AES Can Fire Generators Back Up

The California Coastal Commission on Tuesday gave lukewarm endorsement to a controversial plan to restart a pair of Huntington Beach gas-fired generators, bending to the overriding urgency of the energy crisis.

“I don’t want this commission to be perceived as standing in the way of resolving the energy crises,” Commissioner Cecilia Estolano said.

The commission, meeting in San Diego to discuss a variety of issues, raised a number of environmental concerns about the plant, including whether units currently operating at the plant are drawing sewage back to shore, and causing closures along Huntington Beach.

The commission voted unanimously to send a letter to the Energy Commission saying they support a limited five-year permit for the plants but have major environmental concerns. They will also recommend that AES Corp., the owner of the power plant, put aside more money to remedy potential harmful effects on ocean water and wildlife.

The pair of 50-year-old boilers are among several generators that Gov. Gray Davis has ordered the California Energy Commission to fast-track into service as part of his rescue plan for the power-starved state.

AES, the largest private power generator in California, said it could refire the units by June if the Energy Commission shortens to 60 days an approval process that normally takes a year. Scientific data on environmental impacts will not be available until well after the plant is approved and running.

“Clearly, we recognize there’s an energy crisis in the state and obviously we want to try to conform with the governor’s executive order,” said Peter Douglas, the Coastal Commission’s executive director. “At the same time, we cannot give recommendations based on analysis . . . simply because we don’t have that information.”

While comforted by the Energy Commission’s proposal to limit any new operating permit to five years, the Coastal Commission was not impressed with the amount of proposed funds designated for mitigation of potential environmental damage.

Panel Not Impressed With Fund for Study

The Energy Commission, in a formal assessment released last week, recommended that AES spend $1.5 million to study damage to marine life and fix potential impacts.

“The $1.5 million is nothing,” said Coastal Commissioner Patrick Kruer. “I think the fund should be far greater.”

Commissioners and their staff recalled the long-running battle to force the San Onofre nuclear power plant to make up for the environmental toll taken by the plant. After much foot-dragging and delay, plant operator Southern California Edison agreed to a $118-million mitigation project that is ongoing.

The Energy Commission also recommended AES contribute $1 million to an ongoing study of whether its plant is contributing to the pollution problem that closed beaches in 1999 and continues to plague the city, a move coastal commissioners applauded. Scientists at UC Irvine hypothesize that the power plant--which already uses 253 million gallons of ocean water each day as coolant--might be combining with currents to pull in sewage discharged miles offshore by the Orange County Sanitation District.

If the plant fires up the two generators, the amount of ocean water needed for cooling will double, a key concern of the commission and its staff.

Douglas said, “If those studies do indicate a connection between their thermal discharge and bacterial contamination at the beaches, there must be a clear understanding they may need to mitigate for their cooling system, which may include going to dry-cooling” rather than continuing to use the ocean water.

Under state law, the Coastal Commission has limited, if any, power to stop the project from going forward. The scope of its authority is limited mainly to making recommendations.

However, the commission could have more leverage if environmental problems are identified. Commissioners reserved the right to force AES to pay to make up for any environmental damage down the road.

A letter outlining the Coastal Commission’s top concerns with the plant proposal will be drafted this week and sent to the Energy Commission. Those concerns include loss of commercial and recreational fish, thermal discharge and beach closures, diminished air quality and aesthetic impact on the beach area. They also will second the Energy Commission’s concerns that the plant is situated in a 100-year flood plain, and that there is seismic activity nearby.

The power plant owner and Energy Commission staff will hold morning and evening public workshops at the Huntington Beach main library Thursday. An evidentiary hearing will be held the following day at City Hall.

The Energy Commission plans to release its final decision on March 26.

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

Powerful Push

The California Commission on Tuesday reluctantly recommended that the plan to retool two Huntington Beach gas-fired generators proceed on a fast track, but raised concerns about environmental impacts.