Out with the old

Southeastern San Francisco celebrates the end of the Potrero power plant

|
(6)
Sup. Sophie Maxwell, flanked by City Attorney Dennis Herrera and Mayor Gavin Newsom, celebrates the closure

On the chilly morning of Dec. 21, a crowd of prominent local and state figures huddled in an industrial parking lot overlooking the brick smokestack of the Potrero power plant, which has been in operation for more than 40 years. It was the winter solstice, the morning after a lunar eclipse, and an historic environmental moment for San Francisco.

A longstanding battle to shut down the aging, polluting power plant was finally coming to an end, and it would be effectively shuttered as the calendar flipped to the new year. Although the past decade had been marked by political infighting and a relentless push to persuade the California Independent System Operator (CAISO) to shut it down sooner, the tone that day was buoyant as people made the rounds, embracing one another and offering congratulations and thanks.

Among those who lined up before the media were Mayor Gavin Newsom, who will be sworn in as lieutenant governor in early 2011; Sup. Sophie Maxwell, whose 10 years on the Board of Supervisors is coming to a close; City Attorney Dennis Herrera, who's thrown his hat into the mayoral race; and San Francisco Public Utilities Commission General Manager Ed Harrington, whose name has been floated as a contender for interim mayor.

Each of these local politicians played a role in the contentious battle to close the plant, and each candidly admitted that shouting matches on the subject had erupted over the years. Yet they all expressed thanks to one another and to community members in the Potrero Hill, Dogpatch, and Bayview/Hunters Point neighborhoods, where residents were most directly affected by the noxious air pollution generated by the plant.

"They say it takes a village to raise a child. Well, it takes a state and a city to close this power plant," said Maxwell, whose District 10 includes the neighborhoods affected by the power plant. "I started working on these plants when I took office, and now the plants are leaving with me." Maxwell was credited with displaying dogged persistence and playing an instrumental role in pushing for the shutdown the plant.

"There were a lot of phone calls, there were a lot of arguments, there were a lot of disputes. But the fact of the matter is that everybody was focused on the same goal — and that was getting this plant shut down," said Herrera, who has also been a key player in the decade-long fight to shut down the plant.

Newsom sounded a similar note. "I want to compliment everybody for their steadfastness and their devotion to this process," the mayor said. "We didn't always necessarily agree."

Joshua Arce, who worked with community members to shut down the plant as part of his work with the Brightline Defense Project, was clearly pleased by the announcement. "It's a fantastic day. We're at last going to see the billowing smokestack come down, and for good," Arce said.

The shutdown finally came to pass because the CalISO, which regulates the state power grid, was willing to accept new energy system upgrades as sufficiently reliable. For years, despite the community's insistence that the plant was having an unacceptable impact on public health and disproportionately affected low-income communities of color, CalISO refused to terminate a contract requiring the plant to stay in operation for grid-reliability purposes.

However, new pieces to the city's energy puzzle were recently fitted into place. The Trans Bay Cable, a 53-mile submarine power line that can transmit 400 megawatts of electricity from a Pittsburg generating station to San Francisco, became fully operational Nov. 23, months behind schedule. Meanwhile, a Pacific Gas & Electric Co. re-cabling project deemed important to San Francisco's electricity reliability was completed Dec. 5.

Comments

The key missing piece of the puzzle in your report is the fact that, had two of the figurehead politicians mentioned in your report had their way, there would still be an operating, polluting fossil fuel power plant in San Francisco long into the middle of this century.

Far more than work by the political leaders mentioned in this article, It was decades of grassroots organizing by Southeast residents and environmental groups that secured this plant closure; not Maxwell, Herrera, and Newsom (the latter who only jumped on Board at the very end of the process). And Maxwell and Herrera (closely and cynically manipulating with their big money developer supporters) spent nearly a decade trying to force a new polluting plant on the border of the Bayview Hunters Point, so that the Potrero plant could be closed more quickly; thereby doubling the value of real estate in the Pier 70 area.

For decades, organizers like Greenaction, Espanola Jackson and many others, fought tooth and nail against -any- power plants in the Southeast, and succeeded in closing one of them, the PG&E Hunters Point plant.

In 2007, Brightline Defense Project, Our City, the SF Green Party, and Sierra Club also joined in the fight, focusing on the crucial point of challenging the Cal ISO's and SF Public Utilities Commission's false claims that the City needed either old -or- new plants.

It was this final concerted push to call bs on the notion that the San Francisco must have fossil fuel generation that at last tipped the scales, pulled the curtain back from Cal ISO's and the SFPUC's deceptions, and convinced a majority of the Board of Supervisors (led by an unusual and principled alliance between Supervisors Ross Mirkarimi and Michela Alioto-Pier) to get rid of -both- the new plant and Potrero.

Being a clever campaigner (and knowing he was about to run for Mayor) Dennis Herrera then leapt in at the very end of this fray to sue for quicker closure of Potrero, but in reality, he had almost nothing whatsoever to do with the decades long fight to truly rid the City of fossil fuel plants. On the contrary, Herrera had been a shameless NIMBY promoter of building that new polluting plant to get rid of the old one in his own neighborhood; until grassroots organizing put a stop to his and Sophie Maxwell's plans.

It was in spite of, not because of, Herrera and Maxwell that a true power plant free San Francisco has been achieved.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Dec. 29, 2010 @ 3:28 pm

When will the plant be removed, have they set a date for plant removal?

Posted by Guest on Jan. 20, 2011 @ 12:29 pm

Hyperbole-free. I actually learned a lot from this article.

Posted by Lucretia Snapples on Dec. 30, 2010 @ 11:41 pm

Steve Moss claims he was instrumental in closing the plant.

Why do I suspect something amiss......

Posted by Guest on Jan. 02, 2011 @ 10:56 pm

Actually Moss did help argue the case against both the proposed new plant and old Potrero plant by crunching the data to show clearly that fossil fuel generation was not needed in San Francisco. For some time, he was the sole dissenting voice on the Power Plant Taskforce speaking and voting against the new plant.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Jan. 03, 2011 @ 2:37 am

As a longtime resident, I'm breathing easier. No pun intended.

Posted by Ian Waters on Jan. 20, 2011 @ 3:57 pm

Also from this author

  • Police provide explanation of Bernal Heights Park shooting at emotional town hall meeting

  • San Francisco's untouchables

    Is San Francisco trying to help the homeless -- or drive them away?

  • Draining the tank

    Students push UC system to divest from fossil fuels, joining an international movement gathering soon in San Francisco