Chula Vista
Peaker Power Plant Expansion
How Important Are
Environmental and Social Justice in Chula Vista?
All documents
submitted regarding this case can be found on the California Energy commission
website: http://www.energy.ca.gov/sitingcases/chulavista/index.html.
On August 10,2007 MMC Energy filed an application
with the California Energy Commission (CEC) to 
tear down the
existing 44.5mw peaker plant located at the end of Albany Ave. in southwestern
Chula Vista.
Albany Avenue
The existing
plant was approved in 2000 by the Chula Vista city council. Teena Dr., Alvoca,
and Del Monte are residential Streets with the closest
house a mere 350 feet away from the peaker. At the time of approval there were no warehouses just
junkyards. Otay Elementary is less than 1300 feet away. Even closer on the
campus of Otay Elementary are Albany Headstart and a pre-K. There is a
Recreation Center on Main Street about the same distance away as the schools.
Click on the picture to see a
video of plant in operation. Click to hear a few resident comments at a California
Energy Commission staff Hearing about the proposed enlargement. The residents
believe and MMC staff confirmed that they want to build here because it would
be cheaper to build here than somewhere else. MMC's bottom line is more
important than the health of the residents.
According to the neighbors the project
was never explained to them adequately. Only people within 900 feet were
officially notified. Most people knew about it after it was built. 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 new owners want to tear down the
existing building and move it further north on the site, which would be further
from the river but closer to the residents. he neighbors want to see the existing plant torn down, BUT
the owners want to replace it with a new plant of 100mw, which would be one-third more efficient and therefore able to provide a profit
if it runs many more hours than the old plant. The new plant would be cleaner per megawatt. The problem is
the total pollution per year would be greater because it would run more hours,
and the total pollution per hour for four pollutants would be greater. The CEC
thinks mitigating this extra pollution by giving the city money to convert some
of its cars or install solar is adequate. The residents realize this may make a
slight difference regionally but not protect their health at all. The neighbors
want the CEC to do a study of existing health conditions in the closest
impacted neighborhood. The staff wants to rely upon county Health data, which
is inadequate in the resident's opinion. (Click here to hear the CEC staff explaination
of Air Quality and the residents' concerns.)
This would be a horrible precedent. The old plant already is a horrible
precedent. As this table with information about 14 peakers approved since 2001
shows. This plant is an anomaly, approved by a council that let the energy
blackouts scare it into ignoring the well-being of its citizens. The council
realized its mistake when a year or so later the owners of the old plant
applied to build another peaker of 66mw on the same site. The council fought it until the owners withdrew their
application. Councilman Jerry
Rindone wrote an inspiring editorial for the Union Tribune explaining why
the council opposed RAMCO. In this letter he states "Most agree that peaker
plants adversely affect the air quality in the location where they are built."
We certainly agree with this statement.
This time around the city has applied as
an intervener
but stated that they have not officially made up their mind, because they need
more facts?
|
Name/location |
MW |
Acres |
Closest school |
Closest residence |
Around the plant
|
|
90MW |
3
ac. |
More
than a mile |
2
1/2-3miles |
Adjacent
to 42 acre manufacturing |
|
|
49.5MW |
5.6
ac |
More
than a mile |
3
homes 3,000 ft. |
Industrial/open
space 8,760
hr/yr. |
|
|
49.5MW |
2.95
ac |
More
than a mile |
Over
2640 ft. |
Surrounded
by industrial park |
|
|
100mw |
8.5ac |
More
than a mile |
More
than a mile |
In
a 220 acre agricultural site owned by SDGE |
|
|
500mw |
20
ac. |
4752
ft., 4224 ft. 3168 ft |
1,000
ft. east |
Agricultural/industrial
area |
|
|
500Mw |
11.8ac |
1373
ft. (13
within 1 mile) |
1109
ft. |
Industrial,
(City of Industry) |
|
|
Two
96mw |
12ac |
More
than a mile |
More
than a mile |
Santa
Ana River, Waste water Treatment Plant |
|
|
96mw |
20acres |
1320
ft. |
More
than a mile |
3/4mi
Naval Air Station, agriculture |
|
|
135
mw |
7acres |
More
than a mile |
1400
ft. n. |
Adjacent
another plant, agriculture, industrial Food Warehouse 3,900 hr/yr |
|
|
96mw |
22
ac |
More
than a mile |
1600ft.
