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@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@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@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@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainability