SF may go through Marin County to bypass CleanPowerSF subversion

Marin Clean Energy was launched over PG&E's objections, an influence that has stalled CleanPowerSF.

Just in time for Earth Day, a renewed effort to reduce the city’s carbon emissions was introduced at the Board of Supervisors yesterday [Tues/22]. Sup. John Avalos introduced a resolution calling for a study of San Francisco joining Marin Clean Energy, which provides renewable energy to that county’s residents.

The move is seen largely as an effort to circumvent Mayor Ed Lee’s opposition to implementing a controversial renewable energy plan called CleanPowerSF.

“Mayor Lee and the Public Utilities Commission objected to CleanPowerSF, but they have offered no other solution to provide San Franciscans with 100 percent renewable electricity,” Avalos said in a public statement. “With this ordinance, we can either join Marin or we can implement our own program, but we can no longer afford to do nothing.”

The resolution is the latest effort in the long saga to implement CleanPowerSF, San Francisco’s proposed renewable energy alternative to PG&E, whose current energy mix is only 19 percent renewable. Much of PG&E’s current mix is dirty and directly contributes to half of San Francisco’s carbon footprint, according to the city’s own recent Climate Action Strategy.

Joining Marin under a Joint Powers Authority would provide a vehicle for San Francisco to enact CleanPowerSF’s goals, long blocked by the mayor. San Francisco’s renewable energy effort may have lingered in legal limbo for years, but Marin made the switch to renewables in 2010.

“It’s something people want, and it also reduces greenhouse gas emissions,” Marin Clean Energy Executive Officer Dawn Weisz told the Guardian. Much of Northern California, she noted, has little choice but to use PG&E for their electricity.

“The people never chose to have a monopoly in place,” she said. “People like having choices.”

Marin chose to switch to renewable energy in 2010, and MCE offers two energy mix options: A 100 percent renewable energy option, and a less expensive 50 percent renewable option. MCE officials told the Guardian they have a 75 percent customer adoption rate, meaning most of Marin County is running on clean, renewable energy.

Using an energy bill calculator on MCE’s website, the average homeowner pays about $80 a month for their renewable energy in the summer, just $2 more than their dirty PG&E power. The program has been so successful for MCE’s approximately 125,000 customers that other cities have joined with Marin under what is called a Joint Powers Authority, allowing those cities to access MCE’s grid.

The City of Richmond joined into a Joint Powers Authority with Marin County in 2012, and Napa County also expressed interest in providing renewable energy through MCE.  That large adoption rate may be what has PG&E running scared.

“We faced very strong opposition from the incumbent utility during our launch,” Weisz told the Guardian, referring to PG&E. “Fortunately, we have a much better relationship with them now, and they serve as a good partner.”

The renewable energy is distributed along PG&E’s existing infrastructure, so the utility still has a role to play in providing electricity to Marin. But the utility certainly has worries when it comes to generating electricity, as Marin is building new sources of renewable energy up and down California.

“We have 24 different power supply contracts,” Weisz told us. This includes new solar facilities in San Rafael and the Central Valley, and renewable energy sources in Roseville and and Placer County.

Though other cities have signed on to receive energy through Marin County’s MCE program, San Francisco joining would be another ballgame entirely, Weisz said.

MCE has a policy of incremental expansion, she told us, and defines potential affiliate cities and counties as having fewer than 30,000 customers who are less than 30 miles away. Though San Francisco is a stone’s throw from Marin County, the potential customer base is huge: San Francisco has a population of over 800,000 people.

“It would require some analysis,” Wisz said dryly.

MCE’s analysis to include Napa County in its energy mix took 60 days, she said. Notably, San Francisco may produce its own power and use its own mix, and simply use MCE’s billing setup. Basically, San Francisco would provide energy through CleanPowerSF, but MCE would be a contractor that administers San Francisco’s program.

But joining into Marin’s renewable energy program has more hurdles than just figuring out the mix. Clean Power SF is a Community Choice Aggregation program, defined by state law as exactly that -- part of the community. Jumping over to Marin may create a legal mess for San Francisco, but there is hope.

Assembly Bill 2159, introduced by Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, would allow a county’s Board of Supervisors to approve joining a Joint Powers Authority with another municipality, in this case, allowing San Francisco to join up with Marin, while still creating its own CCA program.

