SouthSanJose.com: Community Coupons
Advertise with SouthSanJose.com. Packages start at $79 per year.
SouthSanJose.com: The Community Web Site Serving Santa Teresa, Almaden Valley, Blossom Valley, Coyote Valley and Evergreen
Community News, Events, Announcements, Sports and Crime Businesses, Neighbors, Organizations / Groups, Government, Schools, Parks, Places of Worship, Services, Utilities and Carpooling Feedback, Chat / Messages, Lost and Found, Home Improvements, Home and Family and Survey Real Estate, Classified Ads, Free / Nearly Free and Meet Our Sponsors About Us - Find out about the creators of this community web site.

Feedback

Proposed Calpine Power Plant
aka Metcalf Energy Center

Previous | Next | First | Last | Back to Message List | Reply | Add a New Message
Tuesday, June 22nd, 1999 @ 12:05 AM
Subj: Mercury News Ratio Theory of Pollution
From: [email protected]

In the Mercury News� editorial on June 13, 1999 titled "In our back yard? Considering overall picture, this plant would not be an environmental threat" the Mercury News said:

"The Calpine plant would produce enough pollution to increase the total nitrogen oxide emissions in the county four-tenths of 1 percent."

As I was looking through the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review of the proposed sale of four of Pacific Gas and Electric Company's (PG&E) power plants at http://www.pgedivest.com/, I found the comments from the SAEJ (Southeast Alliance for Environmental Justice) provided a new way of looking at the Mercury News� claim.

From http://www.pgedivest.com/eirtc/comments/u.html:

"A project�s impact cannot be considered insignificant because it�s contribution to air quality is insignificant when compared to other sources. Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford 221 Cal. App.3d 692, 720 (5th Dist. 1990). The Court of Appeals held inadequate the cumulative impact analysis prepared for an EIR for a proposed coal-fired cogeneration power plant. The Court called this method of finding an impact insignificant because it was small compared to other sources, the incorrect approach. Id. This "ratio" theory of impact analysis allows a large pollution problem to make a project�s contribution appear less significant in a cumulative impact analysis. But the Court strongly disagreed, holding that such a method would "avoid analyzing the severity of the problem and allow approval of projects which, when taken in isolation, appear insignificant, but when viewed together, appear startling." It is invalid and terribly misleading of the DEIR to conclude that the impacts to air quality are insignificant because it is less then one percent of regional emissions. (Pg 4.5-59). In fact, the more severe existing environmental problems are, the lower the threshold should be for treating a project�s cumulative impacts as significant. Id. at 721. See discussion of Los Angeles Unified School District v. Los Angeles (1997) 58 Cal. App. 1019, supra."

In other words, in areas with high levels of pollutants in the air, new sources of pollution look less significant from the "ratio theory" point of view used by the Mercury News.

Sincerely,

Steven Nelson

Home | What's New | Community News | Neighbors | Events | Announcements
Organizations / Groups | Businesses | Government | Schools | Parks | Places of Worship | Real Estate | Services
Utilities | Crime | Classifieds | Ridesharing | Sports | Lost and Found | Free/Nearly Free | Chat/Messages
Feedback | Home Improvements | Survey | Search | About Us | Meet Our Sponsors


Copyright © 1998-2025, Scott and Donna Scholz (SouthSanJose.com)
All Rights Reserved
Contact Webmaster
Number of visits to this page since 01/27/2004
9614
Logo WM468x60_ko
This page was generated in 0.1410 seconds.