Multimedia News

'Twilight' Mania
20 photos
In this image released by Summit Entertainmen...
Thanksgiving menu musts
20 photos
Food & Drink Examiners are sharing a cornucop...
Hugh Jackman: Sexiest Man Alive (and a few close seconds)
20 photos
In this Nov. 10, 2008, file photo, actor Hugh...
Blondes vs. Brunettes
20 photos
Beyonce is photographed in New York on Thursd...
Faces of murder
20 photos
This undated photo obtained from a MySpace we...

Potrero power-plant proposal sparks opposition legislation

Apr 11, 2008 3:00 AM (224 days ago) by John Upton, The Examiner
This story ranks Not ranked
Related Topics: SAN FRANCISCO
SAN FRANCISCO (Map, News) - A new contract to build power plants in The City to replace a more-polluting plant in Potrero Hill is expected to be introduced to the Board of Supervisors next week — but one city legislator has drafted legislation that could nix or further delay the project, which has been debated for more than seven years.

In October, a contract with another company set to build the power plant was approved 8-3 by the Board of Supervisors, after being told that Mayor Gavin Newsom’s office had reached a deal with Mirant Corp., the owner of the older plant, to close it down after the new power source was up and running.

The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission recently announced it reached a new $250 million deal with Ohio-based Industrial Construction Co. Inc. to build a 150-megawatt natural gas-burning plant north of the Islais Creek Channel in The City’s southeast and a 48-megawatt natural gas-burning plant at the airport.

The California Department of Water Resources would funnel $32.5 million a year from utility companies’ rates toward the project until 2015, according to department official Richard Grix. If the plants start operating by 2010, that could provide 80 percent of the project’s construction costs.

This story continues below
Advertisement

Supervisor Sophie Maxwell said she’s “very glad” that the supervisors will finally be able to vote on a deal that could shut down the air-polluting Potrero Hill plant, which is in her district. “We’ll be generating our own power and we’ll be able to market it,” she said.

Supervisor Michela Alioto-Pier, however, said she will introduce legislation that, if passed, would force The City to re-evaluate the need and fiscal impacts of the project.

The City should develop alternative energy sources, Alioto-Pier said, adding that a planned power project called the Transbay Cable, would offset the need for new plants.

The Transbay Cable will deliver enough electricity from Pittsburg to San Francisco to more than offset the lost capacity from the Mirant plant in the coming years, according to figures provided by project manager Sam Wehn.

SFPUC general manager for power Barbara Hale said the California Independent System Operator requires The City to build new in-city power plants before the Mirant plant can be shut down.

California ISO spokeswoman Stephanie McCorkle told The Examiner that The City has not formally proposed any plans other than the new gas-burning plant to shut down the Mirant plant.

“We’re always willing to look at something,” she said.

jupton@examiner.com

Add a Comment


Name: (required)
Comments:
characters left
Comments are regulated by the Terms of Use.

Comments from Examiner Readers

1:51 PM MST on Sat., Jun. 28, 2008 re: "State help sought for plant closure"

Examiner Reader said:
Youre info is incorrect, the existing peakers at Mirant currently run 200-250 hours a year. Once they are the only source of power in the area they will be required to run as much as the new peakers.

2 agree | 2 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

12:47 PM MST on Tue., Jun. 24, 2008 re: "Power plant parts burning city money"

Examiner Reader said:
But then again I've learned that the new power plants would run for 18 to 30 more years at 3,000 to 4,000 hours per year and we know now we can shut down most of Mirant without the new power plants. Any part of Mirant that would need to be retrofit will be as clean as the new $273 million power plants but only run 200-250 hours per year for a handful of years. There's no easy solution, but building new fossil fuel burning power plants in our low income Southeast communities is definitely not the answer.

4 agree | 4 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
9:50 AM MST on Tue., Jun. 24, 2008 re: "Power plant parts burning city money"

Examiner Reader said:
These plants ought to have been approved already, but Mayor McGovernor saw a hole in his green campaign platform. The pollution that would have come from these plants is much less than the existing plant, and nothing compared to car exhaust that this city chokes down. Retrofitting Mirant is a dirtier solution for our air and our water. The peaker plants would not sully the Bay, but the Mirant plant does and will continue to.

6 agree | 3 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
8:30 AM MST on Tue., Jun. 24, 2008 re: "Power plant parts burning city money"

Examiner Reader said:
So, now we (the rate payers) are going to pay PG&E (who cannot do anything efficiently) $239,000,000 to get a bigger strangle hold on all of us. We are also going to pay Mirant to upgrade their 35 year old generators, and have no control of when they get shutdown. And to top it off we will still need to come up with an in-city generation plan in the next decade. When will the Mayor realize that the City Turbines are a green solution. - Oh by the way, the new generators pay for them selves in 18 years.

2 agree | 3 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
2:21 PM MST on Wed., May. 28, 2008 re: "Decision on Potrero power plant delayed"

Examiner Reader said:
We need more of these peaker style plants which would only run when we need them. This would enable us to go after renewable resources and still have local reliable power on days when the "sun don't shine", or if there is an earthquake. Besides people point to the transbay cable as a solution, The cable is powered by a natural gas fired plant - that's ok I guess since it is not in potrero.

3 agree | 2 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
1:18 PM MST on Wed., May. 21, 2008 re: "Power plant plan is losing its steam"

Gretchen said:
We do not need more fossil fuel plants no matter how efficient they may be. We need more power plants like the one on my roof - I have solar panels that feed into the grid and nullify my use of electricity. If we took the same amount of money and spent it on solar panel incentives there would not be a need for peaker plants. The problem is that the plan to re-build the Portrero plan began 7 years ago when solar was not a feasible idea. Now solar is very viable but no one is brave enough to say "Whoa - maybe we better think about changing direction." If my house can be "off the grid" powerwise during the day, then having 25% of SF homes using solar could reduce residential demand 25% during the day. Take the peaker power plant money and rent the rooftop of Costco (or any big roof) and install a solar farm - Costco would get rental income and we get electricity. So many options are available! NO MORE FOSSIL FUEL PLANTS!

4 agree | 6 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
10:48 AM MST on Tue., May. 13, 2008 re: "Decision on Potrero power plant delayed"

Examiner Reader said:
Don't believe it. This is all about PG&E not wanting the City to control in-city generation. When push comes to shove, this Mayor sees his political future tied to big corporate support like PG&E.

6 agree | 6 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Advertisement