Opinion

[Print]  [Email]        

Date of Mirant plant closure unchanged

By: Mike Aldax
Examiner Staff Writer
10/29/09 5:45 PM PDT

Despite their persistent pleas to shut down the Mirant power plant in Potrero Hill in its entirety in 2010, residents and city officials who have been battling to close the heavily-polluting facility will have to remain patient, state regulators said this afternoon.

In August, Mirant had agreed to shut down the plant once the California Independent Systems Operator, or Cal-ISO, ruled that its energy supply was no longer needed, as part of a settlement announced by City Attorney Dennis Herrera. Two lawsuits filed by The City against Mirant would also be dropped as part of the agreement.

That settlement sparked hope that the plant would be fully shut down sometime early next year. However, Cal-ISO ruled last month that only a partial closure would be possible.

The main generator can be switched off when a new Transbay Cable connecting substations in Pittsburg and Potrero is completed, which is tentatively scheduled for February. But three diesel backup generators will need to remain operational throughout next year, the ruling said.

Local generation is needed in case of an earthquake, Cal-ISO said.

At a meeting today to finalize its plans for next year, the state agency reiterated its ruling despite another round of pleas from community members, clean-energy activists and city officials that the plant will not be needed following completion of the Transbay Cable.

Cal-ISO said it would not know for certain until the end of this year whether the plant would need to continue operating throughout 2010.

Yakout Mansour, the agency’s CEO, has made a commitment to Mayor Gavin Newsom and city officials that agency officials will do all they can to pull the plug on the plant sooner than later. http://www.sfexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/under-the-dome/Newsom-makes-case-for-swifter-Mirant-shutdown-59293247.html 

Advocates for the closure said they will continue to press Cal-ISO regarding the issue until the agency either allows for a swifter full plant closure or presents solid proof that the plant needs to stay open.
 





To view this site, you need to have Flash Player 8.0 or later installed. Click here to get the latest Flash player.


Most Popular Headlines





 


 



 

Reader Comments

All comments on this page are subject to our Terms of Use and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Examiner or its staff. Comment box is limited to 250 words.

Missiondweller

Oct 29, 2009

As you read this keep in mind the City has three highly clean/efficient natgas peaker plants it was given as a settlement for the 2000 power abuse. We originally were going to use those peakers and would have shut this plant down by now. The SFPUC's plan was headed off by Gavin Newsom, Mirkarimi and other BOS members at PG&E's request. PG&E also paid for Newsom's trip to Mexico this year.

 

Missionpolluter

Oct 30, 2009

How about if the plan was to put those new dirty power plants in your backyard instead of smack dab between Bayview-Hunters Point and Potrero? Would you still be whining like this every chance you get???

 


Post a comment


Email:
(This will not be displayed or shared. Privacy Policy)

Display Name:

Comment:




Sports

Cardinal has Luck going into Big Game showdown

Though he’s just a redshirt freshman, Andrew Luck... Full story

Entertainment

Reno Santa event inspired by SF revelers

About 5,000 Santa costume-clad folks are expected to... Full story

Entertainment

Scoop: Is J. Lo having ex tailed?

Is Jennifer Lopez playing hardball in her battle with... Full story