voiceofsandiego.org: Opinion... Sunrise Powerlink Is Key to Razing South Bay Power Plant

Friday, Feb. 15, 2008 | The South Bay has lived with the hulking South Bay Power Plant on the Chula Vista bayfront for nearly half a century. It has remained there largely because the state has told us it is needed to ensure our region has enough reliable energy.

The Chula Vista Chamber of Commerce has long stood strongly in favor of projects, programs and policies that ensure energy reliability, but now, for the first time, we have some valuable insight into the minds of state energy officials that can help South Bay residents retire the power plant and reclaim our bayfront.

In a two-page letter to Chula Vista Mayor Cheryl Cox, the head of the California Independent System Operator (CAISO), which manages the state’s power grid, wrote that the plant’s removal hinges on the approval of the Sunrise Powerlink transmission line and the completion of a new power plant in Otay Mesa.

The Otay Mesa Power Plant is under construction and due to come online in 2009. That’s the easy part. The Sunrise Powerlink, a proposed 150-mile transmission line that would carry renewable energy to San Diego from the Imperial Valley, has yet to be approved by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC).

It is now clear that the interests of the South Bay are closely aligned with the fate of the Sunrise Powerlink. Support the transmission line and we boost our chances of seeing the South Bay Power Plant torn down for good.

The CAISO has made it clear that the Sunrise Powerlink should be supported because it will deliver much-needed energy from the sun, wind and geothermal heat to our rapidly growing region.

Beyond what the CAISO says, many people would agree that the future of our region depends on tapping into the vast potential of renewable energy sources available to us in the Imperial Valley. In fact, state officials have gone as far as to pass a law requiring that utilities provide 20 percent of their power from renewable sources by 2010.

In light of that law, and the CAISO’s position, it is incomprehensible to us that the CPUC would drag its feet on the Sunrise Powerlink while advocate for five new fossil-fueled power plants in San Diego, with one possibly sited on the Chula Vista bayfront.

The CPUC is coming to San Diego on Feb. 25 to listen to public comments on its proposal. It is a great opportunity for South Bay residents who want to retire the South Bay Power Plant to attend the meeting and speak to the decision-makers directly. It is our last and best chance to do something that will not only benefit our bayfront, but will also benefit the entire region, which needs the reliable and renewable energy that would be delivered by the Sunrise Powerlink.

The South Bay Power Plant stands in the way of public access to the coast, economic development and a better of quality of life for Chula Vistans. Chula Vista and Carlsbad stepped up decades ago and welcomed huge power plants into their communities. More recently, Escondido did the same with the Palomar Energy Center. There are several smaller “peaker” plants throughout the region, with more in the planning stages. We have done our fair share.

We are not the only ones who feel this way. The California Energy Commission supports the Sunrise Powerlink. The federal Department of Energy has done a study showing the region needs more transmission lines -- not power plants.

The CPUC also proposes that a relatively small amount of renewable energy -- about 300 megawatts, or enough to power about 195,000 homes -- come from new wind and solar facilities in San Diego’s back country and the Anza-Borrego region. While that’s a good goal, it is nowhere near enough to make a difference. The Sunrise Powerlink would bring 1,000 megawatts of renewable energy, which is enough to power 650,000 homes.

So in the end, we are left with a choice: Continue to provide for our energy the old-fashioned way with a large, fossil-fueled power plant on the Chula Vista bayfront, or embrace a cleaner, brighter energy future with the Sunrise Powerlink. We urge everyone to make the same choice we have and let the CPUC know we want our bayfront back.

Lisa Cohen is the CEO of the Chula Vista Chamber of Commerce. Agree with her? Disagree? send a letter to the editor.

That's a false choice. We don't have to destroy the wilderness to protect the cities. In fact, is is only by preserving the wilderness that our cities have a chance of survival. We need clean energy, renewable energy, and energy conservation. Put those options back on the table and we'll talk.

Posted by Mark E. Smith | reply to this comment
February 15, 2008 4:27 am

There is no guarantee that Sunrise would be ANY renewable energy. The only producer being talked about at the moment is Sterling, and they're not exactly doing well with their expensive technology. So, is Lisa Cohen ignorant or dishonest in touting Sunrise this way?

Posted by Larry | reply to this comment
February 15, 2008 7:23 am

Regardless of whether you support Sunrise, it is important that everyone have corerct facts. Regarding the comment there is "no guarantee" of renewable energy: It is up to the Independent System Operator to determine what energy goes over which lines. That is the agency that oversees the power grid for the state. No utility can guarantee which energy is transported over which lines. And there is more than just Stirling in the renewable energy game in the Imperial Valley. Check Cal Energy's Web site. And further, it's a myth that Sunrise will destroy wilderness. Sunrise would follow the path of an existing easement; i.e., it is already disturbed.

Posted by Facts straight, please | reply to this comment
February 15, 2008 11:50 am

Lisa, Lisa, Lisa. Did you really write this op-ed? Mark is right, it is a false choice. If the Miramar project were built (and SDG&E has fought for years to thwart it) then South Bay could be closed. In fact, there are four proposed plants...all of which SDG&E has downplayed....which could replace South Bay. So you don't need to spend $2 billion to close South Bay. Where DO you get your information from?

Posted by michael | reply to this comment
February 15, 2008 12:13 pm

Lisa should be commended for standing up for the South Bay. They deserve a clean bayfront. And Michael: The Miramar project has been formally opposed by the Santee City Council, which objects to a large power plant near a planned residential community. Who would want one of those polluting behemoths in their backyard? I'm telling you, there is an infinite amount of energy just there for the taking in the Imperial Valley. It's environmentally irresponsible to forgo that to build greenhouse-gas emitting power plants in our communities.

Posted by Facts straight, please | reply to this comment
February 15, 2008 1:43 pm

I understand, as the CEO of the Chula Vista Chamber, Ms. Cohen, why you have the perspective that you express here. However, touting Sunrise as the best replacement for the ugly power plant on the CV waterfront is indeed a false choice, and don't think for a second that you're fooling anyone, either inside or outside of CV. There are other, cleaner, in-county options for replacing the CV waterfront plant, and at a cost far, far below that of Sunrise. Sorry, Ms. Cohen, but your proposal doesn't even come close to passing the (fill in the blank with the pejorative of your choice) test...

Posted by Robert E. Lee | reply to this comment
February 15, 2008 2:02 pm

Lisa Cohen doesn't want an ugly powerplant in her backyard. Her solution is to destroy a cherished state park and saddle the FIREPRONE backcountry with miles of massive infrastructure. This type of thinking is arrogant, dangerous, unresearched and taken directly from the playbook of SDG&E. Attention Lisa: We don't need Sunrise to keep our lights on. The exisitng 50O kilvolt Southwest Powerline has the capacity to import plenty of renewables. You should spend more time searching for a suitable replacement site for the plant you hate and less time pawning your urban problems off on the region's natural resources.

Posted by U R Joking, Right? | reply to this comment
February 15, 2008 2:42 pm

Everybody likes "Green" power because it makes them feel good. Fact is, if "Green" power wasn't subsidized it wouldn't be a viable option. Lisa Cohen just needs to justify her position on the CVCC. If she wasn't so politically motivated and someone else was signing her check ie:SDGE I'm sure she would have a completely different opinion. Fact is, power plants today are cleaner than they have ever been. But hey, I know - it FEELS good to get on the "Green" bandwagon.

Posted by Reality Check | reply to this comment
February 15, 2008 2:56 pm

Lisa, Question: Are you a nature loving person? If so, have you ever been camping? If you are and have, how would you like to see these bohemeth lines sitting over your camping spot. The sunrise power link will upset the beauty and landscape of our mountains and natural beauty. Is this what you want your kids to have to look forward too. You are responsible for your decision and your legacy will reflect the decisions you have made in life. Are you making this decision because you think it is best for our community or is the a self serving decision. Think long and hard about this. As much as we all want the Southbay power plant removed, what price are we willing pay and trade. There are other solutions but no one is looking hard enough. You are looking for the easy way out. Shame on you!

Posted by Jimmy | reply to this comment
February 15, 2008 2:57 pm

Lisa, You are really drinking in that Sempra coolaid aren't you? SDG&E forced this choice when they hoodwinked the CV City Council into believing that they didn't need to approve the smaller, cleaner plant moved further off the water front. If that plant had been approved (or another to take its place), the dirty belching, old CV power plant would be decommissioned already. SDG&E let you believe that they didn't need the plant and wouldn't buy power from it and when the council voted down the plant and didn't find a replacement, they guaranteed that the old plant would be in place for a good long time. Many of the ENVIRONMENTALLY and FISCALLY superior alternatives listed in the Sunrise Powerlink DEIR would be enough to decommission the old plant. However, as keeper of the grid empire, CAISO has never met a transmission line they didn't like.

Posted by Not buying it | reply to this comment
February 15, 2008 3:12 pm

A better way - A solar system to provide total power for an average home will cost $10K after Ca credit installed (single unit pricing). Lets assume with volume discount of 50%(650K homes) the cost would be $5K per home. This would be a total of $3.25 billion. The Sunrise Powerlink is estimated to be $1.3 billion. If we assume an over run (a common occurance) the total price could be $2 billion. If we apply the $2 billion toward the purchase of home solar systems and each homeowner pays $2K (knowing that the payback would be less then 2 years with no utility bill after 2 years) to make-up the remaining $1.25 billion. There is no need to install the Sunrise Powerlink. We need to change our paradigm for suppling power. smw

Posted by Martin | reply to this comment
February 28, 2008 9:40 pm

Sunrise Powerlink Is Key to Razing South Bay Power Plant

By Lisa Cohen