Thursday, November 29, 2001 (SF Chronicle)
Power plant unnecessary, study says
Scott Winokur, Chronicle Staff Writer
A group opposed to the Mirant Corp.'s plan to build a
fossil-fueled power
plant on Potrero Hill asserts in a new report that San
Francisco has
practical "clean energy" alternatives that merit a
closer look before the
Atlanta company gets officials' final approval for the
project.
Alan Ramo, director of Golden Gate University's
Environmental Justice Law
Clinic and attorney for the Oakland group, Communities for a
Better
Environment, said he expected the 33-page study -- scheduled
to be
released today at a City Hall news conference -- to affect
deliberations
by the staff of the California Energy Commission.
Greg Karras, CBE's chief scientist and author of the report,
said the
group also was calling on the energy commission to put the
Mirant project
on hold until a municipal energy plan can be completed.
One is now being prepared by the city Department of the
Environment and
city Public Utilities Commission. A draft of the plan is
expected in
March; public hearings on the plan will be held today and
Saturday.
CBE, which claims the Mirant project will increase pollution
and impact
health in minority neighborhoods in the southeastern section
of San
Francisco, has legal standing as an intervenor in the
regulatory review
process.
"This is a blueprint for a reliable system with the
least environmental
impact," Ramo said of the new report. "That's
particularly important if
there's any sort of public power (in San Francisco). It
gives a plan for
city policy in the future."
CEC spokeswoman Mary Ann Costamagna said it was likely the
report -- which
hasn't been seen yet in Sacramento -- would be entered into
the public
record and eventually considered by staff analysts.
Mirant spokesman Patrick Dorinson said company officials had
not seen the
report and he could not immediately comment.
Scheduled to go to the CEC for final approval next spring
and begin
operations in 2004, Mirant's Potrero proposal has been
presented by the
company as an efficient and environmentally sensitive
solution to San
Francisco's long-standing problem of over-reliance on
outside energy
sources.
But the project has been fiercely criticized by a broad array
of
detractors, including San Francisco City Attorney Louise
Renne and the
office of Supervisor Sophie Maxwell, who represents much of
the
predominately African American community that would be
affected -- an area
already hard hit by health problems, such as asthma,
worsened by
pollution.
The Bay Conservation and Development Commission also has
expressed serious
reservations about the project, which would use 228 million
gallons of
water from the bay daily to cool superheated turbines.
The report makes seven "findings," three of which
reiterate previous
criticisms of the project, including claims that it would
raise levels of
air and water pollution and provide San Francisco with more
in-city
generation capacity than it needs.
The other findings spell out "clean power"
alternatives, including power-
saving and power-generating strategies that would reduce the
city's
fossil- fuel generation needs to 354 megawatts, enough for
354,000 users.
The remaining power necessary would be generated by a
combination of
solar, cogeneration, fuel-cell, wind and hydro sources,
according to CBE's
report, titled "Power and Justice."
Mirant's Potrero Hill natural-gas and distillate-oil fired
operations
generate 363 megawatts; the proposed new facility would add
540 megawatts,
for a total of 903 fossil-fuel generated megawatts.
Power-saving strategies identified by CBE include
replacement of existing
lighting and refrigeration with new energy-efficient
appliances, and
improving coordination of energy consumption among residents
and
businesses.
Public hearings on a long-term citywide energy plan are
scheduled tonight
from 6:30-9:30 at Galileo High School, 1150 Francisco at Van
Ness, and
Saturday from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m. at Mission High School, 3750
18th St., and
4-7 p.m. at the Bayview Opera House