- Sustainability - list.sfgreens.org

Re: [Sustain] [gpus-ecoaction] Water Issues
by Mato Ska 22 Jul '08

22 Jul '08

Wes, I think that the EcoAction Committee IS the working group for all such activity. We might look to doing it in the state of California. San Francisco has the Sustainability Working Group. I am emailing this to them to focus on your concerns and implementing a state focus. Mato ________________________________ Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2008 15:09:53 -0700 From: wrolley(a)charter.net To: gpus-ecoaction(a)lists.riseup.net Subject: [gpus-ecoaction] Water Issues We definitely need to go further with work on Water. We are lucky to have Mato Ska on the committee now, and also the Grand Riverkeeper himself, Earl Hatley. Between the two, we should stay out of trouble. Here is an update from California: There are a multiplicity of things happening, and all at once. Let me list a few. 1. a proposition for a bond to pay for water infrastructure failed to make the ballot. Its provisions were: Authorizes $11,690,000,000 in bonds paid from state’s General Fund, allocated approximately as follows: 30% to dams and other surface and groundwater storage for the state water system and the Sacramento-San Joaquin delta (“delta”) or its tributaries; 23% to statewide water supply reliability projects; 21% to delta sustainability and ecosystem improvements; 14% to groundwater protection and water quality projects; 11% to statewide conservation and pollution cleanup including ecosystem and urban watershed protection; and 2% to water recycling It's failure was a good thing. I don't like too much bonded indebtedness and 30% for dams is stupid. However, there are 5 versions of this "proposition" in circulation for signatures (433,971 required) and all have the same odious requirement for more dams. 2. The Public Policy Institute of California has released a new study that is very controversial. However, it does do one thing and that is to downplay the need for new dams. I have blogged at California Greening about the PPIC report and will not repeat it here. One key issue is the fact that the Co-Owner of Bechtel Corp. was one of two funding sources for the study and their connection to building water systems and behaviors on contracts that could only be described as "black water". As usual, politicians are behind the time, indebted to special interests and have a tendency to favor large scale multi-million dollar (billion dollar?) projects that can be named after them. I could just see the Diane Feinstein Peripheral Canal if she delivers federal funding for such a project. (BTW: Feinstein has been a part of every failed compromise on California Water projects in the last 20 years.) 3. No one is addressing the relationship of agricultural practices and the ability to provide safe drinking water and meet the standards of the Clean Water Act. For example, the West Side of the San Joaquin Valley leaches selenium from the soil when irrigation water flows through fields and collects in settling ponds. These ponds have, on occasion, been labeled ecological disasters due to the poisoning of life from excess selenium. (I have not begun to consider fertilizer runoff... the selenium is enough to say we need to put a stop to things.) While Orange County, in a move strangely progressive for a hot bed of Libertarianism, has gone to the use of recycled water, allowing it to percolate down into the aquifers that are then pumped back up for human consumption. More of this is needed. There was a discussion of the PPIC report and the San Joaquin, Sacramento River Delta on KQED (public supported radio) from San Francisco today. Two approaches that were ignored in the report were mentioned. One demands bio-regional self-sufficiency. The other was to limit growth to the level that can be supported on existing water use. In some scenarios for global warming, the idea of maintaining current use rates may be an optimistic view of what we will get. This is just California, or part of it. Similar scenarios will play out all across the country. Any recommendations that we make need to consider this fact... one size does not fit all. So, what are the next steps? We have Mato Ska's work. Do we need to set up some sort of unique working group on water that will be able to take that and go a bit further? -- "Anytime you have an opportunity to make things better and you don't, then you are wasting your time on this Earth" Roberto Clemente Wes Rolley 17211 Quail Court, Morgan Hill, CA 95037 http://www.refpub.com/ -- Tel: 408.778.3024

1 0

[Sustain] Urgent! Demand Halt To Polluting Peaker Plant Games
by Eric Brooks 21 Jul '08

21 Jul '08

Please forward widely! As you may have seen in previous emails, Supervisor Sophie Maxwell is -still- pulling every trick in the book to shove the polluting Peaker power plant project down our throats so that she can move forward with a big money Redevelopment real estate deal in the Potrero Hill Pier 70 area. Tomorrow, Tuesday, July 22, in City Hall Room 400, beginning at 1:30pm, the current San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) will meet for the last time, and will make a final decision on the resolutions it previously passed in favor of the Peaker project contract with ICC. At its last meeting the SFPUC came very close to canceling those resolutions but at the last minute postponed their decision. (See 'Recent Developments' below.) Our public pressure is -key- to giving the SFPUC the courage to cancel those resolutions! It is vital that we all email the SFPUC Commissioners at mhoush(a)sfwater.org and tell them to: "Please put an end to the Board of Supervisors' game playing on the Peaker Plant issue by rescinding both of your resolutions approving the Combustion Turbine Peaker Project." Then if you can, attend tomorrow's hearing. (See full hearing details at http://sfwater.org/detail.cfm/MC_ID/18/MSC_ID/113/MTO_ID/340/C_ID/4090 or the end of this message. To get to City Hall cross United Nations Plaza from Civic Center Muni/BART.) Recent Developments On July 8th, the SFPUC was about to rescind its support of its previous Peaker contract resolutions, but then, at the last minute, deferred to a request from Maxwell and other Supervisors that the SFPUC instead show good faith by allowing the Board of Supervisors to vote down the Peaker contract with only the SFPUC's -recommendation- that the Board choose another option for San Francisco's energy future. Unfortunately, after that show of deference from the SFPUC Commissioners, Maxwell cynically proceeded to put a measure on the November ballot which will block a less costly and less polluting Mirant diesel turbine retrofit, so that if the Cal ISO (California Independent System Operator) insists that San Francisco still retain some fossil fuel generation in the City, we will -again- be forced to build the more polluting Peaker project in the Bayview Hunters Point! Then Supervisor Maxwell moved for yet -another- delay in the Board's Peaker plant vote, saying that she needed time to look over new documents from Mirant regarding the diesel turbine retrofit option. Maxwell is simply creating unnecessary delays in order to buy time for her pro Peaker plant ballot measure to pass in November, and force us back into building the Peaker project. It is is time for us to tell the SFPUC that we will accept no more nonsense from the Board of Supervisors! If tomorrow, the SFPUC votes to rescind its resolutions approving the Peaker project, it will be -much- harder for the Board to play games with us. They will placed into a position from which they will look bad voting in favor of the Peaker contract. **What You Can Do** FIRST Send an email to the SFPUC Commissioners at mhoush(a)sfwater.org and tell them to: "Please put an end to the Board of Supervisors' game playing on the Peaker Plant issue by rescinding both of your resolutions approving the Combustion Turbine Peaker Project." THEN Attend tomorrow's hearing and speak at public comment if you can. Here is the pertinent hearing information. (The Peaker item is number 19, so it may be an hour or two before that item comes up.) http://sfwater.org/detail.cfm/MC_ID/18/MSC_ID/113/MTO_ID/340/C_ID/4090 San Francisco Public Utilities Commission AGENDA REGULAR MEETING Tuesday, July 22, 2008 1:30 P.M. City Hall, Room 400 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place COMMISSIONERS The Honorable Ann Moller Caen President The Honorable E. Dennis Normandy Vice President The Honorable Richard Sklar The Honorable David Hochschild The Honorable F. X. Crowley Michael Housh SECRETARY ORDER OF BUSINESS: 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes a) Minutes of the July 8, 2008 Regular Meeting 4. Public Comments Members of the public may address the Commission on matters that are within the Commission's jurisdiction and are not on today's agenda. 5. Communications 6. Other Commission Business 7. Report of the General Manager a) Water System Improvement Program (Labonte) b) Capital Programs (Kelly) c) 525 Golden Gate Avenue Project Update (Harrington) 8. Bay Area Water Supply & Conservation Agency (BAWSCA'S) General Manager's Report (Jensen) (a) BAWSCA Update THE FOLLOWING MATTERS BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION ARE RECOMMENDED FOR ACTION AS STATED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER OF PUBLIC UTILITIES AND CITY ATTORNEY WHERE APPLICABLE. Explanatory documents provided to the Commission in connection with this agenda are available for public inspection and copying at the Office of the Commission Secretary, 1155 Market Street, 11th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94103, Telephone: (415) 554-3165, Fax: (415) 554-3424. CONSENT CALENDAR 9. All matters listed hereunder constitute a Consent Calendar, are considered to be routine by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, and will be acted upon by a single vote of the Commission. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a member of the Commission or the public so requests, in which event the matter will be removed from the Consent Calendar and considered as a separate item. a) Staff Recommendation: Accept work performed for Wastewater Enterprise, Repair and Replacement (R&R) Program-funded Contract No. WW-395, Southeast Water Pollution Control Plant Building 850 HVAC and Office Improvements, by LC General Engineering & Construction, Inc, approve Modification No. 3 (Final) increasing the contract by $265,010.72, for a total contract amount of $1,321,546.72, (and with a time extension of 130 consecutive calendar days for a total contract duration of 359 consecutive calendar days;) and authorize final payment, in the amount of $365,583.25, to the contractor. b) Staff Recommendation: Approve the plans and specifications and award Wastewater Enterprise 5-Year CIP Program-funded Contract No. WW-463, SEWPCP Gas Handling Improvements -- Phase II, in the amount of $2,247,000, to the qualified, responsible and responsive sole bidder, Cal State Constructors. c) Staff Recommendation: Approve the plans and specifications and award Wastewater Enterprise Repair and Replacement (R&R) Program-funded Contract No. WW-473, Sanchez/Noe/Ford Streets Sewer Replacement, in the amount of $1,780,173, to the lowest, qualified, responsible and responsive bidder, M Squared Construction. d) Staff Recommendation: Authorize the General Manager of the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission to request permission from the Board of Supervisors to accept and expend grant funds totaling $175,000 from the West Coast Collaborative, as administered by the United States Environmental Protection Agency; and to execute all required agreements. e) Staff Recommendation: Authorize the General Manager of the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission to enter into a Fiscal Agent Agreement between the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California and other members of the Water Utility Climate Alliance (WUCA). f) Staff Recommendation: Authorize the General Manager to enter into a construction contract with T-Mobile in an amount of $1,120,000, with a duration of 18 months, subject to the Board of Supervisors' adoption of an ordinance exempting this project from the competitive bid requirements. REGULAR BUSINESS 10. Discussion and possible action related to adopt the required California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Findings, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), and the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Measures; Approve the Water System Improvement Program (WSIP) funded project, New Crystal Springs Bypass Tunnel Project, CUW35601; Authorize the General Manager of the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) to request that the Mayor recommend to the Board of Supervisors approval of a supplemental appropriation in the amount of $86,367,000 to fund the NCSBT Project Construction; and authorize the General Manager of the SFPUC to seek the Board of Supervisors' approval of the Easement Deed from San Mateo County for Polhemus Road, and accepting the Easement Deed upon approval. (Labonte) 11. Discussion and possible action related to approval of a delegation of Commission Authority. (Ambrose) REAL PROPERTY TRANSACTIONS 12. Discussion and possible action related to approve the terms and conditions and authorize the General Manager of the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) to approve a five (5) year lease term with one five (5) year lease extension option for office space located at 1325A Evans Avenue comprising 3,287 rentable square feet. (Dowd) 13. Discussion and possible action related to approve the terms and conditions and authorize the General Manager of the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) to execute an amendment providing for two six (6) month options to extend the term of the Exclusive Negotiating Agreement (ENA) with Oliver de Silva, Inc., for the mining of the 308.5 acre Sunol Valley Aggregate Quarry site located on a portion of Parcel 65 of Alameda County lands in Sunol Valley, resulting in a possible extension to September 17, 2009. (Dowd) CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS 14. Discussion and possible action to approve the plans and specifications and award Wastewater Enterprise 5-Year CIP-funded Contract No. WW-450R, Channel Pump Station Odor Control and Facility Improvements, in the not to exceed, amount of $14,578,820 to the lowest, qualified, responsible and responsive bidder, Monterey Mechanical. (Moala) PROFESSIONAL SERVICE CONTRACTS Award 15. Discussion and possible action related to approve Amendment No. 2 to the Water System Improvement Program-funded Agreement No. CS-754, Environmental Analysis Services -- Bay Division Pipeline Hydraulic Capacity Upgrade Project, with Entrix Environmental Consultants and Ward & Associates, JV to prepare responses to comments and Administrative Draft of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR), prepare final EIR document, prepare and assist in certification and approval of final EIR document, prepare mitigation, monitoring and reporting plan, and prepare permit applications; and authorize the General Manager of the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission to execute this amendment increasing the agreement to a not-to-exceed amount of $400,000, for a total agreement not-to-exceed amount of $3,500,000, and with a time extension of one year and two months, to a total of five years and two months. (Torrey) 16. Discussion and possible action related to approve the selection of JDH Corrosion Consultants, CorrPro Companies Incorporated and Schiff Associates; award Agreement Numbers CS-904A, B and C, to provide As Needed Corrosion Services; and authorize the General Manager of the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission to negotiate and execute a professional services agreement with for a cumulative amount not to exceed $2,000,000 and with a duration of three (3) years, or, in the event negotiations are not successful or City requirements are not satisfied, to negotiate and execute a professional services agreement with the next highest ranked proposer. (Kelly) 17. Discussion and possible action related to approve the selection of The Gordian Group (TGG); award Agreement No. CS-941, Job Order Contract Implementation Services, to provide a PUC-customized job order contracting (JOC) system; and authorize the General Manager of the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission to execute a professional services agreement with The Gordian Group for an amount not to exceed $5,000,000, payable as a percentage fee of actual construction task orders issued, and with a duration of 60 months. (Kelly) Amend 18. Discussion and possible action related to approve Amendment No. 2 Water System Improvement Program (WSIP)-funded Agreement No. CS-826, Groundwater Conjunctive Use Project Conceptual Engineering Services, with MWH, Inc., and authorize the General Manager of the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission to execute this amendment increasing the agreement by $70,000, for a total agreement amount of $649,607. (Labonte) 19. Discussion and possible action to rescind SFPUC Resolutions No. 07-0137 and No. 07-0188 with respect to the proposed combustion turbine projects and related facilities. (Sklar) CLOSED SESSION 20. Public comments on matters to be discussed in Closed Session. 21. 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: 22. Threat to Public Services or Facilities -- Pursuant to California Government Code Section 54957 and San Francisco Administrative Code Section 67.10(a). (Ambrose) Consultation with: Agency Chief of Security concerning security of SFPUC Water and Power Systems. 23. Conference with Legal Counsel - Pursuant to California Government Code Section 54956.9(b) (1) and San Francisco Administrative Code Section 67.10(d) (2). (Rothschild) Anticipated Litigation: State Farm Insurance Company as subrogee for Albert SooHoo, City Attorney File No. 08-W0016-4, Filed December 19, 2007. 24. Conference with Legal Counsel - Pursuant to California Government Code Section 54956.9(b) (1) and San Francisco Administrative Code Section 67.10(d) (2). (Rothschild) Anticipated Litigation: Laurence Tam/Gregory J. Bulliung, Esq. City Attorney File No. 08-00191, Filed July 24, 2007 FOLLOWING THE CLOSED SESSION, THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION WILL RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION. 25. Announcement following Closed Session. 26. Motion regarding whether to disclose the discussions during Closed Session. ADJOURNMENT

