During last week’s City Council public hearing on Mayor Bill Finch’s plan to install a solar field on the former landfill at Seaside Park, a supporter of the proposal, Onte Johnson, a local Sierra Club organizer against the coal-fired power plant in the South End operated by PSEG, proclaimed to audience members “I would love for you guys to join us in that fight.” Rick Torres, the Black Rock City Councilman leading the charge against the solar proposal, has given a nod to Johnson’s appeal crafting a council resolution against the Harbor Generating Station.
Torres says he can support a solar plan, but not along Seaside Park. In crafting the resolution, Torres says, “Folks have stated that we need the solar and renewable project to be able to finally close the Coal plant. The coal plant is irrelevant and ought to be closed now. We can buy all the power we need from the grid. And furthermore, gas is so much cheaper now PSEG should convert over to natural gas.”
A council resolution, if supported by Torres’ peers, has no immediate legal force, but would add the support of the city’s legislative body to a growing chorus of environmentalists who want the coal-burning plant history.
Last week the Parks Commission unanimously rejected the plan for thousands of solar panels on the park. The day after City Attorney Mark Anastasi announced the park board vote was non-binding, a declaration many local legal minds say is in conflict with the specific language in the City Charter validating park board authority. A title search showed the former landfill is in fact part of the park so now the city must craft an argument that can stand up to a legal challenge. Will the mayor push for a revote by the Parks Commission? The City Council must approve the 20-year agreement with United Illuminating that calls for lease payments over the life of the deal of roughly $7 million. Critics of the arrangement claim the city’s not getting a large enough piece of financial flesh from the utility.
Last October Finch announced a city partnership with United Illuminating for the Green Energy Park renewable energy project, one of the initiatives proposed in the City’s BGreen 2020 sustainability plan to create jobs, save taxpayers money and fight climate change. The planned project consists of 2.86 MW of Solar Photo Voltaic and 2.8 MW of fuel cell energy, according to the mayor. The green energy project will cut down on UI’s dependence on fossil fuels and reduce greenhouse gas emissions for citywide UI customers.
Torres has voiced opposition to the proposal claiming the west end of Seaside Park is not a proper location. He has also expressed concerns about what thousands of solar panels will look like across the harbor from the vantage point of his Black Rock and West End constituency. Torres’ resolution:
A Resolution by the Bridgeport City Council
Regarding the Coal Burning PSEG Plant in Bridgeport Harbor
WHEREAS, coal fired power plants have an on-going negative impact on breathable air quality; and
WHEREAS, state legislation has reduced SO2 and mercury emissions statewide by 90%; and
WHEREAS, the Bridgeport Coal plant has the worst performing record for achieving that state mandate; and
WHEREAS, the method for moving the coal dust to the plant for burning uses a crane to pile up the coal for pickup, storage and utilization and that process sends plumes of coal dust into the air polluting Long Island Sound, the Bridgeport Harbor and the East End of Bridgeport; and
WHEREAS, such activities impairs the health of nearby residents; and
WHEREAS, the children of Bridgeport continue to have exhibit elevated levels of respiratory issues; and
WHEREAS, those children come from homes which are most in need and most financially vulnerable; and
Now therefore, be it hereby RESOLVED BY THE BRIDGEPORT CITY COUNCIL:
1. Calls upon the PSEG Company to phase out the coal-fired Bridgeport Harbor power plant at the earliest possible date; and
2. Calls upon the PSEG Company to restore the land to residentially environmentally approved levels; and
3. Urges the Public Utilities Control Authority (PURA) and the department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP) to take immediate steps to require such a phase-out; and
4. The City Clerk Is Authorized And Directed To Provide Copies Of This Resolution To The Mayor, The Public Utilities Control Authority, The Commissioner Of Energy And Environmental Protection and the PSEG Company.
*** Not knowing enough info concerning the coal plant makes me wonder, is it feasible for the UI solar panels project to be incorporated with the coal plant? Also, if the coal plant were to shut down say in six months, what form of energy source would take its place and who and how many people along with plant workers would be affected one way or another? *** There is an old saying that states you should never throw away your old moldy loaf of bread first, ’til you’ve replaced it with a new fresh one! ***
Mojo: If I recollect, the coal plant cranks out something like 35 or 40 mw of power. The proposed replacements seem to fall a bit short of that.
Also, I don’t see anything about replacing tax revenue from the existing plant. Anyone have a clue?
Jim, we can go outside and pick the money we need off the trees planted by Finch. It is obvious taxes weren’t thought of when this was written.
Aha! Finally, the real Rick Torres we all know and love comes forward. Well you can call for closing the plant and importing more electricity from the grid. How nice, who pays for this importing of power? Now when we close this plant and the land is pristine how does the city replace the property tax from UI?
I hear about all these studies about kids and illness but where is the documentation that shows this plant is responsible? If this plant is responsible why hasn’t it been flooded with lawsuits?
