilities Commission (SFPUC) that there is a massive, broad movement building to demand that this unacceptable plant be stopped; and that the existing Mirant/Potrero power plant must begin shut down operations immediately. Huge Public Turnout Last Friday Oct 19th! The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) staff's attempt to quickly run the JPower plant through a surprise SFPUC meeting for approval failed miserably. By the time of the meeting, the four cornerstone groups forming the campaign to halt the plant (Our City, Greenaction, Sierra Club, and the San Francisco Green Party) were in place and ready to organize. These four groups and many of you, organized beautifully to get a huge turnout of Bayview residents and environmental activists to the meeting. At the same time, the strange bedfellows PG&E influenced APRI anti-plant effort also continued its own organizing, and the result of all this was that we packed the hearing room -and- the halls -and- an overflow room with San Francisco residents demanding an end to the power plant project. There were scores of comments opposing the plant and only two speakers in favor. Commissioners Richard Sklar, David Hochschild, And Dennis Normandy Put The Staff On The Defensive And Attacked The Plant Proposal! These three Commissioners, at least for now, are strongly supporting our side. Commissioner Sklar took point on repeatedly attacking the project as unnecessary and wasteful, and chided the staff for using misleading exaggerations to push the plant proposal. He and Commissioner Hochschild brought forward key information which cast the power plant deal in a very bad light. Some of these key points are: - The truly dirty part of the existing Mirant plant are three old diesel turbines which rarely run and only account for 3% of the energy it produces. (Current plans for renewable energy and efficiency in San Francisco will easily produce enough energy to make those old diesels unnecessary.) The big natural gas generator on that plant does not run any dirtier than the proposed Combustion Turbine(CT) plant. - New air regulations will mandate, by law, that those existing dirty diesel generators must be shut down anyway by the end of 2009. So if we take no action, build nothing, the worst power plant pollution source in the Potrero basin will be shut down all by itself. The JPower plant is therefore, utterly unnecessary. - JPower will be allowed to run the proposed CT plant half a day, every day, perpetually, for profit. This means that the proposed plant is -not- a 'peaker' plant; it is a cash cow for the fossil fuel industry; and the SFPUC has no power to reduce its hours of operation. - Mirant corporation has repeatedly refused to promise that it will shut down the existing plant if the JPower plant is built. - The California Independent System Operator (Cal ISO) was forced to admit that it is not solely at its discretion to remove the requirement for the existing plant to run. Even if Cal ISO says the plant can close, Schwarzenegger's California Public Utilities Commission and Bush's Federal Energy Regulatory Commission can say 'NO'. These damning revelations and more, created a strong air of skepticism in four of the five SFPUC commissioners, and when the Commissioners met later in closed session to consider approving the JPower deal, they took -no- action. This was a big victory and slowed down the progress of the JPower plant considerably, giving us a chance to stop it if we keep pushing hard against it and keep turning up the heat on the Commissioners and Board of Supervisors However, the fight is far from over. SFPUC General Manager Susan Leal let slip at the end of last Tuesday's regular SFPUC meeting that she has been working with the Mayor's office to create a -new- deal for installing the Combustion Turbine plant, and the President of the SFPUC (Ryan Brooks) left the door open for -another- surprise meeting soon to consider that new deal. And we must remember that the Commissioners voted in August to let the JPower deal move forward even while complaining that they didn't like it. So we cannot count on the Commission to do the right thing, and we now have to apply major pressure on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors to demand that they reject the plant. All of this makes it crucial that you take a look at the attached coalition Statement of Support and send it to us right away if you and your group agree. To sign on, either send us a return email indicating you/your group's agreement, and with your/your group's contact information in that email. Or, print, fill out and mail the form to: Our City 1028-A Howard St. San Francisco, CA 94109 Working together, we can stop this deadly, environmentally destructive plant from being built in San Francisco, and then move rapidly to shut down Mirant! Looking forward to your reply and solidarity. (Please call me at the number below if you have any questions.) Eric Brooks Campaign Coordinator - Our City - http://our-city.org Co-Chair - SF Green Party Sustainability Working Group 415-756-8844 previously I wrote: Hi, Enough critical mass, and promising new developments, have now arisen around halting the proposed Bayview natural gas Combustion Turbine power plant, that it is time to strike while the iron is hot and form a broad coalition to -stop- the plant. (See 'Recent Developments' below my contact information.) I've also gotten enough buy-in from the local Sierra Club chapter, that they too are helping build the campaign to stop the power plant. We will need a strong alliance of both Bayview environmental justice organizers and mainstream environmental groups to finally put the nails in the coffin of this plant. This email is to invite you, and Ahimsa's campaign, to officially join the coalition. We need to have a coalition meeting soon, so please respond within the week, and let me know if/when you are available over the next week or two, to join in that organizing meeting. I'm looking forward to working with you to stop the power plant. peace Eric Brooks Campaign Coordinator Our City http://our-city.org 415-756-8844 Other Recent Developments: 1) In August 2007, the Board of Supervisors approved the laying, by 2010, of the Transbay power cable, which will bring San Francisco 400 new megawatts of electricity capacity from an entirely new and independent geographical direction. This capacity is enough to completely eliminate the need for both the existing Mirant Potrero Hill plant -and- the proposed gas turbine plant. 2)Shortly after the Mayor, Supervisor Maxwell, Supervisor Peskin, The City Attorney, and The San Francisco Utilities Commission (SFPUC) staff, tried to quickly ram through the power plant approval, 4 of the 5 SFPUC -Commissioners- said that they do not want the plant to be installed and directed SFPUC General Manager Susan Leal and her staff to bring any proposed installation contract back before the Commissioners for approval instead of sending it directly to the Board of Supervisors. Leal agreed in a public hearing to do so. 3) At the September 25, 2007 SFPUC public hearing, Commissioner Richard Sklar said that he now believes the combined impact of the Transbay cable and a PG&E proposal to alter electricity load distribution and so reduce electricity demand, will likely be enough to convince state agencies to allow the Mirant plant to be closed -without- building the Combustion Turbine plant. Sklar directed staff to follow up on the matter and prepare a proposal to take to the State California Independent System Operator (Cal ISO) and with that proposal apply to have Cal ISO cancel the plan to install the Combustion Turbines. 4) The SFPUC also recently released a request for information and comments, and will soon be taking bids, on the Board approved Community Choice renewable energy project, which will build -another- 360 megawatts of completely clean, renewable electricity capacity by around 2011. This is -also- enough to make both power plants unnecessary, and combined with the Transbay cable capacity, makes the idea of continuing to run fossil fuel power plants in San Francisco completely ridiculous. 5) A lawsuit has been filed at the Bay Area Air Quality Management District to reverse approval of the Combustion Turbine plant, because the U.S. EPA, by court order, must now start regulating CO2 emissions as air pollution, and this enforcement may well make building another fossil fuel power plant in San Francisco illegal under the Clean Air Act. 6) Finally, for its own selfish reasons, even PG&E has come out opposing the Combustion Turbine plant (because it doesn't want any competition for its monopoly on power production and sales). So - The scales are finally tipping in our favor toward stopping this unacceptable plant. Let's tip them all the way! - Eric Brooks -- "I am not a liberator. Liberators do not exist. The people liberate themselves." – Che Guevara

1 0

[Sustain] Peskin's Attempt To Gut SF Dept. of Env. After It Opposed Polluting Power Plant
by Eric Brooks 27 Oct '07

27 Oct '07

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/10/25/BA80SVJKJ.DTL&h… SAN FRANCISCO Peskin thwarted in attempt to gut Environment Dept. City Charter only allows voters to decide fate of the agency Wyatt Buchanan, Chronicle Staff Writer San Francisco Board of Supervisors President Aaron *Peskin* quietly introduced a piece of legislation at City Hall this week to eviscerate an entire city department, just days after the head of that department broke with *Peskin* and other city leaders on a major energy policy. The legislation would eliminate the jobs of all 64 employees of the San Francisco Department of the Environment - except for its director, Jared Blumenfeld - but was deemed illegal by the city attorney's office on Wednesday. "This is not the first skirmish the board has had with the Department of the Environment and it probably won't be the last," *Peskin* said after receiving word from the city attorney that gutting an entire arm of government whose existence is written into the City Charter just wouldn't fly. The charter can only be changed at the ballot box by voters. Blumenfeld said he was "horrified" when he first learned of the proposal Wednesday morning, the day after *Peskin* submitted the one line of legislation without fanfare to the clerk of the Board of Supervisors. "The Department of the Environment is recognized time and time again as the premier local environmental organization in the country," said Blumenfeld, noting his agency's efforts when the city hosted the U.N. World Environment Day in 2005. "I was really disturbed that someone, without even phoning me, would decide to cut all these great staff people we have in the department," he added. The department, formed after city residents voted to add it to the charter in 1996, has a budget that has grown steadily over time to just over $15 million this year. It gets almost no money from the general fund and instead is financed through grants and projects. The legislation to effectively dissolve the department followed a meeting in the mayor's office Friday at which Blumenfeld broke with the plans of the city Public Utilities Commission - which are supported by Mayor Gavin Newsom, *Peskin* and other supervisors - to build a new natural gas-burning power plant near Potrero Hill. The plant would replace an older, more polluting plant in the area. It would consist of three "peakers," which means officials would only turn them on when demand for power was high. But according to people who attended the meeting, Blumenfeld said he thought the city should oppose a fossil-fuel power plant and come up with other alternatives, which put a significant voice in opposition to the perception of a unified city front on the issue. Blumenfeld said *Peskin*'s proposal, which was co-sponsored by Supervisors Gerardo Sandoval and Sophie Maxwell, "is clearly a shot across the bow to say, 'You know what? Discourse in San Francisco shouldn't have too much environmental content to it when it doesn't support the status quo.' " *Peskin* would not address the power plant issue other than to saying Blumenfeld's stance on the peaker is "rather nuanced." He said his legislation is a nonissue because the city attorney must approve any legislation for it to be considered by the board. "It's much ado about nothing. I have no intention of moving the legislation and let's let bygones be bygones," *Peskin* said. But several supervisors have deep concerns about the department, *Peskin* added, referring in part to questions about whether the growth of the Department of the Environment over the years has been warranted and whether its work is duplicative of efforts that could be carried elsewhere in city government. Sandoval said he would like to find a way to move the proposal forward and make big changes in the department. He contended that Blumenfeld ignores the board's suggestions for the department, such as one Sandoval said he made that some administrators in the department should be able to speak Spanish or Chinese. "The Department of the Environment does a pretty good job for the mayor but is largely unresponsive to priorities that come from the Board of Supervisors and our constituents," Sandoval said. Supervisor Sean Elsbernd said he was intrigued by *Peskin*'s legislation and said he thinks the department has too much overlap with other city departments in the services it provides. Maxwell noted that while the department does not draw money from the city's general fund for basic government services, it does receive grants that could be spent elsewhere. "Yes, they do some good work, but it's time to take a closer look," Maxwell said. That's not a universally held sentiment at City Hall or in the community, however. Janet Nudelman, an administrator with the Breast Cancer Fund, said the department has been instrumental in working with the organization to examine the role of the environment and toxins in disease. "The department is not only effective in what it is able to accomplish, but it is truly the most visionary city agency," Nudelman said. Newsom's spokesman, Nathan Ballard, said the mayor didn't support *Peskin*'s move. Ballard said he did not understand "why anyone would declare war on the Department of Environment." Supervisor Michela Alioto-Pier, a Newsom ally on the board, lauded the department for assisting her legislation to ban phthalates, which soften plastic and have been shown to be toxic, from children's products and called the legislation to cut the department "outrageous." Alioto-Pier accused *Peskin* of using his legislative power to punish others who don't go along with him, saying she had her own run-in with the board president this week and wound up paying a political price when *Peskin* switched his vote to kill a charter amendment Alioto-Pier was pushing for the February ballot. Alioto-Pier said she asked *Peskin* about the move in a meeting in his office. She said he replied by telling her, "Payback is a bitch." She said *Peskin* said he was punishing Alioto-Pier for giving a television interview opposing Proposition A, the Muni reform measure he sponsored on November's ballot. Asked about the conversation, *Peskin* said he wouldn't discuss it, saying he doesn't divulge details of private conversations he has with other supervisors. But he added that Alioto-Pier's comments on the conversation "sound to me to be unfortunate and vindictive." /E-mail Wyatt Buchanan at wbuchanan(a)sfchronicle.com <mailto:wbuchanan@sfchronicle.com>./ This article appeared on page *B - 3* of the San Francisco Chronicle -- "I am not a liberator. Liberators do not exist. The people liberate themselves." -- Che Guevara

1 0

[Sustain] URGENT-EMERGENCY!: This MONDAY Polluting Fossil Fuel Plant Approval In Land Use Committee!!
by Eric Brooks 27 Oct '07

27 Oct '07

MORE THAN URGENT! Sophie Maxwell and Aaron Peskin, at the last possible minute on -Friday- scheduled a hearing in the Land Use Committee this MONDAY on Sophie's resolution to support a polluting natural gas Combustion Turbine (CT) plant to be built in San Francisco in the Bayview Hunters Point. Having your voice at this hearing is vital! The recently approved Community Choice renewable energy project and Transbay Cable project together will bring San Francisco enough electricity capacity to meet its peak load energy requirements. This makes building yet another fossil fuel plant in San Francisco (especially in our most polluted neighborhood) completely insane! The resolution has very strong, bad, wording that will make the fight to stop this plant -much- harder. **We -must- generate the biggest turnout possible on Monday. The hearing is at 1pm and the item is first on the agenda so it shouldn't take that long to get to public comment.** Here are the meeting time/place details: WHEN: Monday October 29, 1pm WHERE: City Hall, Room 263 (The same room where they held the special SFPUC hearing we spoke at.) Turn out the troops and email everyone you know! We recently kicked their butts in a similar hearing at the SFPUC, now let's do so at the Board of Supervisors! To read the resolution go to http://www.sfgov.org/site/uploadedfiles/bdsupvrs/committees/materials/07105… If you have questions call me at my phone number below. peace Eric Brooks Campaign Coordinator Our City 415-756-8844 http://our-city.org

1 0

[Sustain] Fwd: Our 'liberal' House speaker
by Don Eichelberger 26 Oct '07

26 Oct '07

1 0

[Sustain] Fwd: ONe fo the best indictments...
by Don Eichelberger 26 Oct '07

26 Oct '07

If capitalists hate socialism so much, why do they want to use tax payer money to support loan guarantees for nuclear power because the technology is not supported on Wall Street?? This is a good link to a Texas paper asking similar questions. Don >From: "Susan Swift" <vencejo(a)earthlink.net> >Subject: ONe fo the best indictments... >Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 08:00:36 -0700 > >An excellent editorial on why not to support more nukes (send to >your waffling family and congress members?). Here it is -- the >economic argument with safety issues thrown in for good measure. > >East Texas Weekly Community Newspaper ><http://www.easttexasreview.com/story.htm?StoryID=4950>http://www.easttexasreview.com/story.htm?StoryID=4950 > >Susan Don Eichelberger DJ Fix Independent Productions Green Uprising Blog www.greenuprising.blogspot.com My You Tube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctRp5rGJoUc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iySwwyZfDgE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8r9rK8nPREA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5UbnJ0kUqo http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4SktIYTyC1U Donny Fix del.icio.us book marks http://del.icio.us/donnyfix The Hegelian/Marxist goal is emancipation. Marx said it best in 1843: "Human emancipation wll only be complete when the real, individual man (sic) is absorbed into himself the abstract citizen; when as an individual man, in his every day life, in his work and in his relationships, he has become a species-being (politically accountabe to the whole); and when he recognizes and realizes his own power as social powers, so that he no longer separates this social power from himself as political power."

1 0

[Sustain] Bump November Meeting To Thursday 29th
by Eric Brooks 24 Oct '07

24 Oct '07

Hi again, The November meeting would fall on Thanksgiving Day, but there is in fact a fifth Thursday in November, so if no one objects I'll schedule the Sustainability meeting for the same time and place on Thursday, November 29th. cheers Eric -- "I am not a liberator. Liberators do not exist. The people liberate themselves." – Che Guevara

1 0