Energy expert Albert Einstein once said, “We can't solve a problem on the level that it was created.” Right now decision-makers and the public face a unique moment to solve multiple problems created by the South Bay Power Plant in Chula Vista.
For the past 46 years, the plant has been a hulking industrial eyesore on the Chula Vista bayfront. It has devastated the sensitive San Diego Bay marine environment, polluted downwind communities, and created significant blight that has frustrated quality development. Its useful time has come to an end.
The good news is that over the next few months the public may have an opportunity to set a clear course that would remove the plant.
Although there are disagreements on a lot of things in the South Bay, all agree that we want to get rid of the current plant. The more difficult question is: What is the cleanest, most secure and sustainable way we can replace the energy produced by the power plant?
As a community, we will make this decision only once. Together, we must find a solution that makes sense for the next 50 years.
LSPower recently purchased the plant and is now preparing to apply to the California Energy Commission for a replacement plant by June 30. It also is negotiating a lease-option for a site with the port. So far, only one option has been discussed – another, large fossil fuel-burning plant on the bayfront to replace the old one.
When short deadlines drive a decision-making process, public participation invariably shrinks. The problems created by a fossil fuel plant cannot be adequately resolved by staying the current course. The Environmental Health Coalition thinks we can do better than that.
The size, efficiency, cooling system and location of a fossil-fueled plant all significantly increase, or reduce, its impacts on our region. The current proposal uses air or dry cooling to cool the turbine instead of water. This is superior technology and we strongly support its use in any option.
However, locating a single energy replacement plant directly upwind of densely populated western Chula Vista, where childhood hospitalizations are already 20 percent higher than the county average, would result in impacts to air quality and community health that could be avoided. Inclusion of duct-firing reduces efficiency and increases emissions.
The size of the replacement generation plant matters, too. In an EHC-commissioned report by Environ, Inc., a screening-level computer model demonstrated that a hypothetical large plant would produce an incremental increase in the level of particulate pollution that would be three to four times greater than the increase from a smaller plant. The geographic area impacted by the higher concentration of pollutants would be many times larger.
We are calling on the port and the new owners, LSPower, to defer the deadline for the application for the new power plant and engage the public in a discussion that would result in the cleanest solution possible.
Meaningful public involvement. Decisions on replacement of the South Bay Power Plant should involve the most impacted community – downwind residents. Many members of the Environmental Health Coalition live and are raising their families directly downwind of the power plant. All families must be included in the decisions regarding how to replace it. A comprehensive public participation process should be started now, before the application is submitted to the California Energy Commission, to avoid subjecting the public to the expensive, quasi-judicial licensing process.
Focus on renewable energy. The current plant should be replaced with a comprehensive energy strategy that will expand the region's renewable energy supply. This is consistent with the state's “preferred loading order” of energy sources. The process for determining this strategy should be launched by the port, city of Chula Vista and the public immediately.
Bay protection. Any replacement plant must use the air, or “dry cooling,” instead of water.
Community Choice Aggregation. The city of Chula Vista should implement Community Choice Aggregation and other similar programs in a manner that would improve the city's ability to expand existing renewable energy programs and create new, high quality, green-collar jobs.
Green building standards. The Port District, city of Chula Vista and SANDAG should adopt building standards that require all new buildings, developments and retrofits be designed to be 30 percent to 50 percent energy independent.
Minimize air pollution. If gas-fired generation is required, then alternatives need to be considered that may include a smaller combined cycle plant on the bayfront or consideration of other locations such as Otay Mesa, Otay Landfill or Miramar for some portion of the generation needs.
We have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to look at energy differently for our region. We can't all be Einstein, but this is our chance to go to a new level related to our energy future.
We should take the time to get it right. We owe it to our future.
López is a west Chula Vista resident and member of the Environmental Health Coalition's Chula Vista Community Action Team. Hunter is director of Clean Bay Campaign for the Environmental Health Coalition.
