EDITOR: Proponents argue that Sonoma Clean Power will offer a higher mix of clean and renewable power than PG&E. However, as Paul Gullixson noted, clean and renewable are not the same thing ("Some myths about clean power," May 26).
Sonoma Clean Power conveniently defines renewable energy sources to exclude large hydroelectric and nuclear power. An objective comparison would include all of PG&E's generated electricity from renewable sources. Currently 62 percent of PG&E's energy supply comes from such sources, not 20 percent as claimed by Sonoma Clean Power.
On the other hand, Sonoma Clean Power claims it would provide at least 38 percent from renewable sources as defined. It should be noted that its definition includes biomass, which releases greenhouse gases and is not clean.
What is more important to the environment — reduction of greenhouse gases or a misleading definition of renewable? Are Santa Rosa and other Sonoma County cities being rushed to commit to join Sonoma Clean Power before the facts become known?
Other questions include, how much are taxpayers at risk if this venture fails? Lenders appear unwilling to provide all required financing without some taxpayer guarantees. Do we need to add to the budget burdens of pensions, roads and dying grass in our parks?
EDITOR: So now that Amy Cooper is leaving Sonoma County Animal Care and Control ("Cooper quits as county animal care director," June 5), maybe the agency can finally pay attention to the "control" part of its job and be as concerned about humans being obliterated by incessant barking dogs as it is about its "care" of the dogs who are doing the barking.