CHANGE MY LOCATION
Clean energy up in smoke?
SEE THE LATEST ON THIS STORY
Related Topics: SAN FRANCISCO
)
Plans to build a new power plant in the southeastern part of The City is drawing opposition from some who worry about continued pollution.
SAN FRANCISCO (Map, News) - A plan to build a cleaner Potrero Hill power plant in hopes of shutting down an existing and more polluting one in the neighborhood was supported Monday by some members of the Board of Supervisors amid criticism that The City should only pursue renewable energy sources.
A resolution supporting the plan — a $230 million combustion turbine power plant to generate 150 megawatts of electricity within The City — was approved by the Board of Supervisors Land Use Committee on Monday and will be up for a vote by the full board today, in time to send a clear message to the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, which is expected to vote on the project Wednesday.
The SFPUC would finalize a contract with Illinois-based J-Power USA Development Co. to build a new plant, and submit the contract to the board next month for final approval.
In order for the existing Mirant Potrero plant to be shut down, The City has to have an alternative energy source of equal output, according to the state regulatory agency, the California Independent System Operator.
Opponents of the plan say The City should instead use renewable energy sources, not a fuel-burning plant, to satisfy energy demand requirements. They also worry that even if the new plant is built, the Mirant Potrero plant would not shut down, leaving a neighborhood with two sources of pollution.
Supervisor Sophie Maxwell, who represents District 10, which includes the Mirant plant, said that while supporting the proposal is like choosing “the lesser of two evils,” she said it does ensure Mirant closes on a “definite date.” The plan has received the support of Mayor Gavin Newsom and Board of Supervisors President Aaron Peskin.
Supervisor Michela Alioto-Pier came out against the plan Monday, saying “we cannot replace Mirant with another fossil-fuel power source” and that The City should lead the way “in providing alternative clean energy.”
Pacific Gas and Electric Co. has also opposed the new power plant, saying it could meet the energy needs of The City, but Tony Irons, deputy general manager of the SFPUC, said the PG&E proposal would not satisfy requirements to be able to shut down the Mirant plant.
“There are no other alternatives,” Irons said, adding that the proposal is “clearly the most effective and most immediate way to put an end to that pollution and the surest way.”
Barbara Hale, the SFPUC’s director of power, policy and planning, said the proposed power plant would have no health impacts. “We are confident that we have, given the permitting restrictions, given the steps we have taken, minimized the health impacts to zero,” she said.
Opponents worry that Mirant would not close even though the new plant was built, but SFPUC staff said that once the new plant is operational, Cal-ISO has pledged to remove its “must-run” status, which would take away any economic incentive for Mirant to remain in operation.
If approved by the Board of Supervisors, the plant could start producing energy in 2009, and SFPUC staff expect the Mirant plant to close sometime during that year.
Old vs. New
MIRANT POTRERO PLANT
Location: Illinois and 25th streets on a 27-acre parcel
Air-pollution emissions: 92.4 nitrogen oxygen tons/yr., 58.13 particulate tons/yr.
Power capacity: 362 megawatts
Age: 30-40 years old
Estimated closure under plan: 2009
PROPOSED POWER PLANT
Location: 25th and Maryland streets on a 4-acre parcel
Air pollution Emissions: 19.74 nitrogen oxygen tons/yr., 11.25 particulate tons/yr.
Power capacity: 150 megawatts in-city
Estimated operational date: 2009
- Source: SFPUC
Comments from Examiner Readers
8:29 AM MST on Thu., Apr. 3, 2008 re: "Clean energy up in smoke?"
Report as inappropriate
12:31 PM MST on Thu., Nov. 1, 2007
re: "PUC backs Potrero Hill power plant"
Report as inappropriate
11:12 PM MST on Tue., Oct. 30, 2007
re: "Power plant at crucial planning stage"
Report as inappropriate
5:10 PM MST on Tue., Oct. 30, 2007
re: "Clean energy up in smoke?"
Report as inappropriate
7:53 AM MST on Tue., Oct. 30, 2007
re: "'No alternatives' to power plant?"
Report as inappropriate
1:27 PM MST on Fri., Oct. 19, 2007
re: "Power plant at crucial planning stage"
Report as inappropriate
4:44 AM MST on Fri., Oct. 19, 2007
re: "Power plant project at crucial planning stage"
Report as inappropriate
Examiner Reader said:
What is being done to capture the energy in smoke? I woke up one morning with the question, Is there energy in smoke? I'm quessing there is energy in smoke since all matter has energy. Regards, Pat Schools
0 agree | 1 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Gretchen said:
A city owned power plant? No way! This city can't run busses on time, manage golf courses or even fill potholes. We certainly don't want them owning/managing our power sources! We need privately owned wind, water and sun power plants! There are alternatives to fossil fuels. Why build a fossil fuel power plant when the money could be better spent on generating power from renewable sources such sun, wind or tidal sources?. Cleaner fossil fuel is still fossil fuel, and once built, a plant such as this could be operated for the next 20, 30, 40 years. We should suffer the current plant for a couple more years while we build a tidal (or other renewable power) plant; otherwise, in 10 or 20 years we will have the expense (and politics!) of tearing down this new plant when it becomes obsolete because of truly clean power sources. NO NEW FOSSIL FUEL PLANTS! And, whatever is done, No utilities should be City Owned!
125 agree | 113 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
PhiloT Farnsworth said:
SF Bay Guardian came to a similar conclusion that this is a poorly crafted proposal, that other energy options need to be explored, and that there is no certainty that the older power plant would shut down should the new ones be approved. The Guardian has never been a friend of PG&E so there goes any conspiracy theory. Peskin wanted to terminate the SF Department of Environment for coming up with the same conclusion. Wonder what Peskin has in mind for the Chronicle for not buying into his unsound pollute D#10 philosophy.
133 agree | 114 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
The assault on the residents of D10 who suffer from environmental health related ailments has been documented by the same board that voted to install giant jet engines in their neighborhoods. OF COURSE there are other alternatives to the dirty fossil fuel engines. Shame on all supervisors who voted against the residents of D10 and the rest of us. Sophie Maxwell..what would Enola say....
105 agree | 101 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Long time Potrero Hill Resident said:
How much did PG&E pay you for the headline? I am sure the Stop it Coalition which has their office at 77 Beale Street (PG&E's) Headquarters helped you write the story. PG&E is scared to death that the City will get a source of public power generation which will break their strangle hold on our wallets. Power costs less if it is generated from a public source. Witness LA, Sacramento and Santa Clara to name a few.
92 agree | 83 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Gretchen said:
As someone who installed solar panels on my roof six years ago, I can honestly state that there are alternatives to fossil fuels. Why spend $225 million on a fossil fuel power plant when the money could be better spent on generating power from renewable sources such sun, wind or tidal sources? We as a city will be better off long run if we invest our money in renewable energy plants instead of fossil fuel plants. To continue to rely on fossil fuels is foolish when so many good alternatives are available. And in addition to huge megawatt solar/wind/tidal plants, the city needs to be more aggressive in helping the owners of individual buildings install solar and wind generating facilities by offering property tax credits, zero interest loans, etc. For the skeptics: solar works in fog and actually generates better in cool climates like SF. My rooftop feeds the grid every day and my electric bill nets to almost zero. We can make the city green one building at a time!
137 agree | 114 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Walter E.Wallis said:
If locals refuse the plant, put them at the top of the list for blackouts.
124 agree | 118 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree