CHANGE MY LOCATION
Local
California News
Multimedia News
Power plant at crucial planning stage
SEE THE LATEST ON THIS STORY
Related Topics: SAN FRANCISCO
)
Opponents of a proposed new power plant in Potrero Hill want the state to decertify it, as they say the neighborhood could end up with two polluting facilities.
SAN FRANCISCO (Map, News) - A controversial plan to build a new, cleaner power plant on Potrero Hill in hopes of shutting down an aging, more polluting plant in the same neighborhood will be discussed at a special meeting of the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission today.
Opponents of the plan say any fuel-burning plant would still be bad news compared with utilizing renewable sources. Commissioners have echoed similar concerns.
The new, $225 million, 150-megawatt power plant — which after 13 years would be city-owned — would utilize combustion turbines, or CTs. According to an October 2006 decision on the CT project by the California Energy Commission, it would boost energy reliability in San Francisco, while “discharging lower levels of NOx [nitrogen oxide] ... compared with the existing, older generation facility.”
Today, contract terms with the company negotiating to build the Potrero CT plant — Illinois-based J-Power USA Development Co. — will be presented to the commission. If approved, the plant could begin generating electricity by the start of 2009, according to Barbara Hale, the SFPUC’s director of power, policy and planning.
Although the project has the support of key city officials, including Mayor Gavin Newsom and Board of Supervisors President Aaron Peskin, commissioners indicated at an Oct. 9 meeting that a vote of approval might not come quickly.
SFPUC staff has responded to concerns by pointing out that a state regulatory agency, the California Independent System Operator, or Cal-ISO, said San Francisco would not be allowed to shut down the Mirant Potrero plant if there was no alternate “in-city” source of energy.
“The choices we have today are not good ones,” SFPUC President Ryan Brooks said at the meeting.
A request for the California Energy Commission to reconsider its certification of the proposed plant was filed this month by opponents of the plan. Josh Arce, of the legal organization Brightline Defense, said at the Oct. 9 meeting that the community could be caught in a nightmarish scenario with “two polluting power plants, if and when Mirant puts up a fight.”
Mirant spokeswoman Felicia Browder would not confirm the plant would close down when the new plant became operational.
“For the foreseeable future, the Mirant Potrero power plant will continue to be needed for reliability ... we will not speculate on what may or may not happen in the future,” Browder wrote in an e-mail.
Once the new plant is up and running the state would remove Mirant’s “must-run” contracting status, which would reduce its economic incentive to keep running,” Hale said.
Pacific Gas and Electric Co. is also fighting the new power plant proposal, saying that — through a combination of energy-use reduction programs, new power transmissions and renewable energy sources — it can meet San Francisco’s needs.
Cal-ISO recently indicated that PG&E’s proposal would not be enough to shut down the Mirant plant, Hale said.
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