Tim,

It's time to let the peakers go.

The SFPUC's Barbara Hale assured the PUC's Citizens' Advisory Committee on July 1 that retrofitting the remaining Mirant units is cleaner than building the new CT power plants. Listen as SFPUC Deputy Manager Hale explains comparative emissions between a retrofit and the new CTs ("when you assume that differential in run hours [of the new CTs] you have a dirtier facility").

In addition, Supervisors Peskin and Maxwell have placed a power plant initiative on the ballot, ensuring that their CTs will be part of this discussion well into November, even though the debate is now about whether to retrofit the remaining 6% of Mirant or to implement a power plant-free "transmission-only" solution.

We would really like to hear you highlight this new argument from the Potrero Boosters, and explore whether it is a sentiment shared by any of the Supervisors on the Board, that the new CT power plants should be built because they will double real estate values in the area when power generation moves south from the Mirant location toward Bayview-Hunters Point for the next 18 to 30 years. I think we all felt that the peaker debate was, and should be, about environmental health and energy policy.

Joshua Arce
Brightline Defense Project

joshua,

1. note the conditional phrase in barbara hale's line, 'when you assume that differential in run hours.' that is an assumption, by no means a certainty, it's only certain when you twist the facts in Brightline press releases.

2. the power plant initiative does not keep the public CT contract on the table. you even seem to acknowledge that in your second sentence, when you claim the debate is about retrofitting mirant or some unknown PG&E solution. in which case, EVERYTHING IN THIS EDITORIAL IS TRUE. again, stop trying to bamboozle folks away from the facts.

3. i see you are joining eric's attempt at smearing the Boosters. once again, you are misstating the facts. first, you and eric have been insisting on bringing money into this discussion; remember all the times you've insisted that even if the public CTs are cleaner, they'll have to run longer because they cost so darn much? in my opinion, it's disgusting to have an environmental justice argument based on how much environmental justice you can buy, but YOU brought that argument here in the first place.

second, the 'real estate values in the area' are for CITY LAND, owned by the CITY, on PORT property. if you're going to try to judge this CT issue based on relative cost to the City, AS YOU DO, the value of the City's assets should be considered. the impact of a mirant retrofit - or continued Unit 3 operation - on pier 70 is a cost-to-the-City issue, not a private development issue.

try different lies next time, please.

I'm not here to push for the city CTs, and I never have been. I'm in favor of the no-fossil-fuel alternative. But I'm NOT in favor of giving Mirant any wiggle room at all and trusting that the company will do what it says.

If we keep the peakers alive -- for now, as we said -- we can continue to keep the pressure on Mirant and the mayor to give us a contract we can live with.

Tony. Wrong.. Wrong.. Wrong... and Wrong..

1) Wrong.. Hale used the term assume only as an explanatory word to lay out a comparison that she knew was factual. The documents clearly show that the peakers will run 1900 hours per year and the Mirant retrofit only about 200-300 hours per year.

2) Wrong.. The power plant conditional use charter amendment was put on the docket 6 minutes before the November ballot deadline because it is a political maneuver. It contains language that will hold the Mirant retrofits to such ridiculously high and convoluted standards that it will be impossible to get the retrofits approved. This would then force the city back into building the more polluting and expensive peaker project; which will not be held to the same standards because the CEC has already permitted the project.

3) Absurdly wrong.. We pointed out that the peakers would be -dirtier- under -any- Mirant scenario, because the peaker project would have to run for at least 30 years, and probably longer, to pay itself off.

2.2) Wrong.. We were arguing that the ridiculous $200 million plus in -ratepayer- dollars that would be thrown out the window to build the polluting peaker project could instead be spent on giving San Francisco hundreds of megawatts of clean renewable electricity.

eric,

1. feel free to share the documents proving the mirant retrofit is cleaner. i would love to see them and review them. and if they really do prove what you say, i will happily and quickly support whatever is truly cleaner. for real. i suspect that you will once again try the money argument dodge to skew that scenario. but seriously, share the documents.

2. the 'high and convoluted standards' you refer to ... came from the public CT contracts. so yes, they are enforceable with the public CTs. why can't the mirant retrofit meet them? probably because ... they aren't cleaner.

3. oh yes, the money argument again. let's face facts, the cost difference between the two projects is shrinking: the public CTs don't have to include the airport (a huge savings) and the estimate for the mirant retrofit is going up, especially if you have to have a mitigation program like the public CTs do. so instead of $50m vs. $273m, it's now ... something like $80-100m vs. something like $150m. how many years of operation does that force? not as many as before, that's for sure.

i'll repeat this, eric: i will happily support whatever is truly cleaner, and i am ok with not using any money arguments of any kind to find out which is cleaner. but can you do the same?

and really, the ultimate money argument is that, without the public CTs, it will be mirant deciding our energy future in their corporate boardroom in atlanta based on what makes them the most money. we will have no choice in the matter.