Choose Your Location
|
![]() |
In January 2003, San Francisco took possession of four natural gas-fueled power plant turbines in lieu of receiving $13.3 million as a result of a state-led energy-crisis settlement.
Although The City planned to begin using the equipment as early as May 2005, it is still taking up 4 acres inside a Texas warehouse for a monthly storage and maintenance fee of $43,941 — a cost borne by San Francisco Public Utilities Commission power customers, including city departments, according to SFPUC spokesman Tony Winnicker.
Under terms of the settlement agreement, The City could hand the four turbines back to the state for $10 million to $15 million total, according to Winnicker. They’re valued at $40 million to $60 million total on the open market, he said.
The proposed new plants were designed to replace an aging and polluting plant near Pier 70 that is owned by the Mirant Corp.
Although members of the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission gave initial approval to the plan to build the new power plant in November, a groundswell of opposition, pushing for less environmentally damaging energy options, stalled the project.
In May, after meeting with state energy officials, Mayor Gavin Newsom suggested that retrofitting the existing plant was a viable alternative to building the new plant.
Newsom’s spokesman Nathan Ballard said that the recent change of course has moved quickly in the last few months.
“After bringing all the key players to the table less than two months ago, the mayor is pleased we’re already looking seriously at several feasible and cleaner alternatives to the current plant,” Ballard said.
The Board of Supervisors is scheduled to consider a proposal today that would have Pacific Gas & Electric Co. lay new and replacement electrical wires beneath The City to boost its energy supply so there would not be a need for new power plants.
The plan is expected to cost $214 million to $239 million of ratepayer funds, according to preliminary figures provided by PG&E senior director Kevin Dasso. The $273 million in construction-related costs of the new plant would have been recouped over an 18-year-period from revenue generated, according to SFPUC officials.



Comments from Examiner Readers
1:51 PM MST on Sat., Jun. 28, 2008 re: "State help sought for plant closure"
Report as inappropriate
12:47 PM MST on Tue., Jun. 24, 2008
re: "Power plant parts burning city money"
Report as inappropriate
9:50 AM MST on Tue., Jun. 24, 2008
re: "Power plant parts burning city money"
Report as inappropriate
8:30 AM MST on Tue., Jun. 24, 2008
re: "Power plant parts burning city money"
Report as inappropriate
2:21 PM MST on Wed., May. 28, 2008
re: "Decision on Potrero power plant delayed"
Report as inappropriate
1:18 PM MST on Wed., May. 21, 2008
re: "Power plant plan is losing its steam"
Report as inappropriate
10:48 AM MST on Tue., May. 13, 2008
re: "Decision on Potrero power plant delayed"
Report as inappropriate
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
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
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
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
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
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 | 7 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
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