Home › News › Local News
Power plant denial to be appealed
Edison says coastal site for facility is within zoning rules
Southern California Edison is appealing an Oxnard Planning Commission decision to deny a permit for a 45-megawatt power plant at Mandalay Beach.
Edison is under orders by the California Public Utilities Commission to build five new "peaker" plants, including a $50 million, natural gas-fired facility slated for company property in Oxnard next to a 430-megawatt Reliant Energy plant.
The plants, also planned for Stanton, Norwalk, Rancho Cucamonga and Ontario, are expected to stabilize energy use as population swells and consumers ratchet up use. Called peakers because they operate only during peak use hours, the facilities start up in less than 10 minutes.
Edison has requested that the City Council hear the appeal July 24, but a date has yet to be set.
Last month, the Planning Commission denied the company's request for a zoning permit. Voting 5-2, commissioners cited a flawed environmental report, lack of need and potential aircraft flight path problems with a nearby county-owned airport.
Commissioners also agreed with city staff members who said the peaker plant was not dependent on a coastal location, a key requirement under zoning rules.
Edison officials disagree, arguing that "nothing" in the city's coastal zoning ordinance "requires that an energy facility must be a coastal dependent development or use,'" according to a 15-page appeal filed with the city Tuesday.
"This is a rate-payer asset and the rate payers have a right to use based on existing zoning, and we believe the Planning Commission simply has the interpretation incorrect," Mark Nelson, Edison's director of generation, planning and strategy, said Wednesday.
"This is a very important plant," Nelson added. "It's essentially a big insurance policy for reliability in the Oxnard area. This isn't power for export."
Oxnard beach residents have criticized the plant, citing concerns with noise, pollution and views.
Business leaders support the plan, contending that stable energy is critical to the region's economy.
Mayor Tom Holden said Wednesday that he's not likely to support the appeal, citing the city's long history of hosting unpopular industrial uses.




Posted by ebrockway on July 12, 2007 at 7:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)
There's already a plant there, it has stacks already that aircraft are well aware of. An additional one or two isn't going to pose additional risk, so that part of the argument against the plant sounds like more bogus NIMBY garbage to me. You already know new plants are needed, buckle up and get with the program already!
(Requires free registration.)
Article discussions on this site are to support community debates of issues related to our stories and editorials.
Discussions should not stray from the subject of the story or editorial.
We do not allow the following:
We reserve the right to delete threads and/or ban users for these or other reasons we deem necessary.
Opinions are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.