This is the valley near Mission Trails Park and SR-52 where SDG&E wants to build their Quail Brush gas power plant.
During a period of time when the nuclear power station at San Onofre has been disabled for a year now, there are renewed calls, according to the U-T, to allow SDG&E to proceed with their plans to build two fossil-fuel power plants. Yet, when the California Public Utilities Commission sat down to vote on the utility’s proposals yesterday, Feb. 13th, they refused to take a vote and instead delayed their decision – again – and this time for the fourth time
The San Diego Chapter of the Sierra Club – who has opposed these plants – is pissed off, and they’re demanding answers – and rightfully so. The Chapter head, Lori Saldana, called it “unacceptable.”
Here is what the organization stated today:
Yesterday, the California Public Utilities Commission delayed a vote on San Diego Gas and Electric’s plan to build two new natural gas “peaker” plants and retrofit a third.
This was the fourth delay issued without explanation by the commission since November, when the assigned commissioner and administrative law judge issued separate proposed decisions that concluded new gas plant construction was not justified.
The CPUC was to consider two draft decisions up for some kind of decision on Wednesday, the Pio Pico plant, a 300-megawatt plant, adjacent to an existing power plant in unincorporated Otay Mesa, and the Quail Brush power plant, which is very close to Mission Trails Regional Park and opposite state Route 52. The Commission has authority to decide on whether these generators are safe and worthy projects to invest in on behalf of utility customers in San Diego and southern Orange counties.
The U-T estimates that the two gas plants, and a smaller retrofit in Escondido, would cost utility customers an estimated $2 billion over 25 years. The Sierra Club says the two plants will cost ratepayers more than $1.5 billion, and generate vast quantities of greenhouse gases.
According to the U-T:
Plant developers — along with the projects’ allies in the utilities industry and government — have seized on the prolonged shutdown of two reactors at San Onofre as new evidence of a pressing need for the plants.
San Diego Gas & Electric executives traveled up to San Francisco to lobby utility commissioners to reconsider, and are warning them “of a looming threat.” SDG&E President Michael Niggli reportedly told the regulators, in arguing for the new plants:
“It is uncertain what will happen with the (San Onofre) units, and it would be valuable to have an insurance policy on hand because of this uncertainty.”
Plus, the owner of the Pio Pico told the regulators that private equity funds already have dedicated tens of millions of dollars to developing these two projects. They are now warning that capital markets and merchant power developers could punish California, leading to “capital flight and inevitably questions about the integrity of (grid) reliability in the region, and ultimately leads to significantly higher rates for consumers.”
The U-T also quotes Robert Weisenmiller, chairman of the Sacramento-based California Energy Commission, which licenses power plants, as among those urging the utilities commission to clear the bureaucratic roadblocks and “make the factual findings necessary for Pio Pico’s approval.” Weisenmiller is reportedly to have stated that the decision not to approve the plants “is simply untenable.”
Meanwhile, quite a constellation of politicos, environmental and consumer groups have lined up in opposition to the plants, joining the Sierra Club. They include San Diego Mayor Bob Filner, County Supervisor Diane Jacob, and San Diego Association of Governments Chair Jack Dale, the League of Women Voters of San Diego and statewide consumer advocate The Utility Reform Network (TURN).
The Sierra Club also has mobilized its base, and more than 8,000 Sierra Club members and supporters from across California sent messages to the commissioners saying that natural gas plants are 20th century technology that should not be allowed to divert California from our successful clean energy path.
Lori Saldaña, Chair of the Sierra Club’s San Diego Chapter, also stated:
“The commission’s ongoing refusal to hold a vote on these proposed dirty fossil fuel plants is unacceptable. This scheme would build natural gas plants that we don’t need, cost ratepayers more than $1.5 billion, and generate vast quantities of greenhouse gases. It would also be a giant step backward for San Diego at a time when our local clean energy industry is thriving.
For instance, San Diego County leads the nation with 15,000 rooftop solar installations on homes and businesses. … On behalf of the thousands of San Diegans concerned about the negative environmental and economic effects this plan would generate, we demand that the commission stop these needless delays and proceed with a vote to reject these dirty, expensive, and unnecessary fossil fuel plants.”
Nicole Capretz of the Environmental Health Coalition was also quoted by the U-T; she believes state regulators and the public are being misinformed. Capretz stated:
“To the general member of the public it does seem like, ‘Oh no, San Onofre’s out, we need to build more power plants locally. It is just that the facts don’t support that.”
Latest posts by Frank Gormlie (see all)
- Mayor’s Office Confirms Sale of Liberty Station Leases by McMillin – But Questions Remain - December 5, 2018
- Why Would Anyone Want to Flee Beautiful Honduras? - November 29, 2018
- A Progressive Looks at the San Diego Mid-Terms – OB Rag Interview With Doug Porter - November 21, 2018
Thank you for the thorough article. It’s good to see a publication take the time to report with depth. SDG&E is fearmongering about San Onofre. Only twenty percent of SONGS’ power comes to San Diego. We did fine without it last summer and new generation is coming online in the LA basin that could be directed here if necessary. SDG&E doesn’t mention that. Moreover, the power plants in question are part-time “peaker” plants to deal with our hottest days. SDG&E doesn’t mention that our peak demand has been nearly static for the last six years and we did just fine. The big blackout was due to human error not lack of generation. Peak demand is not going up here or nationally primarily because of ever increasing energy efficiency. The CPUC factored these things when making the right proposed decision to reject the power plants, but SDG&E is throwing their weight around and spreading misinformation to twist things in their favor.
If the County adopted a program of feed-in-tariffs to encourage more solar power generation on the rooftops of San Diego, we wouldn’t need additional conventional power plants. As it is, no credit is given the homeowner for the solar power he generates that exceeds his own personal power requirements. Any additional power above and beyond what he needs for himself goes onto the grid and becomes the property of SDG&E to be sold to somebody else.
Why doesn’t local government adopt a program that pays homeowners for power they generate beyond their own personal needs? Answer: SDG&E lobbyists.
You are right, John. Sierra Club is involved in an effort to get Community Choice Aggregation off the ground in our region. (See http://www.sandiegoenergydistrict.org) This would allow us to procure power the way we want to and could be used as a means to introduce a feed-in-tariff to grow local solar. Sierra Club is also trying to loosen up our state legislators to the idea. Too few have been receptive so far but we will keep pressing it.
That SDG&E finds it necessary to invoke the same myth Rick Perry and the TeaRepublicans have invoked against this Democratic state — that is, we’re losing our population and businesses because we’re sinful tree huggers — tells me that SDG&E itself is dying. They’re gonna have to spend loads of money trying to elect TeaRepublicans to office so that they’ll fund fossil fuel energy. The fossils are pushing fossil fuel.