June 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] Text Of SF Clean Energy Act
by Eric Brooks 27 Jun '08

27 Jun '08

Ok all, Attached is the text to be presented this morning in committee. cheers Eric -- "I am not a liberator. Liberators do not exist. The people liberate themselves." – Che Guevara

1 0

[Sustain] Tell City Hall: Support 100% Clean Electricity For San Francisco
by Eric Brooks 26 Jun '08

26 Jun '08

Hi all, I am incredibly excited to announce that tomorrow, Friday, June 27, at 10am, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors Rules Committee will consider a Charter Amendment for the November 2008 ballot, which will mandate that all of San Francisco be powered on 75% clean renewable electricity by 2030, and 100% clean renewable electricity by 2040! Called the San Francisco Clean Energy Act, this ground breaking measure would make San Francisco the lead major city in the movement to halt the global climate crisis, and set a new national standard for renewable energy. The San Francisco Clean Energy Act must pass out of the Rules Committee and then get the approval of six Board Supervisors to reach the November 2008 ballot. What You Can Do: Contact Your Supervisors And Attend The Hearing! Email the Board of Supervisors today and urge them to approve this outstanding ballot measure. Simply copy the sample message below and send it and/or a composition of your own to board.of.supervisors(a)sfgov.org **Sample Message** Dear Supervisor, Please vote YES to send the San Francisco Clean Energy Act to the November 2008 ballot, and allow voters to fight climate change by mandating 100% clean renewable electricity for San Francisco! Thank You! [your name and address here] **end of sample message** ***ATTEND TOMORROW'S HEARING*** Show up and speak in favor of the San Francisco Clean Energy Act at tomorrow's Rules Committee hearing! The hearing will be held: WHERE: San Francisco City Hall, Room 263, (From Civic Center BART/MUNI at 8th and Market, cross United Nations Plaza to City Hall.) WHEN: Friday, June 27, 10am For full hearing details see: http://www.sfgov.org/site/bdsupvrs_page.asp?id=83353 The Clean Energy Act is item 7, however the preceding items will likely be completed very quickly. Thanks, as always, for your continued action and support. peace Eric Brooks Campaign Coordinator Our City This alert sent by: Our City 1028-A Howard St. San Francisco, CA 94103 415-756-8844 For more information about Our City campaigns go to: http://www.our-city.org info(a)our-city.org

1 0

[Sustain] Mayor's Ballot Measure Attack On Transit Authority
by Eric Brooks 26 Jun '08

26 Jun '08

Mayor's Ballot Measure Attack On Transit Authority from http://www.beyondchron.org/articles/Budget_Cuts_Hit_Indigent_Political_Skir… ...Finally, Newsom submitted an Ordinance to change the make-up of the Transportation Authority (SFCTA) -- a body that administers $100 million a year in sales tax revenue for transportation projects. While Muni is run by a seven-member Commission entirely appointed by the Mayor (the MTA), the Board of Supervisors run the SFCTA -- which gives the legislative branch some control over the City's transportation policy. Newsom's Ordinance would kick the Supervisors off the Transportation Authority and replace them with five members: (1) the Mayor, (2) an elected official appointed by the Mayor, (3) the President of the Board of Supervisors, (4) an elected official appointed by the Board President, and (5) the City Treasurer. I asked City Treasurer Jose Cisneros at last night's Harvey Milk Club Dinner what he thought about such a proposal. Incredibly, Cisneros -- who Newsom appointed to his post in 2004 -- had not yet been told about it. by Paul Hogarth, Jun. 18, 2008 -- "I am not a liberator. Liberators do not exist. The people liberate themselves." -- Che Guevara

1 0

[Sustain] EcoAction Committee Final Draft Proposal on Water
by Mato Ska 25 Jun '08

25 Jun '08

I may not be able to make it. FYI we have not officially concluded the vote but it has unanimous approval to date. For review and discussion. Mato Ska The EcoAction Committee considers the importance of the water resource a critical priority in this election year and every year after. The Green Party advocates for the future well-being of generations to come by actively working to implement the necessary legislation, electing the committed candidates and establishing the required administrative and political measures in every state. We actively work in accordance with our Key Values to make the changes needed to empower the people to make the decisions regarding the water resource that impact on their daily lives. We want: * to work together with our neighbors in making decisions that recognize the stake that future generations have in those decisions; (Future Focus) * to make plans that care for our water resources in ways that recognize our dependence on a finite supply of fresh water respect the integrity of ecosystems and the natural patterns of water and to recognize the impact of decisions on surface, ground and oceanic waters; (Ecological Wisdom) * to recognize that we share our world with other peoples who are impacted by the policies of the US in the World Bank and support the rights of indigenous peoples and other nations to assure their ability to survive and access clean, affordable water resources and maintain their traditional cultures; (Personal and Global Responsibility) * to assure accountability on the part of those making decisions on water use by having them be elected officials representing the community of varied users, water specialists, the environment and the water companies directly accountable to local people; (Grassroots Democracy) *to acknowledge the diversity of plant and animal life dependent on long-enduring ecosystems and to recognize the planetary importance of water systems on all life; (Respect for Diversity) * to prevent the usurpation of public rights by privatization and multi-national corporations and maintain local public control of water resource planning and management; (Decentralization) * to make affordable drinking water available to everyone in the bio-region as a priority, recognizing that access to such water is a basic human right and include the impacts on impoverished neighborhoods, rural communities and family farmers of water policy decisions; (Social Justice) * and to integrate local policies regarding water conservation, re-use, land use and urban planning within the parameters of the existing regional renewable supplies of water, and maintain a working relation between urban economic development with local rural agriculture. (Community-based Economics and Economic Justice) The National Committee of the Green Party of the United States and its affiliated state parties will work to educate candidates, engage the public in supporting positive legislation at all levels of government and unite with public officials in implementing the changes needed to realize these goals. The impacts of climate change necessarily need to be included in water policies. The reforms needed take political changes and reforms in our water management systems. It will take updating of water laws to address changing populations and local priorities. It will take a political party and its candidates to educate the public of the crisis that has already been demonstrated from Maine to Florida to the South West and California. There is no time, and no water, to waste. We propose that state parties review this resolution and consider its implications locally and within their respective states. We invite input into any part of it prior to an introduction sponsored by any state to the National Committee. It is our hope to provide an initial template that states may sharpen and review with their local organizations, other states and the EcoAction Committee. This resolution when approved will be posted prior to its introduction on the NC list for circulation and review by affiliated state parties. It is an action proposal and not an amendment to the Platform. Part of that action is the internal education and dialogue generated before its introduction as an NC Resolution. Another part of it is to discuss policy as it relates to our general work surrounding the water resource and review differences as they exist and to formulate a proposal that addresses concerns. Finally, a review of priorities of work in this area can be established by state parties as they are relevant to local conditions. ---------------------------------------- > From: dave(a)livablecity.org > To: brookse32(a)aim.com > Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2008 15:27:22 -0700 > CC: sustainability(a)sfgreens.org; active(a)sfgreens.org; transpo(a)sfgreens.org > Subject: Re: [Sustain] [SFGP-A] Important! Joint Transpo/Sustainability Working Group, Thu June 26, 6:30pm > > I can't attend this meeting because it's my family night, but I have > these comments: > > 1. The proposed fare hikes are for July 2009, not sooner. That's not > imminent. The price of parking and the price of parking violations > will rise sooner than fares. And single ride fares will not rise one > penny. Really low-income folks who cannot afford the full cost of a > monthly pass and therefore pay the single ride fare will be affected > by this increase only by experiencing better service. Other really low- > income folks who scrape together $45 will benefit from an expanded low- > income fast pass discount which is part of the deal with the MTA. > > At $55, the monthly pass will be ... > > ... an appropriate amount relative to the single ride fare (about 37 > times -- which is the discount for a monthly pass that is unlikely to > cause people to switch to paying the single ride fare and thereby slow > the system down and discourage ridership). > > ... a great deal cheaper than most comparable transit systems (NYC=81, > AC Transit = 70 or 116, LA=75, for examples), and > > ... at the high end of its historical price in constant dollars (see > the attached chart), but less than its peak of $54.09 in 2007 dollars > (which is at least $57 in 2009 dollars). > > Local, urban transit should be free, but paid for by taxing the rich. > Until we figure that out, appropriate fare increases to provide the > funding necessary to provide reliable transit service should be > supported, especially when those fare increases are not likely to > discourage ridership and come after increases to car costs. I would > respect a principled decision by the SFGP to oppose any and all fare > increases, including "reasonable" ones, but I strongly believe this is > a reasonable fare increase and should be supported. > > 2. I don't have much to say in writing about the mayor's proposed > ballot measure. I'm happy to talk with anyone personally about it. I > will say this: the SFCTA is one of the best functioning agencies in > the city. And, I'll forward separately an email I wrote much earlier > about the two agencies, for your edification. > > Have fun! > > Dave

1 0

[Sustain] Important! Joint Transpo/Sustainability Working Group, Thu June 26, 6:30pm
by Eric Brooks 25 Jun '08

25 Jun '08

Hi all, VERY important stuff is happening on transportation, utilities and energy in San Francisco, and we really need to meet. This Thursday June 26, 6:30pm, SFGP Office Proposed Agenda 1) Imminent Muni Fare Hikes 2) Mayor's Ballot Measure Removing Board of Supes Oversight Of Transit 3) Nov Ballot Measure For 100% Green Public Power! 4) PREPARING FOR AUGUST APPOINTMENTS TO THE SFPUC 5) Peak Oil Report? (Jeanne) 6) Water Report? (Mato Ska) 7) Quick Update On Community Choice & Power Plants -- "I am not a liberator. Liberators do not exist. The people liberate themselves." – Che Guevara

3 4

Re: [Sustain] [Transpo] Important! Joint Transpo/Sustainability Working Group, Thu June 26, 6:30pm
by Eric Brooks 24 Jun '08

24 Jun '08

No problem. We'll do transportation first. susan vaughan wrote: > I need to leave at 8:30 p.m. > > Sue > > --- On Tue, 6/24/08, Eric Brooks <brookse32(a)aim.com> wrote: > From: Eric Brooks <brookse32(a)aim.com> > Subject: [Transpo] Important! Joint Transpo/Sustainability Working Group, Thu June 26, 6:30pm > To: "GPSF Sustainability Working Group" <sustainability(a)sfgreens.org>, "Transportation WG" <transpo(a)sfgreens.org>, "Green Active list" <active(a)sfgreens.org> > Date: Tuesday, June 24, 2008, 7:27 AM > > Hi all, > > VERY important stuff is happening on transportation, utilities and > energy in San Francisco, and we really need to meet. > > This Thursday June 26, 6:30pm, SFGP Office > > Proposed Agenda > > 1) Imminent Muni Fare Hikes > 2) Mayor's Ballot Measure Removing Board of Supes Oversight Of Transit > 3) Nov Ballot Measure For 100% Green Public Power! > 4) PREPARING FOR AUGUST APPOINTMENTS TO THE SFPUC > 5) Peak Oil Report? (Jeanne) > 6) Water Report? (Mato Ska) > 7) Quick Update On Community Choice & Power Plants > > -- "I am not a liberator. Liberators do not exist. The people liberate themselves." – Che Guevara

1 0

Re: [Sustain] The Bay Guardian is in outer space on the peaker issue!
by Richard Knee 12 Jun '08

12 Jun '08

Re writing a letter: If you do it, there is a 50-50 chance it will appear. There is also a 50-50 chance it will be censored. If you do not do it, there is a 100 percent chance that it will not appear. Bear in mind also that Bruce Brugmann and/or Tim Redmond have represented the Bay Guardian at the coalition's meetings. In any such organization, disagreements are bound to arise, and it's important to remember that their hearts are in the right place. Best, Rick asumchai(a)sfbayview.com wrote: >> I forwarded Bruce the letter from Cal-Iso Eric circulated documented the >> > regulatory agency decision the Peakers are not needed. Clearly it is > absurd for the Guardian to promote the paranoid psychotic opinion that > this is a plot masterminded by PG&E to steal public power from the city. > I would write a letter but I suspect it would be censored. Maybe the SF > Bayview should pick it up as an issue and demand that the Guardian > reanalyze it's stance in exchange for a coalition commitment to the > public power initiative Ross is formulating. > Ahimsa > > > > > Perhaps one of you should write a letter to the editor or an op-ed > >> article. I'd offer to do it, except that I don't have the breadth or >> depth of knowledge on the issue that you folks do. >> >> Best, >> Rick >> >> >> Eric Brooks wrote: >> >>> It's pretty simple really. Bruce Brugmann has this totally absurd idea >>> that PG&E doesn't want the plant built because the City might use it >>> as an anchor for public power, (an assumption that is highly >>> questionable because of the expense of the peakers and the likelihood >>> that they will put the City into deep debt amidst rising natural gas >>> prices). But in Bruce's mind anything that PG&E doesn't like must be >>> good, and so he sees the peakers as a public power move to oust PG&E >>> (never mind that it is a totally ridiculous idea to get public power >>> by polluting the City and the atmosphere). The truth is that a small >>> 150 megawatt peaker plant wouldn't do a damned thing to anchor public >>> power in the City. He is unable to see the issue as the very complex >>> game that it actually is, and he is equally unable to get through his >>> head that no matter what PG&E wants, this planet cannot handle any >>> more fossil fuel plants. >>> The real reason that PG&E is opposing the peaker plant is that this >>> gives them an excuse to propose their spending upwards of $500 million >>> on a transmission upgrade to prevent the peakers, and this will give >>> them still deeper control of our energy grid because it will make it >>> cost $500 million more to take over the PG&E lines. >>> >>> This is why we need to keep pushing for a renewable energy solution >>> which will make both Mirant and the peakers unnecessary, -and- will >>> obviate any excuse for PG&E to build new transmission lines. >>> >>> asumchai(a)sfbayview.com wrote: >>> >>>>> Eric...can you make sense of Bruce and the Bay Guardian editorial >>>>> board? >>>>> >>>>> >>>> It's as if they are in a self serving "outer space" on the Peaker >>>> issue. >>>> Ahimsa >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> >>>>> See attached. >>>>> >>>>> This communication shows clearly that we were misled by SFPUC staff >>>>> and >>>>> that the new Peaker plant is not necessary. >>>>> >>>>> peace >>>>> >>>>> Eric Brooks >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Sustainability mailing list >>>>> Sustainability(a)sfgreens.org >>>>> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainability >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> -- >>> "I am not a liberator. Liberators do not exist. The people liberate >>> themselves." – Che Guevara >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Sustainability mailing list >>> Sustainability(a)sfgreens.org >>> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainability >>> >>> >> > > > > >

1 0

Re: [Sustain] The Bay Guardian is in outer space on the peaker issue!
by Eric Brooks 12 Jun '08

12 Jun '08

It's pretty simple really. Bruce Brugmann has this totally absurd idea that PG&E doesn't want the plant built because the City might use it as an anchor for public power, (an assumption that is highly questionable because of the expense of the peakers and the likelihood that they will put the City into deep debt amidst rising natural gas prices). But in Bruce's mind anything that PG&E doesn't like must be good, and so he sees the peakers as a public power move to oust PG&E (never mind that it is a totally ridiculous idea to get public power by polluting the City and the atmosphere). The truth is that a small 150 megawatt peaker plant wouldn't do a damned thing to anchor public power in the City. He is unable to see the issue as the very complex game that it actually is, and he is equally unable to get through his head that no matter what PG&E wants, this planet cannot handle any more fossil fuel plants. The real reason that PG&E is opposing the peaker plant is that this gives them an excuse to propose their spending upwards of $500 million on a transmission upgrade to prevent the peakers, and this will give them still deeper control of our energy grid because it will make it cost $500 million more to take over the PG&E lines. This is why we need to keep pushing for a renewable energy solution which will make both Mirant and the peakers unnecessary, -and- will obviate any excuse for PG&E to build new transmission lines. asumchai(a)sfbayview.com wrote: >> Eric...can you make sense of Bruce and the Bay Guardian editorial board? >> > It's as if they are in a self serving "outer space" on the Peaker issue. > Ahimsa > > > > Hi all, > >> See attached. >> >> This communication shows clearly that we were misled by SFPUC staff and >> that the new Peaker plant is not necessary. >> >> peace >> >> Eric Brooks >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Sustainability mailing list >> Sustainability(a)sfgreens.org >> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainability >> >> > > > -- "I am not a liberator. Liberators do not exist. The people liberate themselves." -- Che Guevara

2 1

[Sustain] Power Plant Update! & Monday Hearing Alert
by Eric Brooks 08 Jun '08

08 Jun '08

Hi all, We are, at last, very close to stopping the proposed combustion turbine 'peaker' plant project, afterwhich we will then be able to re-direct our full attention to attack the Mirant plant head on and shut it down as quickly as possible. We could be a mere 2 years away from ending fossil fuel power plant generation in San Francisco. As you know, because of our coalition's relentless pressure on the SFPUC, Cal ISO, Board of Supervisors, and Mayor, the Cal ISO has at last been forced into the position of making clear what it has been cryptically hinting at for nearly a decade - that -no- new fossil fuel power plants are needed to shut down the Mirant Potrero power plant. The Cal ISO has said that when the Transbay Cable comes online in 2010 it will remove the main gas boiler at Mirant (which generates 97% of Mirant's electricity) from must run status. The Cal ISO has said that the remaining three diesel turbines at Mirant can be gradually upgraded to run on natural gas if they are needed for emergency reliability, and we know from previous Cal ISO staff statements, that Cal ISO may even consider one, two or even all of those older turbines unnecessary for electricity reliability once the Transbay Cable is installed. So, what was a couple of weeks ago, a debate between putting in a new polluting natural gas plant which would have to run 18-30 years to pay itself off, or instead supposedly being stuck with a Mirant plant that would still have to continue running every day; has now become a completely different question. The new Cal ISO letter makes clear that the SFPUC staff's claims of the second scenario were a complete deception; and so now we have a brand new question: Can the City build enough solar, wind, and efficiency projects to make even upgraded Mirant diesel turbines completely unnecessary upon, or shortly following, the installation of the Transbay Cable in 2010? Clearly, that is a much better question to debate. I recommend that we -not- support the plan to upgrade the Mirant diesel turbines, but just so we can get a sense of the foundation of this new debate, here's the breakdown of why, even if we got stuck with such a Mirant upgrade plan, it would still be far better than the previous Combustion Turbine (CTs) proposal. 1) The cost of upgrading the Mirant diesels to run on natural gas would be $60 million. (The cost of installing the CTs would have been at least $273 million and probably would have gone much higher.) 2) According to a new study by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, the upgraded Mirant diesels would actually pollute -less- than the CTs! 3) To pay off its massive cost, the CT project would have to run for 18-30 years. Because of recently spiking natural gas prices, and recent state government limits on fossil fuel power purchasing and sales, the City would likely have faced a crisis in its ability to pay off the CTs, and might have been forced to run them more often, and for more than 30 years, to pay for them. This latter reality would have meant that the CTs would have polluted -much- more than upgraded Mirant natural gas peakers. 4) If the Mirant diesel turbines are upgraded, this will be done gradually, one turbine at a time. So if, by the time the first turbine was upgraded, the Transbay Cable was online, and sufficient solar, wind and efficiency were installed; the Cal ISO might very well decide that only the one upgraded turbine (or possibly even no turbines) was necessary; and that the other two turbines could then simply be shut down immediately saving tens of millions of dollars, and setting a solid precedent for San Francisco to simply build more renewables and efficiency and rapidly shut down even that last remaining turbine. Clearly in this gradually phased upgrade scenario, it is highly likely that within just a few years (most likely when the Community Choice renewable energy project has installed its first 360 megawatts of clean renewable capacity by around 2012) we would be shutting down -all- of the fossil fuel power plants in the City. In other words, no more polluting power plants at all within just 4 years! 5) In the Cal ISO options described for proceeding with the plan to upgrade the Mirant diesels, the Cal ISO said that one of those options would allow the City to control the operation of those upgraded turbines and only require them to be turned on during real electricity demand emergencies. Now, with that potential better scenario established, I would recommend that we stay with the strong strategy that has won us such a huge change; and that we therefore -continue- challenging the SFPUC and Cal ISO and -continue- to insist that -no- fossil fuel generation will be necessary once the Transbay Cable is installed, and that the new debate should be between either upgrading the Mirant diesels, or instead saving ourselves that $60 million upgrade cost, and spending that money to aggressively accelerate our installation of solar, wind, and efficiency projects as we completely shut down Mirant in 2010! We would be truly guiding the world strongly into a zero fossil fuel future. Next Steps The Board of Supervisors continued its vote on the ICC CT peaker project contract to Tuesday, July 15, and it is likely that on that day they will simply table the CT project. -However- Sophie Maxwell is -still- stubbornly clinging to the CT project and has rapidly introduced into committee for this Monday, a new resolution (see attached pdf file) which -claims- to start a new search for alternatives for shutting down Mirant, but which will instead simply deceptively reinforce the same old SFPUC verbal tricks around taking the CT project seriously. This would force the Board of Supervisors back into yet another 'he said - she said' technical debate between the CT project and the possible upgraded Mirant diesels project. If Maxwell succeeds in playing her latest game, we will face yet another grueling set of hearings comparing the CT project to other options, instead of having the much more progressive debate over whether to upgrade the Mirant diesels, or simply go all renewables and efficiency by 2012. Ross Mirkarimi's office will likely introduce some strong amendments to the Maxwell resolution that remove all of its game playing and instead turn the City to that much better debate between the Mirant diesels and an all renewables option; but he will not get a chance to introduce those amendments until the Maxwell measure reaches the full Board of Supervisors. This is because Maxwell's resolution will be heard in the Government Audit and Oversight Committee this Monday morning where she and her CT project ally Aaron Peskin will simply pass it on to the full Board without real debate, and will probably stonewall any amendments. So we have yet another golden opportunity to be heard on this issue on Monday morning - this time, to tell Sophie Maxwell and Aaron Peskin loud and clear that we demand an end to any more useless, time wasting debates over the CT project, and to insist that the Supervisors now ask the SFPUC to come up with a renewables only energy plan to close Mirant down completely in 2010 when the Transbay cable comes online. Keep in mind that Sophie's item is just a resolution, so don't necessarily break your back to show up at the Monday hearing. However, it is always good for us to get another chance to speak on this issue, and this new hearing now gives us a chance to raise the level of debate to a discussion of how to get -rid- of fossil fuel power plants in San Francisco and replace them with clean renewable energy by the end of this decade! So if you can make it, by all means do. :) To see the hearing time, location, and details go to http://www.sfgov.org/site/bdsupvrs_page.asp?id=82213 Sophie's resolution is first on the agenda, and entitled 'Closure of the Potrero Power Plant'. (Note that although Ross and Chris Daly are listed as co-sponsors of the item, they have now been informed of the problems with the resolution, and will act to remove the trick language in it.) peace Eric Brooks -- "I am not a liberator. Liberators do not exist. The people liberate themselves." – Che Guevara

2 1