Council: Angry public comment peaks over proposed ‘peaker’ plant
March 25, 2016
By Peggy Kelly
Santa Paula News
Almost a dozen Santa Paulans told the City Council Monday that a proposed power “peaker” plant that filed an application to be built just west of the city has targeted the city with a project that more than one speaker said represents environmental racism.
At the March 21 meeting the council received an update on the proposed Mission Rock Energy Center and efforts by its owner, Texas based Calpine Corp. to build the “peaker” plant south of Highway 126 just west of Briggs Road.
City Manager Jaime Fontes told the council Calpine purchased the land in 2013 and was unsuccessful in winning the SCE (Southern California Edison) energy bid; but he added the site could become an alternative location if an existing proposal for a “peaker” plant in Oxnard fails. The Oxnard site has been the focus of California Public Utilities Commission hearings.
The “six phase process” takes years and Fontes said Calpine “in an abundance of caution” filed the application which would “add value” to the almost 10 acres they now own.
He noted that the Calpine representative Mitch Weinberg would be receiving a CD of the meeting so he could familiarize himself with public and council comment before making an appearance at the April 4 meeting.
Councilwoman Ginger Gherardi said she came across the application filed December 31, 2015 “by accident” and was upset that although the city is not considered in the location’s jurisdiction as the proposed plant’s closest neighbor the city should be consulted.
“We already had to respond out there,” to the November 2014 Santa Clara Waste Water – Green Compass chemical explosions and fire where three Santa Paula firefighters were injured and have yet to return to duty; one has since retired.
“If there’s an incident,” at the location Gherardi said the city would again be the first responder based on proximity although it is outside the city’s jurisdiction.
It will be a long process, she noted, “but we’re now at the table…”
Public speakers included Maricela Morales, executive director for CAUSE, who noted its opposition to new fossil fuel projects in general and those now primarily located in low-income communities specifically such as Oxnard. Santa Paula also has more than its share of polluting projects and she said energy companies “prey on low income communities and communities of color” as such projects are not seen in wealthier, less diverse areas.
Nate Pidduck, a Santa Paula native whose family has farmed in the valley for five generations, urged the council to “strongly oppose the Mission Rock Energy Center, and to “focus on the facts and science behind this outdated and inefficient technology and not be misled or swayed by the unsubstantiated and often never to be seen ‘promises’ of future ‘philanthropic benefits’ that will be directed to Santa Paula if they support this peaker power plant.”
He asked the council to focus on the danger of such a facility and “The harm it will cause any future positive growth to Santa Paula, focus on the air pollution rates that will increase over Santa Paula, focus on the public health harm that increased particulate matter in the air will cause including asthma, focus on the 24-hour light pollution that will illuminate the entire valley, focus on the science. The rest of California is moving away from this type of outdated, inefficient and dangerous gas fueled peaker power plant technology.”
Pidduck also criticized Councilman Jim Tovias for his support of the project and Limoneira Co., which had entered into an agreement to sell the facility annually 170-acre-feet of recycled water.
Sheryl Hamlin addressed several facets of the project and process and noted that Calpine acknowledged that Foothill Road and Highway 126 are eligible for official “scenic driver” designations. They were never granted as requested by the Heritage Valley Tourism Bureau, which Hamlin said could be the justification for Calpine’s obstruction of views in these areas.
Even the CPUC she added has made the “astounding decision” to delay the hearings on the proposed Oxnard facility due to “social justice” issues.
AE Group President Phil White, a Santa Paula native, was formerly the director of the county’s Air Pollution Control District. He urged the council to promote alternatives and “Solarize Santa Paula” as other cities have been doing.
“Peaker” plants said White are a major source of nitrogen, oxide and air particulates that are particularly harmful to children and the elderly.
The county already exceeds federal and state air quality standards and White told the council “Others have spoken up, so should you…”
Gail Pidduck said that although she is an area native with at times strong views she has never addressed the council but this issue is too serious to ignore.
She said even SCE considers such plants outdated and, as a Limoneira stockholder, she has expressed her disappointment to the company.
Overall, said Pidduck, “Give us a say in the health of our town…”
Four Santa Paula High School students addressed the council including Maria Elena Terrazas, who said certain particulates cannot be filtered and “poisonous air” created by the plant would affect the lungs of those outside. Protection and restoration of the Santa Clara River would be sacrificed by those “just to make a buck” and she suggested solar and windmill technology that could be placed in the areas’ orchards.
Nicole Enriquez, an officer in SESPEA (Students Encouraging Social, Political & Environmental Action), was one of the first to publicly mention the proposed project after she learned of it at a hearing for the Oxnard plant which she also opposes.
She told the council the state’s goal of 50 percent renewable energy by 2030 and said the plant would work against this goal while being a dangerous eyesore.
Mirelle Vargas and Larry Renteria, also SPHS students, also offered comments about their objections to the plant noting its impact on agriculture, danger from leaks such as Porter Ranch and the historical culture of the river valley’s agriculture.
Jim Procter thanked the council “for bringing this matter to our attention” and noted he had a few questions for Calpine including how many tons of pollutants including greenhouse gases would be emitted into the air.
He also noted that although the facility would be outside of town it does respect Santa Paula’s boundaries and questioned what such a facility would do to the quality of life and property values.
And, said Procter, “What are the health effects to our most vulnerable downwind of this, our elderly and our children?”
Jim Castro told the council the meeting started with a presentation on the Heritage Valley Tourism Bureau.
“We heard about tourism, the railway and the beauty of the valley and I started to think…we have a huge dump, a present to us from other sources. We have a jail, another present for us. And now we’re in line for another present, nice nightlights all night long and nice pollution.
“Adams Canyon — now I’m hearing someone maybe would build there,” but said Castro, “It would have a view and that’s the seagulls’ path from the ocean to the dump.”
Castro told the council “You’ve got scientific reasons for not building this plant, social reasons, all kinds of reasons, one mentioned it would be an eyesore,” and he noted the variety of speakers that had addressed the issue at the meeting.
“Each and every person in this room is a stakeholder and Mission Rock is a bad idea being foisted on us...how many people choose to live near a power plant? See any upscale housing near a power plant? Would anyone in any town say ‘hey, we’ll take this thing, come and build it!’ When you hear of the disadvantages, science and social, we’re going to be faced with — water towers, steam towers, transmission lines, pipelines, light pollution form dusk to dawn, air pollution,” and other negative impacts.
Lastly, said Castro, “Name me any city that has invited a power plant into their home or nearby. No, this is a bad idea…”
Tovias thanked the public but said he had not been contacted by the media for comment “but that’s normal” and he denied the impression that he said some had that he had something to do with the property acquisition by Calpine.
He noted that the “prior city council met with them [Calpine] individually but since they didn’t get the bid the whole thing died…”
The possibility that they would be able to construct a plant is low and he said that a supposed solicitation letter he wrote to Calpine in June 2014 was not true.
Tovias looked directly at the camera and said “Mitch, you’re watching this screen and what I would like you to clarify if you received a copy of my letter, did it have any impact on you,” a scenario Tovias said was unlikely for a “multi-million dollar company.
“Hopefully,” he added, such a statement would stop the “blame game…”
Tovias also noted his concern “when the community starts to castigate Limoneira, which has been good for us,” and he noted from his “understanding” any negotiations Limoneira had provided that “every cent” made would be returned to the city.
“If I was on the board of directors,” said Tovias, “I would consider not giving anything to the city unless people apologize…”
The public comment was “very valuable to me,” and Tovias said, “When the time is right I’ll explain the entire story to you…”
Mayor Martin Hernandez said a letter to the editor he wrote contained misinformation given to him regarding county knowledge of the application.
In addition, “When Ginger made me aware of this I immediately got on the phone with Mitch,” whom he first had contact with in 2014 when as chief aide to Supervisor Kathy Long Hernandez first heard of the “concept they had” when he was invited to their meeting.
Subsequently Hernandez said he introduced Weinberg to Fontes.
He thanked the speakers for “sharing your thoughts and ideas,” and particularly noted the input of the SPHS student activists.
Gherardi said the city would be unable to stop the application process and “It’s pointless to take a position,” so early on.
But she urged the public, “If you have issues make sure they’re all in the pipeline,” by offering input as well as staying informed about the application process.
Texas-based Calpine Corp. is seeking state permission to construct the “peaker” plant — so called because it supplies energy during times of peak demand — to the wider region on property located at 1025 Mission Rock Road.
Gherardi noted that the California Energy Commission has extended the April 1 deadline for initial comments given to public agencies to May 1 for the city so they can also offer input.