The bill just cleared the Assembly Utilities and Commerce Committee yesterday, and has a ways to go.

If that sounds like a legal headache, it is. But advocates say its necessary because Mayor Ed Lee has “stacked the deck” at the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, hiring people friendly to blocking CleanPowerSF on his behalf.

“The main purpose of passing it is to get through the mayor’s log jam,” clean power advocate Eric Brooks told the Guardian. “We want San Francisco to go faster and make more green jobs.”

And, of course, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Avalos’ office estimates that in the time the mayor has stalled Clean Power SF, San Francisco has generated 80 million pounds of CO2.


our well-run program before supporting this. If this move involves seating some of SF's more corrupt machine-driven politicians on any of the functionary commissions which run MCE then I think the whole thing would have to be rethought. We set this up to provide Marin residents with a choice, not for it to be an ideological spear for zealots or for its fees to be tapped for various unrelated causes which benefit San Francisco politicians.

Incidentally I chose the 100% clean power option through MCE and love it.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 23, 2014 @ 1:37 pm

Hi Guest,

Community clean power advocates in San Francisco share your concern and are going to push for the preferred option of keeping the governance of MCE and CleanPowerSF completely separate, while allowing CleanPowerSF to simply contract with MCE for implementing CleanPowerSF, -without- joining the two programs together.

In fact Assemblymember Tom Ammiano, who helped found Community Choice programs like MCE and CleanPowerSF in California, now has a bill in the state legislature (AB 2159) which would facilitate these more streamlined Community Choice program cooperative relationships, so that CleanPowerSF can more easily get off the ground without complicating the governance of MCE's original program.

Contact me through http://ourcitysf.org if you have questions and/or want to help support this preferred option.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Apr. 23, 2014 @ 2:03 pm

which benefits everyone.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 23, 2014 @ 2:37 pm

Does anyone know if Shell is a player in the Marin program? I know a lot of us in San Francisco are not too happy that our choice for clean power involves a corporation like Shell (I still can't believe the way CleanPowerSF candy-coats Shell's horrible history and tries to make them out to be a "progressive" organization). Hopefully, Shell isn't involved - as I would really like a clean power option but without our city having to embrace Shell to get it (seriously, how can anyone believe that Shell is any less evil than PG&E)?

Posted by Kristin on Apr. 23, 2014 @ 3:13 pm

Up in here.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 23, 2014 @ 3:47 pm

San Francisco community advocates, and allies on the Board of Supervisors, no longer want Shell in San Francisco's CleanPowerSF program, so Shell is out.

The SFPUC has made clear that it can now serve the same function in the program, so there is no longer any need for an outside energy broker, Shell or otherwise.

Hence, those of you who are also concerned about that factor, work with us to make sure that CleanPowerSF stays independent, and only partners with Marin to launch the program, not to buy energy.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Apr. 23, 2014 @ 4:55 pm

Google "Marin clean energy" and within 30 seconds you will find Shell is one of the primary contributors. So what's the problem if they are? If they're providing clean energy, and everything about the project seems on the up-n-up, would you really turn it down just because you don't like them? Haven't heard too much about Shell as bad corporate citizens, by the way. At least as far as big oil goes.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 27, 2014 @ 9:38 pm

And you will learn plenty about what an incredibly evil murderous, and environmentally destructive company it is.

The issue here is not just Shell's overt evils, but is also related to its more -covert- evils. Back in the 1980's Shell bought up solar panel companies and panel patents and moth-balled them on purpose to delay competition from renewables.

So there is a danger that Shell is involving itself with our community choice programs cynically in order to minimize their output and slow them down.

With that said, should we reject joining Marin's clean energy program because of Shell? No.

But Marin should do its utmost to end its ties to Shell as quickly as possible.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Apr. 28, 2014 @ 8:37 pm

Where does MCE get its energy from?
I have looked at the high tension wires running from Washington State that brings hydro energy 500 miles from Wa. That is the wrong way to go solar.

SF is being presented with 2 very different choices of how to shift
from gas to solar.
One way is for all new building to be built with solar to generate twice as much solar as they use.
Plus being able to sell the surplus to PG&E at $0.49 kwh, so a building owner can make $500. a month from solar.
This is known as a solar feed in tariff payment policy ( FiT).
Which is the energy policy Japan, China, Germany & 69 nations around the world now have as their way to stop climate collapse, stop fracking, and stop big oil.

Lancaster, Ca., now requires all new building to be 100% solar powered. Lancaster is pushing to become the first 100% solar powered city in the US.
Wildpoldsried, Germany makes 333% more solar than they use. They sell the surplus on the grid for $6 million a year.

The other choice is to pass a BOND for $1 Billion
to pay some small clique of insiders to import solar, wind, geo or hydro from an energy corporation in Washington or Wyoming or wherever.
The loss of energy in such a transmission system is 15%. A huge loss of energy. A bad idea.
I am opposed to the trick that would require tax payers to pay $1 Billion to CPSF. Bad idea.

Mayor Ed Lee looks at both options.
He sees his neighbors in China using a solar FiT policy that requires the Utilities to pay home owners about $0.77 kwh, in China.
He is reasonable to oppose tax payers paying $1 billion to CPSF.
It is far better if every home has solar & PG&E pays homes for the surplus they feed onto the grid.
Decentralization just makes more sense, both in SF & China.
I am voting against CPSF for these reasons.

Posted by Paul Kangas on May. 03, 2014 @ 10:13 am

In addition to its existing pro solar policies, Lancaster is -also- starting its own Community Choice program (just as San Fransisco is with CleanPowerSF).

The key here is that pro solar policies are a good start, but Community Choice programs will enable at least ten times more installation of -all- local renewables (not just solar) than the best existing programs, because Community Choice allows all electricity customers in a city or county to be joined together for group buying power. This new capability is a revolution in state law that will enable Lancaster, San Francisco, and eventually all of California to rapidly shift to 100% renewable, and most importantly, to localized and decentralized clean energy.

Again, I must call you out Paul, for purposely misleading everyone. The billion dollar program that you speak of is for a local renewables and efficiency installation program (not for importing energy from a distance).

Here, once again, is the web address where you can see this local clean energy plan in detail; clearly showing hundreds of megawatts of -local- installations.


I've posted this several times over many months - enough so that you must have read it by now. And yet you continue to claim that CleanPowerSF is supposedly a plan to import distant energy, when the plan description clearly shows that is not the case.

So my only remaining question for you Paul, is:

How much does PG&E pay you to deceive the public about CleanPowerSF?

Posted by Eric Brooks on May. 03, 2014 @ 10:47 am

The whole secret plan behind this CPSF fraud is to build a useless giant solar farm in Wyoming, which will create few real, long term jobs in SF. I vote "No!" the the deceptively named "CPSF".
Give power to the 99% of home owners, by passing a feed in tariff, ( FiT) that requires Utilities to pay home owners $0.49 kwh for solar.

Posted by Paul Kangas on Apr. 30, 2014 @ 6:37 pm

No Paul, as has been repeated to you now at least fifteen times, there is no Wyoming solar farm, and Shell is no longer part of CleanPowerSF.

In fact the Local Agency Formation Commission has just approved a contract to complete the planning for the building of hundreds of megawatts of local clean energy within the City limits of San Francisco over the next ten years.

Posted by Eric Brooks on May. 02, 2014 @ 12:43 am

Decentralization of solar takes money away from the corporations and creates millions of jobs.
Stop the Shell game.
If CPSF passes, that will require SF tax payers to give Shell Oil $1,000,000,000. (Billion) to build a solar farm in Wyoming. Bad idea.

Shell Oil is the main force behind MCE, as was well documented in the June 2013 online issue of "Solar Times". Once your read this great expose Sandy Leon Vest, of how Shell is paying key "green" activists, you will be able to see thru the Shell game. The Shell shills only get "hired" by Shell if they can con the voters & pass the CPSF.

Just read the CPSF's own literature! It is clearly shown in the graphics how the "solar" energy will actually be from a large Shell Solar farm in Wyoming. The loss of energy transmitting the "clean" energy from Wyoming is so great 19%, that Shell can't make money. It is a bad idea.

The giant solar farm built by an Israeli company, (Brightstar) at Ivanpah, Calif, (near LA), was paid for by US tax payers.
Ivanpah has gone bankrupt because it is losing money.
The technology is a fraud.
Bernie Maddof was a major player in this scam too.

