The future of the AES power plant appears to hinge on how significant the California Energy Commission deems the wetlands that existed at the site more than a century ago.
That was among the central points the July 9 California Coastal Commission meeting at which a staff report on the AES site was presented and subsequently sent to the CEC.
AES plans to replace its 1400 megawatt generating plant with a smaller, shorter 500 MW plant that eliminates its once-through cooling system in accordance with a statewide, CEC-mandated phase-out of that process.
The transmission of the report from the CEC and the CCC is authorized by both the Coastal Act and a Memorandum of Agreement between the commissions. The point is to ensure that any projects built within the coastal zone will not harmfully impact wildlife and to suggest alternatives that would avoid negative environmental impacts.
The CCC report says 5.93 acres of wetland exist on the site despite the 100-year presence of power stations at the property.
“This appears to be a case of nature batting last,” said CCC staffer Tom Lester, who said that wetland characteristics have persisted “despite a thin layer of fill placed over them years ago.”
That’s good news to Redondo Beach District 2 Councilman Bill Brand, who was in attendance at the meeting. During public comment, Brand introduced historical proof of the site’s wetland heritage, and emphasized that the plant sits on California State Landmark 373, known as the Old Salt Lake. “For thousands of years, natives were there, collecting their salt,” Brand said. “It’s a hydrologically complex site.”
AES Southland head of business development Eric Pendergraft disagreed with the assertion that there are existing wetlands on his plant’s site. “Those areas are concrete-lined retention basins that held oil tanks until 2006,” Pendergraft said. He added that the signs of wetlands found by CCC staff were artificially induced, caused by an injection-well system operated by the West Basin Water District.
The staff report does agree with Pendergraft’s assertion — partially. But, it states that water in the tested areas consists of both the treated water from the Water District’s system and salt water, “which suggests a continuing hydraulic connection between the remnants of the Old Salt Lake and/or underlying seawater.”
The staff report also says that there appear to be feasible, less-damaging alternatives to a proposed wetland fill — a new AES power plant — and that AES chose to not name alternatives in its application. If the project were to go forward, the Coastal Act would require AES to pay to restore at least 17 acres of nearby wetlands.
Commissioner Dayna Bochco, who motioned to approve the report and send it to the CEC, said that she finds it “mind-boggling to build a plant that’s not needed on the coast, where you no longer require seawater.”
“This is another energy project ignoring what we’re trying to accomplish on the coast, to get rid of large industrial uses if they’re not necessary,” Bochco said.
Whether or not the plant is needed now isn’t the issue, Pendergraft said in a statement — AES’s concern is concerned with future energy needs. “Had we appropriately planned for our water needs — by building dams and desalination facilities — we would not be in the serious drought situation we are now. Likewise, we need to plan for our future electricity needs and have projects ready so that we can act quickly if necessary,” Pendergraft wrote.
The motion passed the commission unanimously, though before the commission moved onto its next item, Chair Steve Kinsey made his final remarks.
“The city’s making it clear that they consider the property to be a wetland,” he said. “But I’d be disappointed to see that, if there is redevelopment, that there would be an attempt to try to propose development that would ignore wetland conditions.”
“We’re putting Redondo Beach on record that we appreciate your acknowledgement of the wetlands, and that we will remember it,” Kinsey said.
City Attorney Michael Webb said that the city was very appreciative of the CCC’s report. “One thing that the Mayor and Council have been unanimous about from start is to not see that plant there unless the energy is needed,” he said. “Hopeful the CEC will give this report the weight to which it’s been entitled.”
