Comments
OP ED - On Wednesday, the Los Angeles City Council will be considering one of the worst potential boondoggles in City history, the Scattergood Generating Station repowering project. I argued against this project until I was termed out in December of 2022. Now that we are steering into the eyes of disaster, I thought I would briefly summarize some of my great concerns.
1. Scattergood would create high potential for negative physical impacts, especially in the immediate area surrounding the plant. Under current technologies, most hydrogen is produced by climate-destroying methane. Hydrogen itself emits six times the amount of NOx than methane, which would impact the already polluted neighborhoods nearby. It is prone to leakage, being five times more prone to leakage than methane. Unlike natural gas, additives can’t be added, so leaks can’t be smelled. Hydrogen is highly explosive, in an area that is already prone to fire disasters. It is also highly combustible. Not long ago, an explosion in Colton took down 70% of the Hydrogen stations in California, while killing one individual and injuring another. A major incident could harm public health, negatively affect LAX and neighboring areas. The Aliso Canyon blowout illustrates how severe the impacts can be when energy infrastructure fails. Incidents such as the 2013 Playa Del Rey storage facility explosion illustrates the potential for catastrophic outcomes were we to have a natural disaster such as an earthquake, fires or hydrogen explosion at or near Scattergood. A hydrogen or ammonia incident near critical infrastructure such as the Hyperion Wastewater Treatment Plant, coastal evacuation routes or the regional power grid could disrupt essential services in the area and beyond.
2. This will be a huge expense for customers. The cost is estimated to be $800 million, which is likely to be a low estimate. Putting this kind of money into a highly speculative investment could just leave us with hundreds of millions of dollars in sunk costs which we would later have to abandon. I can see this project being referred to as one of our worst boondoggles for decades into the future.
3. This is an unsustainable project at best. It is estimated to use 1.7 BILLION gallons of fresh water a year. This in a City buffeted by drought, certain to worsen as climate change continues unabated. Is this winter hot enough for you?
4. Green hydrogen is speculative. Running a system on 100% hydrogen has never been done anywhere in the world, and it may not prove to be feasible. For the foreseeable future, we would be locked into using a mix of mostly methane with some hydrogen, continuing fossil fuel reliance for decades. Los Angeles is uniquely well positioned to lead with distributed solar, increasingly better battery storage, electrification and energy efficiency. We have sunshine around 330 days a year, leaving the sun available almost every day to generate clean, affordable electricity. This could be done with greater reliability, more safety, fewer risks and lower water impacts. Also as I noted in an Energy & Environment Committee meeting in 2022, a So. Cal. Gas lobbyist had told me with surprising candor that hydrogen proposals were intended to keep methane flowing for as long as possible.
5. Many utilities are already deploying Virtual Power Plants, which aggregate rooftop and other small site solar, combined with technologies like home battery storage and demand response to support the grid during heat waves or outages. Because the sources are broadly distributed, power is available closer to where it’s needed and less likely to get stuck behind congested power lines. This has been employed successfully in several significant instances already. Mobilizing during peak demand instead of building peaker plants is estimated to be a huge cost savings. It would be less subject to fuel price fluctuations, and more secure with reduced risks of attacks on energy infrastructure.
With the Federal government moving us towards irreversible climate disaster, Los Angeles needs to set an example of effective alternative energy use. Instead we would be leading in a terribly wrong direction.
We deserve energy policies that are safe, affordable, fiscally responsible and support LA’s climate goals. The Scattergood proposal fails on all three counts. I strongly urge the City Council to oppose this speculative project and instead lead on investments in clean distributed energy resources that benefit the neighborhood and the entire city of Los Angeles.
(Paul Koretz is a veteran public servant with decades of experience in Los Angeles area government. He served three terms on the Los Angeles City Council, represented the 42nd District in the California State Assembly, and was both Mayor and a longtime City Councilmember in West Hollywood. Known for his work on environmental policy, animal welfare, and fiscal responsibility, Koretz continues to be an influential voice on regional and statewide issues.)
