4-1 In order for the Hunters Point power plant to close, new generation and/or transmission will be needed within San Francisco to support its slowly growing load. In the cumulative impact analysis, it is assumed that by 2005 the Hunters Point plant will be closed. Two variants on future San Francisco generation are reported upon, consisting of one case wherein a 480 MW plant is built north of the Martin substation and the other wherein a new 240 MW plant is built and additional transmission capacity is added to the existing Martin transmission corridor. The DEIR recognized that any new plant could be constructed at or near the Potrero Power Plant, and could be considered an expansion of that plant. Please also see the response to Comment U37.

4-2 In response to the comment, a new figure has been prepared as suggested. Figure 4-2 shows the general vicinity of the Potrero Power Plant derived from topographic information similar to Figure 2.2 of the DEIR. To illustrate the requested effect, data used for the wind rose shown in Figure 4.5-2 of the DEIR has been superimposed over the Potrero Power Plant site to show the percent frequency of direction and wind speed to which the local winds blow. This is commonly referred to as the wind flow vector. Note this figure is the exact reverse of data provided on Figure 4.5-2 of the DEIR. As may be plainly seen in Figure 4-2, the predominate winds at the Potrero plant tend to cause airborne emissions to travel out over San Francisco Bay more than two-thirds of the time annually. The same figure shows that, about 7 percent of the time, winds tend towards the residential neighborhoods of Bayview/Hunters Point some 2.5 to 3 kilometers away from the Potrero Power Plant. As discussed in the response to Comment 1-9, the Bayview/Hunters Point area was the atmospheric dispersion model-predicted location of the point of maximum concentration from the Potrero Power Plant. Thus, Figure 4-2 amplifies this point and visually confirms the analysis of the DEIR.

4-3 Detailed historical data are not provided for the Hunters Point Power Plant in the DEIR because it is not included in the project, i.e., it is not the current subject of divestiture. However, given that the Hunters Point Power Plant will continue to operate until a replacement plant is constructed and will therefore continue to emit pollutants in the Hunters Point vicinity, the requested information regarding criteria air pollutants and toxic air contaminants is provided in Tables 4-3-1 and 4-3-2. Also, it is noted that emissions from Hunters Point Power Plant were included in the evaluation of the consistency of DEIR power plant emission estimates with the corresponding emissions estimates included in the ’97 Clean Air Plan (see DEIR Impact 4.5-5).

4-4 Closing both the Potrero and Hunters Point Power Plants would not be an alternative to the project analyzed in the DEIR, which is the sale of the Potrero Point Power Plant. Any such analysis would be far beyond the scope of this EIR. However, the physical requirements of closing both San Francisco power plants are examined in detail on pages 6-3 through 6-5 of the DEIR, and clarified further in the response to Comment B4. Closure of both plants and meeting reliability requirements through additional transmission capacity into the City may be possible, but determining the economic feasibility of such a plan would require very extensive additional analysis that would also far exceed the scope of this EIR. Such a feasibility analysis would be more appropriate during the process agreed to by the City and County of San Francisco and PG&E for planning the eventual closure of the Hunters Point Power Plant.

4-5 For the reasons stated in the response to Comment 4-4 above, any analysis of the possibility of the City and County of San Francisco (CCSF) asserting eminent domain over the Potrero Power Plant would far exceed the scope of this EIR. In addition, the agreement between PG&E and CCSF expressly forbids the City from taking any action whatsoever concerning the Potrero plant, including exercising eminent domain over the plant or even attempting to place restrictions on its sale to a third party. Therefore, the commenter’s request is moot.