Will proposal to sell Hetch Hetchy power overshadow CleanPowerSF?

|
(24)

Supervisors Scott Wiener and London Breed have proposed an ordinance to allow the San Francisco Public Utilities Power Commission’s Power Enterprise to sell hydroelectric energy from the Hetch Hetchy dam to retail customers -- particularly large real estate developments. Sup. Wiener and Breed say the ordinance would both generate revenue for the PUC and further the city’s overall goal of achieving a 100 percent greenhouse-gas free power mix. 

But how well does it fit into the city’s other clean energy goals? Some advocates of an existing citywide green energy plan worry that this new effort could cause a far more ambitious program to fall by the wayside.

For more than a decade, city government has been working toward implementing a clean energy plan through CleanPower SF, which aims to meet the city’s goal of 100 percent clean energy by allowing all San Francisco residents the choice of switching to a green power mix through the city-administered program, instead of remaining with PG&E. But CleanPower SF hangs in limbo, largely due to opposition from the SFPUC board, appointed by Mayor Ed Lee--whose regular meetings with PG&E officials have raised eyebrows.

The legislation proposing to broaden the sale of SFPUC's hydroelectric power supply seeks to tackle some of the problems CleanPower SF might have addressed had it not been stalled. A press statement from Wiener noted that it aims to help build a large enough customer base for the SFPUC to generate sufficient revenues to maintain city infrastructure, as well as meeting the city’s overall target of 100 percent clean energy by 2030.

"My concern is that the Mayor's office will say it's something that will supplement CPSF [CleanPowerSF] and say that's enough," said Jason Fried, Executive Officer of the Local Agency Formation Commission. "I want to make it clear that it [proposed ordinance] is really meant to compliment CleanPower SF."

But just exactly how—and how much—the proposal would complement CleanPower SF is still up for debate. Fried said Wiener’s new proposal complements CleanPower SF because it ultimately gives people more choices. “I don’t know how you can argue with giving people more choices,” he said.

But the legislation is targeted at large, private developments, rather than renewable energy options for community members. Which is why Fried emphasized that proposed ordinance shouldn’t been seen as a replacement to the city’s existing Community Choice Aggregation (CCA) program, CleanPower SF.

Eric Brooks, a long-time advocate of CleanPower SF, insists the legislation would complement CleanPowerSF only if, “CleanPowerSF was given first right to purchase Hetch Hetchy power from the PUC.” This would allow the ordinance to focus on community members rather than just large, private developments, he said.

“Being able to balance different types of power like solar, wind and hydro, and being able to furnish consistent hydro power during high usage together would also help keep rates lower so that the CleanPowerSF can deliver power at lower prices,” he added.

Officials from the Sierra Club echoed Brooks, saying that the Sierra Club “supports the legislation in concept,” but requests that the legislation incorporate the ability for CleanPower SF to purchase Hetch Hetchy power from the PUC Power Enterprise.  “You have to look at it as peeling customers away from PG&E,” said John Rizzo, Sierra Club’s political chair. “The more you do that, the greener we can become.”

Although Brooks said he plans to meet with Sup. Wiener regarding how the ordinance could work in tandem with CleanPower SF, officials from Sup. Wiener’s office indicated that the ordinance is inherently separate from CleanPower SF. “[The ordinance] doesn’t further or hinder CPSF [Clean Power SF],” said Andres Power, Wiener’s legislative aide, who was involved in drafting the legislation. “It’s neutral from that perspective.”

Responding to questions about the legislation’s relationship with Clean Power SF (and whether or not collaboration might be a good strategy), Jeff Cretan, another of Sup. Wiener’s legislative aides, said, “Innovative solutions can come from multiple directions.” He further explained that, if passed, the legislation “could prove how other clean power initiatives can be successful.”

Comments

you write long sentences. e.g.:

For more than a decade, city government has been working toward implementing a clean energy plan through CleanPower SF, which aims to meet the city’s goal of 100 percent clean energy by allowing all San Francisco residents the choice of switching to a green power mix through the city-administered program, instead of remaining with PG&E.

Posted by guest on Jun. 30, 2014 @ 12:40 pm

Thanks for the excellent update Julian.

One clarification. It will be an entire dedicated coalition of local clean energy organizers who will work with Supervisor Wiener to make sure it supports CleanPowerSF, not just myself.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Jun. 30, 2014 @ 2:48 pm
Posted by Guest on Jun. 30, 2014 @ 3:17 pm
Posted by Guest on Jun. 30, 2014 @ 4:18 pm

Has Eric ever polled the voters to ask them if they want public power? Of course not, because he knows they have voted eleven times to reject it.

And so he simply decides that he knows best and looks for anti-democratic ways of imposing his will on those whom he cannot convince.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 30, 2014 @ 4:33 pm

clean power sf is not "public power"

Posted by anonymous on Jun. 30, 2014 @ 11:05 pm

may be less than it seems. The public power advocates see the clean power deal as a Trojan horse which will enable them to undermine PG&E.

Those same activists are afraid to let the voters decide.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 01, 2014 @ 4:57 am

I favor Community Choice programs over public power because public power won't build renewables quickly enough.

However, if PG&E keeps blocking CleanPowerSF through buying off and manipulating the Mayor's office, even though public power is not as good an option, it will be our only option left.

PG&E should be thinking about whether it wants to share the energy market, or get shoved out of it because of its anachronistic stubbornness.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Jul. 01, 2014 @ 5:53 pm

and we would store the water downstream. That dam is a damnation against the environment.

But I prefer Wiener's plan to the clean power abortion that was snuck past the voters on a technicality.

SF voters have NEVER approved public power and they have beena sked maybe a dozen times.

And PG&E power is now 2/3 sustainable.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 30, 2014 @ 12:42 pm

11 consecutive times the voters have rejected a public power initiative in SF. Not even once has the electorate supported a public power initiative.

Perhaps that is because (1) - voters don't trust the City to manage this process effectively (they won't be able to keep the lights on), or (2) - The proposals have been worse that the status quo ($19M guaranteed to Dutch Shell Oil Co).

And despite the efforts of some of the Supervisors to circumvent the electorate, at least one man - Ed Lee - stood up to the backroom deal orchestrated by John Avalos and represented the wishes of the majority of San Francisco voters.

The best hope for a greener supply of energy for SF is if the city partners with Marin County - at least their program appears to be somewhat professionally run, unlike CleanPowerSF.

Posted by Richmondman on Jun. 30, 2014 @ 12:54 pm

support from ordinary people who are angry that the Supes tried to bypass their authority to implement this.

If the proponents of clean power believe it is popular than let the voters decide. but they do not want that because they know the result.

PG&E is 2/3 sustainable and we have ratified them 11 times. Enough. Let them do the job the voters have approved them to do ELEVEN TIMES!!!

Posted by Guest on Jun. 30, 2014 @ 1:36 pm

free of charge. This unreasonable and unfair bargain has cost millions in harm and to the citizens and businesses of San Francisco. Most specifically, there are two principle sources of these scandalous public to private profit subsidies:
SFPUC bestows its rights-of-way on a) federal property grants and b) SFPUC watershed to PG&E at practically no charge.
SFPUC has signed anti-competitive agreements with PG&E promising not to exercise its legal right (if not obligation) to take over PG&E's transmission facilities on SFPUC properties but promising to pay PG&E for wheeling on SFPUC properties.

DO NOT TAKE MY WORD FOR IT. Formally ask the SFPUC and City Attorney Dennis Herrera.
The investigative story here is the sad legacy inherited from the Robber Barons: the transfer of public assets and other benefits for the purpose of private profiteering. The CCA versus the SFPUC is a distraction and, from all appearances, all participants in "this struggle" seem to suffer from pecuniary envy that blinds them from this scam.
So, let's get the real debate going by placing this public subsidization of PG&E on the ballot for voters to decide.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 01, 2014 @ 2:24 pm

free of charge. This unreasonable and unfair bargain has cost millions in harm and to the citizens and businesses of San Francisco. Most specifically, there are two principle sources of these scandalous public to private profit subsidies:
SFPUC bestows its rights-of-way on a) federal property grants and b) SFPUC watershed to PG&E at practically no charge.
SFPUC has signed anti-competitive agreements with PG&E promising not to exercise its legal right (if not obligation) to take over PG&E's transmission facilities on SFPUC properties but promising to pay PG&E for wheeling on SFPUC properties.

DO NOT TAKE MY WORD FOR IT. Formally ask the SFPUC and City Attorney Dennis Herrera.
The investigative story here is the sad legacy inherited from the Robber Barons: the transfer of public assets and other benefits for the purpose of private profiteering. The CCA versus the SFPUC is a distraction and, from all appearances, all participants in "this struggle" seem to suffer from pecuniary envy that blinds them from this scam.
So, let's get the real debate going by placing this public subsidization of PG&E on the ballot for voters to decide.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 01, 2014 @ 2:25 pm

free of charge. This unreasonable and unfair bargain has cost millions in harm and to the citizens and businesses of San Francisco. Most specifically, there are two principle sources of these scandalous public to private profit subsidies:
SFPUC bestows its rights-of-way on a) federal property grants and b) SFPUC watershed to PG&E at practically no charge.
SFPUC has signed anti-competitive agreements with PG&E promising not to exercise its legal right (if not obligation) to take over PG&E's transmission facilities on SFPUC properties but promising to pay PG&E for wheeling on SFPUC properties.

DO NOT TAKE MY WORD FOR IT. Formally ask the SFPUC and City Attorney Dennis Herrera.
The investigative story here is the sad legacy inherited from the Robber Barons: the transfer of public assets and other benefits for the purpose of private profiteering. The CCA versus the SFPUC is a distraction and, from all appearances, all participants in "this struggle" seem to suffer from pecuniary envy that blinds them from this scam.
So, let's get the real debate going by placing this public subsidization of PG&E on the ballot for voters to decide.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 01, 2014 @ 2:33 pm

There is now a wold wide consensus of 69 nations that have all passed solar payment polices that requires PG&E type Utilities to pay home owners $0.29+ kwh for harvesting solar energy & feeding it onto the grid.
Japan pays $0.53 kwh to homes who feed solar onto the grid.
This is a decentralized energy system.
It has created 9 million jobs worldwide.
These 69 nations believe this is the best policy for stopping global warming.

Any program that is not based on roof top solar will fail to provide free solar energy to homes.
It will not create as many jobs.
It will not pay home owners for the solar they feed onto the grid.

If you read the CPSF's own literature, they say they will
not pay home owners for solar energy!!!
Will NOT!
They will build a corporate solar farm in Nevada.
It is a centralized system designed to fleece SF tax payers out of millions of dollars.
If you know who Bernie Maddof is, you know who is behind CPSF.
CPSF was created my ALEC & Shell Oil.
Opt out of CPSF. It is a corporate fraud.

I have asked Eric to explain CPSF to me publicly, and let me ask questions,
but he refuses to answer questions.

Posted by Paul Kangas on Jul. 02, 2014 @ 11:01 am

I sat down with Paul Kangas at length to explain CleanPowerSF and he either didn't listen to a word of that explanation, or he is being paid by PG&E to lie to the public about the program.

For example, Kangas' claim that the CleanPowerSF web site has somehow told customers that the city will not buy their excess solar power is absolutely false. In fact Community Choice programs are designed to get around restrictions on selling excess power to private monopolies like PG&E and enable the city to buy -all- of a customers excess solar power (far more than the tiny fraction that PG&E is required by law to purchase).

Kangas' Credibility

I have appeared at events in which Kangas was clearly planning to bash CleanPowerSF, and when I showed up at the last one, knowing that I would be able to shoot down every one of his false claims, he completely changed his two issue talk to focus only on the second subject, the Kennedy assassination, and didn't discuss clean energy at all.

People in the audience asked him why he had advertised a talk about clean power and then not talked about it.

Kangas didn't answer.

He simply ignored the question, and then went on to make ludicrous claims that he had fought in Kennedy's Bay of Pigs Invasion, and had been one of Kennedy's personal body guards.

No one in the audience took Kangas' claims seriously, and no one should take his claims about CleanPowerSF seriously either.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Jul. 04, 2014 @ 12:12 pm

I just spent 3 weeks talking to 90 solar activists in Germany, one on one.
I asked engineers, economists and even the Governor of Baden state in Germany, asking, "How cloudy Germany could be generating more solar than sunny California?"
First they all mentioned Chernobyl & Fukushima.
They fear the end is near due to atomic energy.

They all pointed to their Solar Payment Policy, which requires Utilities
to pay home owners $0.29+ kwh, for generating roof top solar.
Any solar system that is not based on attracting 20% of the home owners to add solar onto their roof, so their home generates 200% more than the
home uses, will not work."
The solar plan must be a good investment for home owners.
It must be able to create millions of jobs.
It must give homes free solar energy.
It must pay homes a cash income.
Yes, the rate payers, ie., aluminum smelting plants &
electric train system do pay more.
Yes, tenants do pay $5. more a month for energy.
This is the cost of saving the planet.
Fracking is now banned in Germany, thanks to their solar payment policy.
This is what almost every person I interviewed,
on video, in Freiburg, Germany said.
Their goal is to stop climate collapse.
Germany is #1.
When will California be #1?

Posted by Paul Kangas on Jul. 02, 2014 @ 11:25 am

California is in a dry crisis.
We need to look around the world and see if there are any
places that have found a better way to solve this problem.

What are they doing correct?
We only have maybe 7 years left to stop this ball of wax from melting.
We don't have time for silly games that Machiavellians like Eric play.

There is a terrible bias in the US media against anything good the German's do.
If Germany found a way to stop global warming, the media would ignore it.

Posted by Paul Kangas on Jul. 02, 2014 @ 12:39 pm

If Chava Energy’s claims regarding their pretended Revolutionary Breakthrough development of “Fractional Hydrogen” “SPICE” engines, Ambient Temperature Thermionic Converters, “Ultraconductor” wire, “Ultraconductor Energy Storage Systems,” and Zero Point Energy harvesting “MagGen” generators were not false and fraudulent, why did Hagen Ruff suddenly remove those claims from Chava’s website?

In fact, all of those fraudulent claims came originally from the very same source: Chava Energy Co-founder and Chief Market Research Officer Mark Goldes, and Goldes’ previous company, Magnetic Power Inc.

We do find and state that Hagen Ruff’s Chava Energy LLC has made a great many utterly false and fraudulent claims and statements, showing very unscrupulous dishonesty, on the matters of “Fractional Hydrogen” engines, Ambient Temperature Thermionic Converters, and “MagGen” generators that supposedly harness Zero Point Energy. Chava Energy’s claims and statements regarding “Ultraconductor” wire and “Ultraconductor Energy Storage Systems” were also false and dishonest to some degree, in various ways.

The relentless and pervasive dishonesty, fraudulence, and unscrupulousness, that characterized Mark Goldes’ use of his company Magnetic Power Inc for over twenty years prior to the founding of Chava LLC and Chava Energy LLC, has also characterized Mark Goldes’ and Hagen Ruff’s use of Chava LLC and Chava Energy LLC ever since they were founded.

http://physicsreviewboard.wordpress.com/category/chava-energy-llc/

Posted by RrobertMiller on Jul. 02, 2014 @ 9:11 pm

After removing from Chava Energy's company website most of the "revolutionary breakthrough" claims that the website had declared for years, Chava Energy CEO Hagen Ruff is now furious that Reality still indicates that his company has been dishonest, and has accordingly served notice on Reality, with the following words:

"Reality has indicated that my company Chava Energy LLC has engaged in dishonest and fraudulent practices over the past four years or more, involving our claims regarding development of water-fueled engines, ambient temperature thermionic converters, and Zero Point Energy powered generators.

"If Reality does not remove these indications within 72 hours, we will follow up with an official full-scale and expensive all-out legal pursuit of this matter."

"Yours Truly,

"Hagen Ruff"

http://physicsreviewboard.wordpress.com/category/chava-energy-llc/

Posted by RrobertMiller on Jul. 02, 2014 @ 10:57 pm

China has a bigger middle class
than America has people,
more people studying English
than Americans speaking English.
Why?
How did China leap from poverty to wealth in 50 years?

China is now switching to solar energy,
now having manufactured more solar panels,
and built more solar powered homes than there are in America.
China is on the move up the solar food chain.

By 2022 China will have shut down half its coal fired power plants.

Such a huge economy must help some people.
What policy helped China jump from poverty in 1979, to wealthy by 2014?
Central planning?
Can we switch to solar in California?
Do you own a solar panel?
The whole focus of this debate is:
"How can we stop global warming?"

Posted by Paul Kangas on Jul. 03, 2014 @ 9:12 am

For five years since it was founded, Chava Energy LLC evidently tried to promote itself chiefly by means of false and fraudulent claims and pretenses, that it was developing “revolutionary energy breakthroughs,” including “Fractional Hydrogen” engines utilizing nonexistent states of hydrogen, magical Ambient Temperature Thermionic Converters, and magnetic generators supposedly harnessing Zero Point Energy. Recently, much of the material containing these false and ludicrous claims was suddenly removed from the Chava Energy website, although much of the flimflam related to Zero Point Energy still remains. Hagen Ruff, the CEO and Co-founder of Chava Energy, was certainly well aware of the false and fraudulent nature of Chava Energy’s claims and pretenses during five years before the material was removed, and we hold him responsible for the very low standard of honesty which they reflect.

After claiming for five years that Chava Energy LLC was some sort of “leader,” Hagen Ruff finally showed some leadership for the very first time by quietly ejecting Chava Energy’s Co-founder, Chief Market Research Officer and Number Two Charlatan, Mark Goldes. Unfortunately, Hagen Ruff left in place the company’s Number One Charlatan – namely, Hagen Ruff.

It was not Mark Goldes, but Hagen Ruff, who chose Mark Goldes to be his co-founder and partner at Chava Energy, even though Mark Goldes’ character as a professional fraud artist would not have been more obvious if it were stamped on his forehead. And Chava Energy’s five years of fraudcraft have left no room for any doubt that Ruff chose Goldes not in spite of Goldes’ talent for unscrupulous fraud, but precisely because of it.

But never mind that. We still have more reasons to thank and congratulate Hagen Ruff!

We thank and congratulate Hagen Ruff not only for ejecting Chava Energy’s Chief Swindler Mark Goldes, but also for dropping from Chava’s website no less than four out of five of the major heaps of fraudcraft presented by Chava Energy since it was founded. Only one heap remains: the heap known as their Zero Point Energy powered ZPE Generator.

Read More:

http://www.energyblogs.com/powerofphysics/index.cfm/2014/7/4/Chava-Energ...

Posted by RrobertMiller on Jul. 04, 2014 @ 9:40 am

Although Chava Energy LLC did not file as an LLC until May 2010, the Chava Energy website was presented in April 2009, and both Hagen Ruff and Mark Goldes were already in 2009 referring to Chava Energy as a new business entity. From the outset until his very recent ejection from Chava Energy LLC, Mark Goldes was listed and described on Chava Energy’s “Team Members” page as “Co-founder” as well as “Chief Market Research Officer.” But in fact Goldes’ true role was not to conduct “Market Research,” but to attract investors and solicit investments. Accordingly, Mark Goldes made continual use for five years, until his recent ejection, of his Chava Energy email address (mgoldes@chavaenergy.com) to communicate with prospective investors, many of whom had no doubt learned of Chava Energy from one of Goldes’ countless internet postings claiming “revolutionary energy breakthroughs.”

Despite the fact that Chava Energy itself for five years had described Mark Goldes on the Chava Energy website as a Co-founder and Chief Officer, and despite the fact that hundreds of people all over the world have received mgoldes@chavaenergy.com emails in which Goldes describes himself as Co-founder of Chava Energy, and despite the fact that dozens of web pages still cached by Google show beyond question that Chava Energy regarded Goldes as a Co-founder and employed him as an active Chief Officer from the very start until recently, we are now told by the other Co-founder of Chava Energy, Hagen Ruff, that far from being any Co-founder or Chief Officer of Chava Energy, Mark Goldes was not even part of it, at all!

After finally very recently ejecting Mark Goldes from Chava Energy, Hagen Ruff embarked on a ludicrous effort to deny any involvement of Mark Goldes in Chava Energy LLC. For example, he has stated in a forum comment:

“During a personal financial event of Mark [Goldes] in 2012 we decided to cease operations of Chava LLC and created a new company ‘Chava Energy LLC’, which Mark [Goldes] was no longer part of.”

