Initial response to today's Mercury editorial regarding the power plant:

"Nonetheless, power plants, like airports and freeways, have to be put somewhere. "

Unlike airports people do not care where their power is generated so power plants do not have to be placed near residential areas.

"They disperse into the air and blow around within the Bay Area. In addition, the majority of the time, the wind blows away from the neighborhood."

What the Mercury does not mention is this wind blows a majority of the time into Coyote Valley. Does the Mercury really think the Coyote Valley will not be developed during the lifetime of this plant? What about the people who will live and work in Coyote Valley in addition to those already there?

"Neighborhood opponents talk as if the pollution will be dumped in their neighborhood. It won't be. The nearest neighborhood is almost three-quarters of a mile away. "

Will this still be the case once Coyote Valley is developed? Is the Mercury even thinking that far ahead? The proposed Cisco campus will be very close to the plant.

"The Bay Area currently meets federal carbon monoxide standards."

What about Fine Particulates (PM10)? According to Calpine's AFC the area did not meet the State's 24-hour standard 18 days in 1997. Will the plant conform to the EPA's new standards for PM(2.5)?

"The aqueous ammonia that neighbors fear is a liquid, stored under very low pressure. It is not explosive."

Who is afraid of aqueous ammonia exploding? Our concerns are Calpine's concerns. From Calpine's AFC:

"In a catastrophic accident, toxic ammonia gas could migrate offsite and affect the health of humans at locations surrounding the facility."

From the Mercury:

"�we think the evidence adds up to a conclusion that Metcalf will not be a nasty environmental neighbor."

Is this the best that can be said for the first major development of Coyote Valley? If so, the Mercury's vision for the future of Coyote Valley is quite low.

Sincerely,

Steven Nelson