CHANGE MY LOCATION
Mayor's Office reaches power-plant deal
SEE THE LATEST ON THIS STORY
Related Topics: SAN FRANCISCO
)
The Mayor’s Office struck a deal, which the Board of Supervisors approved and the SFPUC will vote on, to shut down an existing Potrero Hill power plant while a new one is built.
SAN FRANCISCO (Map, News) - Potrero Hill’s aging and polluting power plant would shut down and be replaced by a new and cleaner one under a proposal backed by the Board of Supervisors Tuesday as the Mayor’s Office struck a deal with the plant’s owner, assuring its closure in exchange for being able to redevelop the site.
Opponents of the proposal to build a $230 million combustion turbine power plant said renewable energy sources and not another a fuel-burning plant should be pursued. Supporters said a new plant is the only way to satisfy state requirements to be able to close down the older, more polluting Mirant Potrero plant.
The Board of Supervisors voted 8-3 Tuesday supporting the proposal, and the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission is expected to vote on the project today. If approved, the SFPUC would finalize a contract with Illinois-based J-Power USA Development Co. to build the new plant in Potrero Hill. The board would vote on the contract next month.
The City must have an alternative energy source of equal capacity to shut down the Mirant plant, according to the state regulatory agency, the California Independent System Operator.
Opponents also worried that the new plant would not necessarily result in the Mirant plant’s closure. Board of Supervisors President Aaron Peskin announced during the board meeting that after ongoing negotiations between the Mayor’s Office and the Mirant corporation “The City reached agreement a few minutes ago … that will guarantee closure” once the new plant is operational. The City has agreed to work with Mirant to create a development plan for the 27-acre site, and expedite the planning process while also waiving a certain amount of the planning fees. A final contract would come before the board for approval.
Supervisors Chris Daly, Michela Alioto-Pier and Ross Mirkarimi opposed the resolution. Daly said he was not convinced a new plant was necessary to close the Mirant plant.
Alioto-Pier said, “We deserve to have the cleanest alternative.” SFPUC staff said renewable energy sources would not satisfy state requirements to be able to shut down the Mirant plant.
IN OTHER ACTION
CONDUCT PROPOSAL VOTED DOWN: A code of conduct introduced by Supervisor Michela Alioto-Pier following controversial comments made during a public hearing about Mayor Gavin Newsom by Supervisor Chris Daly was shot down in a 6-5 vote. Supervisors Alioto-Pier, Gerardo Sandoval, Bevan Dufty, Sean Elsbernd and Carmen Chu opposed it.
ALCOHOL AT GROCERY STORES: In a 9-1 vote, legislation was approved allowing grocery stores to sell alcohol as an incentive to open up in five troubled neighborhoods, including the North of Market and Third Street areas, which have bans on the issuance of alcohol permits. Supervisor Chris Daly opposed it.
APPOINTMENTS CONFIRMED: An 11-0 vote confirmed Mayor Gavin Newsom’s appointment of Joyce Hicks as the director of the Office of Citizen Complaints.
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