To: California Energy Commission
Tell the CEC: No to Toxic Oxnard Puente Power Plant!
We the undersigned are academics and activists, organizers and workers, who move in solidarity with the people of Oxnard, CA, to fight the toxic fossil-fuel burning Puente power plant proposed to be sited in their city. We call upon the California Energy Commission to reject this proposal for another unnecessary, toxic power plant, which will only generate more profits and wealth for NRG, a Fortune 200 company, at the expense of the health of Oxnard residents and the already fragile planet.
Why is this important?
View and share 2 fantastic videos featuring CAUSE youth and organizers from Oxnard testifying on the toxic impacts of the PPP:
https://vimeo.com/204629609
https://www.facebook.com/FusionProjectEarth/videos/1870535536545288/
Oxnard is already "host" to three landfills and the Halaco Superfund site, and those most heavily impacted by the existing and proposed toxic plants are primarily working class immigrant communities of color. According to the California Environmental Justice Alliance (CEJA), within the environmentally overburdened communities in Oxnard, 85% are people of color, 29% lives in "linguistic isolation," 56% lives below two times the federal poverty level, and 46% of those over age 25 have less than high school education.
In recognition that NRG corporation continues a long history of environmental racism and injustice wrought on the people of Oxnard through this project--seeking profits over people, bringing further ecological disaster in California and beyond--we believe the P3 (Puente Power Project) should be re-dubbed as poisonous, parasitic and predatory.
Poisonous: Each day, about 3 thousand Latino/Mixteco farm workers do stoop labor in fields less than half a mile from the plant site. Nearby, many of their children are among the 3 thousand youth attending schools most likely in the country to be located next to fields doused with toxic pesticides. Not surprisingly, the asthma rates in the most impacted neighborhoods of Oxnard are above the 90th percentile in the state of California. Meanwhile, one in five Oxnard residents has no access to health insurance or care. Thus, Oxnard has been identified in the top 20% of most impacted, disadvantaged communities in the state by the Cal Enviroscreen measure of environmental racism.
Parasitic: The existing and proposed power plants force the people of Oxnard to bear the costs and impacts of producing electricity for neighboring cities up and down the coast of California, from Simi Valley to Goleta, including the UCSB campus. We refuse to benefit from, tolerate, perpetuate, or add to the injustices suffered by these communities.
Moreover, NRG uses credits from projects run by another company elsewhere to offset their pollution impacts, instead of actually reducing local emissions from their projects. NRG is among the top 10 “large emitter” polluting companies in the country to use these offsets, who accounted for about 36% of the total emissions and 65% of the offsets used.(1)
Predatory: The energy industry, including NRG, preys upon California residents by continuing to propose unnecessary power plants, forcing consumers to bear the cost of their construction, purely for energy companies’ profits. A 2017 LA Times investigation revealed that California already has more gas-fired power plants than needed, with many operating below capacity and closing prematurely because we have a surplus of power and projected oversupply of electricity through 2020. Thus, when regulators like the CEC and CPUC allow power companies to continue building more plants, it only guarantees California ratepayers having to absorb the costs through higher rates, even as electricity demand has fallen since 2008. As former president of the CA Public Utilities Commission Loretta Lynch has said: “We’re awash in power at a premium price.”(2)
More reasons to oppose the plant:
No good jobs! NRG has tried to claim that the project will bring jobs to Oxnard, and Ventura County. But during the February 2017 evidentiary hearings, NRG’s witness testified that workers would be drawn from the larger LA County for construction jobs. How many jobs? A table provided in NRG’s application showed a projected 48 Construction jobs, no Operation jobs, except for 17 from the existing workforce (no new jobs!) and 54 Demolition jobs—but that is only if NRG takes responsibility for removal of the old plants. In other words, there would be about 100 or fewer, temporary jobs (for the duration of the construction and possible demolition) that are not in sustainable, clean energy. The most high-paying, skilled managerial jobs would go to people out of the area since NRG corporate headquarters are located 3,000 miles away in New Jersey.
Risks to People, Animal, and Plants, and Wetlands:
If the CEC approves the PPP, it will allow NRG to risk the lives, health, and safety of the people of these communities, while it is not their own families or communities who will be at the epicenter of these so-called low risks. Indeed, NRG CEOs can sleep peacefully with their families at night while Oxnard residents face ever-mounting dangers across the country. NRG claims that the threat of health and environmental impacts of the plants will be low, and the risk of disasters such as tsunami and flooding from these disasters and sea level rise is negligible. Yet the California Coastal Commission has unanimously opposed the PPP, citing the risk of flooding at the low-lying coastal location--a growing threat associated with the realities of climate change. Oxnard also has some of the last remaining coastal wetlands in California, which host many endangered species of plants and animals.
Not in Step with Clean Energy Mandates:
The proposed project is in clear contradiction to the clean energy goals already mandated in California and nationwide to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and find renewable, clean energy alternatives. Instead, it heaps more poison on Oxnard residents and beyond.
Many recent initiatives for alternative energy solutions have been legislated and are already underway in California, and in the region, that should continue to be developed. SB32 requires greater greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction measures so that direct emission reductions should be achieved after the year 2020. Its companion legislation, AB197, requires the Air Resources Board to prioritize “direct emission reductions” to achieve these reductions beyond the 2020 limit. These mea...
https://vimeo.com/204629609
https://www.facebook.com/FusionProjectEarth/videos/1870535536545288/
Oxnard is already "host" to three landfills and the Halaco Superfund site, and those most heavily impacted by the existing and proposed toxic plants are primarily working class immigrant communities of color. According to the California Environmental Justice Alliance (CEJA), within the environmentally overburdened communities in Oxnard, 85% are people of color, 29% lives in "linguistic isolation," 56% lives below two times the federal poverty level, and 46% of those over age 25 have less than high school education.
In recognition that NRG corporation continues a long history of environmental racism and injustice wrought on the people of Oxnard through this project--seeking profits over people, bringing further ecological disaster in California and beyond--we believe the P3 (Puente Power Project) should be re-dubbed as poisonous, parasitic and predatory.
Poisonous: Each day, about 3 thousand Latino/Mixteco farm workers do stoop labor in fields less than half a mile from the plant site. Nearby, many of their children are among the 3 thousand youth attending schools most likely in the country to be located next to fields doused with toxic pesticides. Not surprisingly, the asthma rates in the most impacted neighborhoods of Oxnard are above the 90th percentile in the state of California. Meanwhile, one in five Oxnard residents has no access to health insurance or care. Thus, Oxnard has been identified in the top 20% of most impacted, disadvantaged communities in the state by the Cal Enviroscreen measure of environmental racism.
Parasitic: The existing and proposed power plants force the people of Oxnard to bear the costs and impacts of producing electricity for neighboring cities up and down the coast of California, from Simi Valley to Goleta, including the UCSB campus. We refuse to benefit from, tolerate, perpetuate, or add to the injustices suffered by these communities.
Moreover, NRG uses credits from projects run by another company elsewhere to offset their pollution impacts, instead of actually reducing local emissions from their projects. NRG is among the top 10 “large emitter” polluting companies in the country to use these offsets, who accounted for about 36% of the total emissions and 65% of the offsets used.(1)
Predatory: The energy industry, including NRG, preys upon California residents by continuing to propose unnecessary power plants, forcing consumers to bear the cost of their construction, purely for energy companies’ profits. A 2017 LA Times investigation revealed that California already has more gas-fired power plants than needed, with many operating below capacity and closing prematurely because we have a surplus of power and projected oversupply of electricity through 2020. Thus, when regulators like the CEC and CPUC allow power companies to continue building more plants, it only guarantees California ratepayers having to absorb the costs through higher rates, even as electricity demand has fallen since 2008. As former president of the CA Public Utilities Commission Loretta Lynch has said: “We’re awash in power at a premium price.”(2)
More reasons to oppose the plant:
No good jobs! NRG has tried to claim that the project will bring jobs to Oxnard, and Ventura County. But during the February 2017 evidentiary hearings, NRG’s witness testified that workers would be drawn from the larger LA County for construction jobs. How many jobs? A table provided in NRG’s application showed a projected 48 Construction jobs, no Operation jobs, except for 17 from the existing workforce (no new jobs!) and 54 Demolition jobs—but that is only if NRG takes responsibility for removal of the old plants. In other words, there would be about 100 or fewer, temporary jobs (for the duration of the construction and possible demolition) that are not in sustainable, clean energy. The most high-paying, skilled managerial jobs would go to people out of the area since NRG corporate headquarters are located 3,000 miles away in New Jersey.
Risks to People, Animal, and Plants, and Wetlands:
If the CEC approves the PPP, it will allow NRG to risk the lives, health, and safety of the people of these communities, while it is not their own families or communities who will be at the epicenter of these so-called low risks. Indeed, NRG CEOs can sleep peacefully with their families at night while Oxnard residents face ever-mounting dangers across the country. NRG claims that the threat of health and environmental impacts of the plants will be low, and the risk of disasters such as tsunami and flooding from these disasters and sea level rise is negligible. Yet the California Coastal Commission has unanimously opposed the PPP, citing the risk of flooding at the low-lying coastal location--a growing threat associated with the realities of climate change. Oxnard also has some of the last remaining coastal wetlands in California, which host many endangered species of plants and animals.
Not in Step with Clean Energy Mandates:
The proposed project is in clear contradiction to the clean energy goals already mandated in California and nationwide to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and find renewable, clean energy alternatives. Instead, it heaps more poison on Oxnard residents and beyond.
Many recent initiatives for alternative energy solutions have been legislated and are already underway in California, and in the region, that should continue to be developed. SB32 requires greater greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction measures so that direct emission reductions should be achieved after the year 2020. Its companion legislation, AB197, requires the Air Resources Board to prioritize “direct emission reductions” to achieve these reductions beyond the 2020 limit. These mea...