1 0

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] United States: Climate Change Policy Update Week Of July 7 – July 11, 2008
by Mato Ska 19 Jul '08

19 Jul '08

It is critical for the Green Party to receive this information so it can focus and present its alternatives. Political battles are fought in the legislatures and in response to actions in Congress. Criticisms of actions need to refine our own positions and work in conjunction with Congressional representatives. I urge individuals to make appointments with Congresspeople and find opportunities for testifying before committees and subcommittes to represent our constituents. Mato Ska United States: Climate Change Policy Update Week Of July 7 – July 11, 2008 18 July 2008 Article by Kyle W. Danish, Andrea Hudson Campbell, Kevin M. Gallagher and Shelley N. Fidler Commentary: At nearly 600 pages, the Bush Administration's Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANOPR) is a long read, but easily summarized: this Administration will not make an "endangerment" finding with respect to CO2 emissions, and will not embark on the development of CO2 regulations. Furthermore, the 70 page preface to the ANOPR makes the point that the Clean Air Act is a problematic vehicle for addressing the issue; the preface effectively invites Congress to come up with a better approach. . . . This week marked a milestone on the Bali roadmap, which is supposed to end up in Copenhagen in December 2009 with a successor to the Kyoto Protocol. In short, the governments are now putting numbers on the table. At meetings in Japan, the G8 proposed a collective goal of reducing GHG emissions 50 percent by 2050. The G8 did not specify collective mid-term limits, nor individual national limits, but suggested that industrialized countries might shoulder a relatively greater part of the collective burden. Some major developing countries came back with their own proposals for this G8 share: 25-40 percent below 1990 levels by 2020, and 85-90 percent by 2050. There were no agreements, but, by putting specific numbers on the table, the governments have moved the international negotiations into a new phase . . . Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) outlined ten principles for future climate change legislation this week. Previously, a group of ten Senators sent a letter to Sen. Barbra Boxer (D-CA) sharing their views on how to go forward. One can read these manifestos together as a kind of moderate Democrat roadmap for the next bill in the Senate. Congress * Sen. Bingaman Outlines Principles for Climate Legislation. In a speech this week, Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) outlined a set of ten principles for design of future climate change legislation. Last year, Sen. Bingaman co-sponsored the "Low Carbon Economy Act of 2007" (S. 1766). Among the policy design principles outlined by Sen. Bingaman were that any future legislative program should focus exclusively on reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and forgo carve-outs and incentives aimed at other policies and interests. He also said that the program should avoid excessive complexity, which Sen. Bingaman asserted was a particular flaw of the Lieberman-Warner bill. Sen. Bingaman also asserted that any future program must include measures to protect against excessive costs or volatility in allowance prices, including a ceiling on allowance prices; his Bingaman-Specter bill included such a "safety valve" mechanism. Sen. Bingaman further stated that all revenue generated from the auction of emission allowances should be invested in programs to encourage research, development, and deployment of advanced technologies; he added that investment in such technologies is necessary even before passage of climate legislation. Finally, touching on one of the more controversial questions facing climate policy, Sen. Bingaman asserted there should be only one national cap-and-trade program, and therefore, once a federal program is established, that program should preempt any state or regional cap-and-trade programs. A press release on the principles is available at: http://energy.senate.gov/public/. * House Energy & Air Quality Subcommittee Holds a Hearing on CCS Legislation. The Carbon Capture and Storage Early Deployment Act (H.R. 6258), introduced by Subcommittee Chairman Rick Boucher (D-VA) in June, is intended to speed the deployment of carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology for fossil fuel-fired utilities. At the hearing, Full Committee Ranking Member Joe Barton (R-TX) expressed his support for the bill, but some Democratic committee members expressed concern that funding the deployment of CCS technology would be ineffective without a price on carbon that would encourage utilities to use the new technology. Michael Goo, the Natural Resources Defense Council's legislative director for climate issues, testified that Congress should focus on passing a mandatory cap on GHG emissions, which would provide greater revenues for the deployment of CCS technology. Michael Morris, President and CEO of American Electric Power, testified that any solution for curbing GHG emissions will require widespread deployment of CCS technology. Mr. Morris said he understands the argument that mandatory caps on emissions would be likely to provide funding to encourage carbon capture, but noted passage of such legislation is at least a year away – and that funding flows from such legislation would take a number of additional years to materialize. He asserted that sources and funding for CCS are needed on a more immediate timeframe. * House Passes Bill to Study Effect of Climate Change on Oceans. The bill (H.R. 4174) expands federal research efforts on the effects of climate change on oceans. In addition, the bill would create a new interagency committee to coordinate and expand federal research on ocean acidification and marine ecosystems. H.R. 4174 also authorizes $55 million in funding for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration over the next four years and $41 million for the National Science Foundation. Administration * EPA Releases ANOPR on Options for Regulating CO2; Administrator Avoids "Endangerment" Finding and Disavows EPA Regulation. EPA released its long-awaited Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANOPR) on July 11, in which the agency requests comment on a variety of options for regulating GHG emissions under the Clean Air Act (CAA). In a preface to the ANOPR, EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson states that regulation of GHGs under the CAA "could result in an unprecedented expansion of EPA authority that would have a profound effect on virtually every sector of the economy and touch every household in the land." The preface also includes a letter from the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to Administrator Johnson, explaining that the complexity and significance of the issues raised by the ANOPR made it impossible to reach a consensus during the interagency review of the document. The letter from OMB contains copies of letters from the Secretaries of Agriculture, Commerce, Transportation, and Energy, as well as the Chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality, the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors, and the Chief Counsel for Advocacy at the Small Business Administration, each of which identifies serious concerns with the ANOPR and agrees that the CAA is "a deeply flawed and unsuitable vehicle for reducing" GHG emissions. In sum, OMB states that "trying to address greenhouse gas emissions through the existing provisions of the Clean Air Act will not only harm the U.S. economy, but will fail to provide an effective response to the global challenge of climate change." The remaining 500 pages of the document, in which EPA examines the existing CAA authorities and programs under which CO2 could be regulated, highlight the myriad issues that the agency would need to resolve if it were to develop standards to govern CO2. The Bush Administration has not made a formal determination that CO2 emissions "endanger public health or welfare" under the CAA in the document. Such an "endangerment finding" would have triggered obligations under the CAA for the agency to promulgate regulations for a wide variety of sources of such emissions. The ANOPR also includes an assessment by the Department of Energy that CCS could not be broadly deployed until 2025. The ANOPR responds to the 2007 Supreme Court decision in Massachusetts v. EPA, in which the Court held that CO2 is a "pollutant" under the Clean Air Act, and directed EPA to make an endangerment finding for CO2 or explain why such a finding is not warranted. A number of newspapers, including The Washington Post and The New York Times, have reported that EPA staff made the endangerment finding in December 2007, but that the White House refused to accept the finding, which led the agency to develop the ANOPR as an alternative. News sources also have reported that the OMB and the White House pressured EPA into removing sections of the ANOPR that suggested that the benefits of regulating CO2 emissions would exceed the costs. The deadline for submitting comments on the various options presented by the agency will be 120 days after the document is published in the Federal Register. * EPA to Issue Proposed Rule to Regulate Geologic Sequestration of CO2. EPA announced that the agency was close to proposing a rule to regulate underground injection of CO2 to ensure the safety of underground drinking water sources. The EPA plans to create a permit system under the Safe Drinking Water Act for geologic sequestration. * With G8, President Bush Agrees to Cut Global GHG Emissions by Half by 2050. At this past week's Group of Eight summit, President Bush joined the United States to a proposal to cut global GHG emissions in half by 2050. The G-8 also expressed their support for carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) technology in reducing GHG emissions and called for the funding of 20 large-scale CCS demonstration projects by 2010 with broad deployment by 2020. See International, below, for more information on the G8 Summit. States and Cities * California Legislators Call on Pres. Bush to Grant CAA Waiver. California's House and Senate passed a resolution (Joint Assembly Resolution 53) requesting that President Bush grant the state a waiver under the federal CAA to implement the state's vehicle CO2 emissions regulations. The California legislators argue in the resolution that California's regulations would reduce CO2 emissions twice as much as pending federal fuel economy regulations. California has challenged EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson's December denial of California's petition for a CAA waiver. Under the CAA, California must receive a waiver from EPA before it can implement its own vehicle GHG regulations. * Lawsuit Challenges Montana Power Plant Permit for Failure to Address CO2. Two environmental groups filed a petition in a Montana state court challenging a CAA prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) permit issued to a coal-fired power plant by the Montana Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). The environmental groups argue that the permit issued to Southern Montana Electric Generation and Transmission's Highwood Generating Station violates the CAA because it fails to require best available control technology (BACT) for CO2. The lawsuit is one of several recent lawsuits challenging permits granted by state permitting authorities to coal-fired power plants for failing to address CO2 emissions. Earlier this month, a state court in Georgia invalidated a state-issued permit on such grounds. * Connecticut Governor Announces Plan to Reduce RGGI Costs for Consumers. Connecticut Governor Jodi Rell (R) announced a plan to amend the state's regulations implementing the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) to reduce the cap-and-trade program's impact on consumers. The governor's plan would use funds generated through allowance auctions to make payments to consumers if allowance prices exceed $5 per ton. RGGI is a regional cap-and-trade program made up of ten northeastern states. * Massachusetts Enacts Green Energy Legislation. Massachusetts passed legislation that will increase the state's use of renewable energy, as well as energy efficiency and conservation measures. The Green Communities Act will require utilities within the state to obtain, by 2020, 15 percent of their electricity from renewable sources built no later than 1998. The Act will also require utilities to meet 25 percent of their electricity demand from energy efficiency and conservation programs. Studies and Reports * Survey Finds Global Carbon Market Worth €38 Billion in First Half of 2008. A survey conducted by Point Carbon found that, at the mid-year point, the global carbon market was worth approximately €38 billion (US$59 billion), nearly equivalent to the €40 billion (US$64 billion) worth of carbon credits and emission allowances traded in all of 2007. Point Carbon found that while part of the increase was due a higher average carbon price of €20.61 (US$32.77), compared to €13.36 (US$21.24) last year, the volume of credits and allowances traded also increased significantly. Industry * RTOs, ISOs Call for Investment in Electricity Grid to Address Expected Impacts from GHG Regulation. At a one-day conference sponsored by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), operators of Regional Transmission Organizations (RTOs) and Independent System Operators (ISOs) said that an improved electricity transmission system is necessary to ensure that the grid is able to respond to any impacts of future GHG regulation. Specifically, Southwest Power Pool CEO Nick Brown and Midwest ISO CEO Graham Edwards said that a variety of generation options should be pursued and an improved electricity grid would provide the flexibility needed to bring cleaner sources online in the future. International * G8 Members Propose 50 Percent Emission Reduction in Climate Treaty. At the end of a three-day summit in Toyako, Japan, the Group of Eight (G8) countries issued a statement in which they proposed that parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) should "consider and adopt" an international agreement with the goal of reducing global GHG emissions at least 50 percent by 2050 from an unspecified base year. The G8 communiqué stated that the "50 by 50" goal should be met "consistent with the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities"; this principle typically is interpreted to imply that industrialized countries should bear a greater portion of the burden. The agreement further called for G8 nations to implement economy-wide mid-term goals, but did not include specific mid-term emission targets. The G8 statement also included a commitment to provide $10 billion annually to developing countries to promote deployment of clean energy technologies. G8 member counties include Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States. As discussed immediately below, the G8 did not win support for its proposal from key developing countries. * Major Economies Do Not Agree on G8's "50 by 50" Proposal, but Commit to Pursue Long-Term Reduction Goal. At the Major Economies Meeting on Energy Security and Climate Change, which took place in Japan immediately following the G8 Summit, the G8 nations and eight other major emitting nations agreed to pursue a long-term emission reduction goal – but did not agree on the G8's "50 by 50" proposal. The sixteen nations issued a declaration of support for "a shared vision" that includes "a long-term global goal for emissions reductions" achieved through steps that are "ambitious, realistic, and achievable." In addition, five major developing countries participating in the talks, China, India, Brazil, Mexico, and South Africa (collectively the "G5"), issued a separate statement calling for greater reductions from G8 members, particularly in the near- to mid-term. The G5 statement asserted that the "50 by 50" target would be insufficient to stabilize atmospheric GHG concentrations at relatively safe levels and urged the G8 to reduce emissions to 25-40 percent below 1990 levels by 2020, and 85-90 percent by 2050. * Alberta Establishes C$4 Billion Climate Fund. In effort to meet an emission reduction target adopted in January, the Canadian province of Alberta created a C$4 billion (US$3.9 billion) fund aimed at reducing GHG emissions by developing CCS technology and promoting energy efficient public transportation. The fund will use C$2 billion (US$1.95 billion) to invest in the province's first large-scale CSS projects. The remaining C$2 billion will fund improvement and expansion of local and regional public transportation systems. Under the January climate change plan, Alberta seeks to reduce its GHG emissions to 50 percent below 2005 levels by 2050. The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

1 0

[Sustain] 6/26/08 meeting notes and next meeting
by Don Eichelberger 19 Jul '08

19 Jul '08

2 1

[Sustain] solar in SF
by Don Eichelberger 19 Jul '08

19 Jul '08

David- I have not been able to get that study I told you about in a transmittable form for you. I know the California Solar Center did it, and I went to their site and could not locate the study, but I know it is there, somewhere. It is called The Potential for Solar Electric Generation in SF and it was done 6/1/01 for SF State Law School Environmental law and Justice Clinic, in case you want to look for it. I found another, more current url: http://sf.solarmap.org/ Which gives estimates for solar potential for any address entered in to it. Kinda neat, I would be interested to see what it says for your place, compared with other studies you have done. Mine says I could install up to 5 KW, produce over 9000 KWH/year and save up to $1500/year, now if I can only get the landlady to go for it. Don Don Eichelberger DJ Fix Independent Productions My Blog www.greenuprising.blogspot.com My You Tube <http://www.youtube.com/DonnyFix>http://www.youtube.com/DonnyFix My Space http://www.myspace.com/donnyfix 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

Re: [Sustain] [Fwd: RE: [Fwd: Compressed air car]]
by David F 18 Jul '08

18 Jul '08

Don, The heat issue is with the compression and storage of the air itself, not the operation of the motor. When a gas is compressed, it heats up, and either this heat is retained in something like metal or molten salt, or it has to be rejected to the atmosphere through heat exchanges, where its usefulness is lost. If the heat is ejected (which is the only technically feasible process we have now), then when the compressed gas is released, it has to be heated up because gas that is decompressing gets much colder, and motors or turbines can't take being frozen (you've probably seen frost at the nozzle when you've used those small cans of compressed air for cleaning electronics). So in the compressed air energy storage projects that exist today (Iowa, Germany, Alabama), natural gas is used to heat the compressed air up before it reaches the turbines. Even with the heating, the overall process is more efficient than burning natural gas directly. High pressure storage vessels are also a problem, since they have catastrophic consequences when they fail and thus the engineering requirements are severe. It's the storage vessels that make the cost of such systems more expensive than batteries. Underground storage in airtight caverns is best, and geologically, old salt dome formations (such as the ones we use to store natural gas in) are very suitable. They are very stable geologically. It seems unless small scale adiabatic (that is, no heat loss) storage could be figured out, the efficiency of a small system for power generation would likely be very low. First the PV or wind would have to drive a compressor to compress the air, the engineering of the pressure vessel would require some dealing with heat ejection, then energy would be needed to heat the air up again before driving a small motor to generate DC power, then pass through an inverter to AC. Manufacturing of the compressor, pressure vessel and motor entail environment impacts beyond the boundary of the compressed air system, so to weigh the tradeoffs with batteries, this would have to be considered as well. Storage of intermittent energy sources is indeed going to be a major challenge to bringing true renewables into play for a 24/7 economy. David -----Original Message----- From: Don Eichelberger [mailto:done7777@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 1:51 PM To: Jeanne; david-fridley.net Cc: sustainability(a)sfgreens.org Subject: Re: [Fwd: RE: [Fwd: Compressed air car]] Thanks, Jeanne and David- I found this very interesting, thank you. I do have some questions. I am more interested in the compressed air motor as a decentralized stationary energy source that can act as an emergency back-up, like a battery but without the toxins. It seems that, as a stationary source, some type of heat exchanger technology could be devised that could provide hot water as a byproduct. Either submerge the motor in water or through use of cooling coils, it seems the heat could be made useable. Heat sources would be from motor friction and compression of air molecules, right? Couldn't such a motor be made to operate more coolly by using the air to cushion moving parts? I don't understand the part about heat ejection having to heat the air up again on decompression, can that be explained in lay terms? It seems if there is already a less efficient (50%) design that can deliver energy density equivalent to lead batteries, but without the toxins, is making huge steps. I would be interested in checking out the midwest studies you referred to. As for geologic storage, could such geological formations be made seismically unstable storing air at pressures of 2500 psi or more? I am thinking more smaller, less centralized storage unit, say at a local market, that can be fed with a small windmill or solar panel powered pump for emergency power back-up for lights and refrigeration. I look forward to hearing your thoughts. Thanks again, Don At 10:15 PM 7/16/2008, you wrote: >Don, > >Here's David Fridley's response to my query on compressed air energy >storage. Thought you might be interested. > >Jeanne > > >-------- Original Message -------- >Subject: RE: [Fwd: Compressed air car] >Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 19:39:41 -0700 >From: David F <mailto:david@fridley.net><david(a)fridley.net> >To: 'Jeanne' <mailto:greengal@netvista.net><greengal(a)netvista.net> >References: ><mailto:487BA2C6.9060200@netvista.net><487BA2C6.9060200(a)netvista.net> > > >Jeanne, > >Yes, but there are technical challenges of course. The main problem >is how to deal with the heat. The best way would be to store the >heat with the compressed air, but that hasn't been worked out on >large scale. What has been worked out is storage with heat ejection >(meaning having to heat the air up again on decompression), which >lowers the efficiency to about 50%. This method has about the same >energy density as a lead-acid battery, so it's good, but not as good >as advanced batteries. But you don't need the same toxic materials >as you do for batteries. There's some trials of wind/compressed air >storage in the Midwest I've read about, so it's definitely >progressed to the demonstration levels. As long as there are >appropriate storage conditions (underground caverns being best for >large scale storage), then it's a good option. > >As for the cars, the compressed air storage mechanism works best >with slow release, which is why these cars run on the air only up to >35 mph, then rely on the alternative energy source. Since >decompressing air cools it, you have built in air conditioning. > >David > > >From: Jeanne [<mailto:greengal@netvista.net>mailto:greengal@netvista.net] >Sent: Monday, July 14, 2008 12:03 PM >To: Fridley, David >Subject: [Fwd: Compressed air car] > >David, > >Don has an interesting question. Suppose we forget about this as a >car, but consider it as a way to store intermittent sources of >energy. Does it make any sense? > >Jeanne > >-------- Original Message -------- >Subject: >Compressed air car >Date: >Tue, 06 May 2008 22:47:13 -0700 >From: >Don Eichelberger <mailto:done7777@sbcglobal.net><done7777(a)sbcglobal.net> >To: ><mailto:ber8832@aol.com>ber8832(a)aol.com, ><mailto:richard@katznip.com>richard(a)katznip.com, ><mailto:greengal@netvista.net>greengal(a)netvista.net > > >Here are links I said I would send on the compressed air car being >developed in France. I am most interested in the motor as an energy >storage device that's cleaner than batteries. > >I'd be interested to hear what you think, > >Don > ><http://zeropollutionmotors.us/?page_id=43>http://zeropollutionmotors.us/?p age_id=43 > >http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/new_cars/4251491.html?series=19 > > > >Don Eichelberger >DJ Fix Independent Productions > >Green Uprising Blog ><http://www.greenuprising.blogspot.com>www.greenuprising.blogspot.com > >My You Tube > ><http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctRp5rGJoUc>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= 8r9rK8nPREA >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5UbnJ0kUqo ><http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4SktIYTyC1U>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v= 4SktIYTyC1U > >My Space > ><http://www.myspace.com/donnyfix>http://www.myspace.com/donnyfix > >Donny Fix del.icio.us book marks > ><http://del.icio.us/donnyfix>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." > > > > >-- >Jeanne Rosenmeier >415 751-0901 > >-- >Jeanne Rosenmeier >415 751-0901 Don Eichelberger DJ Fix Independent Productions My Blog www.greenuprising.blogspot.com My You Tube <http://www.youtube.com/DonnyFix>http://www.youtube.com/DonnyFix My Space http://www.myspace.com/donnyfix 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

Re: [Sustain] Join Rally For 100 Percent Clean Renewable Electricity In San Francisco!
by Eric Brooks 18 Jul '08

18 Jul '08

Rather than attend Board of Supes, instead attend SFPUC Rm 400 City Hall. see http://sfwater.org/detail.cfm/MC_ID/18/MSC_ID/113/MTO_ID/340/C_ID/4090 Item 19. Because the Supes have tried to keep the peaker deal alive we need to show up in -big- numbers to get the SFPUC to rescind their approval resolutions for the peakers. peace Eric asumchai(a)sfbayview.com wrote: >> I can't attend the rally because I am in a clinic until 2pm but I cleared >> > my schedule to attend the BOS hearing and am trying to gather troops. > Ahimsa > > > > > Join Rally To Support Ballot Measure Bringing 100% Clean Electricity To > >> San Francisco! >> >> WHEN/WHERE: Tuesday, July 22, 11am, San Francisco City Hall, Polk Street >> Steps (From Civic Center Muni/BART cross United Nations Plaza to City >> Hall steps.) >> >> WHAT: Join Sierra Club, ACORN, the San Francisco Green Party, Our City, >> State Assemblymember Mark Leno, and Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi to support >> the Board of Supervisors placing the San Francisco Clean Energy Act on >> the November 2008 ballot. >> >> The Clean Energy Act will enable San Francisco to take community control >> of its own energy future and adopt clean electricity mandates for the >> City of 51% by 2017, 75% by 2030, and 100% by 2040. This measure will >> set groundbreaking new clean energy standards for the nation, and the >> planet. >> >> Thanks for your action and support! >> >> Eric Brooks >> Campaign Coordinator >> Our City >> http://our-city.org >> >> ### >> >> 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 >> >> -- >> "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] [Fwd: RE: [Fwd: Compressed air car]]
by Don Eichelberger 18 Jul '08