Ruff has very recently removed the entry for Mark Goldes on Chava Energy’s list of “Team Members,” which described Mark Goldes as:

“Mark Goldes, Co-Founder, CMRO (Chief Market Research Officer)”

However, although Ruff updated the page to delete this entry for Mark Goldes, the page was previously cached by Zoom Information Inc. on 10/30/2013 – so you can still see for yourself what the page contained previously. Under “Web References,” near the top of the list, you will see the word “cached” in blue type between brackets. Just click on that.

http://www.zoominfo.com/p/Mark-Goldes/56175561

Or try this:

http://www.zoominfo.com/CachedPage/?archive_id=0&page_id=-259562543&page...

In fact, Mark Goldes was already in 2009 describing himself as “Co-founder of Chava Energy” in many posts which can still be found with a google search.

You can easily get a rough idea of just how active Mark Goldes has been as Chava Energy’s Chief Market Research Officer, just by doing a google search on his Chava Energy email address, mgoldes@chavaenergy.com:

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&as_q=&as_epq=mgoldes%40chavaenergy.c...

Read more:

http://fraudcraftjournal.wordpress.com/2014/07/08/chava-energy-ceo-hagen...

https://physicsreviewboard.wordpress.com/2014/06/29/hagen-ruff-ejects-nu...

Posted by RrobertMiller on Jul. 08, 2014 @ 9:49 pm

Mark Goldes’ “Aesop Institute” is simply an elaborate fraud. After founding Magnetic Power Inc in the mid-eighties, Mark Goldes and MPI soon developed most of the fraudcraftings which would serve as Goldes’ offerings in fraudcraft for the next thirty years, not only at MPI, but also at Chava Energy LLC, and at his so-called “Aesop Institute.” Goldes’ partnership with Hagen Ruff, the other Co-founder (as well as CEO) of Chava Energy LLC, gave the Goldes-MPI fraudcraft a new lease on life, and accordingly it may be most properly termed the “Goldes-Ruff Fraudcraft.” For the past four years or more, while serving as a Co-founder and a Chief Officer of Chava Energy LLC, Goldes used his chavaenergy.com email address as his Aesop Institute email address as well, at least until his very recent ejection from Chava Energy. In practice, Goldes made continual use of Aesop Institute to bring investors to Chava Energy, which for five years has based its pretenses on nearly all the same fraudcraft used by Goldes at Aesop Institute. The common fraudcraft has included the same fraudcraftings of water-fueled “Fractional Hydrogen” engines, generators powered by Zero Point Energy, “Ultraconductor” wire, “Ultraconductor” energy storage systems, and strictly ambient heat engines – along with the same false claims that “prototypes” of all these concepts were being developed, and would soon provide wonderful alternatives to fossil fuels.

If Chava Energy’s claims regarding their pretended Revolutionary Breakthrough development of “Fractional Hydrogen” “SPICE” engines, Ambient Temperature Thermionic Converters, “Ultraconductor” wire, “Ultraconductor Energy Storage Systems,” and Zero Point Energy harvesting “MagGen” generators were not false and fraudulent, why did Hagen Ruff suddenly remove those claims from Chava’s website?

In fact, all of those fraudulent claims came originally from the very same source: Chava Energy Co-founder and Chief Market Research Officer Mark Goldes, and Goldes’ previous company, Magnetic Power Inc.

We do find and state that Hagen Ruff’s Chava Energy LLC has made a great many utterly false and fraudulent claims and statements, showing very unscrupulous dishonesty, on the matters of “Fractional Hydrogen” engines, Ambient Temperature Thermionic Converters, and “MagGen” generators that supposedly harness Zero Point Energy. Chava Energy’s claims and statements regarding “Ultraconductor” wire and “Ultraconductor Energy Storage Systems” were also dishonest in various ways.

The relentless and pervasive dishonesty, fraudulence, and unscrupulousness, that characterized Mark Goldes’ use of his company Magnetic Power Inc for over twenty years prior to the founding of Chava LLC and Chava Energy LLC, has also characterized Mark Goldes’ and Hagen Ruff’s use of Chava LLC and Chava Energy LLC ever since they were founded.

http://physicsreviewboard.wordpress.com/2014/07/11/the-goldes-ruff-fraud...

Posted by RrobertMiller on Jul. 12, 2014 @ 3:41 am

Post new comment

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