(3) |
Trailer
park 2,600 ft. w. |
|
|
135
mw |
10
ac. |
More
than a mile |
a
mile |
Undeveloped
desert habitat |
|
|
95mw |
10
ac. |
More
than a mile |
3,200' |
Industrial
Park, Agricultural |
|
|
850
mw |
37
ac. |
More
than a mile |
1
mile ne |
Business
park se |
|
|
300mw |
9.8
ac. |
More
than a mile |
More
than a mile |
Industrial
zone, decommissioned plant, agriculture, railroad, school proposed? |
|
|
100mw |
3.8 ac. |
1200 ft. |
350 ft. |
CVESD pre-K 1,200', Albany Headstart 1,228', Otay Elem. 1,338', Otay
Rec. 1,164' Montgomery Headstart 2,640', Montgomery Elementary 3,022', Otay
Community Health Clinic 2,386', closest home on Date 2,853', Montgomery High
School 2,008', closest San Diego house 1,638', Finney elem. 3,361', Loma
Verde Elem. 4,067', Otay Apostolic Church and elem. school 2,074', just
inside of a mile: MAAC Charter School, MAAC Headstart, Castle Park Middle,
Castle Park High, Montgomery Middle, Silverwing Elementary,South Chula Vista Public Library |
As you can see the closest residential to
any other peaker is 1,000 feet and the closest school is over 1300 feet. It is
outrageous that this peaker was ever approved with 15 schools within a mile and
residents within 350 feet. While the city officially has not made up its mind Councilman Rindone wrote this letter to the South
County Economic Development Council who to their credit did not want to
make a decision without knowing how the city and residents felt. Even more
inappropriate Concilman McCann
had his aide read a letter 
with almost the exact wording and his
wholehearted approval to the CEC Commissioners present at a Public
Informational Hearing at Otay Recreation Center on November 29, 2007.
CEC staff has identified Air Quality,
conflict with the planned Otay Valley Regional Park, Land Use (the site is
zoned light industry), Soil and Water Resources, and Transmission and System
Engineering as the
major issues.
Theresa Acerro, president of the Southwest Chula Vista Civic Association
presented the names of 260 people (living and/or working nearby) who wanted the
new plant located further away from residents and schools. She also requested
that staff examine the Environmental
and Social Justice issues of locating a plant so much
closer to residents and schools than is the norm in California. ((Demographic data on this part
of Chula Vista .) She
also asked for a more thorough analysis of the dangers posed by storing 12,000 gallons
of aqueous ammonia on site with no evident safety precautions or
notification to near-by workers and residents. Hartland Meat Co. has 77
employees who are in and out of the parking lot adjoining the peaker. An
explosion or accidental spill would have the greatest negative effect upon
them.
A concern about the routing of trucks
full of ammonia through city streets to refill this tank was another issue. The
fact that the new plant would have two 70 foot tall exhaust stacks was another
concern, because even though the prediction is that only the very tips would be
visible from Albany Ave. there are residents considerably higher up on Hilltop
Drive overlooking this site where they would be very visible. There are also
residents 1,638 feet away in San Diego on top of a high bluff at the south side
of the Otay River who most likely will be able to clearly see these stacks and
the entire facility. This will give our
neighborhoods the feeling of a factory town. Ms. Acerro's
presentation can be read here or seen on video here: part one ;
part two .
The Environmental Health Coalition (EHC) is
an intervener opposing this project in this location. They agree with the
near-by residents that it must be sited much further away from residents and
schools. There are a number of other locations in San Diego that would be
further from homes and schools. Even though MMC tried to convince everyone
there was a specific need for energy in this specific location their engineer
Mr. Bleu had to admit that anywhere in San Diego area
would suffice . It is predicted that the demand in San Diego County will grow by 100mw per
year. This ignores that the Calpine base load plant in Otay Mesa should soon be
on line and San Diego has excellent climate for using more solar and
conservation to cut down the need for more than a few peakers that can be
located in more appropriate locations than this location. Leo
Miras represented EHC at the Public Hearing on November 29, 2007. He made many important
points. Part one ;
part two .