The San Francisco Chronicle came out today against the plan to build three combustion turbines, known as “peaker” plans, at the foot of Potrero Hill.
But while the editorial quoted both sides in what I agree is a complicated issue, the editors ignored one of the most alient points: The campaign agains the peakers is being funded largely by the Pacific Gas and Electric Company.
Three missing letters, people: PG&E.
PG&E is underwriting the “Close It Coalition,” which sounds like a group aiming to close an existing power plant. The problem, peaker proponents say, is that the Mirant power plant that’s now pumping carbon and particulates into the air can’t be closed down unless the power it produces is replaced, locally. That’s what the state regulators are mandating That means significant new generation within city limits. And it means generating capacity that can run at night, when solar panels aren’t firing.
PG&E doesn’t want the peakers (which would produce about a third less pollution than the Mirant plant does) because they would be owned by the city; that’s a step toward public power. The utility isn’t worried about pollution or green power; this is a company that owns a nuclear power plant (on an earthquake fault). It’s a company that is building its own fossil-fuel plants up and down the state.
No: for the major funder of the no-peakers effort, this is about preserving a power monopoly. Beginning and end of story.
I am dubious about the peakers, too. It’s hard to support new fossil-fuel plants in San Francisco. But when you look at who’s behind the anti-peaker campaign, the story gets a lot more complicated.
You wouldn’t know that from reading the Chron’s editorial.