18 Jul '08

Thanks, Jeanne and David- I found this very interesting, thank you. I do have some questions. I am more interested in the compressed air motor as a decentralized stationary energy source that can act as an emergency back-up, like a battery but without the toxins. It seems that, as a stationary source, some type of heat exchanger technology could be devised that could provide hot water as a byproduct. Either submerge the motor in water or through use of cooling coils, it seems the heat could be made useable. Heat sources would be from motor friction and compression of air molecules, right? Couldn't such a motor be made to operate more coolly by using the air to cushion moving parts? I don't understand the part about heat ejection having to heat the air up again on decompression, can that be explained in lay terms? It seems if there is already a less efficient (50%) design that can deliver energy density equivalent to lead batteries, but without the toxins, is making huge steps. I would be interested in checking out the midwest studies you referred to. As for geologic storage, could such geological formations be made seismically unstable storing air at pressures of 2500 psi or more? I am thinking more smaller, less centralized storage unit, say at a local market, that can be fed with a small windmill or solar panel powered pump for emergency power back-up for lights and refrigeration. I look forward to hearing your thoughts. Thanks again, Don At 10:15 PM 7/16/2008, you wrote: >Don, > >Here's David Fridley's response to my query on compressed air energy >storage. Thought you might be interested. > >Jeanne > > >-------- Original Message -------- >Subject: RE: [Fwd: Compressed air car] >Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 19:39:41 -0700 >From: David F <mailto:david@fridley.net><david(a)fridley.net> >To: 'Jeanne' <mailto:greengal@netvista.net><greengal(a)netvista.net> >References: ><mailto:487BA2C6.9060200@netvista.net><487BA2C6.9060200(a)netvista.net> > > >Jeanne, > >Yes, but there are technical challenges of course. The main problem >is how to deal with the heat. The best way would be to store the >heat with the compressed air, but that hasn't been worked out on >large scale. What has been worked out is storage with heat ejection >(meaning having to heat the air up again on decompression), which >lowers the efficiency to about 50%. This method has about the same >energy density as a lead-acid battery, so it's good, but not as good >as advanced batteries. But you don't need the same toxic materials >as you do for batteries. There's some trials of wind/compressed air >storage in the Midwest I've read about, so it's definitely >progressed to the demonstration levels. As long as there are >appropriate storage conditions (underground caverns being best for >large scale storage), then it's a good option. > >As for the cars, the compressed air storage mechanism works best >with slow release, which is why these cars run on the air only up to >35 mph, then rely on the alternative energy source. Since >decompressing air cools it, you have built in air conditioning. > >David > > >From: Jeanne [<mailto:greengal@netvista.net>mailto:greengal@netvista.net] >Sent: Monday, July 14, 2008 12:03 PM >To: Fridley, David >Subject: [Fwd: Compressed air car] > >David, > >Don has an interesting question. Suppose we forget about this as a >car, but consider it as a way to store intermittent sources of >energy. Does it make any sense? > >Jeanne > >-------- Original Message -------- >Subject: >Compressed air car >Date: >Tue, 06 May 2008 22:47:13 -0700 >From: >Don Eichelberger <mailto:done7777@sbcglobal.net><done7777(a)sbcglobal.net> >To: ><mailto:ber8832@aol.com>ber8832(a)aol.com, ><mailto:richard@katznip.com>richard(a)katznip.com, ><mailto:greengal@netvista.net>greengal(a)netvista.net > > >Here are links I said I would send on the compressed air car being >developed in France. I am most interested in the motor as an energy >storage device that's cleaner than batteries. > >I'd be interested to hear what you think, > >Don > ><http://zeropollutionmotors.us/?page_id=43>http://zeropollutionmotors.us/?page_id=43 > >http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/new_cars/4251491.html?series=19 > > > >Don Eichelberger >DJ Fix Independent Productions > >Green Uprising Blog ><http://www.greenuprising.blogspot.com>www.greenuprising.blogspot.com > >My You Tube > ><http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctRp5rGJoUc>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=8r9rK8nPREA >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5UbnJ0kUqo ><http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4SktIYTyC1U>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4SktIYTyC1U > >My Space > ><http://www.myspace.com/donnyfix>http://www.myspace.com/donnyfix > >Donny Fix del.icio.us book marks > ><http://del.icio.us/donnyfix>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." > > > > >-- >Jeanne Rosenmeier >415 751-0901 > >-- >Jeanne Rosenmeier >415 751-0901 Don Eichelberger DJ Fix Independent Productions My Blog www.greenuprising.blogspot.com My You Tube <http://www.youtube.com/DonnyFix>http://www.youtube.com/DonnyFix My Space http://www.myspace.com/donnyfix 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] Join Rally For 100 Percent Clean Renewable Electricity In San Francisco!
by Eric Brooks 18 Jul '08

18 Jul '08

Join Rally To Support Ballot Measure Bringing 100% Clean Electricity To San Francisco! WHEN/WHERE: Tuesday, July 22, 11am, San Francisco City Hall, Polk Street Steps (From Civic Center Muni/BART cross United Nations Plaza to City Hall steps.) WHAT: Join Sierra Club, ACORN, the San Francisco Green Party, Our City, State Assemblymember Mark Leno, and Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi to support the Board of Supervisors placing the San Francisco Clean Energy Act on the November 2008 ballot. The Clean Energy Act will enable San Francisco to take community control of its own energy future and adopt clean electricity mandates for the City of 51% by 2017, 75% by 2030, and 100% by 2040. This measure will set groundbreaking new clean energy standards for the nation, and the planet. Thanks for your action and support! Eric Brooks Campaign Coordinator Our City http://our-city.org ### 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 -- "I am not a liberator. Liberators do not exist. The people liberate themselves." – Che Guevara

1 0