The AES plume from Beryl Elementary, Parras Middle, and Redondo High schools.

In addition to these elected officials and candidates, the State Coastal Conservancy has supported our efforts.  The Conservancy has contracted separately with two independent power consultants to analyze whether power from AES Redondo is needed for our grid reliability.  Each came to the same conclusion we have:  AES Redondo is not required.  The Conservancy also funded a study of parkland in the South Bay that concluded that the South Bay is critically park poor and that the AES site was the number one opportunity to add any significant parkland in our area.  They have also funded a number of the concepts of what can be done with the site as a park.  The State Coastal Conservancy stands ready to help us fund the acquisition of park portion of the AES site once we rezone the property.

Resident opposition to the new power plant is snowballing and the momentum has raised the issue to our elected representatives who have taken a stance on our behalf.  We can only hope that our City Council will step up and take an active role in opposing the power plant.  But with or without our City representatives, we are dedicated to winning this fight and cleaning up our waterfront!

Our City Councilmen and pro-power plant advocates have tried to paint purchase of the park portion of the AES property as some unacheivable number – from $400 million to over $1 billion.  Numbers obviously picked out of their nether-regions.

Here’s a great letter, published in the Beach Reporter, from a former Budget and Finance Commissioner that sets the record straight:

Mythic value

This letter addresses unsupported claims by “city leaders” that the residual value of the AES power plant could be worth as much as $500 million. This is just uninformed and misleading speculation. AES themselves have performed appraisals that are part of public record. The long version of the facts can be found in the city staff report at http://laserweb.redondo.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=59711&dbid=0.

A shortened summary version follows:

This plant was purchased by AES from Southern California Edison (SCE) in 1998 for about $250 million. Most of the price paid was allocated to the value of the power generation improvements, which had just enough remaining useful life to support a 20-year power purchase contract to 2018.

The two most modern generators were built in 1967 and will be 51 years old by 2018. The other units are even older and more obsolete.

All that will be left by 2018 is land value. AES appraised the land under the power plant portion for $25,670,000 as of Jan. 1, 2003, assuming a clean site. AES later bought the adjacent 22-acre tank farm land from SCE for about $10.5 million, which included about $6 million as a set aside for environmental clean-up.

This data points to a cleaned-up site value for all 50 acres of about $36 million. Even this value could be high as the AES site is impaired for several reasons including: 1. Industrial uses are incompatible with the surrounding high-density residential uses in the area; 2. Power generation uses are even more incompatible; and 3. Other re-use options are limited by well-documented traffic flow capacity constraints in this area.

Only site value will soon remain as AES will have fully recovered the power generation improvement value from 20 years of power contract profits. An extensive analysis of this can be found in the above link. There is zero evidence supporting the myth of a $500 million dollar value for half-century old, fully depreciated and obsolete, power generation equipment.

Gary Ohst

Redondo Beach

Wednesday, January 26, 2011

It Takes a Village… to Close a Power Plant

Joshua Arce

The December 21, 2010 announcement that San Francisco’s polluting Potrero Power Plant would shut down by the end of the year was as much a cause for celebration as it was a reason to recount the twists and turns that it took to finally shutter the city’s last fossil fuel-burning commercial power plant. For many years, the preferred method of closing Potrero was to build three new power plants to replace it smack dab between the Bayview-Hunters Point and Potrero Hill communities where San Francisco’s dirty power plants have been located for over a century. The environmental, social justice, and sustainability advocacy required to flip the switch on Potrero is certainly a lesson in the heavy lifting that any city must undertake in seeking to end its reliance on fossil fuel power plants.

The Potrero Power Plant itself was built in 1965, but its location has been a site of electricity generation since 1890. Consisting of a massive gas boiler and diesel peaking units that operated when the boiler came down for maintenance, Potrero has been blamed for environmental health disparities in Southeast San Francisco and negative impacts on the bay due to the discharge of heated water used to cool the facility. City Attorney Dennis Herrera is a neighbor of the power plant and made its closure a priority since he was first elected in 2001, while former district Supervisor Sophie Maxwell fought perhaps even longer before watching the plant shut down in the waning days of her last term in office.

Yet it is the unique coalition of organizations, activists, and elected officials that moved the City to abandon its plan to spend $270 million on new gas power plants to replace Potrero that is perhaps the most fascinating part of the recently-concluded power plant saga. Groups such as the Potrero Boosters and SF Community Power had fought for the better part of a decade to close the Potrero Plant but were told time and again that new combustion turbine power plants were required if Potrero was ever to shut down. At a July 2007 hearing of the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, longtime Bayview-Hunters Point activist Espanola Jackson was the lone community voice of dissent against a vote to greenlight the construction of the first power plants to be built in the City in decades.

Within a short period of months, Ms. Jackson’s empassioned plea for an end to power plants in her disproportionately polluted corner of San Francisco would attract the support of environmentalists within the Sierra Club and Green Party, community organizations such as the A. Philip Randolph Institute and Greenaction, and the newly-founded civil rights non-profit Brightline Defense Project. In late 2007, Public Utilities Commissioner David Hochschild called the question of whether or not to build new power plants “the biggest energy decision facing San Francisco since construction of the Hetch Hetchy Dam.”

It was an early 2008 memorandum from San Francisco Planning and Urban Research, however, that blew the doors wide open on the power plant debate. The “SPUR memo” made the case based on hard facts that estimates of the amount of electricity required to keep the lights on in San Francisco had been wildly overstated and that Potrero could be shut down upon completion of an underwater cable from the East Bay without subjecting the lungs of Ms. Jackson and her southeast San Francisco neighbors to at least thirty more years of power plant pollution. Environmental justice and community advocates were now armed with factual analysis to galvanize support at the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, and that summer an unlikely dynamic duo of Michela Alioto-Pier and Ross Mirkarimi manhandled a trio of power plant hail marys that were lobbed at the Board by those who believed it impossible to close Potrero without continuing its power plant legacy.

By the fall, the anti-power plant coalition gained a powerful ally in Mayor Gavin Newsom, whose green credentials depended on his ability to successfully navigate toward a pollution-free solution to the Potrero Power Plant. In late 2008, Public Utilities Commissioner Dick Sklar, who has since passed away, made a successful motion to tear up the contract to build new power plants in order to make a continued case for closure of Potrero outright. Over the next year, Supervisor Alioto-Pier in particular was dogged in her insistence that San Francisco keep pressure on the California Independent System Operator, a state agency charged with maintaining as much electricity as possible to guard against remote instances of power failure. Growing solidarity among the San Francisco city family in 2009 was complemented by constant community delegations to Independent System Operator meetings in which advocates sometimes ended up in shouting matches with power plant regulators, and Public Utilities General Manager Ed Harrington helped shepherd the sale of the combustion turbines once slated to pollute San Franciscans in order to help the City close a massive budget deficit.

The year 2010 began with the anticipation that the pending completion of the 400 megawatt Trans Bay Cable would at last trigger the demise of the Potrero Power Plant. Expectations dipped, however, when most of 2010 was spent fixing a series of faulty computer chips at the Trans Bay Cable sub-station in San Francisco. The months leading up to December left many advocates who had fought to close Potrero with a feeling of both powerlessness, based on the fact that fate now rested in the hands of electrical engineers scrambling to replace malfunctioning motherboards, and a sense of reflection, based on the long road that preceded the path to a power plant-free city. That time of uneasiness allowed San Francisco’s power plant battle to be placed into context, however, with a determination that the closure of Potrero would not require the construction of new power plants elsewhere and a realization that the main challenge facing cities aiming to phase out fossil fuel generation is that dirty electricity is simply too safe and predictable in the technocratic eyes of regulators.

Few sustainability experts will dispute that we as a society must wean ourselves off of reliance on fossil fuel power, especially in cases such as that of San Francisco, where the hard work of so many was required to responsibly and dispositively demonstrate that the Potrero Power Plant was obsolete not only in terms of powering San Francisco but in guarding against unforeseen contingencies. The Potrero Power Plant is no longer, but California currently operates over 900 power plants that collectively produce much more electricity that the state needs even on the year’s hottest summer days. Maybe now is the time for San Francisco to use its lessons learned to help shut down some of those old dinosaurs.

Joshua Arce is the Executive Director of the Brightline Defense Project.

Standing room only crowd engages in discussion on draft zoning for power plant site.

Thanks to all who took time out of their Saturday to attend today’s discussion on the zoning for the AES site.  The meeting was standing room only and went longer than planned.

There was great dialog and great suggestions.  I hope everyone left with a better understanding of the zoning and why each element is included.  We will be making several changes based on the discussion.  The biggest change will be the addition of offices as a conditional use.  Office space may allow some residents to work locally without driving out of town and will provide lunch time customers for harbor restaurants and businesses.  This idea was brought up by Sean Guthrie…great idea Sean, thanks!  We have also required a wider setback along Harbor Drive for the potential widening of Harbor Drive to accommodate the new bikepath.  And we put in tighter language on the protection of view corridors and open spaces.

Here is the latest version of the zoning based on changes discussed at the meeting and more input from the King Harbor Boaters:

AES site Proposed Zoning r 6

Special thanks to Gary Ohst who answered many questions on the value of the AES property!  Also thanks to US Congress candidate, Zein Obagi, who showed up to show his support for our initiative and opposition to the power plant.  Zein’s a lawyer and his explanation of legal options at the two council meetings, though it seemed to fall on deaf ears with our Council, has been very helpful in the dialog with residents.

We can still take comments through the 12th of May.  Just email us at info@buildingabetterredondo.org.

AES site Proposed Zoning r 5

This latest rev includes updates made to accommodate inputs from Mark Hansen representing the King Harbor Boaters and Councilman Kilroy’s and Aspel’s concern about tieing the development cap on the AES site to the development cap on the harbor site.   There is now zero tie between the draft zoning development cap for the AES site and Measure G development caps for the rest of the harbor area.

The zoning has been greatly impacted by public input.  Here are examples:

• Allowance for reuse of portions of current plant building
• Incentives for hotel and institutional uses
• The inclusion and subsequent elimination of text prohibiting flat, grassy areas, BBQ’s, tents and picnic tables
• Increased allowance for conservation areas
• Increased height limit and development ceilings for hotels and institutional uses
• Noise restrictions
• Sunset clause allowing subsequent changes without another initiative vote
• Public vote for any reuse of the existing power plant building
• Allowance for an observation tower

The City Council, AES, City staff and the public are invited to provide feedback to the draft zoning through May 12th.  We are holding a public meeting to solicit inputs and explain the zoning :

Date:   Saturday May 5th

Time:  3:00 PM to 5:00PM

Location:  Crowne Plaza

AES Site Concept developed by the California Coastal Conservancy and Studio 606. Despite Councilman Austs misstatements, the new zoning does allow recreational uses like volleyball courts and ball fields. The new zoning does not mandate a "wilderness park".

Next Aust misstated that the initiative zoning requires a “wilderness park”. This is wrong. The inititative zoning never uses the term “wilderness park”. Nor do does the zoning state what type of park the park portion must be. The zoning allows for a conservation area, but it is not required. The zoning allows sports fields. The zoning allows park benches. All things Aust wrongly stated the initiative excuded. The initiative landscaping standards are the same the Coastal Commission approved for the whole harbor area. Our briefings and web site include Coastal Conservancy renderings of the area that show everything from a natural park, to a more active park with soccer fields and tennis courts. If we believe that Aust was not purposefully misstating the initiative, we can only assume he hasn’t read it, or doesn’t understand it. Neither of which is good. The zoning provides lots of leeway for future uses that can be determined by the city council at a later date.

Based on Aust’s concerns two weeks ago we did get rid of the prohibitions on flat, manicured grassy areas, BBQ’s, tents, and picnic tables. So we have been responsive to Council’s concerns.

What seems apparent is that Aust and his Council buddies don’t like the fact that residents are acting where they have refused. Now they are trying to cast resident defined zoning in a negative light… and it doesn’t seem to matter to them whether their complaints about the zoning are actually based on what is in the proposed zoning or not. Pure politics at its worst.

Well one week later, after a back room, secret meeting with AES in Virginia, Kilroy wrote a letter to the editor stating that his motion was only meant to bring AES to the table and now that he accomplished that there is no need to oppose the power plant. What?  So the whole motion in front of the public was nothing more than a ruse to bring AES to the table?  How disingenuous can you get?  Don’t you think Council could have just called up AES and said we are opposed to a new power plant on the site and we’d like to meet with you?  So his whole motion was just for show….

This is not the first Matt has flip-flopped. A few weeks ago, Kilroy told residents he believed a resident initiative rezoning the AES site would be the most expedient way to pass zoning preventing a power plant.  He stated that he and the city should work with residents to craft that zoning.  Now, in his latest Letter to the Editor, he called the resident initiative misguided and stated that it may force the Council to ask the CEC to approve a power plant.  Huh?  Is he serious?  This is so absurd, I could not make it up.

His flip flop record continues…. In the harbor up-zoning, he admitted that the environmental impact report the city used was flawed.  His term was it looked like the city “cooked the books”.  He even demonstrated an example where the EIR calculations were flawed.  Then two weeks later he voted to approve the impact report without any comment or corrections.  Apparently, though he professes to really dig into the numbers, Mr. Kilroy has no qualms approving a document that misrepresents the environmental impacts.  That’s integrity.

Eight months ago Kilroy told a group of about 40 residents he would float a motion to direct staff to start the rezoning process for the AES site.  He never followed through.

Over a year ago, Kilroy committed to residents that he would address exploring options for the power plant at a City Strategic Planning session.  Kilroy was silent at the meeting.

The list goes on and on.  The only thing you can count on with Kilroy, is that after he says something, he is likely to go the other way at a moment’s notice. Bait and switch…. Is this the kind of leadership we want in our City?

http://aesredondomustgo.blog.com/files/2011/05/AES-site-Proposed-Zoning-r-41.pdf

We have incorporated the feedback from our last meeting, which included changing the process to reuse any portion of the power plant to go to a public vote rather than the process defined in the draft.  We  also removed the references to preventing flat, manicured grassy areas, due to concerns expressed by our Council at their last meeting.

I also want to highlight, that the initiative will include a sunset clause that allows the City to change the zoning through normal city processes after the voters pass the zoning change.  Normally, any zoning passed by initiative can only be changed by initiative… we did not intend to tie City Council’s hands.  The only thing the sunset clause will not allow is a new power plant.  The sunset clause is not part of the zoning, but I have included it in this draft of the zoning.

The zoning has been greatly impacted by public input.  Here are examples:

• Allowance for reuse of portions of current plant building
• Incentives for hotel and institutional uses
• The inclusion and subsequent elimination of text prohibiting flat, grassy areas, BBQ’s, tents and picnic tables
• Increased allowance for conservation areas
• Increased height limit and development ceilings for hotels and institutional uses
• Noise restrictions
• Sunset clause allowing subsequent changes without another initiative vote
• Public vote for any reuse of the existing power plant building
• Allowance for an observation tower
• Density cap related to traffic generation

Your input counts!  Our next public session is on Saturday, May 5th at Crowne Plaza.  Comments are welcome through May 12. We have been collecting public inputs since November 2011. We have invited City and AES officials to participate, but they have chosen not to work with us.

Recent power plant plume over Redondo and Hermosa. Many think this is just steam, but the plume includes Ammonia, Sulfer Dioxide, Nitrogen Oxides, Carbon Monoxide, Volatile Organic Compounds, and particularly nasty Particulate Matter. At recent 5% run rates, the plant produces tons of these pollutants each year. The new plant will run more and increase the amount of pollution we are exposed to.