Where are the people including all the tree-huggers when it comes to getting diesel bus and trucks to conform to clean air standards. Nowhere, they are not a glamorous target like UI is.
Rick, I think there are more important things going on in this city than the need for a wasted nonbinding feel-good resolution. Glad you’re back, Rick
And there’s the Andy Fardy we know and love!!!
Let’s not shut down the coal plant until someone can prove to Andy it is killing our kids. Rick’s mistake here is he didn’t convince any of his council members to sign on. That would have lent far greater credence.
Bob, you say it’s killing our kids, if it is why is it still open? Why haven’t the Feds set stronger standards like they did with automobiles? What is a viable alternative to the coal plant and please don’t tell me it’s solar power. It’s easy to make claims but not so easy to show the studies backing up the killing of our kids.
I know I sound like a UI toadie, but I am not. You just can’t run around acting like closing the UI Plant will solve your pollution problem.
Burning fossil fuels in factories, power plants, steel mills, smelters, diesel- and gasoline-powered motor vehicles (cars and trucks) and equipment generate a large part of the raw materials for fine particles. So does burning wood in residential fireplaces and wood stoves or burning agricultural fields or forests. EPA Dust storms, construction and demolition, mining operations, and agriculture are among the activities that produce coarse particles. Tire, brake pad and road wear can also create coarse particles. Bacteria, pollen, mold, and plant and animal debris are also included as coarse particles.
Coarse particles are bad and coal-fired power plants are, too. Think of how many solar panels it would take to replace the tax revenue lost by the plant’s removal.
I think this is more of a negotiating ploy than anything else. If UI is pushing Finch to push the solar farm and you want the solar farm to go away, you need to take the UI push away. Closing the coal plant would be far greener than opening the solar farm. However, opening the solar farm is nowhere near as economically advantageous as the coal plant. Nor does it supply near the power. I think Rick is trying to tie the two together as a package to discredit the ‘it is green’ argument and dissuade UI from pursuing the project in order to achieve his ultimate goal of saving the park.
Here are some facts: the plant is capable of 533 Megawatts. The solar/FuelCell project is 1% of that 5.6 Mw. Today’s technology is not ready for renewables to replace conventional power generation. The cost to UI, not price, of solar energy at this site will be $0.33/Kw. We currently pay $0.08/Kw for conventional power.
The plant is not operating most of the time because of the state mandate. It is a dinosaur, it ought to be replaced. Buying from the grid is cheap. The only time the Coal plant is relevant is in the heavy summer usage period.
It’s my opinion this mayor is a bully. He intimidates folks into compliance. I did not request any supporters on this resolution, because I did not want to put people on the spot. I’m a little radioactive right now.
Living a clean and healthier life is something we should strive for, Andy. Folks north of I95 are not affected at all by this plant. The East End and Stratford and Milford are highly affected as that is the prevailing wind direction. I don’t suspect closing this plant will convert people’s lives, but I do think it can improve them a little.
If there were no other choices I would agree with Andy, but this plant needs updating and frankly coal especially brought in by boat and then barges is beyond unacceptable. It’s like comparing the old coal heating our homes once had to clean-burning and clean-handling natural gas. There is no comparison, one was foul, the other hardly noticeable.
Rick you said it yourself, the plant is hardly used except in high-usage months. You can close this plant down and its effect on pollution will be negligible. People need to know the majority of airborne pollutants come from power plants in the midwest where there is little to no monitoring.
Rick, if the UI closes and knocks down this plant is the Sierra Club going to make up the tax shortfall?
Source: City of Bridgeport - Assessor's Office PRINCIPAL PROPERTY TAXPAYERS FY 2012 and 2003 (Unaudited) TAXPAYER Taxable Assessed Value Rank %ofCity Wheelabrator $320,948,352 1 4.59 UI 211,997,036 2 2.18 PSEG Power CT 152,689,129 3 0.85Above taken from page 88 of the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report 2013 published by Chief Financial Officer, Ann Kelly-Lenz.
**The chart supposedly compares FY 2012 and 2003 but the comparison shows the 2004 payers? And why couldn’t the 2013 report show the 2013 Principal taxpayers since it comes out 6 months after the close of that year?
**You may be aware Wheelabrator has been in tax court for a number of years recently. They still are. However, the City valuation experts have found it impossible to substantiate the valuations indicated by at least $100 Million but the City keeps using the old numbers. Why?
**Does anyone looking at the “% of total City assessed value” above suspect there may be multiple math errors?
If the coal fired plant is some or all of the PSEG Power number above, what would be the effect on Grand List, especially if they immediately demolished the building leaving only land in need of remediation for property taxation? Does this need consideration by the City Council along with an OPEN, ACCOUNTABLE and TRANSPARENT assessor’s office operation? Time will tell.