I no longer live in the Santa Teresa area; however, I am very interested in keeping the Calpine Metcalf power plant from seeing the light of day. I am a registered member of the Green Party. The world is suffering from the indiscriminate burning of fossil fuels -- and this community will suffer especially under the proposed 13-story smokestacks.

I understand, however, that Calpine has been courting a powerful ally -- the American Federation of Labor. AFL-CIO representatives have testified in support of Calpine at the Energy Commission hearings. Calpine is trying to drive the traditional wedge between environmentalists and labor. I have always considered this to be a false dilemma.

Are we questioning the unquestioned assumptions? I think that, if we get labor to look at this issue a little more closely, they will be on our side. There are many possible compromises that I don't see anyone exploring. Consider the following:

1) Why Metcalf? If we grant that more electricity is needed, and that a gas-fired plant is the ONLY way to generate it (I would disagree), it needn't be located so close to people's homes and schools. I know that it is convenient for Calpine to be located at the power substation, right next to the treated sewage line. However, locating the plant farther away would only mean MORE construction work, to bring power lines and water to another location. Labor should favor this.

2) Why fossil fuel? So far, I haven't seen any criticisms at the South San Jose web site directed towards much of anything but the POLLUTION that the plant would generate. Why don't we consider a NON-polluting power station for the same site -- i.e., a photovoltaic solar station or solar turbine? California is the Sunshine State! Solar alternatives would still provide construction jobs, but would be much better neighbors to the community. The city should not blindly approve a NATURAL GAS PLANT, which is being pushed by a NATURAL GAS POWER COMPANY, without first considering the alternatives.

3) Why not some other type of construction? Read "S.J. planners against Morgan Hill school," published Thursday, July 15, 1999, in the San Jose Mercury News. A second high school for Morgan Hill Unified School District has been proposed for the southern third of Coyote Valley. A new high school would provide lots of construction jobs, and would again be a better neighbor to the community than the Calpine power plant. The Sobrato family has agreed to donate a $3 million parcel in that area. Yet the San Jose Planning Commission has stated its opposition to the high school, saying that the campus site is located in its "greenbelt zone." The city has no problems twisting their zoning inside-out for a power plant, however! Can a land swap be arranged? Let's put the high school farther north, in a location that is intended to be developed -- FOR EXAMPLE, at the proposed Calpine site.

What do you folks think?

--
John J. Ladasky Jr., Ph.D.
Department of Structural Biology
Stanford University Medical Center
Stanford, CA 94305