The Measure A debate is certainly heating up. Opponents of Measure A say there is another way to stop a new power plant on our waterfront. We don't think so.
Work with AES
One prominent theme from Measure A opponents is that they believe we should work with AES to retire the power plant. I have asked our opponents to detail how this approach would work. After all, before Bill Brand and I even thought about crafting a rezoning ballot initiative, we met with AES officials and they made it pretty clear they would not negotiate on anything that did not include a power plant. They gave us the same response when we asked if they wanted to participate in Measure A zoning.
To date, the Measure A opponents have not answered how working with AES results in no power plant in our harbor. I suspect they have not answered because even they realize that there is no way to achieve this outcome working with AES.
Working with AES means we get a new power plant and some undefined mixed use development on the rest of their property. AES moved the new plant to the very eastern edge of their property…much closer to high density residential neighborhoods… to maximize the amount of land they can develop. This sounds eerily similar to another low point in Redondo city planning. The last time the City and AES worked together for a mixed use development and a smaller, cleaner plant, we got Heart of the City with a new power plant, 600,000 sq ft of new commercial development AND 3000 condos. AES planned to build 1500 condos on their property under Heart of the City. Our City Council rubber stamped it and it was only resident referendum petition that stopped it last time.
So the track record of working with AES is a disaster. We should not repeat this history.
Intervene with the CEC
Several of the Measure A opponents have said we don’t need rezoning, we can stop a new power plant by working with the CEC. They cited the CEC’s disapproval of an application for Sand Francisco’s Portrero Plant as an example.
If you look at the record of how the Portrero power plant was defeated, you will find that the City established their opposition to a new plant a decade before the application. The first resolution opposing the power plant was issued by the Board of Supervisors in 2001. And after that a stream of resolutions, stricter compliance ordinances, and correspondence and agreements with the CEC and CPUC continued over the following decade. The CEC denied the new power plant application when it was submitted in 2011, after a decade of strong, constant and frequent opposition actions by the city.
Recently the City of Carlsbad failed in their opposition to a new power plant in their town. When we talked with their City officials, they told us they started way too late. Bill Brand and the residents of Redondo have been pleading with the Council to take action for well over two years. To date there is zero resolution to oppose the power plant. We are WAAAYYYY too late to go down this path.
All one need do is look at the letter the CEC sent back to the City of Redondo to see the handwriting on the wall. The City sent a letter to the CEC citing substantial holes in AES’ application environmental analyses. The CEC basically replied “noted”, but they did not require AES to supply the missing data or redo the flawed analyses that the City requested. It is very clear, participating in the CEC process at this stage of the game is an exercise in futility.
Measure A is the only way
When asked what we should do given that we are so late to the game, officials from San Francisco, Chula Vista and Carlsbad agreed that our best chance was rezoning. And that rezoning by public vote would send the strongest message.
As noted in City Attorney Mike Webb’s impartial analysis of Measure A, rezoning to prohibit a new plant forces the CEC to do a power needs analysis. The CEC must provide evidence that power from this specific site is critical to grid reliability. We are confident the CEC would have a tough time coming to that conclusion.
There is mountains of evidence and testimony that shows AES Redondo is not critical the grid. In fact the most recent CPUC draft decision allows only 1000-1200 MW of new gas-fired power procurement in our part of the grid to replace ocean water cooled power plants like AES Redondo. Currently El Segundo is nearing completion of a new power plant that can produce 560 MW. Huntington has been deemed “Reliability—Must Run” and AES has submitted an application to rebuild it at 900 MW capacity. And the ISO currently concludes that an outage at Alamitos is currently the greatest risk to our grid reliability. AES has submitted a plan to the State Water Resources Control Board to rebuild Alamitos at its full 1,900MW capacity. These three plants far exceed the CPUC limit of what is needed. And just as importantly, the Alamitos and Huntington plants are more critical due to their location on the grid. Power from AES Redondo is just not needed for grid reliability.
Measure A is the only way Redondo residents can force the CEC to do a power needs analysis. And that power needs analysis is our only chance to stop a new power plant from blighting our harbor for the next 50 years.
Get your facts straight, Mr. Keane. Jim Light not only had the courage to put his name and research to doing what was lawful and correct but he also WON the suit. The judges voted in favor of the residents complaint that the city was breaking the law. So who wasted tax payers dollar, Mr. Keane? You ought to pay closer attention to those holding the purse strings. Their arrogance and unlawful behavior was the cause.
They don't even realize that they're only helping more and more people learn what an ethical, intelligent, committed, community minded guy Jim Light is -- as well proven by his solid decade of community service to Redondo Beach. Who else could so courteously continue to play whack-a-mole with these buffoons? I sure know I couldn't -- but Jim Light somehow manages to patiently persevere, kindly referencing, time and again, the factual foundation that so clearly supports the conclusion that more and more community members are learning -- that there is only ONE way to make Redondo's power plant go away, by voting YES on A. Redondo's future has never had such great potential in our lifetimes -- but the voters MUST act to turn that potential into reality. ** Elect Jim Light in District 1 ... Re-Elect Bill Brand in District 2 ... Vote YES on A **
THINK Redondo of how much money AES will use on this campaign to deceive voters? A half a million dollars could have been spent helping our community and helping Redondo hire teachers and additional police officers or special programs for kids downwind of their plant that have asthma. Unfortunately, AES has shown NO regard for Redondo Beach since 1998. There are no standards of conduct for ethical behavior in the AES playbooks. Just look at their disgraceful actions once again.
