CT Strategy (Private - Do not Forward)

Hey Eric,

This is good stuff. Just FYI, CAISO is a significant problem in this equation for a couple of reasons. They are insistent on a replacement of the in-City generation to be lost when Mirant shuts down. There's no way around it. The City, together with CAISO, have opted for the CT Power Plants as the replacement to provide 200 megawatts.

The important question that CAISO unfortunately will not answer is: how much generation do we need? Our position can be summarized as: no CTs in the Bayview, no CTs in Potrero. The same environmental health concerns do not apply to the airport CT, however. The nearest residents are one mile away. There is a homeless shelter nearby, but the site of the shelter benefits from wind patterns that direct all pollution away from the shelter.

So how much generation do we need? Would one 45 megawatt CT at the airport be enough? CAISO will not speculate as to what is "enough" because they have to do their own study of an alternative that the City would put forth to them.

I think we make the assumption that there is an opportunity to allow J-Power to build the airport CT plant, then allow all of us, the opponents of the SFERP CTs to be built in Southeast San Francisco, to push the SFPUC to build renewable generation at the proposed location, that the City will still own and control, but that will be green.

See you today,

Josh

Hi all,

Here is a recent email that I sent to fellow organizers that might help
inform the legal injunction efforts that you all are pursuing...

My thoughts,

1) Most importantly the irrational fear of Cal ISO's stubborn
recalcitrance should simply drop off of our radar screen. Why? Because
if we as organizers and City officials simply decide that the real goal
is to close down only the Mirant diesel turbines, we can easily
accomplish that goal -without- Cal ISO. The only reason anyone gives a
damn about the Cal ISO position is that, if we don't comply with it, Cal
ISO will not remove the RMR for Potrero Unit 3 (the existing gas turbine
which generates 97% of the Mirant facility's electricity). Since neither
Mirant nor Cal ISO will want to spend the money to upgrade the diesel
turbines, and they won't be able to credibly argue that those diesels'
measly 3% production is necessary for grid security, all we have to do
is reject or constantly delay the CT project, and let the new 2009 air
regulations -force- the shut down of the diesel turbines. Before that,
at the end of 2008, Mirant and Cal ISO will also have no other choice
than to pay for water emission upgrades to Mirant Unit 3 so that it can
keep running.

Meanwhile, we get a smaller project passed that will replace the diesel
turbines by the time they shut down, and also run them on waste
biodiesel until that time.

With this strategy, we will get both the shut down of the Mirant diesels
-and- sufficient water upgrades to ensure that Mirant 3 is no worse than
the CTs would be in environmental impact. Then, we can all go home and
rest for a while while Cal ISO gripes to the roof tops...

Our primary focus in all of this, should be to get the Supervisors to
properly envision the Mirant plant as two separate entities, the gas
turbine, and the diesel peakers, and to stop worrying about the
therefore irrelevant opinion of Cal ISO.

Remember the most important words of Steven Biko. 'The most powerful
weapon in the hands of the oppressor, is the mind of the oppressed.'

The SFPUC staff and Cal ISO are playing head games with us and creating
an imaginary fear in our minds of Cal ISO's power over decisions, when
if we just let go of that fear and focus on actual pollution levels, the
Cal ISO bogey man will simply disappear like the imaginary puff of smoke
that it represents...

As to holding back our opponents while they try to -force- the
construction of the CT plant:

2) Our main tactic should be delay. If we just keep delaying the actual
contract negotiations and adoption, and then keep challenging the
geographical and environmental placement of the turbines, we might be
able to tie the thing in knots for years, until considerable local
renewables and load capacity come on line.

3) We should also consider legal action and injunctions under the Clean
Air Act and CEQA, and before the EPA, CEC, CPUC and Bay Area Air Quality
Management District, to both challenge and block the Combustion Turbine
approval, and to force the early closure of the Mirant diesel turbines.

4) Don't give up hope yet. It is quite possible that tomorrow's SFPUC
hearing will go very badly for the JPower proposal, and that will then
give us a lot more time to organize and prepare legislation and
alternatives. Let's see what happens tomorrow.

5) If the situation becomes desperate and imminent, would could push the
SFPUC Commissioners to adopt a plan that will put out a new RFP for
contract bids, on a scaled down project that will erect only one of the
CTs and/or run the Mirant diesel peakers on waste biodiesel.

6) While all of the above is proceeding, If the CT proponents manage to
ram the CTs down our throats, we do everything in our power to make sure
that in the project contract, the City of San Francisco solely controls
the on/off switch of the CTs, and is only required to switch them on in
the case of emergency peak power demands. It would be very hard for the
project proponents to bs their way around that one, because they have
just claimed in public hearings that their intention is to -never- turn
on the CTs; to only have them in place for emergencies...

Keep in mind all, that the reason they are ramming this thing through so
fast is that they know we have them by the cajones.

So let's just keep our grip firm on those cajones.

At the very least, this will get us the closure of Mirant.

Now I better send this, before the next earthquake tremor knocks my
laptop off the desk..

cheers

Eric

--

"I am not a liberator. Liberators do not exist. The people liberate themselves." – Che Guevara