Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Pasadena seeks deal on coal-energy ban
Pasadena Star-News ^ | 11/17/2006 | Kenneth Todd Ruiz

Posted on 11/18/2006 4:50:09 PM PST by thackney

PASADENA - Caught between carboniferous rock and a hard place, city power officials will ask Sacramento next week for compromise on a pending coal-energy ban.

The negotiations come as Pasadena decides whether to extend its contracts for imported coal-generated power to 2044 - a deal that will be prohibited from Jan. 1 under state law. The issue will not be discussed as planned Monday at City Council, where it likely would have died.

"My feeling is if Sid \ is with us on this issue, they're not going to get five votes to push this thing forward," said Jim Stewart of the Sierra Club's Angeles Chapter, referring to Councilman Tyler's stated opposition to the contract renewal.

The Sierra Club is strongly opposed to any effort by six cities, including Pasadena and Burbank, to extend their contracts to import coal-generated energy; coal is recognized as one of

the greatest contributors to greenhouse gas emissions.

Mayor Bill Bogaard has expressed reservations about extending the energy contract, and council members Steve Madison and Paul Little have said they would likely oppose renewal.

Those favoring the extension, including Pasadena Water and Power, have said there are no readily available substitutes for coal-generated energy, and sources such as natural gas will cost more.

A delegation including Phyllis Currie, PWP general manager and president of the Southern California Public Power Authority, is set to meet Monday with Sen. Don Perata, D-Oakland. Perata authored one of the state's new emissions laws designed to combat global climate change.

Perata's staff said he hoped to discourage Pasadena from extending its dependence on cheap-but-dirty coal power beyond the contract's expiration in 2027.

Two-thirds of the city's power comes from coal-generated energy imported from the Utah-based Intermountain Power Agency. The company wants to secure ongoing commitments from its California customers to justify building a third coal-burning facility.

Tyler said Friday that city staff would do more research and could bring the issue back for consideration in December.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., weighed in this week in a sharply worded letter to Currie, saying the rush to renew contracts before Jan. 1 "appears to be an attempt to circumvent the intent" of the new law.

A member of the Senate's Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Feinstein said she was "shocked and disappointed" to learn Burbank had extended its contract.

Just weeks after making that extension, Burbank Mayor Todd Campbell decided to bring it back for reconsideration in December, said Stewart, the Sierra Club spokesman.

The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, which consumes 75 percent of Intermountain's output, has turned down the deal to extend its contracts.


TOPICS: News/Current Events; US: California
KEYWORDS: 2muchgovernment; coal; energy; globalwarming; greenhousegases; pasadena; perata; sb1368

1 posted on 11/18/2006 4:50:12 PM PST by thackney
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: thackney

All the other states will benefit with cheaper power, thanks to California liberal politicians and the Sierra Club. In the meantime, California's economy will decline, their businesses will become less competitive and taxpayers will be soaked once again.

Pure brilliance. /s


2 posted on 11/18/2006 5:03:38 PM PST by calcowgirl ("Liberalism is just Communism sold by the drink." P. J. O'Rourke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thackney

Gee, all the more electrisicals for us'ns, iff'n they'uns doesn't want them.

CH^4 + 2 O^2 -> CO^2 + 2 H^2O

So, natural gas gives water vapor...a greenhouse gas...and CO^2...a greenhouse gas; as opposed to buring coal*, which gives CO^2, and a higher energy output/unit, at less cost/unit.

So, according to the Environazis, "methane bad; 'natural gas' good; udt coal ist verboten?"

*Impurities ignored, since they are scrubbed or recovered as solids.


3 posted on 11/18/2006 5:08:24 PM PST by ApplegateRanch (Islam: a Satanically Transmitted Disease, spread by unprotected intimate contact with the Koranus.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ApplegateRanch

Poor blind fools.


4 posted on 11/18/2006 5:28:24 PM PST by Eric in the Ozarks (BTUs are my Beat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: thackney

Too bad the climate is such that they can't freeze to death in the dark.


5 posted on 11/18/2006 5:29:23 PM PST by elkfersupper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: calcowgirl

An Open Letter to Pasadena City Council

Don't let the best be the enemy of the good in considering energy contract extension

The Pasadena Pundit - REVISED

At the Municipal Services Committee meeting of Nov. 15 a couple of Catch-22's emerged regarding the environmentally contentious issue of extending the existing energy contract with Intermountain Power Plant in Utah, which provides the "dirtiest" but by far the cheapest electricity to Pasadena.

If the contract is not extended, the City loses its one chance to upgrade its transmission line capacity needed for conveyance of green power to Pasadena from solar plants and wind farms along the Northern Transmission System. Moreover, rejection of the extension of the contract will not result in one iota of less air pollution or one less case of asthma for Pasadena; or one less gallon of dependence on foreign oil for the U.S.

If the contract extension is rejected the City can claim a purely symbolic victory in conformity with the City's adopted Kyoto Protocols, United Nations Accords, and U.S. Mayor's Climate Change Agreement; but would be unable to easily comply with the mandate of SB 1368 to increase green power to 20% of the City's energy needs.

If there is concern that dirty coal energy could become obsolescent by either environmental regulations or new cleaner energy technologies, such as the promising pilot project Gila River Plant in Arizona, the only thing that would save the current contractual arrangements would be requiring the retrofitting of the Intermountain Power Plant when such technologies become available; which would likely render solar and wind power obsolescent.


There are no moral champions on either side of the debate and no ideal or pure decisions to be made with whether to extend the City's energy contract or not; there are only environmentally negative results no matter which choice is made. In a second or third best world the rule of thumb for policy makers is that "the best should not be the enemy of the good." Thus, extension of the energy contract with contingencies to opt for cleaner power seems the wisest and most realistic choice at this time.

As the fictional character Yossarian in Joseph Heller's class novel "Catch 22" observed:

"That's some catch, that Catch-22"
Doc Daneeka agreed and said "It's the best there is."

For more coverage on this topic go to http://www.pasadenapundit.com


6 posted on 11/18/2006 6:12:57 PM PST by WayneLusvardi (It's more complex than it might seem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson