CHANGE MY LOCATION
Local
California News
Multimedia News
SFPUC suggests rebuilding old power plant
SEE HOW THIS STORY DEVELOPED
Related Topics: SAN FRANCISCO
SAN FRANCISCO (Map, News) - The agency that oversees electricity in San Francisco withdrew its support Tuesday for a plan to build city-owned fossil fuel-burning power plants.
The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission voted unanimously in favor of an alternative plan to protect The City against blackouts by partly closing and partly refurbishing a privately owned fossil fuel-burning plant at Potrero Hill.
An environmental analysis was provided to commissioners that compared the proposal to retrofit the Mirant-owned plant with the proposal to build a city-owned plant south of the Bayside site.
“In every reasonable comparison of pollution, the retrofit is a better solution for the people of this city,” Commissioner Dick Sklar said during the hearing. “This alternative was presented to our staff on February 13th and we were not even told about it.”
Ed Harrington, who took up duties as general manager of the SFPUC in April, told The Examiner on Tuesday that Mirant hadn’t formally proposed to retrofit its plant in February.
The Board of Supervisors is scheduled to vote next week on whether The City will borrow $273 million to build new natural gas-burning power plants, based on the SFPUC’s 2007 approval of the project. The board’s vote has been delayed since May, when Mayor Gavin Newsom asked for time to pursue alternatives.
Members of the Potrero Boosters Neighborhood Association during the meeting criticized the proposal to retrofit the Mirant plant. Mirant had previously proposed to close the plant and redevelop its land.
Comments from Examiner Readers
5:00 PM MST on Tue., Jul. 15, 2008 re: "SFPUC suggests rebuilding old power plant"
Report as inappropriate
5:15 PM MST on Wed., Jul. 9, 2008
re: "SFPUC suggests rebuilding old power plant"
Report as inappropriate
3:42 PM MST on Wed., Jul. 9, 2008
re: "SFPUC suggests rebuilding old power plant"
Report as inappropriate
12:46 PM MST on Wed., Jul. 9, 2008
re: "SFPUC suggests rebuilding old power plant"
Report as inappropriate
10:29 AM MST on Wed., Jul. 9, 2008
re: "SFPUC suggests rebuilding old power plant"
Report as inappropriate
Examiner Reader said:
Gretchen, San Francisco is unique in that the demand seems to be constant regardless of the weather, per the PUC. These plants are the solution to renewables in that they will provide quick on demand power on the days the sun does not shine and the wind is not blowing and be turned off as soon as we don't need them. I still don't understand why all the "green people" out there look at Transbay Cable as the solution for not needing this plant when that power comes from the same kind of gas turbines, except that they will run continuously. But I guess that OK since it's not in SF.
2 agree | 1 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Um, no. The whole point is that the retrofit would be much less expensive, no more polluting, and no more or less reliable than the City plant that had been proposed.
2 agree | 1 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Wai Yip Tung said:
Is it rebuilding or refurbishing? This article got me all confused.
1 agree | 1 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Gretchen said:
NO! No more non renewable energy plants - even if they are less polluting than the existing plants. Spend the money on Solar and Wind or even tidal power. Solar is best because the peak demand is during the day when the sun can provide energy to fuel the drain imposed by offices and air conditioning. Go Solar! I have solar panels on my home here in the city so I know solar can lessen the demand for power from the grid. The $273,000,000 could put solar panels on over 10,000 roofs plus most big parking lots. Why is the city even considering a gas fired power plant? Get with the 21st century technology! Go Solar? Honestly - who is his right mind would fund a $273,000,000 plant run on fossil fuel? Dumb, dumb, dumb.
2 agree | 4 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
This is an "Only in San Francisco" debacle. Or maybe "Only so Gavin can run as the Green Candidate for Governor." The retrofit will be more expensive, more polluting, and less reliable than the new plant that was already approved.
3 agree | 1 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree