Supes Power Plant Vote Stymied Again,
Review Of Alternatives Sought

By Ari Burack

May 20, 2008

San Francisco supervisors today agreed to once again delay a vote on the contentious proposal to build new power plants in the city’s Potrero Hill neighborhood, while detractors scramble for acceptable alternatives.

Minutes before this afternoon’s scheduled vote at City Hall on the plan to build four new natural gas combustion turbines as a cleaner replacement to the aging Mirant power plant, Supervisor Sean Elsbernd introduced a series of amendments calling on the city to conduct a “final due diligence review” to explore what he called “the last, best alternatives out there.”

“This is a major, major step for energy policy,” for both the neighborhoods most affected by the plan and the city as a whole, Elsbernd warned of the power plant proposal.

The review would last up to 90 days, after which the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, which is in favor of the combustion turbine plan, would make a determination.

Last week, Mayor Gavin Newsom asked to delay the vote a week while his office pursued other possibilities — including renewable energy alternatives – than replacing the polluting Mirant plant with the cleaner-burning, “peaker” plants, designed to generate electricity during hours of peak energy demand.

At the time, Supervisor Chris Daly ridiculed the one-week delay, and today, took the opportunity to again needle the mayor’s office by wondering aloud “if they’ve figured out cold fusion in the past seven days.”

A mayor’s office representative responded that her office was working “vigorously” to identify alternate proposals.

The current plan, estimated to cost more than $250 million, would add three combustion turbines in the Potrero District, and one at San Francisco International Airport. Officials estimate they could be in place for at least 18 years, until their cost is paid off.

Meanwhile the Mirant plant, which has been blamed by some for higher rates of asthma and cancer in some of the city’s poorer, southeastern neighborhoods, would be closed, possibly as early as 2010, after the new plants are installed.

The complex and multifaceted issue has brought a tangle of unlikely alliances, from environmentalists and the Pacific Gas and Electric Co. opposed to the combustion turbines, to supporters including public power advocates and some supervisors who believe they are the only option to replace the Mirant plant.

Supervisor Sophie Maxwell, whose district includes the Mirant plant and the areas most heavily affected by its discharge, has said that the combustion turbines are the “fastest and cleanest way” to rid the area of the Mirant plant.

Residents of the Potrero and Bayview-Hunters Point neighborhoods testified at a committee hearing on the issue two weeks ago, some in favor, some against.

Public Utilities Commission officials have claimed that the California Independent System Operator (Cal-ISO), the regulatory agency that oversees the reliability of the state’s electrical grid, has already reviewed other options and maintains the combustion turbines are the only way to
preserve the reliability of the electrical grid during hours of peak demand.

The peaker plants are estimated to be about 30 percent cleaner than the Mirant plant, and supporters claim they work more efficiently and won’t have to be turned on as often.

Today, Board of Supervisors President Aaron Peskin, who has also thrown his support behind the combustion turbine plan, was interrupted by Elsbernd when he attempted to describe the 90-day evaluation as a “PG&E and/or Mirant” proposal.

“This has been an issue that unfortunately has been flooded with politics on both sides,” Elsbernd lamented.

Elsbernd denied that he had been asked by PG&E to submit the amendments.

The Board eventually approved the amendments and agreed by a 10-1 vote to continue the combustion turbine vote two weeks, with only Daly dissenting.

Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi said he agreed that “there has been an absence of due diligence” and warned the city could be held responsible for a “legacy of environmental degradation in that area.”

“It feels like there’s stalling going on,” Daly countered. “I am very fearful of a plan moving forward that would elongate the tenure of the Mirant plant,” he said.

PG&E spokesman Joe Molica said today his agency has already submitted an alternate plan to city officials, including members of the mayor’s office, and to Cal-ISO. He said the plan would include a combination of improved energy efficiency programs aimed at residents and small businesses; customer incentives to reduce usage during peak energy demand; and upgrades of PG&E’s transmission lines and generators.

“We’ve done a thorough and exhaustive study that shows that this program can meet San Francisco’s future energy needs,” Molica said.

Newsom spokesman Nathan Ballard said this afternoon that his office would “have an open mind” about possible alternatives, including either PG&E’s plan or plans to retrofit the Mirant plant.

“We’re pleased that we have a few more weeks now to really drill down and look at all of the new proposals that are on the table, to make sure that we’re doing the right thing,” Ballard said.

Ballard added that it was “too early to comment” on whether Newsom might veto the combustion turbine plan if it is eventually approved by the Board of Supervisors.

The Board is scheduled to vote on the amended plan at its next meeting on June 3.

FCJ Editor

More Posts