SDG&E; Plan for New South Bay Plant Generates Anger

Local politicians reacted angrily Monday to a plan by SDG&E; to build a power plant on the Chula Vista waterfront.

The plant would be constructed next to an existing power-generating facility that the utility wants to upgrade and which has been the source of many environmental complaints.

Assemblyman Steve Peace (D-Chula Vista) and Sen. Larry Stirling (R-San Diego) oppose the plant, which would generate 460 megawatts of power and burn fossil fuels, such as natural gas or oil. The utility officially notified the California Energy Commission on July 31 that it plans to file an application for the plant in November.

Peace, whose staff learned of the application last week while reviewing commission records, charged that San Diego Gas & Electric officials had misled him about their intentions. Stirling speculated that the plant is being built at Southern California Edison’s behest in order to circumvent pollution laws in Los Angeles County.

Peace leveled the strongest charges against SDG&E.; He said he was aware that the new plant had been included in SDG&E;’s resource plan, the utility’s proposal, on file with the PUC for several years, for meeting energy needs.

But, Peace said, SDG&E; lobbyists and company officials had assured him all along that the plant was never a serious option.

“They had never announced their intention to build the plant . . . The fact that they had it in their resource plan was not enough to excite anybody. . . . In fact, they had informed me personally it was not really an option and not something they would pursue,” said Peace. “What is significant is that they actually made an application to the energy commission to go forward with a very specific project. They had never done that before.”

However, SDG&E;’s plans for the project were hardly secret.

State and federal officials are now reviewing SDG&E;’s proposed merger with Southern California Edison. A 75-page report that outlined the supposed benefits of the merger, released jointly by the utilities in April, discussed plans for the new plant.

The report said that SDG&E; “plans to add 460 megawatts of generation by building two new combined cycle units at South Bay” by 1995 or 1996. In May, Vikram S. Budhraja, Edison’s manager of electric system planning, mentioned SDG&E;’s plans for the plant in his testimony before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. In addition, SDG&E; released an announcement in March, 1988, that the company was beginning a feasibility study for the plant.

Despite the April report and Budhraja’s testimony, Gary Cotton, SDG&E; senior vice president for engineering and operations, said a final site has not been selected. Other sites being considered are in Blythe, Imperial County, West Sycamore Canyon, near Santee and the Encina Power Plant in Carlsbad.

Cotton said the new plant would be needed if the merger is not approved, and SDG&E; decided to act in the event that the merger is vetoed by state and federal officials. However, Budhraja’s testimony suggested that the plant will be built even if the merger is approved. But, in a “merged system,” construction would be delayed three years, until 1998 or 1999, if construction approval were received, said Budhraja.

Fact Sheet Released

On Monday, SDG&E; released a fact sheet that said the plant is needed to meet increased demand. According to the utility’s figures, energy demands will increase by 3% annually, and SDG&E; warned that, by the mid-1990s, there might not be enough electricity to meet customers’ needs.

The proposed plant would burn natural gas as “a primary fuel” and is expected to meet the needs of about 460,000 residential customers, said the company. However, the new plant, like the existing one, which burns natural gas, would also be able to burn oil.

Stirling said that Edison may face tough environmental sanctions in the future and that the Chula Vista plant would be built solely to circumvent pollution standards in Los Angeles County.

The South Coast Air Quality Management District is proposing regulations to force Edison to install expensive pollution-control devices on its existing plants in greater Los Angeles or cut back its operations.

“They can’t be creating additional generating capacity for any other reason except to serve Edison. They’re going to ship Edison’s pollution to San Diego,” said Stirling, an opponent of the merger.

Stirling said that, until recently, he was not aware of SDG&E;’s plans to build the plant, or of its inclusion in the utility’s resource plan. He added that construction of the plant would mark a radical departure from SDG&E;’s longtime policy of purchasing 50% of its energy from other sources.

“The line they’ve been putting out for years is that they’re not in the power generation business but in the power distribution business,” said Stirling.

Cotton acknowledged that purchasing electricity from outside sources has been SDG&E;’s policy, but he said marketing needs have forced the company to change that.

‘Doesn’t Look Good’

“That has been our policy. We have been a buyer for several years, but the market for purchasing (electricity) doesn’t look good to us in 1995. We’re changing our policy, because, if the most economical source of power to meet our customers’ needs is to build, we will build,” said Cotton.

Meanwhile, Chula Vista City Councilman David Malcom also voiced opposition to the plant and SDG&E;’s plans to upgrade the existing plant, situated off J Street on the waterfront. Malcom, also an opponent of the merger, said the existing plant is an eyesore and major source of pollution and added that city officials would like to see it torn down and restaurants and hotels built in its place.

Stirling said he, too, opposes SDG&E;’s plans to upgrade the aging plant. Peace said he has not taken a position on the plan to modernize the plant.