Always whining about paying workers what they are worth, the Republican politicians reluctantly agree to do the right thing: to address environmental concerns and sign a project labor agreement for new municipal power house in California. A powerful coalition of organized labor (including the IBEW) and environmentalists succeeds in its goals--MW
from the SACRAMENTO BEE:
Pressure by labor group alleged Fearing retaliation, Roseville signs with union organization.
By Dale Kasler -- Bee Staff Writer
Published 2:15 am PDT Sunday, September 19, 2004
It was July 21, the mercury had hit 101, electricity usage was soaring - and the Roseville City Council was getting steamed.
Eager to press ahead with a $150 million power plant that would enhance Roseville's energy independence, council members were confronted with a knotty problem. City officials were urging them to sign a "project labor agreement" assuring the plant would be built with union labor.
Council members feared that could inflate construction costs, but city officials said rejecting the deal posed greater risks: A powerful labor group, California Unions for Reliable Energy, would try to delay licensing for the gas-fired plant by raising environmental objections. Snubbing CURE could cost $15 million in extra red tape and other costs and put the project 18 months behind schedule.
The choice wasn't easy.
"Do I stand on principle and refuse to be greenmailed ... or do I make the logical business decision that is in the best interests of the people of Roseville?" council member Jim Gray asked. He then voted for the agreement, as did most of his colleagues. The vote was 4-1.
As California pushes for new power plants to avoid a repeat of the energy crisis, Sacramento-based CURE is being accused by elected officials, plant developers and non-union contractors of using environmental laws to garner work for unions. The California Energy Commission, which licenses new plants, has launched an inquiry following a complaint by Assembly Republicans.
John Geesman, the Energy Commission member who sought the inquiry, said he's concerned that CURE has "abused" the plant-licensing process.
CURE denies it. It says it never threatens to hold up power plants. Rather, it makes valid inquiries into projects' environmental impact.
CURE acknowledges its desire for more union work but insists it has a legitimate interest in curtailing pollution. Under California's emission-credit system, which seeks to put a lid on air pollution, California might have to cancel projects if plants aren't as green as possible.
"Every issue we've raised so far - the majority of them - the Energy Commission has agreed with us," said CURE Chairman Bob Balgenorth, who also leads the State Building Trades Council. "What we've done is make the air better for all Californians."
For example, CURE lawyer Marc Joseph said CURE forced a plant near San Bernardino to adopt stricter technology to curb emissions of nitrogen oxides, which are key contributors to smog. That set a precedent forcing all new plants to reduce NOx levels, he said.
But the Mojave Air Quality Management District also intervened in that case and demanded similar curbs, said Energy Commission spokeswoman Claudia Chandler. CURE can't claim "sole ownership" for the NOx restrictions, she said.
Meanwhile, critics say CURE abandons its green crusades once power-plant developers agree to use union labor.
CURE's interest "is 90 percent about union labor and 10 percent about the environment," said Richard Roccucci, the lone Roseville council member to vote against the labor agreement.
CURE denies the charge. For example, it says its agreement with Roseville includes several changes that will make the plant cleaner.
"We do not and have not ever walked away from environmental issues," Joseph said.
CURE doesn't always win. The Riverside City Council in July defied the organization and hired a non-union contractor for a power plant in that city.
"We followed the law by taking the lowest qualified bidder," said Riverside council member Steve Adams. He referred to CURE's actions as "borderline extortion or racketeering."
CURE won't back down. It will press its environmental objections to the Riverside plant before the Energy Commission - and would do so even if Riverside hired a union contractor. "This Riverside project is located in the most polluted area within the most polluted air basin in the entire country," Joseph said.
More often than not, CURE succeeds. Spokesman Kent Robertson of Calpine Corp., the San Jose-based power generator, said only one or two plants have been built in California the past few years without a labor agreement. Calpine itself has signed labor agreements on its California projects.
Gary Ackerman of the Western Power Trading Forum, an association of generators, said CURE has never killed a project. But it has caused delays and forced design changes, "at a higher cost for consumers of electricity in California," he said.
Some environmentalists who once welcomed CURE's involvement now question its motives.
Sierra Club lobbyist V. John White once told the Contra Costa Times that CURE raises "valid issues and (moves) those issues forward."
Interviewed for this story, White said he still thinks CURE has "done some good things." But he's troubled that CURE attacked an Imperial County geothermal plant for which he has lobbied, a project designed to produce renewable energy from underground reservoirs of steam.
"They added costs and significantly delayed it, and the reasons had little to do with the environment," White said.
CURE said it forced design changes that will curb emissions of dangerous gases like hydrogen sulfide.
Licensing a power plant in California can take a year or more and consume millions in legal fees. The Energy Commission allows "intervenors" - neighbors, environmental groups, etc. - to request data from developers, file testimony and cross-examine witnesses. The commission can dismiss filings it deems frivolous.
The right to intervene creates "an open public process," said the commission's Chandler. "Not everybody's happy about that - sometimes folks would like to see power plants licensed much quicker."
Of the 41 power plants proposed in California since 1997, CURE has intervened 30 times.
In many cases, Energy Commission documents indicate CURE's involvement was minimal. But in others, the organization, backed by an environmental engineer from Berkeley, has made extensive requests for pollution data and pushed for design changes.
It doesn't always limit itself to the environment. When AES Corp. sought a license for a plant in Huntington Beach, CURE said at least half the construction workers should be graduates of "an approved apprenticeship program" - union workers in all likelihood. CURE's reasoning: Only union-trained workers have the skills to build the plant properly.
The commission rejected that suggestion, but Joseph said CURE was vindicated - the plant was "more than a year late (and) tens of millions of dollars over budget."
But an AES spokeswoman said the delay was deliberate; it put the plant on hold because the electricity market soured in late 2001. Construction resumed after the market improved and AES found a purchaser for the electricity, she said.
When the Roseville council met July 21, a 160-megawatt plant, capable of serving two-thirds of the city's needs, was a top priority. Electricity use had hit a statewide record the day before.
City-owned Roseville Electric was halfway through the licensing process and nervous about delaying construction beyond its early 2007 due date.
Ignore CURE, city officials warned the council, and the plant's completion date could be delayed until July 2008.
The council wasn't bothered by union wages. As a municipality, Roseville would have to pay "prevailing wages" anyway, comparable to union scale. But the council fretted about locking out non-union contractors because it would limit the pool of bidders and could prevent the city from getting the least expensive contractor.
In the end, the council approved the deal, but members weren't happy.
"Personally, politically, philosophically, I hate this," council member John Allard said as he prepared to cast his "yes" vote.
Then he issued a challenge to CURE's representatives: "Think about what you're doing tonight - do you feel good about what you're doing tonight?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
About the Writer
---------------------------
The Bee's Dale Kasler can be reached at (916) 321-1066 or dkasler@sacbee.com.
__
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment