A Powerful and Missed Opportunity

By Jack Griffiths, Park West

What the hell did he just say?

Posted by Umm ... | reply to this comment
March 12, 2008 1:52 pm

I'm with you, ummm. Hey Voice? Are you really that desperate for letters that you'll print gibberish?

Posted by Larry | reply to this comment
March 12, 2008 2:54 pm

This is what Jack said: 'The news on Stirling Energy Systems, a Phoenix-based solar developer, though, is quite disheartening...havi the largest solar collector in the world located in proximity to San Diego has long-term recurring benefits... SDG&E needs a wow factor to sell the Powerlink...I'd suggest that its support of the largest solar collector in the world might just fit that bill. One can only hope that SDG&E and its shareholders will recognize that an investment in partnership with Stirling will pay-off.' Jack wrote an ad for Stirling, and his next letter will say what a great stock it is to buy.

Posted by Christopher Hall | reply to this comment
March 12, 2008 5:11 pm

The "Missed Oportunity" refers to the Stirling Solar Power plant in the eastern desert, which was described in the March 12th "SDG&E Likely to Miss Green-Energy Mandate". and the previous "Partly Cloudy Powerlink". I think the Stirling concept is great, and should be pursued further, as well as all other solar projects. It would seem that SDG&E would be doing themselves a big, big favor if THEY instituted a big rebate program for business and residential, where so much additional solar power could be put into the system, and they would then be able to satisfy their "Green" mandate that they will NOT be able to fulfill otherwise. By bringing more "peaker plants" using LNG into our area, we are potentially increasing our carbon footprint, rather than the solar power, which will certainly reduce it. Thank you to Rob Davis and the Voice !

Posted by San Marcos says, | reply to this comment
March 13, 2008 5:29 am

California daydreams are wonderful, indeed. Eco-tourism, green-collar jobs, it's all a new litany of "let's do nothing" and be happy.The harsh practicalities of problem-solving and creating a future are set aside, and we wonder why we are all in an economic and infrastructural mess.

Posted by BlkJK | reply to this comment
March 13, 2008 6:18 am

Albert Einstein observed, "The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them." People with attachments take note: Stirling is NOT bringing us energy, as it is not a proven, GUARANTEED success. The experts have spoken out FOR OTHER SOLUTIONS that are GUARANTEED cheaper and more sensitive environmentally. The Guv gave his approval BEFORE the EXPENSIVE analysis was completed.

Posted by mmary | reply to this comment
March 13, 2008 7:04 am

Amen! The last comment was right on. Anyone following the news on 'Powerstink' knows there is a rat at play in the corporate energy business. The rat is Sempra, who 'needs' the powerline to bring its LNG online from Baja California....Has anyone googled Energia Costa Azul LNG lately? And we think we have problems...What is happening in Baja is a crime!

Posted by kat | reply to this comment
March 13, 2008 8:26 am

LNG is natural gas. Sunrise Powerlink is an electrical line. Please explain how one brings natural gas over a power line.

Posted by Umm ... | reply to this comment
March 13, 2008 10:06 am

If the consensus is that Sempra, SDGE, the Powerstink, Stirling, LNG/baja and I are all full of BS, then for the sake of arguement I'll plead "no lo contendre' and ask this: ? Is nuclear energy a viable alternative for this region? If not Why not? and if so where?

Posted by Jack Griffiths | reply to this comment
March 13, 2008 10:18 am

Nuclear power needs to be re-evaluated from a rational perspective -- not haunted by the memories of Three-Mile Island, but in the modern world, with advances in technology. Emission-free and capable of large-scale generation, we can't afford not to look at this. Yes, there will be the issue of radioactive waste, but we should look for solutions instead of throwing our hands up and saying, "Can't be done!"

Posted by Umm ... | reply to this comment
March 13, 2008 1:15 pm

I find it interesting that we're always calling for energy companies -- especially utilities -- to be more innovative and invest in better, more sustainable energy, to embrace new technologies, etc. So along comes Stirling with what appears to be a good technology, has a lot of experts singing its praises, and Sempra/SDGE decide to put even more weight behind the development of this innovative technology for contracting for the power. Now they're doing what we all screamed they should be doing (backing innovation in clean energy). But because it's SDGE, suddenly Stirling sucks and is not worth the paper its plans are drawn up on. Instead, it's just a smokescreen for SDGE to build its big power line. Opponents of Sunrise talk out of both sides of their mouth. Now they're backing more local generation -- but when Sunrise is defeated, they will focus their opposition there.

Posted by Stirling observation | reply to this comment
March 13, 2008 7:46 pm

... And if no new power plants get built, and the region ends up facing a power shortage, they will no doubt look at SDGE and wonder why those idiots didn't plan better. I hate paying a power bill as much as the next fellow, but give me a break. Listening to this doublespeak by the NIMBYs is painful.

Posted by Stirling observation | reply to this comment
March 13, 2008 7:54 pm

Hey Umm -- LNG is used to fire massive turbines spinning generators to create electricity. Semp5ra owns billions in infrastructure and other investments getting LNG out of the ground south of the border, and they are pressing to find a way to transmit this power up to OC/ LA where the big markets are. Sempra has no interest in using the Sunrise Powerlink for renewable energy. Sempra has a mandate from the state for renewables, but that is unrelated to the Sunrise Powerlink, they told the PUC last summer this fact at a hearing. The Sunrise Powerlink is really just an extension cord running from Mexico to OC through San Diego's precious cactus garden with the sole purpose of selling cheap power to the hungry masses up north.

Posted by Christopher Hall | reply to this comment
March 13, 2008 9:29 pm

LNG doesn't come out of the ground, Mr. Hall. You have no idea what you're talking about. LNG is natural gas supercooled into a liquid form for transportation. Only gaseous natural gas comes out of the ground -- and they're not getting it from the ground in Baja. A quick look at Sempra's website explains the whole thing. Also, you clearly have a fundamental shortage of knowledge about how the power markets work. CA utilities must buy the cheapest power available. Maybe the LA utility contracted for power from a Mexican power plant, but it's not like they get those electrons. It just means that gets onto the grid. The actual electrons generated in Mexico will be used by the closest user. And tell me, if SDGE isn't going to use Sunrise for renewables, how ARE they going to meet that renewables mandate? Remember--there's a $125 million penalty involved.

Posted by Umm ... | reply to this comment
March 14, 2008 10:09 am

Do you think SDGE can get away with blowing off this mandate? Do you think the regulators would let them get away with that? Do you think the regulators are so stupid they wouldn't be able to see through this alleged evil plot to "send power to LA"? How do none of these questions get asked? How come all of these people who know squat about energy and power markets are able to dominate this conversation with their crazy conspiracy theories?

Posted by Umm ... | reply to this comment
March 14, 2008 10:20 am

Hey Umm, or I mean Mr. Sempra PR guy who acts like they don't know anything then froths with figures, the gas comes from the ground and is then liquefied. DUH! And it comes from south of the border, I never said Baja. Indeed, way south of the border! Quit nit picking. //Second, of course the power markets have to buy the cheapest power AND THAT IS WHAT SEMPRA IS SETTING UP: cheap power generated from their central/ south American gas exploration, to be burned in dirty powerplants in Mexico, then sent to up north as CHEAP electricity.//The renewable energy ideas are EXPENSIVE and cost prohibitive, especially when considering how much electricity Sempra plans on DUMPING onto the market from its gas fired power plants. DUH! //Everyone knows Sempra told the PUC that the Sunrise Powerlink is not needed for state renewable mandates -- don't lie about that!

Posted by Christopher Hall | reply to this comment
March 14, 2008 10:29 am

"..do you think regulators would let them get away with that?" It wouldn't be the first time--remember Enron, etc?

Posted by Steve K | reply to this comment
March 14, 2008 10:49 am

Is the math correct? Are we still paying 50% more for power than we were before the energy crisis and after the rebates? Fortress San Diego, here at the ass-end of the Republic is needy and impatient. Can we really risk having our defense establishment dependent upon Mexican based power generation? If SDGE is denying Stirling for reasons of its own, whatever they may be, and the Powerstink won't pass the smell test does that leave us with Nuclear or is there another alternative? Where would we put a nuclear facility in this region?

Posted by Jack Griffiths | reply to this comment
March 14, 2008 9:57 pm

I don't mean to nitpick, Mr. Hall, but you are still incorrect on many fronts. I get all of my info from Sempra's SEC regulatory filings (full disclosure: I own stock). The LNG is NOT coming from "south of the border" -- it's coming from different continents where supply is ample. We are running out of natural gas on this continent, and supply shortages will cause price instability, which is bad for gas utility customers as well as electric generators. Sempra's one gas-fired power plant in Mexico meets California emissions standards; thus, it is not "dirty." Furthermore, Sempra's CEO has stated on the record that the company will not and cannot meet the state's green power requirements without Sunrise. All these facts are documented in SEC and other regulatory filings, and most were reported in Voice as well as the UT. I do my homework when money is involved.

Posted by Umm ... | reply to this comment
March 18, 2008 1:09 pm

LNG from Peru and Indonesia. This is cheap gas made into cheap electricity to be dumped onto the market -- no mas renewables. You are a shareholder, and that's who your CEO is working for, not the people. Sempra is beholden to its shareholders, not to the public, therefore the public does not get served in its best interests, and this Sunrise Powerlink is a perfect example: dump power onto the market and sell it in LA. Your claim that 'Furthermore, Sempra's CEO has stated on the record that the company will not and cannot meet the state's green power requirements without Sunrise' is a direct contradiction of what Sempra said at a hearing to the California PUC in the summer of 2007! He's lying to you, Mr. Shareholder.

Posted by Christopher Hall | reply to this comment
March 19, 2008 7:10 am

Sempra IS beholden to its shareholders, as it is legally bound and obligated to be. We are the OWNERS of the company. You are so divorced from reality, it boggles the mind! Being beholden to its shareholders is hardly a problem, and it doesn't mean they're doing anything sinister, either. Furthermore, California utility customers have incredibly smart and tough regulators, in addition to a slew of consumer advocates, to keep their purported "greed" in check. What makes you think that LA needs all this power that they can't get elsewhere? LA has dozens of major transmission lines to buy power from anywhere and are constructing yet another(Disclosure: I also own Edison shares), whereas San Diego has one major line and can only buy what electricity is produced at a few local plants or what can be crammed on that one line.

Posted by Ummm... | reply to this comment
March 19, 2008 8:39 am

That's why I don't find it too hard to believe the CEO when he says there are transmission constraints to bringing power from Imperial County. You can call me naive, but they have a lot of independent state backing for the line because it's obviously needed.

Posted by Ummm... | reply to this comment
March 19, 2008 8:53 am

Hey Umm, of course its the law that Sempra is beholden to its shareholders -- DUH! That's the problem with public utilities and hospitals being for profit as opposed to public benefit! // The people of San Diego get screwed when the energy utility focuses on your profit desires instead of making sure the Jones' home is warm and has power. Thank god San Diego doesn't have cold, blustery winters that last from November to April. The issue with hospitals being for profit is that they cut costs and staff to bolster the bottom line while lines at the doctors' offices and emergency rooms get longer and longer. The reason for non-profits and similarly constructed corporations is for public benefit, NOT yours! // Pocket your profits knowing they are ill gotten gains accrued at the expense of others less fortunate than you, Mr. Scrooge.

Posted by Christopher Hall | reply to this comment
March 19, 2008 2:17 pm

Comrade Hall, you can't figure out what your beef with Sempra is. Is it that they're trying to make energy prices lower by "flooding the market with cheap electricity" -- thus lowering bills -- or that bills are too high? Newsflash: Bills aren't lower and service isn't better for folks who have municipal (government-run) utilities. There are lots in California, and too bad for their customers, they don't have the strict oversight that for-profit, shareholder-owned utilities do. The PUC only oversees for-profits. Furthermore, the profits for CA utilities are capped -- they can never make more than a certain return. And if you think no one is looking out for consumers, the PUC has a division of consumer advocates, and there are independent ones paid to be the public's lawyers and make sure they are not getting screwed. So the guilt you think I should feel? Totally absent!

Posted by Ummm... | reply to this comment
March 20, 2008 10:38 am

• Users may post more than one comment, but should not pose as multiple users. Multiple posts from the same IP address but with a different user name on each will be reviewed to determine whether abuse has occurred.
• Posts with overly personal attacks or unsubstantiated allegations may be edited or deleted.
• Please be patient with the posts -- there may be a delay before they appear on the site -- and make sure to enter the code in the "image verification" box.