SoCal power plants on hold
How do you build 11 new gas-fired power plants in Southern California when you already exceed federal standards for unhealthful air? Under the U.S. Clean Air Act, the local governments that make up the South Coast Air Quality Management District can allow more pollution in one place only if they reduce soot and cancer-causing airborne particles somewhere else in the same region through a complex system of pollution credits, also known as offsets.
Given how dirty the air is, such pollution credits are scarce and expensive--which is why the AQMD, years ago, set some aside for such public projects as hospitals and police stations. Then, last year, it voted to sell these "Priority Reserve" credits to power plant developers at about half their market value.
Not so fast, a Los Angeles County Superior Court judge ruled today.
In a lawsuit brought by the Natural Resources Defense Council, California Communities Against Toxics and other groups, Judge Ann I. Jones told the air quality district in a 32-page decision that it could not subsidize the plants until it fully reported on the environmental impact under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Community activists rejoiced, saying that the decision delays for at least one to two years the construction of power plants that had been proposed for Vernon, Grand Terrace and other largely poor and minority parts of the Los Angeles and Mojave air districts. "It is the air district's job to clean up the air in places like Southeast L.A.," said Darryl Molina, an organizer at Communities for a Better Environment. "The court understands: Creating new pollution credits meant that new power plants like Vernon's will make the air dirtier for people in low-income communities of color."
Angela Johnson Meszaros, an attorney for California Communities Against Toxics, a group of 70 local organizations, said, "This case is about the district trying to change its rules to help fossil fuel energy developers. As if that's not bad enough, the district insisted that it didn't need to undertake environmental review before changing its rules."
But Barry Wallerstein, AQMD's executive officer, said the decision "could make it extremely difficult to build new, low-emission power plants needed in California. Ultimately this could lead to power brownouts or blackouts, which, in turn, could greatly affect public health and safety, as seen during the state's 2000-01 power crisis."
Will the decision mean fewer electricity plants for the state's burgeoning population? Not necessarily, said V. John White of the Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Technologies. "It will require South Coast to look at alternatives to more fossil fuel plants, which they failed to do in granting these blanket waivers from air quality protections. Hopefully, this will lead to more focus on energy efficiency and solar power." Dozens of new solar and wind plants have been proposed for Southern California, and to meet the state's goals to reduce greenhouse gases, utilities must get a third of their energy from renewable resources, according to the state Air Resources Board.
--Margot Roosevelt
Photo: The Los Angeles Basin is far from meeting federal pollution standards. Credit: Francine Orr, Los Angeles Times


Gah, back to the "renewable power plant" solution? Please! these people clearly need solar panels on their roofs that earn them money, clean their air, and help them to participate in the Green Revolution. Low income and minority people are usually negatively effected by regulations that might make energy or goods more expensive, which is why a low-income grant program that helps these people participate, earn money AND see the benefits of conservation is CRITICAL in CA.
We start building centralized renewable power plants, we will have to pay to build it, pay for the increased costs that Big Energy always charges when they get a monopoly, and will COMPLETELY miss an opportunity to have that power and that financial independence for ourselves.
No gas. No Big Solar. No Big Wind. Local, renewable, paid for point of use power for all of us is the answer to peaker demand, RPS requirements, air quality, pricing manipulation, job losses, environmental social justice, erosion of ecosystem integrity, global warming - all of it.
Posted by: sheila | July 30, 2008 at 07:32 PM