9 of us in Solar Justice, did a poll of 4,000 SF voters over the past 3 years. The majority opposed CPSF, & signed a petition for a roof top, home based solar system, that requires PG&E to pay home owners $0.49 kwh for feeding solar onto the grid. We are presenting our petitions to Mayor Ed Lee next week.

There are 69 nations around the world that use such roof top solar systems & require Utilities to pay home owners for solar.
This is the greatest jobs producer in the world. So far, Germany has created 500,000 new solar jobs. Japan has created 333,000 jobs. China create 2,000,000 jobs.
People opposed to CPSF are meeting Friday 7pm at 1187 Franklin to picket Shell Oil's dirty shell game.

Posted by Paul Kangas on Apr. 30, 2014 @ 6:31 pm

Shell has been wisely rejected, and is no longer any part of CleanPowerSF.

Posted by Eric Brooks on May. 02, 2014 @ 12:46 am
Posted by Guest on Apr. 23, 2014 @ 3:19 pm

In the other counties that have Community Choice programs, Marin and Sonoma, customers are getting cleaner energy for a lower price than PG&E.

So if you want to continue paying more (and more every year under PG&E's endless rate hikes) for dirtier energy, be my guest...

Posted by Eric Brooks on Apr. 23, 2014 @ 5:00 pm

The article clearly says that the cost is higher than PG&E, not a "lower price." Eric Brooks is a member of the Public Power Cult. And when you're a cult member you don't worry about pesky things like facts.

Posted by Mike Modern on Apr. 23, 2014 @ 9:49 pm

Both Marin and Sonoma are offering cleaner energy than PG&E for a lower price.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Apr. 24, 2014 @ 6:56 pm

There is no way CPSF can deliver solar energy, much less at a cheaper rate.

Posted by Paul Kangas on Apr. 30, 2014 @ 7:52 pm

Here is the link to the actual plan for CleanPowerSF which shows quite clearly how the program can provide hundreds of megawatts of clean energy at lower rates.


Posted by Eric Brooks on May. 02, 2014 @ 12:54 am
Posted by Eric Brooks on May. 02, 2014 @ 12:59 am

There is no way CPSF can make it cheaper.
Worse, most of the energy CPSF would ship would be from gas or nuclear. The same junk PG&E is selling.

What we need is thousands of homes with 33 solar panels on the roofs. Then require PG&E to pay homes $0.49 kwh to feed solar onto the grid.
That way the homes get free energy , plus they make $1,000. a month income from selling solar onto the grid.

Germany will achieve 50% of its total national power in May 2014, from wind, geo, solar & hydro.
Germany is now the greenest nation on earth.
Germany will be at 100% solar & renewables by 2041.

Posted by Paul Kangas on May. 01, 2014 @ 5:45 pm

Here is the link to the actual plan for CleanPowerSF which will provide hundreds of megawatts of clean energy at lower prices.


Posted by Eric Brooks on May. 02, 2014 @ 12:57 am

You discredit yourself when you say all statements are "ALL FALSE".

Obviously Germany is the leading solar nation in the world.
What makes the Germany economy so strong is the solar feed in tariff that pays home owners $0.99 kwh for feeding solar into the grid.

In fact every statement I made is true.

You are just a bad looser.

Posted by Paul Kangas on May. 02, 2014 @ 1:01 pm

The CleanPowerSF plan that I posted clearly shows that what you are saying is absolutely false.

Here it is again just to make sure you have a chance to read it:


Posted by Eric Brooks on May. 03, 2014 @ 10:50 am

If you think that an "independent" group can deliver clean energy "for less".

The fact that activists are willing to kill a beneficial program because it would be run by an "evil corporation" is the reason this program will be inefficient and many, many years away. While in the meantime they accept the status quo. Buncha dodos.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 27, 2014 @ 8:07 am

Actually, I am glad that our CleanPowerSF opponents are cynically criticizing Shell, (even though their own motives are manipulative and underhanded).

Yes, all fossil fuel energy corporations are evil, but the reality is that Shell is one the -most- evil fossil fuel energy corporations on the planet. Shell is the primary giant octopus like manipulator worldwide which has been the core orchestrator of the failure of the global climate crisis negotiations. It has extensively infiltrated and undermined those negotiations across the board, and caused them to completely fail.

Add to that the reprehensible state murder of Shell's opponents -at- Shell's behest in Nigeria, and it is perfectly legitimate to state that Royal Dutch Shell is the most evil fossil fuel energy corporation on Earth.

So I am glad our cynical opponents are hammering on this Shell point (even though the only reason they are doing so is simply to play propaganda games to protect the similarly evil, but smaller, PG&E corporation).

The Shell critics have thankfully given us the perfect justification to go to our decision makers in San Francisco and argue that Shell does not need to be, and should not be, contracted in San Francisco to have any part of CleanPowerSF.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Apr. 27, 2014 @ 9:10 am

your "all energy companies are evil" shtick.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 27, 2014 @ 9:40 am

Fossil fuel energy company that is -not- evil?

Posted by Eric Brooks on Apr. 28, 2014 @ 8:39 pm

Yes. Actually I can name hundreds.
The best one I know is the village of Wildpoldsried, Germany.
This is a town based Co-op Utility of 2,500 people who
harvest solar from their homes &
sell it onto the grid & get
paid by the Utility $0.99 kwh for 20 years.
Last year they made $6 million selling clean, safe, quiet, solar.
I will be in Wildpoldsried next week filming this amazing solar energy company.
Google that.

Posted by Paul Kangas on Apr. 30, 2014 @ 7:25 pm

Not European towns building clean energy.

Paul, can you at least do us the justice of actually reading posts, before you respond to them?

Posted by Eric Brooks on May. 02, 2014 @ 1:04 am

This thread is about energy policy.

You loose credibility when you act like a flame thrower.

All my comments about Germany now being the greenest
nation on earth, thanks to its feed in tariff are true.
Ernst & Young just issue a report showing the Germany
economy is the greenest in Europe,
because its FiT pays $0.49 kwh to homes for solar.

If I say SF could be 100% solar by 2020,
you would just attack that without any facts.
Typical flame thrower.

Posted by Paul Kangas on May. 02, 2014 @ 1:12 pm

In this thread Paul, you have alternatively claimed that the German solar tariff is 99 cents per kwh, and now in the very same thread you are claiming that the tariff is 49 cents. How can anyone trust what you are saying when you are not even using the same numbers in two different posts in the same conversation?

The actual German solar feed in tariff (FIT) is actually much lower now because Germany's program has succeeded so well that now Germany has to focus on larger infrastructure programs that will bring in much more renewables for the buck (programs similar CleanPowerSF). Too see the actual German FIT as of 2013 go to http://www.germanenergyblog.de/?page_id=14068

The reason California cities like Lancaster and San Francisco are pursuing Community Choice programs is that they have the capacity to build solar and all other renewables even more rapidly than programs spurred by feed in tariffs.

Another problem with adopting feed in tariffs in the U.S. is that all of the renewable energy generated through them has to be delivered to, and then through, the monopoly fossil fuel utility companies, thereby allowing those archaic and destructive corporations to make a profit on energy that doesn't even belong to them. And this reality, that profit will be stolen from our clean energy programs by those monopoly utilities, means that under feed in tariffs, fewer renewable installations will be built, and they will be built more slowly.

This is of course why the utilities like PG&E are paying people like you to bad-mouth Community Choice and promote feed in tariffs, because feed in tariffs are better for those monopoly fossil fuel utilities, and Community Choice will quickly put them out of business.

Posted by Eric Brooks on May. 03, 2014 @ 11:10 am

Good point.
The CPSF law would require you to be forced into the system.
The only way you can get out it to jump thru their hoops.
We do not have 10 years to go the CPSF route.
It is better to go with SUNgevity, a solar lease,
and then require PG&E to pay you $0.49 kwh for your surplus.
That is what Lancaster, Ca., is doing. So is Seabastapol.
I am buying a solar home in Lancaster.

Even better is just buy your own solar panels.
We have maybe 7 years left to ban fracking & go 100% solar.

Posted by Paul Kangas on May. 03, 2014 @ 10:23 am

1) Lancaster, above and beyond just promoting solar, is also wisely starting a Community Choice program just as in San Francisco. So if you don't like Community Choice, you'd best not move to Lancaster ;)

2) No one will ever be forced into any program. Well wait, with the exception of *PG&E's* program.. PG&E is a private corporation which we have already been illegally forced to buy power from, without our permission, for an entire century. Community Choice (in San Francisco CleanPowerSF) is finally giving us a chance to build and buy power -ourselves- from any source we want.

3) Why pay companies like Sungevity a profit for renewables? We as a community can just build and own the renewables -ourselves- under CleanPowerSF. And because we will be operating a community based nonprofit for energy, instead of wasting money throwing money at private companies, we will be able to put more funds into building more renewables, more quickly.

You seem to be very excited by the idea of private corporations owning and controlling our energy, Paul.

Why is that?

Posted by Eric Brooks on May. 03, 2014 @ 11:24 am

Dr. Atila, the supreme spellcaster of Africa, managed to do this.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 23, 2014 @ 9:38 pm

I want to make sweet, sweet love to Eric Brooks.

Posted by lillipublicans on Apr. 24, 2014 @ 11:38 am

You've always said you're asexual. Is your heretofore dormant sexuality awakening?

Posted by Guest on Apr. 24, 2014 @ 12:27 pm

Marin Clean Energy appears to be run in a professional manner, unlike the complete disaster CleanpowerSF is. Amateurs.....

Posted by Richmondman on Apr. 24, 2014 @ 12:52 pm

This question has to be asked, why is it that our mayor Ed Lee is so opposed to clean Power SF. Next question who is the puppet master controlling our mayors strings?

Posted by GUEST on Apr. 24, 2014 @ 1:08 pm

Because it was put together by a bunch of amateurs... Perhaps there is hope now because there will no longer be guilt by association.

Posted by CleanpowerSF on Apr. 24, 2014 @ 2:00 pm

The puppet master is former Mayor Willie Brown, who controls the Mayor's office and is a high paid lobbyist for PG&E.

Ed Lee is PG&E's mayor.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Apr. 24, 2014 @ 7:00 pm

She brought my ex back to me and saved my life! She is Africa's #1 spellcaster!!

Posted by Guest on Apr. 24, 2014 @ 8:33 pm

Voters never approved CCA or CleanPowerSF, and criticism of the program was due to its own incompetence. Perhaps we will have a better chance by tieing in with a working program.

Posted by Richmondman on Apr. 25, 2014 @ 9:59 am

In 2001, San Francisco voters approved Prop H by a wide margin, thereby expressly granting the San Francisco Board of Supervisors the authority to establish revenue bonds for renewable energy projects citywide. In fact the measure was specifically placed on the ballot to enable the Board to launch CleanPowerSF (then known by its technical name Community Choice Aggregation).

This program is exactly what was described and intended in Prop H; a large revenue bonded renewable energy network for the city.

So the voters did indeed approve CleanPowerSF 13 years ago. And the Mayor's office has been playing political games attempting to derail it ever since. Every year we get closer to finalizing and launching the program, and the Mayor's office eventually will fail.

The launch should happen within the next two years.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Apr. 26, 2014 @ 8:26 pm

@Richmondman - Completely untrue, this is the result of a ballot initiative. Why even bother post something completely false?

Posted by Jym on Apr. 30, 2014 @ 8:43 pm

Because that is how Eric has been operating for years.

"A lie can spread half-way around the world,
before the truth ever has a chance to gets its boots on."
-------------Mark Twain

Eric just tries to out-run all the lies he spreads.

Ask the Unitarian Universalists about all the lies Eric has been
spreading into the ears of nieve simpletons like Kerry.

Voting for a Bond, to pay for solar only makes the 1% rich.
Vote "No!" on the CPSF bond scam.
We need a feed in tariff that pays home owners $0.49 kwh
for feeding solar onto the SF grid.

Posted by Paul Kangas on May. 02, 2014 @ 1:24 pm

I am very honest, even about realities which are uncomfortable, like the previous (and thankfully ended) relationship of Shell Energy North America to our local program.

Here again is the plan for the nonprofit community clean energy program that will be built with the bonds that you refer to. And you will notice in these plans that thousands of local jobs will be created in the process.


Posted by Eric Brooks on May. 03, 2014 @ 11:34 am
Posted by Guest on Apr. 25, 2014 @ 11:04 am

Ed Lee only got the votes of 18% of registered voters, he is a minority mayor.

Posted by marcos on Apr. 26, 2014 @ 9:01 pm

Post new comment

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