 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Morro Bay City Council and CAPE Reach Agreementby Jack McCurdyFor the first time since Duke Energy proposed building a new and larger power plant in Morro Bay 10 years ago, touching off a explosive controversy in the town that still lingers, the Morro Bay City Council and the Coastal Alliance on Plant Expansion (CAPE) are in agreement that the use of estuary, bay, and ocean water for cooling by power plants, including the existing Morro Bay plant, is required to end. The Council and CAPE, a non-profit citizens group, both have refused to support a proposed new State Water Resources Control Board policy because it fails to ensure that its stated and legally-required goal of ending the use of marine water for cooling of all power plants along the California coast will be carried out. Previous Councils had supported the proposed new plant that would have used water from the Morro Bay National Estuary for cooling in a process known as once-through cooling (OTC), despite studies showing it would have killed up to 33% of all fish and crab larvae in the Estuary. They also approved leases of publicly-owned waterfront property for discharge by the plant of heated water used in the OTC process into Estero Bay at Morro Rock. The existing plant still operates under the lease. CAPE, observing its 10th anniversary this year, has sought to prevent harmful impacts to the Estuary and to protect public health both in Morro Bay and downwind for many miles from severe health risks of smokestack emissions, in the event a new plant were built. It has not opposed a new plant per se. But since the Duke plan for the proposed plant did not provide adequate protections, CAPE has opposed the Duke project and any use of OTC by either a new or the existing plant. The City Council on Monday night, Sept. 28, approved a letter to the state board that stated: "...the City of Morro Bay does have grave concerns that the draft Policy often appears to be vague and unclear, allowing opportunities for power plant owners to exercise options made available in the draft Policy to delay and avoid achieving the Board's stated goal of 'protecting the state's coastal and estuarine waters.' " It specified needed amendments to the policy, such as when plant owners contend that virtually ending use of OTC "is not feasible," "criteria for determining feasibility" should be stated. The Council's letter noted that an effective policy is "legally required." The CAPE comments on the proposed policy submitted Tuesday, Sept. 29, said it "is deficient and unacceptable. This is because it fails to terminate or sharply limit OTC within a reasonable time period. Its implementation schedule allows up to 13 years for all plants to comply with no reasonable justification." CAPE also said: "In fact, there is no assurance in the policy that OTC will be ended or restricted appropriately at all, given the inexplicit wording of compliance requirements and the lack of definition of many enforcement measures, allowing power plant owners to exploit opportunities for delays potentially indefinitely. Considering that possibility, the policy would not comply with the 2007 United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit decision in the Riverkeeper case requiring use of best technology available for plant cooling throughout the nation." As a homegrown example of the proposed policy's inconsistencies, CAPE noted that "the policy Implementation Schedule calls for the Morro Bay Power Plant to achieve compliance by meeting requirements for termination or sharp restriction of OTC by 2015. Yet the Schedule states that the 'plant is not needed' after 2011 to help meet electric grid reliability requirements. There is no explanation as to why compliance should be delayed four years after the plant's use is no longer needed. Therefore, we implore the board to require that the plant be required to be in compliance by 2012." CAPE's complete comments will be posted shortly on its web site, www.morrobaypowerplant.org. |
|---|
