No Altamont Power Plant

I communicated with PG&E today about the “shortlist” of competitors for power purchase agreements.  They said due to the confidentiality of the process, they would not share the results.  I asked when information would be made public about who has or has not been awarded power purchase agreements, and they have not responded to that request.

This is disappointing.  When I get any more information about when we might know something about potential contracts, I will share it.

On Oct. 20th, PG&E will announce its shortlist of competitors for power purchase agreements.  This is important.  No power purchase agreement, no plant.

If Calpine is on that list, then we redouble our efforts to discourage their selection for a contract.  If Calpine is not on that list, that would be a major victory for Mountain House.  It would not be a final death blow for EAEC as they could still get a contract at some point in the future before their permits expire, but it would be a big step in that direction.

As soon as I know the results, I will post them here.  Wish us all luck.

Something to keep in mind to have a clear understanding of the visual impact of the plant on our community is the visible plume that the plant will emit.  According to the 2002 report, one of the models they used estimated that 10% of the time, the plume will be 3490 m, or 2.16 miles long. Here’s a few 2.16 mile long lines from the center of the plant site, in the direction of our community:

View Larger Map

Depending on the wind direction, this may or may not pass directly over our homes, but the sheer scope of the plume should be evident, at least. The maximum plume size was estimated as over 5,000 m by one model, and over 10,000 m by the other model. That’s over 3 and 6 miles, respectively.

My wife and I spent several hours this weekend towing our two small children around the neighborhood to get the word out to our neighbors about the plant.  We offered a small flyer with some key facts, and also presented the petition to PG&E for signatures.   We got Questa done first, as there aren’t that many folks out there yet and they would be the most affected, and then we did Wyndham, Stratford, and a start on Hawthorne.   Here’s a map of what we’ve covered so far:

View Larger Map

This is a big undertaking, and we are going to need a lot of help if we are going to be able to complete coverage of Mountain House in the next couple of weeks, before the announcement of PG&E’s shortlist of competitors for the contract on October 20th.

If you can help out by covering a neighborhood, or even your street, please send email to stopmhpowerplant@yahoo.com, and we will send you the flyer we are using, as well as petition sheets that you can print.  Or you can arrange to come by our house and pick up our preprinted ones.  We will even deliver them to you if possible, and we will also come by to pick up signed petition sheets.

Our experiences so far are that, first, about 90% of our neighbors had no idea about the plant at all.  The other 10% or so have heard something about it, but didn’t realize it was so close, or so large, or that it was permitted without any analysis of our health risk.  We’ve met a few people who have been following it online and had signed the online petition.

The second thing I’ve noticed is that we live in a great neighborhood.  I haven’t had a single unpleasant experience yet in talking to my neighbors.  The vast majority are very supportive and thankful for what we were spending our Saturday and Sunday doing.  It’s a great way to get out and meet your neighbors. Can you help us fill in a little more of the map?

Update Oct. 8th:  Avondale and Hawthorne have now been covered and the coverage map updated.  We have volunteers for Colebrook, Glenmore, Marbella, Palisades, Roxbury, Toscana, and Cambridge Place.  We are still seeking volunteers for all remaining neighborhoods not listed.

The 2002 Environmental Impact Report seems to indicate that MHCSD recycled water is necessary for the operation of the plant.  In that report, the CEC  first considered a scenario where the EAEC would only use the Byron Bethany Irrigation District’s (BBID) water.  They concluded that BBID’s water supply alone is insufficient to meet the needs of both the plant and BBID’s other customers:

Water and Soil Resources

Page 5.14-20:

“When EAEC’s proposed raw water demand is added to BBID’s other demand projections, staff finds that there is insufficient fresh (raw) water supplies to serve all of BBID’s demands as early as 2010 and thereafter for essentially the balance of the life of the project (the next 25 years) for both average and peak annual.”

The bold emphasis is mine.  The report goes on to state in the final paragraph of this section:

“This effect is in conflict with CEQA guidelines as specified under Appendix G – Environmental Checklist Form, Section XVI – Utilities and Service Systems, posing the question, “(w)ould the project: d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed”? Because BBID may be overcommitted in the near future, it is likely that without maximum use of local recycled water there would not be enough water to serve EAEC and BBID’s other customers. This would then result in significant adverse impacts to water supplies and to other users of this supply.”

Bold emphasis mine.  The next section goes into how they can use MHCSD water (the local recycled water referenced above) to get around this deficiency.  Now, apparently, MHCSD did agree to supply this water.  Without prejudging the nature of his involvement, I have queried Paul Sensibaugh, the General Manager of MHCSD, for his thoughts on the matter.  The letter I have sent him via email is show below.  I will be sharing any response I get from him.

–

Mr. Sensibaugh,

This is an open letter that I am sharing with the residents of the community.

I am a resident of Mountain House and am gathering information on the issue of the proposed EAEC plant.  As I understand, MHCSD sent a letter of intent in 2002 to the CEC to supply recycled water to EAEC should it be built.  I have seen your name as involved in some manner in those negotiations in the CEC documents.

According to my reading of the 2002 EIR, the use of MHCSD supplied recycled water is a precondition of the permitting of the plant, as the Byron Bethany District - after some initial claims to the contrary by EAEC, but rejected by CEC - does not by itself have sufficient capacity to supply the plant going forward, c.f. Section “Raw Water Supply” beginning on page 5.14-16 in the Water and Soil Resources section of the  2002 EIR.

Speaking for myself, I am concerned that by agreeing to supply such water, MHCSD has potentially enabled the construction of what will be a serious detriment to the desirability of our community.

I would like to hear your thoughts on this matter about which many residents are now deeply concerned, as we become more aware of the nature and scope of this proposed power plant project.  As this is an open letter, be aware that I do intend to share your response with our residents on the internet so we can all come to a clearer understanding of the situation.

Thanks,
Robert W. Anderson

–