AES Unveils Plans for New Power Plant
During a Redondo Beach City Council meeting that at times becomes heated, AES presents its plans for a new plant—and residents respond.
After months of speculation fueled by a preliminary proposal filed with the State Water Resources Control Board, officials from AES Redondo Beach unveiled their plan to rebuild the aging power plant at a packed City Council meeting.
The AES discussion at Tuesday's meeting lasted until 10:30 p.m. and grew acrimonious at times, despite Mayor Mike Gin's pleas for quiet.
- Watch: Nov. 8 City Council Meeting
The meeting began with a presentation from AES officials on preliminary plans for the new plant, and also included a public comment session, during which opponents of the plant went on the offensive.
The new plant, which would not pump water from the ocean to cool the superheated steam produced by the boilers, would be smaller, more efficient and more environmentally friendly, said AES Southland President Eric Pendergraft.
"We want to eliminate the use of ocean water for cooling," he said. AES Redondo Beach must reduce the amount of ocean water it uses by 97 percent by 2020 to comply with a new law banning ocean-water cooling in California.
Pendergraft called the new plant, which has a generation capacity of 630 megawatts—half the capacity of the current plant's 1310 megawatts—a necessary part of California's goal to generate 33 percent of its electricity using renewable resources by 2020.
Because electricity cannot be stored in large amounts with current technology, natural gas plants like AES Redondo Beach must be in place to pick up the slack when the wind stops blowing or the sun isn't shining, Pendergraft said.
"The plant today is pretty ill-suited to help integrate those renewables," said AES Redondo Beach project manager Jennifer Didlo. The current plant can take more than 36 hours to start up from a total shutdown. If one of the old boilers is already running, it still takes 12 hours to start up one of the newer boilers, which generates electricity.
The new plant would be much more flexible, as it would be able to start up in less than 10 minutes and get to full generating capacity in less than five minutes, according to Didlo.
"[The new plant is] going to support those renewables, and it's going to be as clean as it can possibly be," Didlo said.
The new plant would also have a catalyst to reduce the amount of carbon monoxide emissions from 500 parts per million to 4 ppm, according to AES' calculations. The plant would also produce half as much NOX emissions—reducing the current plant's 5 ppm to 2.5 ppm—and halve the amount of ammonia released from 10 ppm to 5 ppm.
Besides reducing the plant's capacity to 630 megawatts, the new plant's footprint would be reduced from 52 acres to 19 acres. It would have four stacks with a height of 120 feet, instead of the current 219 feet.
"The new facility will be smaller, and it will be more efficient, and finally, it's going to be environmentally superior," Didlo said.
Additionally, the plant would not be seeking an exemption from air-quality regulations. As required by state law, a number of emissions offsets will be retired from the Southern California Air Quality Management District's bank of offsets; the new plant would use the same offsets as the old plant.
According to Didlo, the new plant would also benefit the city of Redondo Beach by increasing property taxes. Currently, the plant pays $2.1 million in annual taxes, of which $827,000 goes to Redondo Beach entities, such as the school district.
AES wants to build the new plant on the current one's site because it's near transmission lines, officials said. The company would incur additional expense if the plant were relocated because AES would have to build new infrastructure that's already in place at the Redondo site.
"Even if you could find alternative sites to be able to construct new plants, they just can't be moved elsewhere without incurring significant additional cost," Pendergraft said.
Nevertheless, AES officials said that if they did not get a permit to build the new plant or a long-term contract to generate electricity, they would be open to alternative uses for the land—including a park.
In fact, a new power plant might not be needed—a recent study from the California Independent Systems Operators (CAISO) showed that in 2015, there would be excess capacity for electricity generation in the Los Angeles basin, even if Redondo's plant were retired.
"We're definitely going to be evaluating alternative uses for the land, and we really recognize and encourage a lot of city and community involvement in that," Didlo said.
Still, Pendergraft emphasized that the CAISO report only looked at 2015; preliminary results for a CAISO study on projected energy needs in 2020 will be released in March 2012.
"In reality, we don't know right now how many new power plants and how much electricity" the Los Angeles basin will require, he said, later adding, "We will only move forward [with] actually constructing the new plant if it is needed, and if we're able to secure a long-term contract that will support being able to get financing for the facility."
Nevertheless, Pendergraft also said that even though nobody knows if Redondo's plant will be needed, AES must start now on the permitting process so that it is in a position to secure a long-term contract.
As to whether AES would just walk away from the property, "I can't imagine a situation where we would just walk away from it," Pendergraft said; however, he also said that "we're open to selling [the property] at the right price."
Besides Councilman Bill Brand, who has been an outspoken opponent of the power plant, the councilmen and the mayor had not publicly indicated their positions on the issue until Tuesday night.
"Because we haven't been outspoken one way or another doesn't mean we're inviting [AES] to stay in forever," Councilman Steve Aspel said. "If it comes to happen, we're going to hold [AES] to some claims you're making."
Residents respond
Though the discussion between the councilmen and AES officials was amicable for the most part, the public comment portion grew heated.
Of the two dozen people who spoke, none came out in favor of the new power plant. One praised the plan as "a fabulous marketing pitch," but added AES appeared to have a history of misleading residents.
Hermosa Beach resident John Wike said he didn't understand the need for a new power plant in a densely populated area like Hermosa Beach and expressed his support for turning the AES property into a park.
"We have an opportunity where we can create something [to] truly benefit our local community, but [also] other communities in the surrounding area … make it a destination, much like King Harbor," he said.
One attendee suggested AES was presenting plans to rebuild the plant in order to increase the property's value for an eventual sale.
"My personal opinion is that they're not really getting ready to fire up a new plant," said Dean Francois. He also told councilmen that "if [AES officials] don't talk to us, use some eminent domain procedures" to seize the land and build a hotel and a smaller park.
Lezlie Campeggi, one of the women leading the No Power Plant group, which along with controlled-growth group Building a Better Redondo is leading the charge against the power plant, asked the council to adopt a resolution Tuesday night to oppose the plan.
"I want to impress upon you that not taking a position means that you don't oppose a power plant being built," she told councilmen. The new plan is "an illusion; it's an impression; it's an idea," she said. "It's not a fact; it's not solidified."
Building a Better Redondo founder Jim Light approached the podium with a large stack of documents detailing the blighting influence of the plant, its health effects and other negative consequences. Even when his three-minute period ran out, he continued to speak to the council, despite Gin's pleas to step down and let someone else have a turn.
Light asked the council "not to sit here and just pontificate ... sitting here and not doing anything is not the way to stop the power plant."
"I also want to tell you that I am one of those 'pitchfork' people, and I urge you all ... please, read the documents that Mr. Light has brought in," added Melanie Cohen during her turn at the podium. "We're not a bunch of pitchfork people. We're asking our representatives to represent the city of Redondo Beach. We have an enormous opportunity—an enormous opportunity."
Multiple speakers asked how the council could trust AES, a company speakers claimed has been implicated in illegal dumping, prolonging the California energy crisis at the beginning of the millennium and numerous air quality violations.
'They don't want a new power plant there'
After hearing public testimony, Brand took Pendergraft to task, saying that Pendergraft had once said that AES did not want to do anything that the residents of Redondo Beach didn't want to do. Because it seemed as though residents don't want a power plant, "Would you still move forward to build one?" Brand asked.
Pendergraft said he didn't recall making that statement, adding that he thinks the proposed plant may have more support than it seemed to have at Tuesday's meeting.
"I also don't think we've heard from a representative sample of the entire community yet," he said.
Brand disagreed, saying that since the turn of the 20th century, residents of Redondo Beach have not wanted the power plant: "I would submit to you that ... you've had nothing but message after message after message from the community [telling you] that they don't want a new power plant there!"
Brand took his fellow councilmen to task, too, saying that they didn't want to take a position on the plant "because they're afraid of getting sued"—something that Councilman Pat Aust openly admitted to.
Pointing to neighboring Hermosa Beach's issues with Macpherson Oil, Aust said, "Am I afraid that could happen to us? Yes."
"We do need to be concerned about lawsuits," Gin said later in the meeting. "There's no question about that."
Still, Councilman Matt Kilroy indicated that in a perfect world, the community would not be having this discussion.
"I don't think I would sit there and put a power plant right there in the middle of it, but there it is," he said.
And Councilman Steven Diels, who found himself on the opposite side of Building a Better Redondo during the Measure G harbor rezoning battle, took issue with the speakers' admonishment not to trust AES.
"We are on the opposite sides of a lawsuit with BBR," he said. He also called the South Bay Parkland Conservancy, which does not want the power plant rebuilt, "a front group to sue the city."
Amid cries of "Spin!" from the audience, Diels encouraged the group to find constructive ways to work with AES instead of outright fighting the company.
"If you want to convince me [to do something], you have to work with me," he said. "It's very easy to be angry and point fingers."
Aspel agreed.
"We had 24 people out here telling us we're morons," he said, adding that constituents have told him that they were afraid to attend the council meeting and speak out in support of the plant because they were afraid they would be heckled. "I find it offensive ... we represent more than 24 people."
He continued, "In a perfect world, we'd have a nice park there ... We have other issues in this city besides just the power plant ... We're not just a single-issue council.
"Yelling at me is the exact opposite way of getting me to come to your side."
As usual, Gin struck a more conciliatory note, saying that he was not in favor of moving forward on the issue until the council hears back from the city attorney. City Attorney Mike Webb is expected to make a report on the legal issues surrounding the power plant at a future meeting.
"We need to understand our options as a city and as a community," Gin said.
Fred Reardon
10:25 am on Saturday, November 12, 2011
Big news. Ocean water is not needed for cooling? Desalination is not needed and is not planned. Good news…no more sea life killing. AES engineers dodged questions related to the amount of noise the new plant would create. I find it strange that the engineers did not know what the fan noise is proposed to be in decibels. With limited water usage, I am guessing it would be loud. A new smaller plant will still present health concerns to Redondo Beach citizens because of the 100’ lower elevation invisible pollution plume’s close proximity to a dense population. However, all of this does not matter because now it absolutely makes no sense for a power plant in Redondo Beach.
Fred Reardon
10:26 am on Saturday, November 12, 2011
If AES really wants to build a plant in an area that does not need it (seems like a waste of 650 million), they can build somewhere else in Los Angeles County in close proximity to transmission lines. There are options for AES farther away from such a densely populated area. The Redondo Beach AES property is much more valuable without a power plant. AES, local government and developers should work together and find alternate uses for this site. Zoning changes will more than likely need to take place. Therefore, the land use plan should be dynamic enough to attain community and investor support. I look forward to the day when we can vote to change the zoning of the power plant property to result in a modest park, some nice commercial/community improvements and witness AES realizing a reasonable compensation for their property.
Catch A Wave
7:32 am on Sunday, November 13, 2011
It's obvious that if the will of the people means anything at all, the power plant will not be approved. But then again, since when did the will of the people mean anything in this country when going up against the corporate power elite.
sheri patterson
11:31 am on Sunday, November 13, 2011
The reason AES did not give specifics is because you heard a SALES PRESENTATION. This is not a company that has done what is best for the people in this community. In fact, AES wanted to protect their profits so much, they SUED 3 very well-respected citizens including a former councilmemeber. And this was all to avoid paying the UUT tax that the plant in El Segundo pays and the refinery in Torrance pays.
The presentation supported the residents' claims that this plant is not needed-- and so why would subject our families to dangerous pollution? Especially when we will be the ones suffering the long term damage as AES profits from selling their power elsewhere. Why on Earth would we NOT oppose this plan? There isn't one benefit for our community, not one. And just because AES shows a photo of much open space, that does NOT mean we can trust THEM to properly clean up the contaminated land and do it in a timely manner. I certainly would NOT take my kids to a park located near a power plant with low level dangerous emissions contaminating the grass and vegetation!
What has our community learned from this company the past 10 years? 1) That actions speak louder than words. They spent 200K-500K on Measure UU to send out mailers to residents with misstatements and LIES!! We've learned that we absolutely cannot trust this company! The residents need to continue to do their HW on who AES is as a corporation and to OPPOSE this BAD plan for our health and waterfront.
Jim Light
2:37 pm on Monday, November 14, 2011
The briefing from AES was pure propaganda and does not stand up to scrutiny.
1. Didlo states AES will not need air pollution exemptions, yet their plan submitted to the Water Board clearly states they rely on SC Air Quality Management District 1304, which titled, "exemption".
2. The brief says the plant will run just 15.8% of the time. Didlo said 25% at one point and 30% at another.
3. Notice their pollution numbers are stated in parts per million. This is to obscure the fact that the new plant will produce more pollution because it will run more. pollution in other documents is stated as tons or pounds per year to allow direct comparison.
4. Pendergraft stated that AES had not talked to the water district about a desal plant in over a year. I guess the Water District just marched in and built a test plant on their property while no one was looking. Did they just build this test plant for their health? No, they built it to evaluate the AES site. According to the Water District AES Redondo is their number one site.
I am just scratching the surface, but you can see that you cannot take AES at their face value. They are in this to make money on a new power plant, they could care less about what it does to our community, as evidenced by the misleading statements above and many more.
Fred Reardon
1:10 pm on Thursday, November 17, 2011
I wish our mayor and city council was less frightened about being sued and more frightened about the negative health effects related to a power plant in close proximity to the citizens they are supposed to represent in this densely populated area.
Donna Gilmore
10:32 am on Saturday, February 18, 2012
For facts on excess electricity, go to http://sanonofresafety.org/energy-options/
There's a bigger air quality issue looming for Southern Calif. at the San Onofre nuclear plant (located near the border of Orange County). A meltdown will spread radiation throughout Southern California & beyond, wreck our food supply & financially ruin California. San Onofre has the worst safety record of all U.S. nuclear power plants & retaliates against employees who report safety issues. See Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) data & whistleblower reports: http://sanonofresafety.org/
The government is not protecting us. The California Public Utilities Commission president is the former president of SoCal Edison -- the operator & major owner of San Onofre. Four of the five NRC Commissioners are stalling implementation of “Lessons learned from Fukushima" & trying to get the NRC Chairman fired for doing his job. NRC lowers safety standards for old nuclear plants & protects the industry instead of the people.
Download and sign the California Nuclear Initiative petition today. We need over 500,000 valid signatures by April to get this on the Nov.ballot. The Initiative will effectively shut down both California nuke plants. Please do this today. No one will do this for us. This is one case where you can't think "someone else will do this”. This is a grass roots campaign, so it will take all of us to help. Please share this information. http://californianuclearinitiative.com/
Fred Reardon
2:30 pm on Sunday, February 19, 2012
@ Donna. These are both important issues. It is counterproductive to suggest that our efforts in the South Santa Monica Bay are less important. I hope you can empathize with our efforts to rid the South Bay of the AES pollution plume that is raining down on a densely populated area before it has a chance to dissipate. (Solution): More Feed In Tariffs as a vehicle to step up our renewable energy efforts (with excess clean electricity, production placed on the grid, compensation levels set at close to market value). We should take advantage of the great solar radiation resources we have in CA. Through the use of Photovoltaics, Concentrated Solar, Solar Thermal, and Wind we can create jobs, reduce pollution, rid ourselves of these poorly located; archaic fossil fuel based and nuclear power plants and help future generations live in a better world.
Donna Gilmore
2:59 pm on Thursday, February 23, 2012
Fred, both issues are important. I didn't mean to imply otherwise. I was hoping the link I provided at the beginning of my comments might help you in your efforts. I should have explained that better.
Fred Reardon
4:02 pm on Thursday, February 23, 2012
Thanks Donna, for clarifying, and thank you for your air quality related efforts.