Power struggle - Page 3

Mayor Lee misrepresents CleanPowerSF in defending his appointees' effort to kill it

|
(51)

The newest member of LAFCo, Sup. London Breed, authored a resolution supporting CPSF that the Board of Supervisors was set to consider on Sept. 17, after Guardian press time. It recites a history of strong support for the program by the Board of Supervisors, starting with a unanimous votes in 2004 and 2007 to launch the CCA and continuing through the supermajority approval of CleanPowerSF and a $20 million appropriation to launch it in September 2012.

It noted that the SFPUC held 18 meetings on the program between September 2012 and August 2013, and that its Rate Fairness Board determined that rates for the Phase 1 are "technically fair."

The resolution emphasizes an important governance issue at stake: "Irrespective of the particular policy decision, the Board of Supervisors must protect and defend its authority to make policy decisions."

Yet there's been a concerted effort to undermine CleanPowerSF this summer, led by appointees and allies of Lee and PG&E.

At the Aug. 6 Commission on the Environment meeting, Commissioner Joshua Arce pushed Department of the Environment head Melanie Nutter to renounce CPSF as no longer a green power program, something she refused to do. Arce fell a vote short of approving a resolution characterizing the program as not meeting "all of the commission's original goals" and urging the SFPUC "to work with the Department of the Environment to craft a program that is acceptable to the San Francisco Environment Commission."

Breed said she was disappointed in Lee's approach, although she takes him at his word when he says he's open to alternatives.

"The questions were answered, but there wasn't any closure in terms of what this means for the future," Breed said. "If not this program, what's the alternative?"

If the city is going to meet its greenhouse gas reduction goals, which call for reducing 1990's carbon emissions by 25 percent by 2017 and 40 percent by 2025, it's going to have to offer some alternative.

"We need to be aggressive about moving in this direction," Breed said, "and we need to make sure the public has an alternative to PG&E."

 

Comments

Why should we pay for allegedly clean energy from "big oil" shell when PG&E is already 60% sustainable and rising?

Many of us suspect we are being sold a crock here.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 17, 2013 @ 5:05 pm

Bernie Maddof only got away with his fraud, because
no one called him on it.
I fell for the CPSF fraud too, the first time I read it.
Then I did the math.

There is no way a giant solar farm in Nevada,
built by Shell with our money would ever be able to
supply solar power to SF,
after a quake took down the grid.
Plus the grid looses 15% in transmission.
Do the math.
That would drive up the cost of energy.
Better that we have a Feed-in Tariff (FiT) requiring PG&E to pay
each home with solar $0.49 kwh for feeding solar onto the grid.

Homes in Germany get free energy, plus make $400. a month
from feeding solar onto the grid.
Farmers make $60,000. a year feeding solar onto the grid.

The FiT has created 400,000 solar jobs in Germany.
Worldwide, the FiT has created 6 million jobs.

Polls in Germany show 80% of the tenants without solar
don't mind paying $20. a month extra for solar, because
to quote a Berliner, "$20. a month is what I spend on beer.
I am glad to pay $20./ mo. extra for energy,
if it means we can get rid of nuclear energy."

Solar is making Germany the greenest nation on earth.

The clean up after a nuclear meltdown will cost us
all far more than $20./ mo.
Germany will now shut down all nukes, by 2022,
because they are generating so much solar.
More than California is.

The Fukushima cleanup will take 100 years.
It will cost $billions of our money &
double the rate of cancer.

Fukushima is here.....
human mural at Ocean beach Sat. Oct 19th, 11am.
1,000 people laying down against nukes & fossil fuel.

Posted by Paul Kangas on Sep. 18, 2013 @ 10:15 am
Posted by Guest on Sep. 18, 2013 @ 10:45 am

The actual CleanPowerSF program will build 400+ megawatts of new local clean electricity projects within its first ten years, and will generate 1500 local jobs per year over that time period (and there is no Nevada solar farm whatsoever in the plan). Even the small 20 megawatt Shell start up contract, will be for California based, union produced renewable electricity.

To see the slides from a presentation on how CleanPowerSF will actually work go to:

http://ourcitysf.org/CleanPowerSF_Presentation_To_SFEnv_3-26-13.pdf

I'm beginning to seriously wonder if Paul Kangas is somehow financially indebted to PG&E, because even though I've personally communicated with him several times to let him know that he's got his facts wrong, he continues to post the same completely incorrect comments.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Sep. 18, 2013 @ 2:33 pm

Japan is in a major earthquake zone.

The best scientists in the world, Helen Caldicott, etc.
people like me, that have doctorates in science, say
"The next major quake in Japan may well end life on earth,
by toppling Fukushima Unit #4."
It could happen before Christmas.

Eric, we don't have 10 years to reinvent the wheel.
Why do you think Germany &
69 nations are all using
the Feed in Tariff,
not CCA?
We have maybe 2 years.
All of my facts are from German solar experts.
Solid stuff.

Posted by Paul Kangas on Sep. 18, 2013 @ 5:41 pm

And we will be -done- building enough local renewables and efficiency to meet half of San Francisco's peak electricity demand at the end of that ten years. This matches the speed at which Germany is shifting to renewable electricity. (And our mix will actually be superior because we don't intend to use wood biomass from logged trees as Germany is doing.)

Out of curiosity Paul, what is your PhD in, and at what college or university did you complete it?

Posted by Eric Brooks on Sep. 18, 2013 @ 8:41 pm

Helen Caldicott supports CleanPowerSF.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Sep. 18, 2013 @ 8:42 pm

If you take a moment to look at PG&E's renewable energy (which is 19%, not 60%), you'll discover they too rely on Shell for some of their wind energy.

So if you oppose Shell, you gain nothing by bashing CleanPowerSF. We need competition and options. Give consumers a choice. Defending a monopoly is neither good for the economy, nor the environment.

Just as President Obama says, "Don't compare me to the Almighty--just compare me to the alternative."

Posted by Eco Guerrero on Sep. 20, 2013 @ 2:22 pm

you only get that lower number by selectively and self-servingly excluding nuclear energy - probably the cleanest and most sustainable of all forms of energy.

The idea that Shell is cleaner than PG&E, or not, is a myth. This is an attempt to ram public power down our throats even though the voters always rejected that, and Lee is right to resist it. He has the support of the majority.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 20, 2013 @ 2:30 pm

A nuclear power plant releases massive amounts of greenhouse gases during its lifecycle because of ore processing, plant construction, CFCs, and many other factors, and so is neither renewable nor sustainable. PG&E's renewable percentage is indeed 19% (which means that PG&E is breaking the law, because the state requirement is 20% - and will soon be 33%).

And CleanPowerSF is not public power because it doesn't take over PG&E's power lines and line maintenance responsibilities. CleanPowerSF simply gives consumers a choice in their -sources- of energy and the costs of those sources (which over time will be a -lot- lower than PG&E because renewables don't require fuel).

Don't consumers deserve a choice of which types of energy they use and how much that energy costs?

Posted by Eric Brooks on Sep. 21, 2013 @ 4:04 am

PG&E is less than 20 perfect renewable, and facts matter, so let's have an honest discussion

Posted by steven on Sep. 18, 2013 @ 7:30 am

even though nuclear is as close to renewable as makes no difference.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 18, 2013 @ 8:37 am

Nuclear power plants, because of uranium ore processing, HFC releases, and other life cycle impacts, release over one third to one half the greenhouse gas emissions released by natural gas plants.

Nuclear is simply not a climate crisis solution.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Sep. 18, 2013 @ 9:13 am

It is well established that nuclear emits huge amounts of GHGs.

See http://tinyurl.com/nuclear-ghg-emissions

(search for 'conclusions')

And NOTE: The analyses shown in this report do not properly include additional even higher emissions from extremely GHG intensive HFCs that are also part of the nuclear power process.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Sep. 18, 2013 @ 2:39 pm

" it is widely known that" for which you got a new asshole ripped earlier today.

Posted by anon on Sep. 18, 2013 @ 3:14 pm

this is simply a troll barrier

it is a signpost to indicate to the reader that other anonymous posters on this thread are beginning to purposely diminish the conversation into petty, mean spirited, personal attacks and irrelevant bickering

the barrier is put in place to signal that there is probably little point in reading more replies in the thread past this point

proceed at your own risk

Posted by troll barrier on Sep. 18, 2013 @ 8:44 pm

Nuclear power plants, because of uranium ore processing, HFC releases, and other life cycle impacts, release over one third to one half the greenhouse gas emissions released by natural gas plants.

Nuclear is simply not a climate crisis solution.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Sep. 18, 2013 @ 9:14 am

And the massive new Cigar Lake uranium mine will be coming on stream soon.

But many are thinking like you and nuclear stocks are under-valued, so I've been loading up on Cameco and Excelon.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 18, 2013 @ 9:39 am

of investors, mining and energy interests. Talk about the 1%.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 18, 2013 @ 9:57 am

natural resources corporations too like Freeport McMorRan, Newmont, Exxon, Chevron. Even if it's in index fund you are probably 20%-30% in these companies. Ethical funds invest in them too.

Welcome to the OnePercent which, globally, includes most San Franciscans anyway.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 18, 2013 @ 10:14 am

in my IRA or my money purchase plan pension.

I have this funny thing called principles. If making money is your only goal, then you have no need for those.

Will you ever tire of this global 1% nonsense?

Posted by Guest on Sep. 18, 2013 @ 10:35 am

I guess you could be 100% in muni bonds. Good luck with that.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 18, 2013 @ 10:50 am

this is simply a troll barrier

it is a signpost to indicate to the reader that other anonymous posters on this thread are beginning to purposely diminish the conversation into petty, mean spirited, personal attacks and irrelevant bickering

the barrier is put in place to signal that there is probably little point in reading more replies in the thread past this point

proceed at your own risk

Posted by troll barrier on Sep. 18, 2013 @ 2:40 pm
Posted by anon on Sep. 18, 2013 @ 3:15 pm

It is well known that nuclear emits huge amounts of GHGs.

See http://tinyurl.com/nuclear-ghg-emissions

(search for 'conclusions')

And NOTE: The analyses shown in this report do not properly include additional even higher emissions from extremely GHG intensive HFCs that are also part of the nuclear power process.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Sep. 18, 2013 @ 10:08 am

obvious that you are struggling.

Nuclear is far cleaner than coal and gas, and there are thousands of plants around the world. The fact that there is the odd accident every few decades is no reason to doubt the vital rule nuclear must continue to take for us to be energy independent from the bad guys.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 18, 2013 @ 10:28 am

kills millions of people prematurely.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 18, 2013 @ 10:36 am

Worst case so far has been a few hundred. More have died in coal or oil accidents.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 18, 2013 @ 10:51 am

Extensive epidemiological studies show that close to one million people have died from cancer prematurely from Chernobyl. The health damage from Fukushima will take decades to ascertain.

You also disregard the vast areas that these "odd accidents" leave uninhabitable.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 18, 2013 @ 11:01 am

person who lives close to a nuclear plant to that plent.

People who live nowhere near nuclear plants die in great numbers too, so there is quite simply no way to specifically attribute any one case in that way.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 18, 2013 @ 11:15 am

accounted for those factors.

I'd look them up and post the links, but you aren't worth the time.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 18, 2013 @ 11:31 am

I've seen studies disagree with each other. How could that happen if studies are always 100% correct?

Posted by Guest on Sep. 18, 2013 @ 11:49 am

What I'm hearing is that you'll believe no data that conflicts with the beliefs you already hold.

Posted by Hortencia on Sep. 18, 2013 @ 12:11 pm

How ironic that you would try and use that line.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 18, 2013 @ 12:17 pm

Actually, it sounds more like the kind of people who, at this point, think man-made climate change is just a theory believed by a minority of scientists.

Posted by Hortencia on Sep. 18, 2013 @ 12:33 pm

Where the difference arises is where extremists try and hijack that natural process to achieve very biased political gain.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 18, 2013 @ 12:48 pm

this is simply a troll barrier

it is a signpost to indicate to the reader that other anonymous posters on this thread are beginning to purposely diminish the conversation into petty, mean spirited, personal attacks and irrelevant bickering

the barrier is put in place to signal that there is probably little point in reading more replies in the thread past this point

proceed at your own risk

Posted by troll barrier on Sep. 18, 2013 @ 2:35 pm
Posted by anon on Sep. 18, 2013 @ 3:15 pm

this is simply a troll barrier

it is a signpost to indicate to the reader that other anonymous posters on this thread are beginning to purposely diminish the conversation into petty, mean spirited, personal attacks and irrelevant bickering

the barrier is put in place to signal that there is probably little point in reading more replies in the thread past this point

proceed at your own risk

Posted by troll barrier on Sep. 18, 2013 @ 2:41 pm

How's it hanging?

Posted by anon on Sep. 18, 2013 @ 3:16 pm

Pennsylvania's cancer rate is double all other states!
Why?
Because they have 5 nuclear power plants.
Madame Currie died from cancer
because she worked with uranium &
was unaware radiation causes cancer.
Now we know better.
Knives are sharp.
Cars cause accident deaths.
Guns kill people.
Nukes cause cancer.
No one can argue nukes don't cause cancer.

Posted by Paul Kangas on Sep. 18, 2013 @ 6:05 pm

OK, I agree with you.
Now let's fashion a sustainable system that benefits you and me.
Let's make a system that can create 22 million jobs.
One that gives the little people the lion's share of the income.
A system we can really love.
One you would want to leave for your kids & my 11 kids.

The one that now exists in 69 nations is called the Feed-in Tariff (FiT).
It has now made 400,000 solar jobs in Germany
and 6 million jobs in Australia, Japan, Denmark, China, etc.
It gives homes FREE energy & pays owners $400. a month.

The FiT requires PG&E to pay homeowners $0.99 kwh from feeding
solar onto the grid for 20 years.
It always ramps down, as the price of solar falls.
The cost of a solar panel will always fall as mass production
continues to make them cheaper.

We have to hurry.
The next quake in Japan may topple Fukushima #4 and condemn
the world to an extinction event by Christmas.
Merry Christmas.

Posted by Paul Kangas on Sep. 18, 2013 @ 5:29 pm

less control. And he craves control.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 18, 2013 @ 5:36 pm

this is simply a troll barrier

it is a signpost to indicate to the reader that other anonymous posters on this thread are beginning to purposely diminish the conversation into petty, mean spirited, personal attacks and irrelevant bickering

the barrier is put in place to signal that there is probably little point in reading more replies in the thread past this point

proceed at your own risk

Posted by troll barrier on Sep. 18, 2013 @ 8:47 pm

All nukes in the world will be de-commissioned by 2041.

In response to Fukushima,
Germany shut down 8,
thanks to wind & solar, supplying 50% of their energy in May,
and will shut down all of theirs by 2022.

Japan shut down all 50 of theirs.
GE forced them to re-open 2.
Cuba shut down 2.
Solar will replace all nukes by 2051.
Anyone investing in nukes today will loose money.

See the free Youtube movie: "Here Comes the Sun - Hermann Scheer".
Every Friday Naoto Kan lead a march of 200,000 to the Japanese Diet, in favor of solar & to shut down all nukes.
The People of Japan are fighting for ALL of our lives.
Fukushima is here....

Posted by Paul Kangas on Sep. 18, 2013 @ 5:56 pm

people always rejected that. So now they try and smuggle it thru the back door by crafting some scheme that technically doesn't need our approval.

Well damn that, and Ed Lee is speaking for the people here, and not the self-serving advocates and activists who are trying to ram the Shell scheme down our throats.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 18, 2013 @ 10:30 am

this is simply a troll barrier

it is a signpost to indicate to the reader that other anonymous posters on this thread are beginning to purposely diminish the conversation into petty, mean spirited, personal attacks and irrelevant bickering

the barrier is put in place to signal that there is probably little point in reading more replies in the thread past this point

proceed at your own risk

Posted by troll barrier on Sep. 18, 2013 @ 2:41 pm

These "troll barrier" posts that you are inserting all over the comments section of various articles are annoying. I don't think anyone appointed you traffic cop of the comments.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 18, 2013 @ 4:30 pm

Lilli does this dumb troll barrier thing. So he is directly contributing to the profusion of conservative propaganda here. Well done, Lilli.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 18, 2013 @ 4:41 pm

Maybe Shell is not the best choice, but to abandon the effort?

Riddle me this! Why does the clean power from Hetch Hetchy count for PG&E's clean energy and not San Francisco's? Shouldn't that and all the energy the City wastefully uses count for one or more of the buckets?

If there is going to be a rigged game with the players at the table, then one can be sure it is not going to be rigged in favor of the caring civilians who populate San Francisco. It is particularly galling when the representatives don't represent the residents, i.e. those who have an immediate stake in how the City operates.

Posted by SFreptile on Sep. 20, 2013 @ 4:58 pm

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.