voiceofsandiego.org: Opinion... The False Choice of Sunrise v. Chula Vista

Monday, Feb. 25, 2008 | Sunrise Powerlink is NOT the answer to removal of the South Bay Power Plant

There is no more vehement opponent to the South Bay Power Plant than the Environmental Health Coalition. For years, we have fought hard for removal of the plant and elimination of the environmental and health risks it poses. However, we differ with Ms. Lisa Cohen of the Chula Vista Chamber of Commerce -- construction of the multi-billion dollar boondoggle known as the Sunrise Powerlink is NOT the answer.

The Sunrise Powerlink will have a devastating impact on not only the environment in our region, but our energy future. It is NOT assured that the Powerlink will bring in primarily renewable energy. In fact, it is becoming clearer every day that the Powerlink may be used largely to serve less regulated power plants in Mexico and other states --increasing air pollution and unraveling statewide efforts to combat global warming. Further, hundreds of mega-watts (MW) of renewable energy can already be transmitted here through existing transmission -- we don't need Sunrise to achieve this goal. SDG&E has admitted they can meet their renewable energy benchmarks without Sunrise Powerlink, as pointed out in a July 2007 ruling issued by the California Public Utilities Commissioner in charge of the Sunrise Powerlink proceedings.

EHC is also very concerned that the transmission line will do little to help us get rid of the South Bay Power Plant, primarily because local generation and remote generation through 90-mile, vulnerable power lines are not factored the same way when determining our needed energy for reliability. In fact, EHC strongly believes that if the Powerlink is constructed, it may exacerbate our current situation by frustrating efforts and requirements and limit funding available for clean, locally controlled, in-basin power generation.

We encourage everyone to follow the many discussions and hearings on this project as important information is being revealed during the CPUC hearings and Energy Working Group meetings. Five hundred and fifty MW can easily be added to our in-coming transmission through improvements to the existing Path 44 to the north and the Southwest Powerlink to the south for a fraction of the cost of the Powerlink. By covering only 25 percent of existing parking lots with solar panels we could generate up to 3,000 MW of energy. Employing cost-effective and reasonable energy efficiency measures will flatten and reduce the growth of energy demand in our region. Appropriately sited and sized distributed generation, like combined heat and power and fuel cells, can help stabilize our grid and power our region when, as recently happened during the fires, the large powerlines are down.

Large transmission lines are also not reliable; they create ever-present risks related to fire. But, it is also important to understand that both of the east-west powerlines, Southwest and the proposed Sunrise, are planned to be hooked to the same power substation in Imperial Valley. This is not a scenario for energy reliability and puts our region at more risk, not less.

EHC has been committed to getting rid of the South Bay Power Plant through pursuing a regional plan for maximizing energy efficiency, local renewable energy and appropriately-sited distributed generation where necessary, and maximizing the efficiency and use of the existing local transmission grid. Our region should follow this path, enabling us to meet the energy needs of a growing region, use natural gas most efficiently, stabilize our grid, and secure the reliability of our generation. We don't need either of these devastating projects -- the South Bay Power Plant or the Sunrise Powerlink.

There is a better way.

Laura Hunter is the director the Environmental Health Coalition's Clean Bay Campaign. Agree? Disagree? Send a letter to the editor.

This extension cord is primarily designed to run dirty power from Mexico to OC/ LA. SD is a tiny market that this line is not intended for. // As Ms. Hunter explained, 'SDG&E has admitted they can meet their renewable energy benchmarks without Sunrise Powerlink, as pointed out in a July 2007 ruling issued by the California Public Utilities.' // This industrial corridor runs through our back country cactus garden to service the big markets up north -- SD is a patsy for the profiteering had by Sempra selling power to the sprawl north of Camp Pendleton. Of course this line will have no impact on the life of the Chula Vista South Bay Power Plant, only the CHARGERS -- ZAP -- will have an effect on that poisonous eyesore!

Posted by Christopher Hall | reply to this comment
February 24, 2008 8:39 pm

Would like someday to hear about the specific financing plans for all the improvements you are suggesting. Since everyone knows it’s not going to be SDG&E, who is going to pay for the solar panels and other improvements?

Posted by Howiek | reply to this comment
February 25, 2008 3:37 am

The solar panel idea is realistic. Scientific Magazine (Jan 2008) had a recent article on solar energy worth reading. If we cover the southwestern US deserts in solar panels, we could provide energy at a lower cost without greenhouse emmissions by 2050. And we'd put away the $300 billion in trade deficits we create every year to the Middle East. It's a grand plan, much better than more high voltage lines across our living spaces. Mary Beth McCabe Sun Marketing link

Posted by Mary Beth McCabe | reply to this comment
February 25, 2008 9:09 am

It is appalling that SDG&E continues to push this dangerous line in the wake of the October fires which were started by power lines. Unfortunately, every politician in town in on the take from SDG&E and unwilling to stand up to them. The project's environmental documents speak volumes. There are a number of better ways to keep the lights on, but only one way ensures yet another year of record profits for SDG&E and that's Sunrise. Hey, if you like corporate welfare, you'll LOVE Sunrise. It's the biggest giveaway of all time.

Posted by Won't be bought | reply to this comment
February 25, 2008 9:32 am

Mary, I wasn't able to locate a "Scientific Magazine" online, but assuming you are representing the article correctly, do you realize what an environmental disaster it would be to pave over the SW US with solar panels? The desert is not just fly-over space for busy marketers.

Posted by rrrr | reply to this comment
February 25, 2008 1:05 pm

Does Mary Beth really mean the ENTIRE SouthWest? I think not but a few dozen square miles might offer a more realistic and profitable alternative. Americans are nothing if not pragamatic and our ability to kill a few birds with one stone might appeal on several levels to broad constituencies. If SDG&E can reach an agreement with Sterling, the developer of record, we may enjoy bragging rights throughout the globe as having the "LARGEST SOLAR COLLECTOR IN THE WORLD...bringing to fruition the aspirations of three generations of ecologists...creatin a lucrative eco-tourism industry..creating jobs and avoiding the still very controversial prospect of nuclear energy alternatives in this region. The Utility estimates that the SD Region will grow by a million+ residents in the forseeable future.. if this be true, and it seems likely, we'll be needing some very creative re-newable alternative energy sources sooner rather than later. A few dozen miles of desert in exchange seems cheap,neh?

Posted by Sun of apollo | reply to this comment
February 26, 2008 6:09 am

All other factors, aside I don't understand contiunued reference to South Bay Power Plant. Is it not already being dismantelled? Does it still belong to SDG&E?

Posted by C. Nugent | reply to this comment
July 8, 2008 6:51 am

Personally, the whole use of the word " green" as coined by Al the whack jobs propaganda movie is a misnomer. The environmental movement is supported by skewed facts (AKA Junk Science) which has had criteria added or subtracted to prove ridiculous talking points. The problem of global warming does not exist in ear the proportions the greenies claim, and all climate runs in cycles, if you will remember 30 years ago we were all freezing to death. Said all that, i have asthma and have every wish for clean air in a assuming the calculations used to claim air quality are correct, which, they are not. We need more power, we need more oil, and we need to aggressively look for means to use renewable sources at the same time. So, why do the knit wits who are so green claim coexistence of animals with resources won't work?

Posted by Bill Schwab | reply to this comment
July 20, 2008 6:08 am

The False Choice of Sunrise v. Chula Vista

By Laura Hunter