Connect with us

Hi, what are you looking for?

Southern California Edison has rejected a plan by NRG Corp to build a 262 MW gas-fired peaker plant in Oxnard, citing lower emissions and costs from using renewable energy and a new transmission line.

Clean Power

SCE Decides Renewables & A New Transmission Line Are Better Than Another Gas-Fired Peaker Plant

Southern California Edison has rejected a plan by NRG Corp to build a 262 MW gas-fired peaker plant in Oxnard, citing lower emissions and costs from using renewable energy and a new transmission line.

Southern California Edison has decided against building its proposed Puente facility, a new gas-fired peaker plant in the Oxnard area of southern California. According to the Ventura County Star, SCE believes its future energy needs can be better met by a new transmission line coupled with electricity from renewable sources and a battery backup installation.

Flaring natural gas (, SCE had been negotiating with NRG Energy on the construction of a new 262 MW natural gas peaker plant in Oxnard, a plan the city of Oxnard opposed. “Edison is not interested in a long-term contract with a 250-megawatt project,” said Chris Williamson, an Oxnard consultant who has been working on the city’s opposition to a coastal power plant. “The beast is dead.”

The new plan will need approval from the California Independent Systems Operator and the California Public Utilities Commission. It was submitted to the PUC last week. The utility company acknowledges that a new transmission line will be vulnerable to earthquakes and wildfires like the ones that hit nearby earlier this month and claimed the home of CleanTechnica contributing editor Kyle Field. But it believes the new proposal is an efficient use of resources as the new line will be built in a corridor adjacent to other transmission infrastructure. At most, a new peaker plant less than one tenth the size of the one proposed by NRG would be needed to meet all energy needs in the area.

Calpine Corporation is proposing another 275 MW gas-powered plant to be located nearby to Oxnard on the Santa Clara river, an idea that has set off a storm of criticism. In November, a 1,300-page staff report found the new plant would pose significant air quality impacts — despite all the rhetoric from fossil fuel interest that calls natural gas a “bridge fuel” to a low or zero carbon future.

Calling natural gas a “bridge to the future” is a deliberately deceptive and misleading concept dreamed up by fossil fuel companies. It means, “Natural gas is better than coal, so let’s use it while we wait for renewable energy to become commercially viable.”

Nothing could be further from the truth. Although natural gas burns cleaner than coal, the fracking needed to get the gas out of the ground imposes significant human health risks on surrounding communities. Fracking also is responsible for massive amounts of methane being released into the atmosphere. Methane is 12 times more powerful of a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. Unless Calpine can find a source of pollution credits it can purchase, the project appears to be a non-starter.

That plan is also vigorously opposed by the Wishtoyo Chumash Foundation, which views the proposed plant as a threat to the Santa Clara River and its habitat. “This river is considered a vital life source,” said Angela Johnson Meszaros, an Earthjustice attorney representing the foundation. “The Chumash people have been living along this river since time immemorial. There is a real impact to Chumash culture and their connection to their vital life source.”

She believes the time to build a fossil fuel plant has passed. “The state of California is moving away from fossil fuels to meet its energy needs. Mission Rock is out of step with what the policymakers and the state of California want. There is no argument that we don’t need a new fossil fuel resource in that area.”

The same message is pertinent to all government officials who say they support the goals of the Paris climate accords. Fossil fuels in all forms threaten human health and the ability of the earth to support life as we know it. Every effort to eliminate them as the primary source of power for electricity and transportation deserves the full support of every citizen of the earth along with their elected representatives.

Appreciate CleanTechnica’s originality? Consider becoming a CleanTechnica Member, Supporter, Technician, or Ambassador — or a patron on Patreon.
Have a tip for CleanTechnica, want to advertise, or want to suggest a guest for our CleanTech Talk podcast? Contact us here.
Written By

Steve writes about the interface between technology and sustainability from his homes in Florida and Connecticut or anywhere else the Singularity may lead him. You can follow him on Twitter but not on any social media platforms run by evil overlords like Facebook.


#1 most loved electric vehicle, solar energy, and battery news & analysis site in the world.


Support our work today!


Power CleanTechnica: $3/Month

Tesla News Solar News EV News Data Reports


EV Sales Charts, Graphs, & Stats


Our Electric Car Driver Report

30 Electric Car Benefits

Tesla Model 3 Video

Renewable Energy 101 In Depth

solar power facts

Tesla News

EV Reviews

Home Efficiency

You May Also Like

Clean Power

In this interview with Pennsylvania County Executive, Rich Fitzgerald (D), we discuss regional progress toward shifting the full energy landscape away from fossil fuels.


Broad Reach Power says it will build 15 small battery storage systems in Texas this year and two large systems next year to help...


An MIT study finds that second-use batteries from EVs could provide much needed grid-scale battery storage for less money than using new lithium-ion batteries.

Clean Power

Southern California Edison, with 15 million customers, is adding 770 MW of battery storage to increase the dispatchability of renewable energy in its service...

Copyright © 2021 CleanTechnica. The content produced by this site is for entertainment purposes only. Opinions and comments published on this site may not be sanctioned by and do not necessarily represent the views of CleanTechnica, its owners, sponsors, affiliates, or subsidiaries.