Question 4: Hayward power plants?

Please note that most of these questions and answers will also appear in the newspaper on Saturday. Next …

What is your position on the two different power plants proposed for Hayward? What would you do about each of them?

LINDA BENNETT: I oppose the first power plant because Hayward should not bear the burden for the Peninsula. I am concerned about the information citizens were not privy to about the negative effects of the plant. I see the need for energy but believe there are newer technologies less detrimental to our community. I oppose the second power plant because enough is enough.

BARBARA HALLIDAY: I strongly opposed the Eastshore Energy Center and testified against it at hearings in Hayward and Sacramento. With my support, the city has taken legal action to stop the plant. Regarding Calpine, which has been approved by the state, I believe Council should have a full opportunity to review and comment on the environmental impacts that have been identified.

OLDEN HENSON: I returned early from a lobby trip to vote against the Eastshore plant land use plan due to its lack of emissions control, proximity to schools and residential areas and the fact that it is not needed. I supported only the consistency of land use and the eventual contract with Calpine on the Russell City plant. The California Energy Commission has the authority to approve or disapprove, not the city.

MARVIN PEIXOTO: I oppose the building of both plants and support Assemblymember Mary Hayashi’s bill AB 1909 to prevent the building of a second power plant in Hayward. Regarding the Calpine plant, I would support exploring all legal remedies available, both public and private, to ensure that this plant never gets built.

BILL QUIRK: The City Council, myself included unanimously opposes the East Shore Energy Plant because it can be seen from homes and schools. Unfortunately, the final decision will be made by the California Energy Commission and not the City. The Russell City Plant has already been approved by the California Energy Commission and that decision cannot be changed.

ROB SIMPSON: They’d kill people polluting 2,000,000,000 tons annually. I’m helping to stop them. With comprehensive understanding of the health threat, environmental degradation and loss of property value, I’m an active litigant fighting both plants. I personally filed an EPA appeal that has stopped Calpine and the City Council for six months now. I filed an injunction regarding Eastshore. www.redwoodrob.com volunteer 510-909-1800

FRANCISCO ZERMEÑO: Calpine was born out of feared and unwanted blackouts. The peninsula receives the energy, we the dust particles, and the possible airplane problems. The other plant presents the same situation, but on smaller scale. Actually, I believe that they will never be built, at least here in Hayward. I don’t favor either one of them and signed petition against them.

  • J. W. Kyle

    I just fail to understand some of the remarks of our current slate of candidates who, in large part, fail to understand what was said while attending to the question when tyhis matter was in front of the City Council. For example, Mr. Zermeno, a very well intended individual, when revealing his attitude, states that we do not need the ‘Russell City’ and / or Cal-Pine project because that power is to be sent to the SF Peninsula. Was he sleeping while speaking in front of the State Energy Commission? He diod take that opportunity, did he not?

    When that itemm was before City Council, the stated puerpose of the old “Russell City” location was to take advanttage of the power grid which had capacity and enabled Cal-pine to meet conditions of a contract involving the need of employers in the Pittsburgh- Antioch area of Contra Costa County, where the pollution by oil refineries was at a high level. If it aided job growth at a location within what we accept as the ‘East Bay’ at less direct construction expense, as result of availability of the power lines traversing Hayward, then that means that rates established to encourage job growth is a good idea…. the fact remains that the original intent was to aid the contractual arrangement created by Cal-Pine for the benefit of job growth in Contra Costa’s needy area,whichis already struvggl;ing with polution from oil refineries. Then why not go ahead especially if funds for the Library were made available to Hayward.

    I am opposed to the ‘Peaker plant’ which was supported by Scott Raty, the C of C operations manager at the time of his endorsement. You see, if you live in Pleasanton you have an absolute need for air conditioning…. how many of our Chamber memebers live in Pleasanton? Take a guess and understand their need to support the peaker plant’

    I am opposed to the peaketr plant and submitted a written argumen,in the pile of such letters which were submitted for purposes of defeating that plant. My argument is based on the fact that the peaker plant, with fourteen (14) exhaust stacks could reach full powere within three minutes of turning on those diesel type internal combustion engines employing natural gas. The pollution problem was minor to the other flaws in the proposal which limited ‘operationsl hours to you must ‘get this’ to …. JUST…. 4,000 hours OF SUCH ACTIVITY in any one year. Divide the number of hours permitted annually by 24, then accept the idea that you do not need to meet peaker demand for air conditioning in winter and ask yourself: ‘who is kidding who?’

    My real objection to the ‘peaker plant’ was concern for the aircraft approaching Oakland International’s runway 29.

    If you draw a line down the middle of Runway 29, and extend it to a point south of Rte 92, you see and understand why Southwest Airlines and all the others desiring to land at Oakland pass directly above the ‘peaker plant’. Now the unanswered question which I directed to FAA is this: “This is a new technology where a small number of such plants with far less in the count of exhaust stacks are present. What can you say about the velocity of the exhaust and how would it affect aircraft which are supposed to be at 2,500 feet when crossing Rte 92 but are frequently obserbved at just 2,000 feet or even less”.

    They approach Oakland at 3 minute intervals, inter- rupted about every 12 to 15 minutes so as to allow departures along Runway 29 out of Oakland.

    Suppose for a moment, that a tired pilot, exhausted by delays in his flight which often make stops slong the various transcontiental air paths, has not been made aware of a fairly violent exhaust plume generated by fourteen (14) stacks and finds himself surprised to the extent he fails to avert loss of control over his bird and it’s causes a crash which cheats surving passengers out of full value in their ticket purchase?

    Shucks, the responsde to my inquiry was met with the dumbest reply in a series of dumb replies,authored by FAA. The answer was that ‘THERE ARE NO MAN MADE ERECTIONS ALONG THE R 29 APPROACH’. Hell, I wasn;t concerned about high rise buildings, I was addressing high rise plunezs at possible high velocity!



    Although somtimes refered to as the guy who raised this ISSUE as an obstruction to flights into Hayward Airport, such is not the case. But I would like to see the matteR adjudicated in City’s favor since I am about to embark on a crusade to move helicopter operations to the west side of Hayward airport, a move supported by conversations as between the recently departed airport manager and a majority of Helicopter pilots who are tired of my complinats about low height flights over the Longwood / Winton Grove neighborhood.

    It seems that the approach directed by control ttower requires ‘landing on or near taxi-ways, much to the annoyance of fixed wing pilots.

    Now there is an issue candidates ought chew on for a bit!!!

  • “MARVIN PEIXOTO: I oppose the building of both plants and support Assemblymember Mary Hayashi’s bill AB 1909 to prevent the building of a second power plant in Hayward. Regarding the Calpine plant, I would support exploring all legal remedies available, both public and private, to ensure that this plant never gets built.”

    For purposes of clarification, Mary Hayashi’s bill AB1909 did absolutely nothing but get her name in the paper to oppose a plant that she knew about well before the public outcry started. If she was serious about stopping the bill she could’ve used her supposed influence as co-majority whip to (at the very least) get a second motion for the bill to be heard in the legislature.

    Guess what, didn’t happen.

    Why? Because she could care less about the community unless she can make some political hay out of the situation. In fact, during the hearing, Mary had the least to say but the most to publish about the fact that she was doing “something” about the issue.

    And by the way, this is coming from a sitting Assemblyperson that doesn’t have a problem taking several contributions from Chevron and Sempra Energy. Sempra just settled a $700 million lawsuit with the California Attorney General’s office for violating California’s air standards, energy market manipulation, and price fixing…