Press about Grayson Expansion

News (Most Recent First)

About 200 people gathered outside Glendale City Hall Tuesday evening demanding that the City Council halt the proposed repowering of the Grayson Power Plant and commission an “independent and unbiased” study of the city’s energy needs and available renewable energy solutions.

Reference: www.latimes.com

 

I want to focus on the economic risks posed by this plant because it’s important to understand that a healthy environment and a good economy go hand in hand today, while investments in fossil fuels are increasingly taking money out of our wallets and holding our economy back. To put it bluntly: Expanding the Grayson Power Plant will place an unacceptable cost burden on Glendale families when cheaper, safer alternatives exist.

Reference: www.latimes.com

Further, Grayson sits on a known earthquake liquefaction zone, subject to major gas line leaks and ruptures in the event of an earthquake greater than magnitude 7.0. This belies GWP’s rationale that centralizing power at Grayson is needed to maintain energy security in the event of a major incident such as an earthquake. A robust and varied renewables portfolio would mitigate this risk. Incentivizing residential and commercial solar throughout the city will also reduce emissions. Thus far, Glendale has not exploited demand-response methodologies to shift use from high-demand times, such as time-of-use pricing and HVAC direct-load control programs. There are alternatives that warrant attention and now is the time to evaluate them.

Reference: www.latimes.com

Sinanyan suggested a different approach to the power plant project, suggesting that instead of a repower first approach, city officials should prioritize what energy technologies are being offered and, based on that, decide whether they want to move forward with repowering Grayson.

Reference: www.latimes.com

The 106-person capacity room in the Glendale City Council Chambers was filled to the brim, with many community members standing towards the rear of the chambers. Concerned local residents wore green shirts and carried signs in favor of clean-energy alternatives.

Reference: elvaq.com

My wife and I just bought a home here to raise our daughter (less than 2 years old). There’s a school nearby for her, and I frequently work at Disney down the street, so the Grayson Power Plant project is a nightmare for us. We would be breathing in the added toxins all day — at home, work and school. How could our city be so backwards and reckless in 2017?

Reference: www.latimes.com

However, the meeting on Monday was filled with residents who argued that the proposed project is a risky investment for the city — about $500 million in estimated costs — as California is moving away from fossil fuels as well as imposing stricter clean-energy standards.

Reference: www.latimes.com

My family lives — and my child attends school — a little over a mile from the plant. Asthma once almost cost my son his life. Living with such pollution, with freeways and a fossil fuel plant down the street, really matters to us.

Reference: www.latimes.com

Concerned local residents, and environmental activists, led by the Glendale Environmental Coalition, argue that the Environmental Impact Report – a mandatory part of the California Environmental Quality Act – which examines the likely environmental effects of the proposed plan, needs to be put on hold and recommissioned by an independent firm that puts more priority on clean energy alternatives. The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power has done so recently. In June of this year, LADWP halted a $2.2 billion natural gas investment plan to conduct an in-depth independent study into clean-energy alternatives.

Reference: elvaq.com

The new Grayson would significantly increase greenhouse gas emissions which are giving us more extreme heat, fires and drought. It would also increase criteria pollutants, especially fine particulates which penetrate deep in the lungs and are associated with asthma, cancers and other illnesses. There are elementary schools, day care centers, businesses and residences close to the plant.

Reference: www.glendalecacoalition.org

Officials in Oxnard, along with state lawmakers who represent the area, have called for clean energy alternatives to the plant. And residents flooded the energy commission with hundreds of emails for days throughout the summer, pressing regulators to reject the project.

Reference: www.latimes.com

Another stems from legislation in Sacramento that will mandate 100% zero carbon electricity by 2045. If this passes, as is expected, anything GWP builds today will have to be mothballed in 25 years. And when that happens, rate payers will be on the hook for the unamortized costs. Shouldn’t we instead spend this money on systems to move us faster toward a clean energy future?

Reference: www.latimes.com

California and others have just been getting it wrong. The way utilities earn revenue is building stuff. When they see a need, they are perversely incentivized to come up with a solution like a gas plant.

Reference: www.latimes.com

regulators continue to approve more plants and increase electricity rates, even though California consumers are using less power. The excess electricity and building of new power plants, transmission lines and related equipment means Californians are paying $40 billion a year for electricity, $6.8 billion more than nine years ago.

Reference: www.latimes.com

State regulators have accepted a proposal for a study of clean-energy alternatives to a proposed natural gas power plant in Ventura County — the second decision within a week to reassess building new fossil fuel facilities.

Reference: www.latimes.com

utilities have been aggressively upgrading or rebuilding their aging natural gas plants — a move critics have said is unnecessary because consumers are using less power and clean energy technology is making those plants obsolete

Reference: www.latimes.com

lawmakers on Tuesday urged regulators to reconsider a controversial natural gas project proposed for Ventura County, citing environmental concerns and questions about whether the state already has too many power plants

Reference: www.latimes.com

To cover the expense of new plants whose power isn’t needed — Colusa, for example, has operated far below capacity since opening — Californians are paying a higher premium to switch on lights or turn on electric stoves.

Reference: www.latimes.com

Protesters hold signs for passing motorists at a rally hosted by the Glendale Environmental Coalition to oppose expansion of the Grayson Power Plant, on the steps of Glendale City Hall on Tuesday, Feb. 6, 2018. (Tim Berger / Glendale News-Press)