CPUC PUBLIC MEETING COMMENT SHEET
Name: PAULETTE M. LAGANA
Address: c/o CAP-IT
P.O. BOX 1128
PITTSBURG, CA 94565-2021
Comment: I have several concerns regarding the divesting of the Pittsburg and Antioch plants.
1. It is a concern that the Pittsburg plant did not have as an option that the plant would close once replacement power became available, such as the option available to the Hunters Point plant. This is especially true since there are two new power plants proposed for Pittsburg, (1) Pittsburg District Energy Facility [PDEF] and (2) Cal-Pine facility.
2. It is a concern that the proposed operation capacity factor for Pittsburg is baselined at 31% and analytical maximum at 68%. Antioch is baselined at 36% and analytical maximum at 80%. What is not detailed is the increase in noise and traffic and the effects on cumulative impact.
3. It is a concern that the Pittsburg plant will be considered an essential plant on the power grid and, therefore, will not be considered eligible for closing down the plant.
4. The technology used in Pittsburg and Antioch is older technology which is less efficient. This older technology has a negative impact on water, air, soil, and humans.
5. Will the new owners of the Pittsburg & Antioch plants be required to guarantee that no jobs will be lost?
6. There is a concern that there is an overlap in the radius of air quality impacts of the five plants -- Pittsburg, proposed PDEF plant, Cal-Pine/DOW, proposed Cal-Pine, and Antioch. This possible radius overlap is not clearly defined nor investigated.
7. The hazard impacts appear to be underestimated. The data does not reflect the true picture. In other words, it is technically correct but inaccurate in its assessment of noise, emissions and traffic.
8. Background risk needs to be considered for this assessment to be more accurate.
|TOP||Return to Table of Contents|