Commission against expansion of Chula Vista power plant
By Tanya Sierra
San Diego Union-Tribune Staff Writer
January 23, 2009
A proposal to expand a power plant in a southwest Chula Vista neighborhood should be denied, according to a preliminary California Energy Commission recommendation released Friday.
The energy commission committee reviewing the expansion said the power plant conflicts with the city's general plan and zoning rules.
MMC Energy Inc., provides emergency power for the regional electricity system and is proposing the expansion at the site, which is behind a carwash and junkyard near Albany Avenue and Main Street. It's about 1,300 feet from an elementary school and 350 feet from homes.
“The record does not contain sufficient evidence to show that placing the project at the proposed location cannot be avoided,” the committee said in a written statement.
Harry Scarborough, a vice president with MMC Energy Inc., did not return a call seeking comment.
Although the decision isn't final until the full commission votes in March, residents opposed to the expansion consider it a victory.
“We're all very excited,” said Hugo Ivan Salazar of Communities Taking Action.
Residents and community activists have opposed expanding the current 44 megawatt facility to 100 megawatts because they believe it would be a health risk for those who live near it.
In August 2007, MMC applied for state permission to demolish its 8-year-old plant, which it wants to replace with a larger one on the same site. The plant, known as a “peaker plant,” provides power when the electricity grid is overloaded during peak use periods.
The peaker plant expansion has been a volatile issue. At nearly every City Council meeting, residents criticized Mayor Cheryl Cox for not opposing it.
[See pictures from one such protest.]
Council members Rudy Ramirez and Pamela Bensoussan oppose the expansion. Councilmen Steve Castaneda and John McCann have not taken a position.
Friday Cox said it is time to move on and that the city would work with MMC on finding a new location for the plant...
The plan to tear down the South Bay Power Plant on the Chula Vista bayfront could be delayed if other energy sources – including the peaker plant – don't come online. City officials have long wanted the plant gone from that site, where the San Diego Chargers are now considering building a new stadium.
Chula Vista had been counting on the MMC peaker plant expansion, approval of the Sunrise Powerlink and the Calpine baseload plant.
Before the California Energy Commission votes in March, there is a 30-day public comment period and a public meeting at Chula Vista City Hall scheduled for 4 p.m. Feb. 23.
Showing posts with label Peaker Power Plant. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Peaker Power Plant. Show all posts
Friday, January 23, 2009
Friday, October 03, 2008
Photos from Chula Vista Peaker Plant Protest October 2, 2008
The young man in the middle drew the colorful posters his family is holding.
The Russell Coronado family
Meanwhile, inside the council chambers, the hearing was taking place. The crowd outside could be heard now and then.
Protest planner Hugo Ivan Salazar at the hearing.
After dark, a crowd waited outside while the CEC (California Energy Commission)hearing went on.
Diana Vera spoke to the crowd.
Why 91911 residents are protesting the Peaker Power Plant
The folloring excerpts were found HERE.
"...The plant was placed practically in the Otay River, which is becoming a county regional park. It is an ugly grey building visible from Montgomery High School across the river and the bridge between Chula Vista and San Diego on Beyer Way. Montgomery High School is a year round school and we observed the heat waves from this peaker every day during the warm summer months. It was used frequently until the owners went bankrupt. The plant is so inefficient that it costs more to operate than SDGE is willing to pay.
"In 2001 the owners applied to add an additional plant of 62.4 mw to the site. This was fought by the city of Chula Vista. The city sited among other concerns Cumulative Impacts. These arguments are valid for the current proposal.
"Those of us living in this section of the Southwest must deal with a large amount of diesel fumes and the particulate matter generated by Hanson's cement making operation in the river bottom. Any additional air pollution is significant in this specific location due to the cumulative effects.
"The zip code 91911 is number 3 in the county in quantity of criteria pollutants and number 7 in toxic pollutants. Our neighborhood does not deserve any more.
"It is rather odd that the city is not making the arguments they made against RAMCO again to fight this new proposal. The council authorized the sending of the RAMCO letter on June 5, 2001. Two of the current council members were on the council then. It is difficult to understand how they could now support a 100mw plant in the same spot..."
"...The plant was placed practically in the Otay River, which is becoming a county regional park. It is an ugly grey building visible from Montgomery High School across the river and the bridge between Chula Vista and San Diego on Beyer Way. Montgomery High School is a year round school and we observed the heat waves from this peaker every day during the warm summer months. It was used frequently until the owners went bankrupt. The plant is so inefficient that it costs more to operate than SDGE is willing to pay.
"In 2001 the owners applied to add an additional plant of 62.4 mw to the site. This was fought by the city of Chula Vista. The city sited among other concerns Cumulative Impacts. These arguments are valid for the current proposal.
"Those of us living in this section of the Southwest must deal with a large amount of diesel fumes and the particulate matter generated by Hanson's cement making operation in the river bottom. Any additional air pollution is significant in this specific location due to the cumulative effects.
"The zip code 91911 is number 3 in the county in quantity of criteria pollutants and number 7 in toxic pollutants. Our neighborhood does not deserve any more.
"It is rather odd that the city is not making the arguments they made against RAMCO again to fight this new proposal. The council authorized the sending of the RAMCO letter on June 5, 2001. Two of the current council members were on the council then. It is difficult to understand how they could now support a 100mw plant in the same spot..."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)