- Sustainactive - list.sfgreens.org

Emergency! Turn-Out Tomorrow! Strong CleanPowerSF vs PG&E! - SF City Hall Rm 250, 2pm
by Eric Brooks 23 Apr '10

23 Apr '10

Emergency! Turn-Out Tomorrow! For a strong CleanPowerSF program to compete -immediately- with PG&E! SF City Hall Rm 250, 2pm (from Civic Center BART station cross United Nations Plaza to City Hall) (See note on Talking Points further below.) Hi all, The San Francisco community choice project, CleanPowerSF, is in final contract negotiations, and its potential powerful ability to compete with PG&E is one of the key reasons that PG&E placed Prop 16 on the ballot. If a strong contract is signed by the end of May (before the vote on Prop 16) it will give us powerful leverage, starting with San Francisco, with which to beat back PG&E -regardless- of what happens on June 8th. However, the SF Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) is suddenly (as of today) -again- playing games and is trying to delay a final full contract from being completed and signed until -after- June 8th. The SFPUC is claiming that it is too risky to try to get a full project funded and under contract because Prop 16 might scare financiers into taking a conservative position on buying/selling bonds for the project. So the SFPUC is instead proposing a weak preliminary contract which will not establish crucial details such as project electricity rates until after the election. Such a weak, incomplete contract, with no customer notices sent out before the election, could strengthen PG&E's hand to call for a 2/3rds vote on CleanPowerSF if Prop 16 passes. The SFPUC has used this same ploy of claiming there is supposedly too much financial risk to start the project -repeatedly- over the past decade to delay CleanPowerSF, time after time, year after year. Note that SFPUC is saying exactly what PG&E is saying - "Too Risky". Since the SFPUC's director for CleanPowerSF, Michael Campbell, worked for PG&E until just two months before being hired by the SFPUC, this all too familiar 'too risky' argument from the SFPUC is not surprising. A key SF City Hall decision maker, and ally to us, is not buying SFPUC's hype, and has just urgently asked that we turn out IN FORCE in San Francisco tomorrow to -demand- that the SFPUC stop its games and delays, and finalize a full, real, and strong CleanPowerSF contract by the end of May so that we can gain crucial leverage against PG&E. * Talking Points Attached! *Please see the attached coalition letter just sent to SF City Hall decision makers this morning (Earth Day) for talking points that you can use at tomorrow's meeting to demand a strong CleanPowerSF contract. The hearing is a special joint meeting of the SFPUC and SF Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo). Here are the details: *LAFCo Special Joint Meeting with the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Friday, April 23, 2010, at 2:00 p.m. City Hall, Legislative Chamber, Room 250 * ORDER OF BUSINESS 1. Call to Order (LAFCo Chairperson Ross Mirkarimi & SFPUC President F.X. Crowley) 2. Roll Call JOINT REGULAR BUSINESS 3. Opening Remarks and Discussion of Expectations for the Joint Meeting (Chairperson Mirkarimi & President Crowley) 4. Hearing on CCA Status Report 1. Negotiations with Potential ESP Provider 2. Service Agreement with PG&E (Discussion and Action Item)

1 0

Urgent Clean Power Meet: Thu Feb 4, 6p, Global Exchange, 2017 Mission, 2nd Floor, 16th BART
by Eric Brooks 30 Jan '10

30 Jan '10

Hi all, San Francisco's huge local clean energy project, CleanPowerSF, just entered crucially important contract negotiations which we -must- influence. For the basics on CleanPowerSF see http://our-city.org/campaigns/CleanPowerSF.html Because the next few weeks will be absolutely crucial to successfully establishing CleanPowerSF and other Community Choice projects all throughout California, a strategy meeting has been called to discuss both CleanPowerSF, and the PG&E ballot measure attacking both Community Choice & Public Power statewide (see http://our-city.org/campaigns ). The Meeting Is: - This Thursday, February 4, 6pm - Global Exchange, 2017 Mission, 2nd Floor, Near 16th BART (16th & Mission in SF) - I'll bring chips, hommus, and good beer - Bring goodies yourself if you can Please RSVP to me at brookse32(a)aim.com so I know who is coming. peace Eric B 415-756-8844

1 0

BIG Clean Energy Update: CleanPowerSF
by Eric Brooks 27 Jan '10

27 Jan '10

Hi All, We are now in a -very- crucial endgame for the survival of California Community Choice projects, beginning with the strongest one, in San Francisco, now called CleanPowerSF (see http://our-city.org/campaigns/CleanPowerSF.html ). The Good News! The CleanPowerSF request for bids went out, 5 bids were received, and just last week, the bid review panel chose the winning bid! And the -best- news is that the winning bidder is -not- Shell Energy North America (as we feared might happen). The winning bidder is a new company formed specifically to implement California Community Choice projects named Power Choice. The Not So Good News The not so good news is that, just as Paul Fenn and many of us predicted, though we were able to make the request for bids much stronger, because that request did not -mandate- specific percentages of local renewables and efficiency, Power Choice's initial bid is to meet the entire project goal of 51% clean energy by simply purchasing existing renewable energy resources from the market that are already present or soon to be present on the grid. This means that Power Choice's initial bid does not require the construction of any local renewables or efficiency whatsoever, and this defeats the entire purpose of Community Choice. The other bad news is that LAFCo lead council Nancy Miller is still being allowed to control the City staff and consulting process and she intends to hire only Navigant to work with staff on the contract negotiations with Power Choice; while leaving Community Choice creators Local Power completely out of the negotiations. Navigant is the same company that designed Marin County's request for bids to have no mandated renewables and efficiency at all, and this is why Marin's contract with Shell Energy is only for buying renewable energy on the market, with no local construction and installation projects whatsoever. If we allow the LAFCo to shut Local Power out of the process, we will get exactly the same result as Marin. The Silver Lining! However, we all fought hard enough that we made the CleanPowerSF request for bids sufficiently strong, that Power Choice had to win the bid by showing it has the capability to in fact build all of the renewables and efficiency we insisted upon in the original CleanPowerSF Implementation Plan; and this means that if we are -really- tenacious and demanding during the imminent contract negotiations for the project, we can get Power Choice to build most, ideally all, of the projects that the original plan requires. One of the Power Choice executives has already approached me about engaging in talks with community and environmental organizers about the contract. We are also now working closely with a statewide coalition to help stop PG&E's statewide ballot measure that will kill all of the California Community Choice projects by forcing each to a 2/3rds public vote on local ballots before going forward. Let me know if you have questions and/or want to get more directly involved in the campaign to get the SFPUC, LAFCo and Power Choice to forge a great contract for Community Choice. peace Eric Brooks 415-756-8844

1 0

Report: Tallow (Animal Fat) Biodiesel Will Increase GHG Emissions
by Eric Brooks 22 Jan '10

22 Jan '10

Hi all, See attached a new report from Great Britain showing that among other serious problems, tallow (animal fat) based biodiesel will increase greenhouse gas emissions. The greenhouse gas finding can be found on page 9 of the report. cheers Eric

1 0

Re: [SustainActive] [SFGP-A] SFPUC Appointee Anson Moran On Water/Environment
by done7777＠sbcglobal.net 09 Jul '09

09 Jul '09

Mato- I agree that all parties need to be made a part of the decision-making process. But as we diversify our process, we need to accommodate without becoming dominated by a faction. Deep pocketed developers want to plant more lawns in suburbia. And monoculture control of agribusiness is driving the planting of more almonds and grapes, threatening bee populations. They want water, we own the spigot. Seems like a bargaining chip there that could help open dialogue around sustainability issues if there were an appropriate forum. What is more sustainable than assuring a stable water supply and efficient use? At the time Moran was calling for some type of common watershed authority, I was thinking that sounded alright, and maybe a good way to organize at the grassroots. But agribusiness and developers are the big gorilla in most of the watershed's area, and their big money and media access capabilities would need to be countered. This could only be done by sheer numbers of activists going to regional watershed meetings, setting up accountable and democratic processes and running as commissioners. I had wanted to give this more organizing priority as a model for bioregional organizing. But in 1999, I took over as Co-Coordinator of the Green Party of California Energy (soon to become Green Issues) Working Group, and I never followed through and the SFPUC and SF government acted relatively quickly to fund HH upgrades and keep SF the sole proprietor. Then 911 happened.... Don --- On Sun, 6/14/09, Martin Zehr <m_zehr(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > From: Martin Zehr <m_zehr(a)hotmail.com> > Subject: Re: [SustainActive] [SFGP-A] SFPUC Appointee Anson Moran On Water/Environment > To: "Eric Brooks" <brookse32(a)aim.com>, "SF Active Greens" <active(a)sfgreens.org>, sustainactive(a)sfgreens.org > Date: Sunday, June 14, 2009, 3:23 PM > > Eric, > > > > help me out here. How is the City of San Francisco making > the decisions on Hetch-Hetchy water NOT a corrupt set-up? > Why is failing to represent agricultural users in the region > NOT a corrupt set-up? How does bio-regionalism exclude > diverse users, including agricultural users and those > with water rights from engaging in the decision-making > process? > > > > Mato SKa >

4 8

Urgent SFPUC Update & SWALE Letter - Anson Moran Failure On Wastewater
by Eric Brooks 21 Jun '09

21 Jun '09

Hi all, Last Thursday Chris Daly and the Rules Committee voted to continue their consideration of the Mayor's appointment of Anson Moran as SFPUC Commissioner to the next Rules meeting. However, Anson Moran is very experienced and gave a very strong presentation to the Committee, and even Daly is leaning toward supporting him unless we can: 1) Show a -very- strong turnout from organizations and the community to oppose the appointment. (I and David Tornheim of Central City Progressives were the only speakers at the last hearing!) 2) Propose a strong alternate candidate. (The candidate for the seat must have utility and/or water management experience and should be a San Franciscan.) See the attached letter from the Sustainable Watershed Alliance for important waste water concerns around Anson Moran which makes even more clear why we must stop this appointment. The appointment of Moran could shift everything against us at the SFPUC. Folks, I can't do this by myself. The next Rules Committee hearing is on Thursday, July 2nd at 10am at City Hall (likely room 263). I need people to commit to, and get others to, turn out on July 2nd, and to come with me to any meetings with supervisors that I can set up. And if you know of a good alternate candidate to Moran who has experience and would stand up to defend the Bayview, clean water, and clean energy please reply with their contact information so I can talk to Daly about them. Please forward this to others who will be concerned and can help. peace Eric Brooks 415-756-8844

1 0

Tell City Hall: Reject Pro-PG&E/Developer Moran Appointment!
by Eric Brooks 16 Jun '09

16 Jun '09

Hi all, Earlier this month, Mayor Gavin Newsom put forward Anson Moran as his choice to fill the fifth and last open position on the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC). It is very important for environmental and consumer protection that this appointment be rejected! In the 1990s, when he was General Manager of the SFPUC, Anson Moran helped block moves by the City to bring community owned power to the Presidio and thereby reduce PG&E's expensive corporate monopoly over our electricity supply. Shortly afterward, Moran stood idle as his staff completely undermined a study to bring community power to the entire City. On water issues, Moran is equally alarming. In his last year at the SFPUC, Moran proposed that San Francisco end its sole management of our Hetch Hetchy water system, and foolishly allow water wasting, developer controlled Eastern California cities to get leverage over the system. If this plan had proceeded, it would have greatly increased suburban sprawl in the East, putting extreme pressure on our pristine Sierra watersheds, massively increasing automobile traffic and pollution, and raising our water costs solely to feed corporate profits. In just a few days, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors will decide on whether or not to approve this appointment. WHAT YOU CAN DO: Email the Board of Supervisors right away at board.of.supervisors(a)sfgov.org with the following message: "Please reject the Anson Moran SFPUC Appointment. Mr. Moran has a disturbing record of opposing lower cost community power, and promoting irresponsible water policy. Please demand that Mayor Newsom appoint a strong environmental and consumer advocate to the SFPUC instead. Sincerely, [your name and address]" - end of sample message- Thanks for your action and support, Eric Brooks Campaign Coordinator Our City

1 0

Re: [SustainActive] [SFGP-A] SFPUC Appointee Anson Moran On Water/Environment
by done7777＠sbcglobal.net 16 Jun '09

16 Jun '09

Of course bioregionalism is an organic process for providing accountable political representation based on protecting the watersheds. That is why I initially liked the idea of elected boards to oversee issues relating to water and land use. But politics is corrupted by money and developers and agribusiness have a lot of it, and control things in eastern California. I see a difference between agriculture and agribusiness. Monoculture in almonds alone in the state challenges bees to survive. Of course agriculture needs access to water. But they need to stand in line like everyone else, behind what it takes for the natural processes of the watershed to maintain themselves, but well ahead of the needs for suburban lawns. I said we own the spigot. Good thing it's not Bechtel. Don --- On Mon, 6/15/09, Martin Zehr <m_zehr(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > From: Martin Zehr <m_zehr(a)hotmail.com> > Subject: RE: [SustainActive] [SFGP-A] SFPUC Appointee Anson Moran On Water/Environment > To: "Don Eichelberger" <done7777(a)sbcglobal.net>, "Eric Brooks" <brookse32(a)aim.com>, "SF Active Greens" <active(a)sfgreens.org>, sustainactive(a)sfgreens.org > Date: Monday, June 15, 2009, 6:24 PM > > > > #yiv1123256795 .hmmessage P > { > margin:0px;padding:0px;} > #yiv1123256795 { > font-size:10pt;font-family:Verdana;} > > > > "They want water, we own the spigot." Don > > "San Francisco would be given majority representative > numbers" Eric > > > > You and Eric have said it all. You doth presume too much. > Agriculture is the supplier of food. You do not support > bio-regionalism by denying the integral role of agriculture > in the region. > > > > Mato Ska > > > > > > > > "In theory you are absolutely correct. These > decisions, in a just world, should be made democratically by > all citizens throughout the region. > > However, what Moran was doubtless angling for (and would > put in place if he gained real power) is a selective Joint > Powers system which would be very easy for developers and ag > giants to dominate and manipulate, by bribing and donating > to suburban and valley legislators, who would have the > majority of votes on the Authority. > > I would be all for a regional decision making body with > four strict conditions: > > 1) The communities and indigenous peoples in the Sierras at > the source of the Hetch Hetchy water would be given veto > power over all system decisions. > 2) San Francisco would be given majority representative > numbers on the joint authority to protect residential > customers from the undue ag and developer theft of water > (theft the likes of which for example so long dominated the > Los Angeles water system) > 3) a caucus of local independent Salmon fisherman were > given strongly weighted representation on the authority > and > 4) As part of establishing the Authority, San Francisco was > forced to switch to a public power system for its > electricity customers, as has always been the requirement of > the Raker Act which gave San Francisco the legal authority > to build Hetch Hetchy in the first place. > > cheers > > Eric B > > > > > > > > > > > > Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 16:33:14 -0700 > > From: done7777(a)sbcglobal.net > > To: brookse32(a)aim.com; active(a)sfgreens.org; > sustainactive(a)sfgreens.org > > Subject: Re: [SustainActive] [SFGP-A] SFPUC Appointee > Anson Moran On Water/Environment > > > > > > Mato- > > > > I agree that all parties need to be made a part of the > decision-making process. But as we diversify our process, we > need to accommodate without becoming dominated by a faction. > > > > > Deep pocketed developers want to plant more lawns in > suburbia. And monoculture control of agribusiness is driving > the planting of more almonds and grapes, threatening bee > populations. > > > > They want water, we own the spigot. Seems like a > bargaining chip there that could help open dialogue around > sustainability issues if there were an appropriate forum. > What is more sustainable than assuring a stable water supply > and efficient use? > > > > At the time Moran was calling for some type of common > watershed authority, I was thinking that sounded alright, > and maybe a good way to organize at the grassroots. > > > > But agribusiness and developers are the big gorilla in > most of the watershed's area, and their big money and > media access capabilities would need to be countered. This > could only be done by sheer numbers of activists going to > regional watershed meetings, setting up accountable and > democratic processes and running as commissioners. > > > > I had wanted to give this more organizing priority as > a model for bioregional organizing. But in 1999, I took over > as Co-Coordinator of the Green Party of California Energy > (soon to become Green Issues) Working Group, and I never > followed through and the SFPUC and SF government acted > relatively quickly to fund HH upgrades and keep SF the sole > proprietor. > > > > Then 911 happened.... > > > > Don > > > > > > --- On Sun, 6/14/09, Martin Zehr > <m_zehr(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > From: Martin Zehr <m_zehr(a)hotmail.com> > > > Subject: Re: [SustainActive] [SFGP-A] SFPUC > Appointee Anson Moran On Water/Environment > > > To: "Eric Brooks" > <brookse32(a)aim.com>, "SF Active Greens" > <active(a)sfgreens.org>, sustainactive(a)sfgreens.org > > > Date: Sunday, June 14, 2009, 3:23 PM > > > > > > Eric, > > > > > > > > > > > > help me out here. How is the City of San > Francisco making > > > the decisions on Hetch-Hetchy water NOT a corrupt > set-up? > > > Why is failing to represent agricultural users in > the region > > > NOT a corrupt set-up? How does bio-regionalism > exclude > > > diverse users, including agricultural > users and those > > > with water rights from engaging in the > decision-making > > > process? > > > > > > > > > > > > Mato SKa > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > SustainActive mailing list > > SustainActive(a)sfgreens.org > > > https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainactive > >

3 8

SFPUC Appointee Anson Moran On Water/Environment
by Eric Brooks 16 Jun '09

16 Jun '09

Another very telling fact about Anson Moran, is that, as he was leaving the SFPUC General Manager position, he promoted the idea of a region wide joint powers authority to take over the currently San Francisco run Hetch Hetchy water system. If this had been done, it would have badly corrupted the decision making process over water and environmental protection of Sierra mountain watersheds. This would have happened because it would have given public officials in eastern and central valley suburbs voting power over the system. These eastern city and county governments are much more heavily influenced by the ag industry and sprawl developers, and our water system would very quickly denigrate into a system in which these big corporate interests controlled and vastly expanded the system for profit, wasting huge amounts of precious water and trashing the Sierra Tuolumne river ecosystem. So it is pretty clear whose interests Moran would promote if he were allowed to serve on the SFPUC; the interests of PG&E, corporate developers, and factory farm operations. Here is the article in which Moran proposes the joint powers authority: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/1999/10/29/MN94630.DTL S.F. Could Share Control of Hetch Hetchy PUC boss says joint authority may be way to go Edward Epstein, Chronicle Staff Writer Friday, October 29, 1999** *(10-29) 04:00 PDT San Francisco* -- The time might be nearing for San Francisco to cede its sole control of the vast Hetch Hetchy water system that provides 2.3 million Bay Area residents with their drinking water, Public Utilities Commission general manager Anson Moran said yesterday. With the PUC facing a $2.3 billion tab for repairs to its water system, Moran suggested that a joint powers board might be necessary to find ways to pay for the work. Moran, 55, announced this week that he will retire in January, after 26 years in San Francisco city government, including seven years as PUC general manager. Before that Moran headed the PUC's Hetch Hetchy water system for five years. The PUC serves San Francisco and San Mateo counties, as well as parts of Alameda and Santa Clara counties. San Mateo County officials have been particularly vocal in demanding a say in running the water system. ``It's taxation without representation,'' San Mateo County Supervisor Mike Nevin said yesterday. In 1997, San Francisco voters passed bond issues totaling $304 million to improve seismic safety of the system and improve the quality of drinking water. However, the system, which stretches from Yosemite National Park to San Francisco and San Mateo counties, needs an additional $2 billion in overall repairs. Under Moran, the PUC has outlined a 10-year capital improvements program to make those repairs. ``We could create a joint powers board with the suburban counties,'' Moran said. ``They would at least want a share in saying what gets done, and a say in the system's development.'' The PUC is undergoing a state audit requested by Assemblyman Lou Papan, D-Millbrae. Papan has criticized the PUC for not making the earthquake repairs and wants the state to look into the agency's finances. A report could come by year's end, about the time Moran retires. The PUC also faces increasing demands for sewage treatment, given San Francisco's economic boom. For instance, the Mission Bay project is getting under way and neighbors of the Southeast Treatment Facility in the Bayview district object to the vast project's sewage being sent to their neighborhood for treatment. The Presidio, now a national park, is also looking to the PUC for ways to handle waste from the developments planned there. Moran said a model for the Bay Area might be the Metropolitan Water District in Los Angeles, which covers large areas of Southern California and has a 52-member board from several counties. For 75 years, San Francisco alone has controlled the Hetch Hetchy system. It negotiates rates with 29 suburban water districts, including 19 in San Mateo County. San Francisco voters have frozen their water rates until 2006, but Moran said that if more bonds are approved, rates could legally be raised to pay the cost. Nevin praised Moran as one San Francisco official who has been willing to meet with him and San Mateo Supervisor Mary Griffin to discuss the joint powers idea. ``I think a joint powers board makes sense,'' Nevin said. ``They (San Francisco officials) have a $2 billion problem.'' Creation of a joint powers board, the same kind of agency that runs Caltrain, would require approval by supervisors in the counties that join. San Francisco's mayor would also have to approve. Moran is a rarity in city government, a member of Mayor Frank Jordan's administration who stayed in place under Mayor Willie Brown. Moran's successor will be chosen by whoever is elected mayor this fall. The PUC will forward a list of three candidates to the mayor, who can pick one or reject all the choices and ask for more names. This article appeared on page *A - 21* of the San Francisco Chronicle > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: Eric Brooks <brookse32(a)aim.com> > To: CleanEnergy_listserv <campaign(a)sfcleanenergy.com>; rapid <rapid(a)sfcleanenergy.com>; Community Choice Energy Alliance <ccea_strategy(a)brucewolfe.net> > Sent: Friday, June 12, 2009 2:48:20 PM > Subject: [CCA-Rapid] Very Urgent! Pro PG&E Anson Moran Appointed to SFPUC!! > > Hi all, > > This is critical to both Public Power and Clean Power SF (CCA). > > The Mayor just appointed Anson Moran as the fifth member of the SFPUC. > It is critical to Public Power and Clean Power SF (CCA) to make sure this appointment does -not- go through. > > The appointment goes before the SF Board of Supervisors Rules Committee this Thursday, June 18, and then to the full Board the following Tuesday. > > Here's a blurb the SF Bay Guardian published about Moran in 1997: > > "PUC general manager Anson Moran and Hetch Hetchy general manager Larry Klein have worked continuously on behalf of PG&E and against the expansion of public power in San Francisco, at the Presidio and now at Hunters Point and Treasure Island." > > We need a strategy pronto to get the six votes needed at the Board to reject this appointment. This will mean securing our natural allies Mirkarimi, Daly, Avalos, Mar, and Campos, and then getting the critical vote of Dufty, and if possible President Chiu and Sophie Maxwell to make sure we have a rock solid pool of votes to prevail. > > Please light up every one of these Supervisors with you and your group list members' comments as quickly as possible. Tell them we will not tolerate an anti-public power SFPUC commissioner and that they must reject the Anson Moran appointment. > > Daly and Campos are particularly urgent because they hold a progressive majority on the Rules Committee. Their City Hall office numbers are: > Chris Daly: 415-554-7970 > David Campos: 415-554-5144 > > The timing of this appointment means that the Mayor may try to trade big Budget compromises in order to get Moran's appointment approved, so we cannot be complacent on this! > > Here are the hearing details: > > http://www.sfgov.org/site/bdsupvrs_page.asp?id=106145 > > Rules Committee > > Committee Room, City Hall, Room 263 > > Meeting Agenda > Thursday, June 18, 2009 > 10:00 AM > Regular Meeting > Members: Chris Daly, Carmen Chu, David Campos > > > 3. 090767 [Appointment, Public Utilities Commission - Anson Moran] > Motion confirming the Mayor's appointment of Anson Moran to the Public > Utilities Commission, Seat 4, for the unexpired portion of a two-year > term ending August 1, 2010. (Clerk of the Board) > > (Charter Section 3.100-17 provides that the Board of Supervisors has the > authority to reject the appointment by two-thirds vote of the Board > (eight votes) within 30 days following transmittal of the Mayor's Notice > of Appointment, and that failure of the Board to reject the appointment > by two-thirds vote within the thirty day period shall result in the > appointee continuing to serve as appointed; companion measure to File > 090768. Transmittal date -- June 1, 2009.) > > 6/1/09, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Rules Committee. > > > 4. 090768 [Appointment, Public Utilities Commission - Anson Moran] > Motion rejecting the Mayor's appointment of Anson Moran to the Public > Utilities Commission, Seat 4, for the unexpired portion of a two-year > term ending August 1, 2010. (Clerk of the Board) > > (Charter Section 3.100-17 provides that the Board of Supervisors has the > authority to reject the appointment by two-thirds vote of the Board > (eight votes) within 30 days following transmittal of the Mayor's Notice > of Appointment, and that failure of the Board to reject the appointment > by two-thirds vote within the thirty day period shall result in the > appointee continuing to serve as appointed; companion measure to File > 090767. Transmittal date -- June 1, 2009.) > > 6/1/09, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Rules Committee. > > > > _______________________________________________ > Rapid mailing list > Rapid(a)sfcleanenergy.com > http://sfcleanenergy.com/mailman/listinfo/rapid_sfcleanenergy.com > -- "I am not a liberator. Liberators do not exist. The people liberate themselves." -- Che Guevara