Why are are you supporting stealing Redondo Beach citizens clean air?
He did sue the city. He admits it. He also admits to refusing to negotiate a lower hourly rate with his attorney, who made $550.00 an hour and he took nearly a million dollars of taxpayer money. Simple facts my dear. I believe that elected officials are there to protect the public trust and both Jim Light AND Bill Brand have shown that they could care less about taxpayer dollars. They have one issue. Plain and simple
I love how you just keep repeating the same smear, over and over again. You posted this same attack above. Read your own posts. I have no clue who is in that video. Since you don't seem to mind making up an identity, for all we know you videoed yourself taking one of your own signs. As to the lawsuit, its getting to be a broken record. You inflate numbers and misstate facts. 1) Four judges determined the City Council violated the City Charter. Had the City Council voted to listen to their constituents and to follow the Charter they swore to uphold it would have cost the City ZERO in legal fees. 2) After the judge ruled in the peoples' favor, the City Council voted to file a frivolous appeal that doubled the final costs. 3) After the City lost their frivolous appeal, we settled for less than our total legal costs. And it was nowhere near $1M. But then you don't seem to care about the facts. 4) The lawyers fees were affirmed as reasonable by four judges. So the City Council cost the taxpayers all the legal fees. One resident had to put their name on the lawsuit for it to have "standing". I did that. But it was hundreds of residents who contributed to the lawsuit. They did it because the city council ignored them and the charter. So Robert, Kelly, Steve, Harry I guess you can't refute the article's assertions, so you go into smear mode under fake names.
FACT: The Angel Law Firm representing Jim Light made $550.00 and hour and charged the taxpayers $313,000.00. No ifs No ands No buts Just the facts and still no denouncement of theft. There you have it folks. Jim Light all wrapped up in ONE pretty bow
I guess you have no argument against the article and can only divert attention through this repeated attack. I thought you said the lawsuit cost $1M. You are all over the map. The fact of the matter is, the City Council violated the city charter and wasted taxpayer money. They could have avoided all legal fees had they followed the City Charter: "Rejecting the city council’s excuses for violating the Coastal Act and Measure DD (now article XXVII of the city’s charter), Judge O’Brien stated in no uncertain terms: “There are no magical words that could change the fact that the Coastal Commission had to certify the ordinances. While the ordinances might say that they became effective 30 days after enactment [in August 2005, and May 2008, respectively], the fact is they didn’t."...The trial court rebuffed as “spurious” the City's further argument.... Noting that the people of Redondo Beach passed Measure DD, in part, because the city’s existing development approval procedures do not carefully or accurately consider the adverse impacts to the local environment and quality of life caused by increased density and congestion resulting from major land use changes, the court granted BBR’s petition for writ of mandate and complaint for declaratory relief “in its entirety.” " So Robert, would you have just let the City Council violate the City Charter and ignore the will of the voters?
The fact is it was the City Council's willing violation of the city charter and the will of the voters that drove the legal fees. Constantly, repeating that I cost the City the money, when you know the Council are the ones who broke the law is in fact a smear campaign.
Mr Light was notified yesterday that his campaign was possibly violating election laws by posting signs on private property without permission. A day later the signs are still up on the corner. I guess he is willing to break the law to gorilla market on a well travelled corner. The exposure of his signs ( and pro measure a) must out weigh his social, legal and moral responsibilities. That is unfortunate!
We know you are not a real person, so we know you will just keep firing away. Your post shows you don't really know anything about the City lawsuit. Hundreds of residents came to the podium and pleaded with our City Council to follow the charter and the express will of the voters in Measure DD. Over 14000 voters voted in Measure DD. More than twice the number of voters for any elected office. Our City Council arrogantly ignored those testifying and the will of the voters when they voted to ignore the City Charter. The City did not allow residents any alternative. Hundreds donated to a lawsuit. One resident had to put their name on the suit. I am the one who put my name on the document knowing I would get dragged through the mud just as your pro-power plant team are doing now. But I am proud that I did it. It was the right thing to do for the voters of Redondo. Four judges found that the City violated the Charter and attempted to disenfranchise the voters of Redondo. I did not cost the city one dime. The arrogance of the City Council and their willful attempt to illegally ignore the City Charter and disenfranchise the voters of Redondo cost the city the legal fees. Then they threw good money after bad, doubling the fees in a frivolous appeal. While you attack behind fake names, I put my name and reputation on the line for the people of this City. And I would do it again in a heartbeat. Even if it cost me this election.
You purport to be against a new power plant. Yet you attack what 7500 residents signed without offering any solution yourself. In case you haven't read Measure A, it does not steal AES' land. AES retains the property. It merely phases out power generation because of its negative environmental, health, and economic impacts on the surrounding community. It is a rezoning. The City does this all the time. I don't think you are really interested in facts though. You appear to have one mission and that is to attack me personally.
If you go to my webpage, you will find that I did not cover everything in my video. That would make the video too long. Please feel free to peruse everything on the site at: http://www.jimlightforcouncil.com/ I think you will find it more definitive and comprehensive than any of the others running. I want people to know exactly where Istand and to understand my track record of commitment to our quality of life.
You purport to be anti-power plant, but you attack the only way residents have to stop a power plant. You avoid providing any other path to stop a power plant. You avoid any substantive discussion of the merits of the article and attack me personally instead. And you hide behind a ficticious name. All of which makes your real motive suspect. All this points to a poorly disguised misleading pro-power plant agenda.