Editing Avenal, California (section)

==Economy==
Avenal State Prison employs over 1,500 people.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Visitors/Facilities/ASP-Institution_Stats.html/ |title=Avenal State Prison (ASP) - Institution Statistics |access-date=June 1, 2009 |url-status = dead |website=CDCR |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090524071015/http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Visitors/Facilities/ASP-Institution_Stats.html |archive-date=May 24, 2009 }} accessed 5-31-09</ref> Other major employers include [[The Wonderful Company]] and the [[Reef-Sunset Unified School District]].<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.kingsedc.org/avenal.html#avenalemploy |website=Kings County Economic Development Corporation |title=Avenal Community Profile |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130111055244/http://www.kingsedc.org/avenal.html#avenalemploy |archive-date=January 11, 2013 }}</ref>

The city has been actively pursuing industrial development and is looking at future development of the Interstate 5 interchange area for both commercial and industrial uses.

In 2008, a 600-megawatt [[Power station|electric power generating plant]] was proposed to be built and operated in Avenal by Macquarie Cook Power, a subsidiary of the [[Macquarie Group]], doing business as Avenal Power Center, LLC. The project application indicated that the power plant would be fueled with [[natural gas]] and that it would be air-cooled. The capital cost of the project would be $530 million. According to the project's proponents, the plant would have generated enough electricity to supply 450,000 homes and businesses annually. The [[California Energy Commission]] gave its final approval to the project on December 16, 2009. However, opponents of the power plant vowed to continue to fight. Bradley Angel, executive director of [[Greenaction for Health and Environmental Justice]], threatened to file a lawsuit if the [[United States Environmental Protection Agency]] (USEPA) approved the project.<ref>{{cite news |work=Hanford Sentinel |date=December 18, 2009}}</ref> Federal approval was delayed, causing the company to sue the USEPA. In February 2011, an EPA official told the [[U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia]] that the agency would allow the project to proceed. According to a newspaper story, Bradley Angel commented that Greenaction would continue to fight the project.<ref>{{cite news |work=Hanford Sentinel |date=February 19–20, 2011}}</ref> On May 26, 2011, U.S. District Court Judge [[Richard J. Leon|Richard Leon]] ordered the USEPA to make a final permit decision, which the agency did the following day. Construction of the power plant could begin after a 60-day administrative appeal period. Paul Cort of [[Earthjustice]] was quoted in a news story as saying that an administrative appeal would be filed, and if that is unsuccessful, the organization would appeal to the Federal court.<ref>{{cite news |work=Hanford Sentinel |date=May 28–29, 2011}}</ref> In June 2011, both People for Clean Air and Water and the [[Sierra Club]] filed petitions for review with the USEPA's environmental appeals board. The [[Center for Biological Diversity]] joined the Sierra Club's petition. Their petition alleged that the proposed plant would emit excessive [[nitrogen oxides]] and is being wrongfully grandfathered in under old clean air rules.<ref>{{cite news |work=Fresno Bee |date=June 29, 2011}}</ref> On August 18, 2011, the USEPA's environmental appeals board denied the petition. Bradley Angel renewed his vow to continue the fight in court. A news story quoted him as saying: "Basically the fix was in when EPA boss [[Lisa P. Jackson|Lisa Jackson]] broke her commitment to [[environmental justice]] and illegally approved the permit. We're going to continue to challenge it. It's going to court."<ref>{{cite news |work=Hanford Sentinel |date=August 24, 2011}}</ref> On November 3, 2011, The Sierra Club, the Center for Biological Diversity and Greenaction filed suit with the [[Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals]] challenging the EPA permit.<ref>{{cite news |work=Hanford Sentinel |date=November 4, 2011}}</ref> On August 12, 2014, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that appeal and rejected the permit, finding that the USEPA had improperly grandfathered the project under the old emissions standards.<ref>{{cite news |work=Hanford Sentinel |date=August 14, 2014}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |work=Fresno Bee |date=August 14, 2014}}</ref> In June 2015, an attorney representing Avenal Power Center LLC sent a letter to the California Energy Commission stating the company "will let the license expire on Sept. 16, 2015" ending the 7-year long effort to build the power plant.<ref>{{cite news |work=Fresno Bee |date=July 1, 2015}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |work=Hanford Sentinel |date=July 1, 2015}}</ref>

Many local residents are employed in agriculture, which experienced significant growth on the westside of the [[San Joaquin Valley]] after the completion of the [[California Aqueduct]] in the early 1970s. However, the community was impacted by the [[2008-2012 global recession]] as well as the [[2012–14 North American drought|California drought]] and restrictions on pumping from the [[Sacramento River]] delta to protect endangered species. In November 2016, the [[Unemployment|unemployment rate]] was 12.7%.{{cn|date=September 2024}}

In 2013, the [[City Council]] self-proclaimed Avenal to be the '[[Pistachio]] Capital of the World', reflecting the importance of the pistachio industry to the city's economy.<ref>{{cite act |legislature=Avenal City Council |title=Resolution No. 2013-68 |date=November 14, 2013}}</ref>