2 5

Re: [SustainActive] [SFGP-A] SFPUC Appointee Anson Moran On Water/Environment
by done7777＠sbcglobal.net 16 Jun '09

16 Jun '09

I have never been in to enabling urban guzzling. I would hold availability of water contingent on incorporating maximal sustainability in development and strong local inputs around land use, air quality, and other issues. But this discussion defines for me why i am distancing from GP- I don't want to fight it out anymore, I'm tired and feel I can find better ways for me to spend my skills. I think #4 should read "SF was prevented from instituting public power as mandated in the Raker Act...." I don't like to lay down "strict requirements" this early in the debate. Don --- On Mon, 6/15/09, Martin Zehr <m_zehr(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > From: Martin Zehr <m_zehr(a)hotmail.com> > Subject: Re: [SustainActive] [SFGP-A] SFPUC Appointee Anson Moran On Water/Environment > To: "Eric Brooks" <brookse32(a)aim.com> > Cc: "SF Active Greens" <active(a)sfgreens.org>, sustainactive(a)sfgreens.org > Date: Monday, June 15, 2009, 6:26 PM > > > > #yiv1439088967 .hmmessage P > { > margin:0px;padding:0px;} > #yiv1439088967 { > font-size:10pt;font-family:Verdana;} > > > > Bio-regionalism is not meant to prop up urban guzzling at > the expense of everyone else. It's not YOUR conditions > that determine a bio-regional authority. Neither are > indigenous people there to simply throw in the mix if your > position appears weak in the context of other stakeholders. > Your position is not based on green politics but attempts to > promote an outcome based on San Francisco being the > primary determining municipality. There is NO reason to give > one municipality the majority of the users representatives. > > Your prejudice against agricultural use of water is obvious > and in the case of California unjustifiable. I don't > think that you have an idea about the concept of regional > water planning and shared sacrifice. No veto powers are > needed when a planning commttee presents a long-term plan > with input from all stakeholders. Your model is just > undemocratic and usurps the common resource for > the sole use of San Francisco. It's no wonder no one in > this city believes there is a water shortage. > > I think in #4 you mean a "private" power system, > not a "public" power system. > > Mato Ska > > > > > > > > Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2009 15:43:27 -0700 > From: brookse32(a)aim.com > CC: active(a)sfgreens.org; sustainactive(a)sfgreens.org > Subject: Re: [SFGP-A] SFPUC Appointee Anson Moran On > Water/Environment > > In theory you are absolutely correct. These decisions, in a > just world, should be made democratically by all citizens > throughout the region. > > However, what Moran was doubtless angling for (and would > put in place if he gained real power) is a selective Joint > Powers system which would be very easy for developers and ag > giants to dominate and manipulate, by bribing and donating > to suburban and valley legislators, who would have the > majority of votes on the Authority. > > I would be all for a regional decision making body with > four strict conditions: > > 1) The communities and indigenous peoples in the Sierras at > the source of the Hetch Hetchy water would be given veto > power over all system decisions. > 2) San Francisco would be given majority representative > numbers on the joint authority to protect residential > customers from the undue ag and developer theft of water > (theft the likes of which for example so long dominated the > Los Angeles water system) > 3) a caucus of local independent Salmon fisherman were > given strongly weighted representation on the authority > and > 4) As part of establishing the Authority, San Francisco was > forced to switch to a public power system for its > electricity customers, as has always been the requirement of > the Raker Act which gave San Francisco the legal authority > to build Hetch Hetchy in the first place. > > cheers > > Eric B > > Martin Zehr wrote: > > > > #yiv1439088967 .ExternalClass .EC_hmmessage P > {padding:0px;} > #yiv1439088967 .ExternalClass body.EC_hmmessage > {font-size:10pt;font-family:Verdana;} > > Eric, > > help me out here. How is the City of San Francisco making > the decisions on Hetch-Hetchy water NOT a corrupt set-up? > Why is failing to represent agricultural users in the region > NOT a corrupt set-up? How does bio-regionalism exclude > diverse users, including agricultural users and those > with water rights from engaging in the decision-making > process? > > Mato SKa > > > > > > > > > > Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2009 13:54:26 -0700 > From: brookse32(a)aim.com > To: active(a)sfgreens.org; > sustainactive(a)sfgreens.org > Subject: [SFGP-A] SFPUC Appointee Anson Moran On > Water/Environment > > Another very telling fact about Anson Moran, is that, as he > was leaving the SFPUC General Manager position, he promoted > the idea of a region wide joint powers authority to take > over the currently San Francisco run Hetch Hetchy water > system. > > If this had been done, it would have badly corrupted the > decision making process over water and environmental > protection of Sierra mountain watersheds. This would have > happened because it would have given public officials in > eastern and central valley suburbs voting power over the > system. These eastern city and county governments are much > more heavily influenced by the ag industry and sprawl > developers, and our water system would very quickly > denigrate into a system in which these big corporate > interests controlled and vastly expanded the system for > profit, wasting huge amounts of precious water and trashing > the Sierra Tuolumne river ecosystem. > > So it is pretty clear whose interests Moran would promote > if he were allowed to serve on the SFPUC; the interests of > PG&E, corporate developers, and factory farm operations. > > > Here is the article in which Moran proposes the joint > powers authority: > > http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/1999/10/29/MN94630.DTL > > > > S.F. Could Share Control of Hetch Hetchy > PUC boss says joint authority may be way to > go > Edward Epstein, Chronicle Staff > Writer > Friday, October 29, > 1999 > > (10-29) 04:00 PDT San Francisco > -- The time might be nearing for San Francisco to cede its > sole control of the vast Hetch Hetchy water system that > provides 2.3 million Bay Area residents with their drinking > water, Public Utilities Commission general manager Anson > Moran said yesterday. > > > With the PUC facing a $2.3 billion tab for repairs > to its water system, Moran suggested that a joint powers > board might be necessary to find ways to pay for the work. > Moran, 55, announced this week that he will retire in > January, after 26 years in San Francisco city government, > including seven years as PUC general manager. Before that > Moran headed the PUC's Hetch Hetchy water system for > five years. > The PUC serves San Francisco and San Mateo counties, as > well as parts of Alameda and Santa Clara counties. > San Mateo County officials have been particularly vocal in > demanding a say in running the water system. ``It's > taxation without representation,'' San Mateo County > Supervisor Mike Nevin said yesterday. > In 1997, San Francisco voters passed bond issues totaling > $304 million to improve seismic safety of the system and > improve the quality of drinking water. However, the system, > which stretches from Yosemite National Park to San Francisco > and San Mateo counties, needs an additional $2 billion in > overall repairs. > Under Moran, the PUC has outlined a 10-year capital > improvements program to make those repairs. > ``We could create a joint powers board with the suburban > counties,'' Moran said. ``They would at least want a > share in saying what gets done, and a say in the > system's development.'' > The PUC is undergoing a state audit requested by > Assemblyman Lou Papan, D-Millbrae. Papan has criticized the > PUC for not making the earthquake repairs and wants the > state to look into the agency's finances. A report could > come by year's end, about the time Moran retires. > The PUC also faces increasing demands for sewage treatment, > given San Francisco's economic boom. For instance, the > Mission Bay project is getting under way and neighbors of > the Southeast Treatment Facility in the Bayview district > object to the vast project's sewage being sent to their > neighborhood for treatment. > The Presidio, now a national park, is also looking to the > PUC for ways to handle waste from the developments planned > there. > Moran said a model for the Bay Area might be the > Metropolitan Water District in Los Angeles, which covers > large areas of Southern California and has a 52-member board > from several counties. > For 75 years, San Francisco alone has controlled the Hetch > Hetchy system. It negotiates rates with 29 suburban water > districts, including 19 in San Mateo County. > San Francisco voters have frozen their water rates until > 2006, but Moran said that if more bonds are approved, rates > could legally be raised to pay the cost. > Nevin praised Moran as one San Francisco official who has > been willing to meet with him and San Mateo Supervisor Mary > Griffin to discuss the joint powers idea. > ``I think a joint powers board makes sense,'' Nevin > said. ``They (San Francisco officials) have a $2 billion > problem.'' > Creation of a joint powers board, the same kind of agency > that runs Caltrain, would require approval by supervisors in > the counties that join. San Francisco's mayor would also > have to approve. > Moran is a rarity in city government, a member of Mayor > Frank Jordan's administration who stayed in place under > Mayor Willie Brown. > Moran's successor will be chosen by whoever is elected > mayor this fall. The PUC will forward a list of three > candidates to the mayor, who can pick one or reject all the > choices and ask for more names. > > This article appeared on page > A - 21 of the > San Francisco Chronicle > ----- Original Message ---- > From: Eric Brooks <brookse32(a)aim.com> > To: CleanEnergy_listserv <campaign(a)sfcleanenergy.com>; > rapid <rapid(a)sfcleanenergy.com>; > Community Choice Energy Alliance <ccea_strategy(a)brucewolfe.net> > Sent: Friday, June 12, 2009 2:48:20 PM > Subject: [CCA-Rapid] Very Urgent! Pro PG&E Anson Moran > Appointed to SFPUC!! > > Hi all, > > This is critical to both Public Power and Clean Power SF > (CCA). > > The Mayor just appointed Anson Moran as the fifth member of > the SFPUC. > It is critical to Public Power and Clean Power SF (CCA) to > make sure this appointment does -not- go through. > > The appointment goes before the SF Board of Supervisors > Rules Committee this Thursday, June 18, and then to the full > Board the following Tuesday. > > Here's a blurb the SF Bay Guardian published about > Moran in 1997: > > "PUC general manager Anson Moran and Hetch Hetchy > general manager Larry Klein have worked continuously on > behalf of PG&E and against the expansion of public power > in San Francisco, at the Presidio and now at Hunters Point > and Treasure Island." > > We need a strategy pronto to get the six votes needed at > the Board to reject this appointment. This will mean > securing our natural allies Mirkarimi, Daly, Avalos, Mar, > and Campos, and then getting the critical vote of Dufty, and > if possible President Chiu and Sophie Maxwell to make sure > we have a rock solid pool of votes to prevail. > > Please light up every one of these Supervisors with you and > your group list members' comments as quickly as > possible. Tell them we will not tolerate an anti-public > power SFPUC commissioner and that they must reject the Anson > Moran appointment. > > Daly and Campos are particularly urgent because they hold a > progressive majority on the Rules Committee. Their City Hall > office numbers are: > Chris Daly: 415-554-7970 > David Campos: 415-554-5144 > > The timing of this appointment means that the Mayor may try > to trade big Budget compromises in order to get Moran's > appointment approved, so we cannot be complacent on this! > > Here are the hearing details: > > http://www.sfgov.org/site/bdsupvrs_page.asp?id=106145 > > Rules Committee > > Committee Room, City Hall, Room 263 > > Meeting Agenda > Thursday, June 18, 2009 > 10:00 AM > Regular Meeting > Members: Chris Daly, Carmen Chu, David Campos > > > 3. 090767 [Appointment, Public Utilities Commission - > Anson Moran] > Motion confirming the Mayor’s appointment of Anson Moran > to the Public > Utilities Commission, Seat 4, for the unexpired portion of > a two-year > term ending August 1, 2010. (Clerk of the Board) > > (Charter Section 3.100-17 provides that the Board of > Supervisors has the > authority to reject the appointment by two-thirds vote of > the Board > (eight votes) within 30 days following transmittal of the > Mayor's Notice > of Appointment, and that failure of the Board to reject the > appointment > by two-thirds vote within the thirty day period shall > result in the > appointee continuing to serve as appointed; companion > measure to File > 090768. Transmittal date – June 1, 2009.) > > 6/1/09, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Rules Committee. > > > 4. 090768 [Appointment, Public Utilities Commission - > Anson Moran] > Motion rejecting the Mayor’s appointment of Anson Moran > to the Public > Utilities Commission, Seat 4, for the unexpired portion of > a two-year > term ending August 1, 2010. (Clerk of the Board) > > (Charter Section 3.100-17 provides that the Board of > Supervisors has the > authority to reject the appointment by two-thirds vote of > the Board > (eight votes) within 30 days following transmittal of the > Mayor's Notice > of Appointment, and that failure of the Board to reject the > appointment > by two-thirds vote within the thirty day period shall > result in the > appointee continuing to serve as appointed; companion > measure to File > 090767. Transmittal date – June 1, 2009.) > > 6/1/09, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Rules Committee. > > > > _______________________________________________ > Rapid mailing list > Rapid(a)sfcleanenergy.com > http://sfcleanenergy.com/mailman/listinfo/rapid_sfcleanenergy.com > > -- > "I am not a liberator. Liberators do not exist. The > people liberate themselves." – Che Guevara= > > -- > "I am not a liberator. Liberators do not exist. The > people liberate themselves." – Che Guevara > > -----Inline Attachment Follows----- > > _______________________________________________ > SustainActive mailing list > SustainActive(a)sfgreens.org > https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainactive >

1 0