Power-plant battle continues on Hayward shoreline

Once more the Sierra Club and numerous other environmental organizations have spoken out against construction of a natural-gas-fired power plant proposed for the Hayward shoreline. Calpine Corporation's Russell City Energy Center would provide 600 megawatts of electrical power for purchase by PG&E.

The Bay Area Air Quality Management District has completed taking public comments, and is expected to approve a "Prevention of Significant Deterioration" permit (really a permit to pollute) for the plant. For the permit to take effect, however, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Fish and Wildlife Service must also sign it. These agencies have not to date raised any serious objections, but we are asking them to prepare a formal Biological Opinion before signing, and believe that that will show that the plant would have unacceptable impacts on wildlife. If the agencies should approve the permit anyway, there are several levels of appeal that offer opportunities to stop the plant.

Despite rumors to the contrary, the Sierra Club is firmly opposed to this project for many reasons. The facility would be adjacent to the Hayward Regional Shoreline Park and in the midst of 1,713 acres of saltwater, freshwater, and brackish marshes, seasonal wetlands, public trails, and habitat for 208 bird species and many small mammals - including 20 rare, threatened, or endangered species. A flood-control channel for the power plant would be just upstream of a specially protected preserve for the salt-marsh harvest mouse. The Hayward Regional Shoreline Park is a significant element of the San Francisco Bay South Important Bird Area. Such areas are part of an international network of the most critical habitats for global bird populations.

The plant would also be upwind of the 140,000 people of Hayward, and would be the fifth-largest point source of air emissions in the Bay Area. The local community already suffers disproportionate health problems, including asthma, chronic lung disease, congestive heart failure, and other chronic conditions that are exacerbated by air pollution. These low-income communities of color already face multiple environmental stressors including a railroad, truck terminals, a sewage treatment plant, and other heavy industries. The required health-risk assessment and environmental-justice analysis by the California Energy Commission have been widely criticized for giving short shrift to the well-documented special health needs and risks of these vulnerable minority communities.

The proposed plant would emit roughly 3.8 billion pounds of CO₂ per year. (Hayward's current annual emissions of all greenhouse gases total just 1.5 billion pounds.) Hayward has gone to considerable effort to develop a plan for reducing its climate impacts, but the Russell City plant would undermine its goals.

California doesn't even need this plant's electricity. The state is committed to increasing the proportion of its electricity derived from renewable sources; its Energy Action Plan sets a goal of 33% renewable energy by 2020. Today California depends on natural gas to generate about 40% of its electricity. Researchers at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory working for the California Energy Commission found that a 33%-renewable energy supply would allow for many of the state's aging natural-gas power plants to be retired without commissioning new ones. Building a new natural-gas plant in Hayward is at odds with renewable energy goals.

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) requires the plant to have lighting to help pilots see and steer clear of the plant. This requirement conflicts with plans to reduce night-time light pollution in the interest of birds.

For all of these reasons, the Sierra Club is strongly opposed to the Russell City Energy Center. We have worked with other organizations including the Local Clean Energy Alliance to point out the serious problems with the project, which in fact is counter to efforts to improve air quality, restore endangered habit, reduce our dependence on natural gas, increase our use of energy efficiency, conservation, and renewable energy, and reduce global-warming emissions.

WhatYouCanDo

Please write to:

EPA
Deborah Jordan
Jordan.Deborah@EPA.gov
75 Hawthorne St.
Mail Code: AIR-1
San Francisco, CA 94105

James Browning
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Ecological Services
2800 Cottage Way
Sacramento, CA 95825
james_browning@fws.gov

Urge them not to concur with the air-pollution permit for the Russell City Energy Center, and instead to conduct a formal Biological Opinion on:

• the impacts of the FAA-mandated light pollution on the species of the internationally recognized Important Bird Area/migratory flyway;
• the impact of the accumulated toxic load of the released toxins and carcinogens on the federally and state-listed endangered and threatened species of the shoreline habitat;
• the impact of the noise pollution on the Endangered Species Preserve;
• the impact of the nitrogen deposition on the marsh, shoreline habitat, and hillside.