May 2008 - 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] NYT: Mounting Costs Slow the Push for Clean Coal
by Eric Brooks 31 May '08

31 May '08

Mounting Costs Slow the Push for Clean Coal By MATTHEW L. WALD <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/w/matthew_l_wald…> Published: May 30, 2008 WASHINGTON --- For years, scientists have had a straightforward idea for taming global warming <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/science/topics/globalwarming/index.html?…>. They want to take the carbon dioxide that spews from coal-burning power plants and pump it back into the ground. President Bush is for it, and indeed has spent years talking up the virtues of "clean coal." All three candidates to succeed him favor the approach. So do many other members of Congress. Coal companies are for it. Many environmentalists favor it. Utility executives are practically begging for the technology. But it has become clear in recent months that the nation's effort to develop the technique is lagging badly. In January, the government canceled its support for what was supposed to be a showcase project, a plant at a carefully chosen site in Illinois where there was coal, access to the power grid, and soil underfoot that backers said could hold the carbon dioxide for eons. Perhaps worse, in the last few months, utility projects in Florida, West Virginia, Ohio, Minnesota and Washington State that would have made it easier to capture carbon dioxide have all been canceled or thrown into regulatory limbo. Coal is abundant and cheap, assuring that it will continue to be used. But the failure to start building, testing, tweaking and perfecting carbon capture and storage means that developing the technology may come too late to make coal compatible with limiting global warming. "It's a total mess," said Daniel M. Kammen, director of the Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory at the University of California, Berkeley. "Coal's had a tough year," said John Lavelle, head of a business at General Electric <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/general_electric_comp…> that makes equipment for processing coal into a form from which carbon can be captured. Many of these projects were derailed by the short-term pressure of rising construction costs. But scientists say the result, unless the situation can be turned around, will be a long-term disaster. Plans to combat global warming generally assume that continued use of coal for power plants is unavoidable for at least several decades. Therefore, starting as early as 2020, forecasters assume that carbon dioxide emitted by new power plants will have to be captured and stored underground, to cut down on the amount of global-warming gases in the atmosphere. Yet, simple as the idea may sound, considerable research is still needed to be certain the technique would be safe, effective and affordable. Scientists need to figure out which kinds of rock and soil formations are best at holding carbon dioxide. They need to be sure the gas will not bubble back to the surface. They need to find optimal designs for new power plants so as to cut costs. And some complex legal questions need to be resolved, such as who would be liable if such a project polluted the groundwater or caused other damage far from the power plant. Major corporations sense the possibility of a profitable new business, and G.E. signed a partnership on Wednesday with Schlumberger <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/schlumberger_ltd/inde…>, the oil field services company, to advance the technology of carbon capture and sequestration. But only a handful of small projects survive, and the recent cancellations mean that most of this work has come to a halt, raising doubts that the technique can be ready any time in the next few decades. And without it, "we're not going to have much of a chance for stabilizing the climate," said John Thompson, who oversees work on the issue for the Clean Air Task Force, an environmental group. The fear is that utilities, lacking proven chemical techniques for capturing carbon dioxide and proven methods for storing it underground by the billions of tons per year, will build the next generation of coal plants using existing technology. That would ensure that vast amounts of global warming gases would be pumped into the atmosphere for decades. The highest-profile failure involved a project known as FutureGen, which President Bush himself announced in 2003: a utility consortium, with subsidies from the government, was going to build a plant in Mattoon, Ill., testing the most advanced techniques for converting coal to a gas, capturing pollutants, and burning the gas for power. The carbon dioxide would have been compressed and pumped underground into deep soil layers. Monitoring devices would have tested whether any was escaping to the atmosphere. About $50 million has been spent on FutureGen, about $40 million in federal money and $10 million in private money, to draw up preliminary designs, find a site that had coal, electric transmission and suitable geology, and complete an Environmental Impact Statement, among other steps. But in January, the government pulled out after projected costs nearly doubled, to $1.8 billion. The government feared the costs would go even higher. A bipartisan effort is afoot on Capitol Hill to save FutureGen, but the project is on life support. The government had to change its approach, said Clarence Albright Jr., the undersecretary of the Energy Department, to "limit taxpayer exposure to the escalating cost." Trying to recover, the Energy Department is trying to cut a deal with a utility that is already planning a new power plant. The government would offer subsidies to add a segment to the plant dedicated to capturing and injecting carbon dioxide, as long as the utility bore much of the risk of cost overruns. It is unclear whether any utility will agree to such a deal. The power companies, in fact, have been busy pulling back from coal-burning power plants of all types, amid rising costs and political pressure. Utility executives say they do not know of a plant that would qualify for an Energy Department grant as the project is now structured. Most worrisome to experts on global warming, the utilities have recently been canceling their commitments to a type of plant long seen as a helpful intermediate step toward cleaner coal. In plants of this type, coal would be gasified and pollutants like mercury, sulfur and soot removed before burning. The plants would be highly efficient, and would therefore emit less carbon dioxide for a given volume of electricity produced, but they would not inject the carbon dioxide into the ground. But the situation is not hopeless. One new gasification proposal survives in the United States, by Duke Energy <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/duke_energy_corporati…> for a plant in Edwardsport, Ind. In Wisconsin, engineers are testing a method that may allow them to bolt machinery for capturing carbon dioxide onto the back of old-style power plants; Sweden, Australia and Denmark are planning similar tests. And German engineers are exploring another approach, one that involves burning coal in pure oxygen, which would produce a clean stream of exhaust gases that could be injected into the ground. But no project is very far along, and it remains an open question whether techniques for capturing and storing carbon dioxide will be available by the time they are critically needed. The Electric Power Research Institute, a utility consortium, estimated that it would take as long as 15 years to go from starting a pilot plant to proving the technology will work. The institute has set a goal of having large-scale tests completed by 2020. "A year ago, that was an aggressive target," said Steven R. Specker, the president of the institute. "A year has gone by, and now it's a very aggressive target." -- "I am not a liberator. Liberators do not exist. The people liberate themselves." -- Che Guevara

1 0

[Sustain] NYT: Global Demand Squeezing Natural Gas Supply
by Eric Brooks 31 May '08

31 May '08

Global Demand Squeezing Natural Gas Supply Michael Stravato for The New York Times By CLIFFORD KRAUSS <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/k/clifford_kraus…> Published: May 29, 2008 CAMERON PARISH, La. --- The cost of a gallon of gas gets all the headlines, but the natural gas that will heat many American homes next winter is going up in price as fast or faster. <http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/29/business/29gas.html?_r=1&oref=slogin#seco…> Managing Globalization Blog (IHT) <http://blogs.iht.com/tribtalk/business/globalization/?p=729> The Natural Gas Plan Goes Awry Go to Blog » <http://blogs.iht.com/tribtalk/business/globalization/?p=729> That fact makes the scene in the languid, alligator-infested marshland here in coastal Louisiana all the more remarkable. Only a month after Cheniere Energy <http://www.nytimes.com/mem/MWredirect.html?MW=http://custom.marketwatch.com…> inaugurated its $1.4 billion liquefied natural gas terminal here, an empty supertanker sat in its berth with no place to go while workers painted empty storage tanks. The nearly idle terminal is a monument to a stalled experiment, one that was supposed to import so much L.N.G. from around the world that homes would be heated and factories humming at bargain prices. But now L.N.G. shipments to the United States are slowing to a trickle, and Cheniere and other companies have dropped plans to build more terminals. A longstanding assumption of American energy policy has been that natural gas would be plentiful abroad, and therefore readily available for importation, as production falls off in North America, where many fields are tapped out. But some experts are starting to question that idea, saying natural gas could be subject to the same explosion in overseas demand that has made oil so expensive. As it is, the supertankers that were supposed to deliver cargoes of gas from Africa and the Middle East to the United States are taking them to places like Spain and Japan instead, pushing up gas prices and depleting the nation's stockpiles as the hurricane season approaches. "A few years ago people looked at L.N.G. as a solution to North America's gas needs," said Nikos Tsafos, an analyst with PCF Energy, a consulting firm. "But today we see that there is less L.N.G. around than people expected, and there is more competition for that L.N.G. from markets that are willing to pay more than the United States." Not long ago, Cheniere was a darling of Wall Street. It was widely praised for having the vision to plan four new liquefied gas terminals around the Gulf of Mexico to connect the country with supplies of natural gas from places like Nigeria and Egypt, gas once considered so worthless it was burned off. Now the company's stock price has sunk from $40 to just over $5 since last fall. "The question that people ask is if L.N.G. doesn't come to the United States for another year or two or three, what is going to happen to Cheniere," acknowledged Charif Souki, the chief executive officer of the company. While natural gas prices in the United States have spiked to over $11.80 per thousand cubic feet from $7.50 at the beginning of the year, the price that gas producers can draw in many other countries in the world is several dollars higher. All they need are terminals in producing countries that can chill natural gas to minus 260 degrees Fahrenheit for shipping across oceans and terminals in consuming countries that can regasify cargoes. Just about the only place where demand for L.N.G. seems not to be growing is the United States, an abrupt shift from expectations as little as one year ago. The Sabine Pass terminal was part of an estimated $7 billion construction of eight new L.N.G. receiving terminals being built around the Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic Coast over the last five years to guarantee plentiful domestic supplies. With imports about 40 percent of the level of a year ago, and national receiving terminal capacity poised to double this year, the excess construction of import capacity has alarmed industry executives. However the executives predict that it is only a matter of time before the white elephants begin to look like a more robust breed. They say American gas suppliers will eventually be willing to pay the higher world prices on the spot market, especially if a gas shortage ensues after a punishing hurricane season or frigid winter. They also predict future American consumption of natural gas is poised to increase because of hardening opposition to building new coal-fired electricity generating plants and delays in new nuclear plants. "Over time, we will need to start importing more gas," said Darcel L. Hulse, president of Sempra LNG, a division of Sempra Energy <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/sempra_energy/index.h…>, which is building receiving terminals in Mexico and Louisiana. "We will not have enough." That was the thinking that spurred the L.N.G. expansion in the United States in the first place. At the beginning of the decade, government officials and energy experts predicted a decline in domestic natural gas production as conventional fields on-shore and in the Gulf of Mexico declined. Companies like Cheniere, Sempra Energy and Exxon Mobil <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/exxon_mobil_corporati…> began snapping up coastal land and requesting regulatory approval for scores of terminals. Several other terminals were taken out of mothballs and expanded. But recently domestic natural gas production has been stronger than expected and events abroad have drawn L.N.G. from the United States to countries that needed it more. Last July an earthquake in Japan forced the closing of the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa nuclear power plant, which in turn has forced Japanese utilities to import huge amounts of L.N.G. World L.N.G. supplies grew even more scarce because of a persistent drought in Spain that has crimped that country's hydroelectric capacity, forcing the Spanish to increase L.N.G. imports. Prices in Asia and Europe have soared, as producers have sold more supply on the spot market where prices are higher than those in traditional long term contracts. World demand for natural gas has grown about 2.6 percent a year over the last decade, but in Asia, the Middle East, Latin America and Africa it has averaged 7 percent over the same period, according to a recent UBS <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/ubs_ag/index.html?inl…> report. Growth in the developing world is expected to be supported in the years ahead by a construction boom in refineries and power and petrochemical plants. Supplies of L.N.G. are going to grow in the next few years, but experts say they will not be enough to satisfy the growing demand. Liquefaction plant projects that prepare the gas for shipping in producing nations like Nigeria and Russia are being delayed and even shelved because of political turbulence, cost overruns and increasing domestic demand for gas in their own countries. Production in one major terminal in Indonesia is sliding because of a declining field, and production in another in Norway is facing mechanical difficulties. Cheniere Energy's liquefied natural gas terminal near Cameron Parish in Louisiana is idle, because other countries, like Japan and Spain, are willing to pay more for the fuel. With L.N.G. providing only about 3 percent of total American natural gas consumption in recent years, the fall in L.N.G. imports has made few headlines. But some experts say those responsible for importing gas are making a mistake by not buying more L.N.G. at current prices. They warn that the failure to import more L.N.G. is leaving natural gas reserves precariously low should the country be hit by a harsh hurricane season or cold winter. They say low L.N.G. imports have helped push American natural prices higher, just not high enough to match the prices of Europe and Asia whose ability to produce and store gas is far inferior to the United States. Andrew D. Grams, head of North American power and gas trading at Deutsche Bank <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/deutsche_bank_ag/inde…>, said the United States may eventually pay dearly for not importing more L.N.G. now. He calculated that given the reduced L.N.G. imports and expected energy use through the summer, the country will have only 3.1 trillion cubic feet of gas in storage at the end of October --- almost 1 trillion cubic feet below full storage. "Under a normal scenario, that's just barely enough to get through winter," Mr. Grams said. "It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that we may not get enough L.N.G. supply in the United States unless our pricing structure becomes more competitive with the rest of the world." Natural gas, unlike oil, is still a regional commodity and its price is only loosely connected to world oil benchmark prices. But L.N.G. has tied regional markets closer, and the arc of natural gas prices appears to be following close behind oil in recent months because of tightening L.N.G. supplies. The same increases in the prices of steel and other materials and shortages in labor that are making it more expensive to explore for oil are making L.N.G. development more costly too. Meanwhile, countries that produce oil and gas like Libya and Algeria are replacing their oil-powered electricity plants with natural gas-burning plants. That way, they are able to export more oil, which costs less to ship than L.N.G. "The value of gas to you is what people are willing to pay for the oil you are exporting," said Don Hertzmark, a consultant who has advised several oil companies on L.N.G. projects. "At that point, the gas is worth a lot of money." Nevertheless hopes for L.N.G. still survive here. The secretary of energy, Samuel W. Bodman, and a Cajun zydeco band came last month to celebrate the opening of the Sabine Pass terminal, and a tanker delivered L.N.G. from Nigeria for testing purposes. Workers are testing generators and painting and building five huge storage tanks, each capable of providing a full day's supply of gas for Louisiana. Tugboat crews are practicing for any future cargo arrivals. "I know the L.N.G. will come and we'll make a profit on this," said Darron Granger, a Cheniere senior vice president. "I just can't say when." -- "I am not a liberator. Liberators do not exist. The people liberate themselves." -- Che Guevara

1 0

[Sustain] California's big gulp
by Martin Zehr 28 May '08

28 May '08

This series provides insight into the political battle on water and climate change. The series is worth reading all 5 sections. Missing in these discussions are proposals for a strengthened state water plan and regional plans with stakeholder representation, defined regional water budgets that establish defined water allocations and provides parameters for both urban and rural use, and the establishment of public welfare statements to prioritize water allocations. USGS already gives us the impact of climate change on the Bay-Delta. http://www.usgs.gov/solutions/ppt/27apr07_schmutte.pdf Mato Ska California's big gulp Last fall, solving the state's water crisis was a hot political issue. Now we've had a rainy winter, and some of that interest seems to have flagged. What does that say about the political climate regarding water reform? All week, California Department of Water Resources Director Lester Snow and Mindy McIntyre of the Planning and Conservation League debate state water policy. April 7, 2008 » Discuss Article http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oew-du7apr07,0,5609677.graffitiboard (12 Comments) Today, Snow and McIntyre begin their Dust-Up with a debate on the political urgency of ending the state's water crisis. Later in the week, they'll discuss population growth, water desalination and more. Don't be fooled by the rain — we're in a water emergency By Lester Snow It is true that the political focus on water policy has waned temporarily due to the urgency of the budget crisis and the illusion of ample water supplies this year. Fortunately, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has not wavered in his efforts to advance water infrastructure investment. Additionally, and despite the near-normal snow pack of this winter, many areas of the state will face shortages and ecosystem problems will continue. The underlying inadequacies of our water management system remain unaddressed. As the governor and Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) have advocated, we must reinvest in water infrastructure to provide for reliable water supplies and a healthy ecosystem. Much of the state's water supply is delivered through the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta. Last December, U.S. District Judge Oliver Wanger imposed pumping restrictions to protect the endangered delta smelt, a native fish. This means that even if water is available, it may not be delivered. As of March, the State Water Project was delivering only 35% of requested water to communities, farmers and businesses. In addition to these cutbacks, and even though our mountain snow pack has been measured at near-normal levels this year, we're still making up for dry conditions in 2007. The state's most important water-supply reservoirs are well below normal levels. For example, Lake Oroville -- the principal storage reservoir for our State Water Project -- is at about 60% of what it should be for this time of year. Regarding the snow pack, we need to be looking at the impact of climate change. Experts expect continuing climate change to reduce snow levels and cause more precipitation to fall as rain. And while our natural "reservoir" that is the winter snow pack is being reduced, changing patterns of precipitation will also increase the danger of flooding and the need to capture more rainwater in reservoirs. In one way or another, all of this centers on the Delta, where we tap our rivers to meet the needs of most Californians. And the delta will not be able to provide reliable water supplies unless we start acting immediately to fix our problems. Fortunately, Schwarzenegger has shown strong leadership in proposing solutions to our water problems. His Bay Delta Conservation Plan, for example, calls for a collaborative effort by water agencies, other federal and state agencies and environmental organizations to improve water storage, quality, conveyance and conservation to both protect our environment and reliably meet the demands of agriculture, cities, homes, businesses and industry. The delta's ecosystem and water-delivery capability cannot be sustained without major changes. At this point, no amount of precipitation will dispel the urgency of fixing the state's water crisis. There are no silver bullets. We need to invest in water conservation, improved water quality, additional storage and alternate delta conveyance to save the delta and ensure a reliable water supply well into the future. Reforming water policy and reinvesting in California water infrastructure may not be easy, but it is essential to the state's future. Lester Snow is director of the California Department of Water Resources. ________________________________ Old solutions won't solve today's crisis By Mindy McIntyre There is widespread agreement that California's approach to managing water for human and environmental needs is broken. Cities and farms are finding that their water supplies are not as reliable as they thought. At the same time, several fish species are facing extinction. Many biologists conclude that one California fish species may be gone by next year. If everyone agrees that California is on an unsustainable path, then why don't we link arms to support a solution? The answer is that California is just now coming to grips with the causes of these problems. Until last year, most of the water establishment believed that they could keep pumping more water from the state's rivers and the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta (the largest estuary on the west coast of North and South America) to meet agricultural and urban demands. In obscure processes such as the Napa Agreement (a closed-door negotiation) and another bureaucracy known as the CalFed, they deluded themselves into thinking that there were no physical or environmental limits -- even as the signs of disaster were plain to see if one just took the time to look. This view crashed with several related events. First was the near-total collapse of the delta ecosystem. This led to the second shoe falling when a federal judge found that operations of the massive state and federal pumps that move water from the delta were a primary cause of the problem. The court ordered the pumping be cut back -- the first indication that there is a limit to the amount of water that can be exported from Northern to Southern California. At the same time, studies of the Colorado River indicate that there is a significant possibility that the river in the near future may not be provide as much water to the Western states as it has for the last several decades. Research shows that despite the fact that we have built massive dams on the Colorado River, nature may not fill the lakes these dams create. Compounding all of this is the recognition that climate change is already affecting our Sierra snowpack and water supply. The governor should be commended for his call for increased conservation. In addition, several other realities will have to be accepted for effective solutions to move forward. The first is that California's rivers and streams are already over-allocated. Building new dams to allow more diversions from already water-short streams would perpetuate the problems we are seeing with endangered species and water quality, not lead to solutions. Second, the condition of our economy requires that we look for new solutions that do not rely so heavily on public subsidies. Any bond presented to voters should serve multiple public benefits and address the needs of California today. We ought to steer clear of bonds that provide new subsidies for a select few based on assumptions and strategies from the past. While we move as quickly as possible to sort out the long-term solutions, the governor should approve the list of immediate actions that everyone agrees are ready to go. Lastly, California needs to develop water solutions that support a healthy economy while restoring a healthy environment. We cannot rely on strategies from the past to solve the problems they created and address the water issues of the future. I'll write more on that tomorrow. Mindy McIntyre is the Planning and Conservation League's water program manager. http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-op-snow-mcintyre7apr07,0,3281733.sto…

1 0

[Sustain] Alert: Stop Bush Forcing Genetic Engineered Crops As Food Relief
by Eric Brooks 25 May '08

25 May '08

Hi all, This alert highlights a perfect example of what Naomi Klein has called 'Disaster Capitalism'. The Bush administration is using the world food crisis as a lever to force genetically engineered crops on post-colonized countries needing food aid. Please take a moment to follow the link and send an email to Congress. http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/642/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=24651&t= Stop Bush's Biotech Bailout! According to the Chicago Tribune <http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-food-crops_14may14,0,722…>, the White House is attempting to force famine stricken countries, mostly in sub-Saharan Africa, to adopt Genetically Engineered <http://www.organicconsumers.org/gelink.cfm> crops tied to a $770 million aid package. The Bush Administration's $150 million earmark for GE crops is a thinly veiled attempt at subsidizing biotech corporations and advancing the genetic contamination of organic and non-ge crops in famine stricken countries. GE crops are untested and are largely unwanted by the majority of the planet's population. Dozens of countries around the world currently ban the cultivation of any genetically engineered varieties as they have yet to be proven safe for the environment or for human consumption. Additionally, GE crops have not been demonstrated to significantly increase yield, but rather force farmers into a deadly spiral of toxic agrichemicals and patent monopolies. The root cause of hunger abroad has more to do with so-called free trade agreements and market speculation, than crop yields and patented hybrid crops. Impoverished countries need to be allowed to regain their food sovereignty to avoid deepening the current crisis. Please take action today and urge your Congresspersons to reject the Bush Administration's $150 million earmark for Big Biotech. >>Learn More <http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_12407.cfm> -- "I am not a liberator. Liberators do not exist. The people liberate themselves." -- Che Guevara

1 0

[Sustain] SFPUC Corruption: Staff Co-Wrote Cal ISO Pro-Peaker Letters
by Eric Brooks 25 May '08

25 May '08

Sunshined Evidence: SFPUC Staff Co-Writing Cal ISO Letters That SFPUC Then Point To As 'Independent' Proof That Peakers Are Only Option! Attached see email exchanges, recently gained under a 24 hour Sunshine request from the SFPUC staff, which show clearly that SFPUC Deputy Director for Power, Barbara Hale, actively orchestrated and even -edited- and approved for release, the supposedly independent Cal ISO letters which Hale and others of the SFPUC staff then pointed to as justification for continuing the Combustion Turbine 'Peaker' Project. Other letters in this pdf attachment show SFPUC staff actively orchestrating Cal ISO in direct lobbying efforts to promote the Peaker Project. Eric Brooks

1 0

[Sustain] Joint Meeting: Transportation & Sustainability - Tomorrow, Thu, May 22, 6:30-9pm, SFGP Office
by Eric Brooks 21 May '08

21 May '08

Joint Meeting: Transportation & Sustainability Working Groups When: Thursday, 5/22/08, 6:30PM-9:00PM Where: SFGP Office, 1028A Howard St Proposed Agenda Items - Proposed Muni Fair Hikes! - Assessment of the Transit Effectiveness Project - Update On McGoldrick's Elected MTA Charter Amendment - Peak Oil Taskforce Update - Update On Regional Water Issues From Mato Ska - BIG Combustion Turbine Update - New Update On Mayor's Solar Programs - Update On Community Choice Energy project

1 0

[Sustain] Fwd: Act now to stop nuke amdts to Senate climate bill
by Don Eichelberger 20 May '08

20 May '08

1 0

[Sustain] Water Plan's All-Regions Forum
by Mato Ska 17 May '08

17 May '08

May 14, 2008 To All Interested Public: RSVPs Needed for June 2-3 All-Regions Forum in San Jose! Please respond if you will attend the Water Plan's All-Regions Forum, June 2-3, 2008 at the Doubletree Hotel, 2050 Gateway Place, San Jose, CA 95110. Registration is 12:30 p.m. on June 2, convening at 1:00 p.m. and adjourning 5:30 p.m. On June 3, it convenes at 9:00 a.m. and adjourns at 4:30 pm. There will be a $15 registration fee for the Forum. Sessions include: ƒ a preview of the Prop 84 grant program for Integrated Regional Water Management; ƒ scoping for the Governor's 20% conservation plan; and ƒ regional water management response packages - including discussion of inter-regional aspects, statewide priorities, and approaches for analyzing regional response strategies. The Agenda and other meeting materials are posted to the California Water Plan website as they become available: http://www.waterplan.water.ca.gov/materials/index.cfm?subject=jun0208 Please RSVP to David Sumi at dsumi(a)ccp.csus.edu or (916) 341-3328. Thank you for your interest in the California Water Plan!

1 0

[Sustain] Important: Need GM Agenda Item - City Efficiency/Solar Ordinance
by Eric Brooks 17 May '08

17 May '08

Hi all, Jake McGoldrick has proposed an ordinance that will be in committee this coming Thursday, which will restrict the use of the Mayor's Energy Conservation Account (MECA) so that it emphasizes efficiency over solar and so that it can only be used on public projects and affordable housing nonprofits. This ordinance (see attached) is meant to correct the legal landscape which allowed the Mayor to create his bogus privatized solar program, and looks like it will effectively do so. It needs an amendment to make sure that its restrictions do not interfere with the public Community Choice renewable energy project, but otherwise seems like it jives with the decision we made a couple of months ago. Since it will be voted on the next day we should decide on endorsing this Wednesday. I'm requesting 5 minutes on the GM Agenda for discussion and action. peace Eric Brooks -- "I am not a liberator. Liberators do not exist. The people liberate themselves." – Che Guevara

1 0