Desert powerline good for coast
By: North County Times Opinion staff | ∞
Our view: Sunrise Powerlink could bring big environmental, and some economic, benefits to North County
Objections to San Diego Gas & Electric's proposed Sunrise Powerlink focus on the negative impact on Anza-Borrego State Park. While those criticisms are not to be ignored, what hasn't been discussed are the potential environmental benefits that may result from the line, especially along our coast.
It is with those environmental benefits in mind, along with some economic ones, that we support the building of the Sunrise Powerlink.
In 2002, as California recovered from the worst energy crisis in its history, lawmakers in Sacramento hit upon the idea that 20 percent of the state's electricity be derived from renewable energy (biomass, wind, solar and geothermal) by 2017. In 2006, the mandate was made even more ambitious when the target date was reduced to 2010 .
It is against this regulatory backdrop that the $1.3 billion Sunrise Powerlink, which will connect the county to solar and geothermal energy in the desert, was publicly proposed in 2005 .
SDG&E is defending the Sunrise Powerlink based on a number of economic and regulatory assumptions. Although some are more valid than others, we do not necessarily share those assumptions.
To begin with, we doubt that state utilities will meet the 2010 deadline for renewable energy, especially because there are no real penalties for not doing so. Such a failure would have no immediate impact on SDG&E's ability to provide electricity.
We also don't believe SDG&E's assertions that substantial amounts of renewable energy cannot be produced closer to home. Its glossy brochures say that to produce the needed amount of renewable energy locally would require that solar panels be installed on 855,000 residential rooftops at a cost of $21 billion.
Those are big, scary numbers, but such naysaying is exactly what we'd expect to hear from a publicly traded electricity company that ---- because of the way rates are structured ---- sees more economic incentive in building transmission lines than photovoltaic panels.
And we don't buy SDG&E's argument that we'll need the line for future energy needs. Barring astronomic increases in energy demand or a catastrophic event that puts existing transmission lines out of commission for long stretches, we'll have plenty of energy, produced mostly in San Diego, for the foreseeable future.
So why are we in favor of the Sunrise Powerlink?
In addition to its new standard for renewable energy, the state has enacted another law designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. This is to be accomplished largely by targeting utilities and other major greenhouse gas producers.
To meet that goal, it's evident, although not explicitly so, that SDG&E is slowly weaning itself off uglier, older, dirtier, less efficient power plants such as Encina in Carlsbad. The energy deficit that is created by the shuttering of Encina will be filled by the renewable energy SDG&E plans to import. That's a big plus for North County.
Another power line into the county, such as Sunrise, will make it less likely that we'll be held hostage to price gougers during the next energy crisis. It may also open up the region to competition down the road by giving outside suppliers an additional route to get energy to customers.
And there are other pluses. Reliability will be improved, although SDG&E's argument that existing lines are insufficient is questionable . Capacity will also be boosted. Best of all, San Diego residents will pay only a small part of the cost because the financial burden for transmission lines is shared by ratepayers statewide.
Of course, there's one big negative: The line will run through the Anza-Borrego State Park.
But Californians long ago decided that we are willing to pay more for clean air and pretty views, especially along our coasts. For the $1.3 billion that the Sunrise Powerlink will cost, SDG&E will gain access to the renewable energy that will allow it to comply with state laws, reduce fossil fuel use and end its reliance on antiquated power plants on North County's coastline. In effect, we're trading the Sunrise Powerlink through our desert for clearer, more picturesque sunsets along our coast and cleaner air for everyone.
That sounds like a good deal to us.
More Stories
Advertisement
Hilarious! wrote on Jun 30, 2007 10:18 PM:If individuals and businesses would exercise the least bit of restraint, replace regular lights with florescent, etc. this whole power line could be avoided. If SDG&E would reinstitute their rebate for dual pane windows and allow substantial rebates for solar panels, people would continue to save energy in record numbers. But their bottom line is profit for the shareholders,not providing a fair and intelligent service to the consumer.
American Nightmare wrote on Jun 30, 2007 11:43 PM:More Power! Just like "Tool Time" with Tim Allewn, it's always better with more juice, right? So who needs the desert, the parks, the vistas to refresh the soul? More power! So the coast can have air conditioning year round. Oh joy. What sensible, thoughtful editorials, and I just thought you were on vacation (mentally?), nope, just another power junkie.
Sell out wrote on Jul 1, 2007 7:55 AM:SDG&E president visits NCT editorial board and it sure looks like she sold you guys. But I'm not sold yet. Unless you are worried about too many rainy days, put solar on your San Diego rooftops in desert west - not power towers to the deserts east.
Missing Numbers wrote on Jul 1, 2007 10:12 AM:I'm disappointed that the NC Times compared the $1.3 billion cost of the Sunrise Powerlink to the $21 billion cost of installing the same capacity in rooftop solar, as if that was an apples-to-apples comparison. NC Times left out the initial investment of the Imperial Desert facility to generate the renewable energy and the $21 billion quoted for the rooftop solar doesn't figure in the "free" renewable energy these systems would generate for the owners/consumers of those systems. NC Times readers can't make a fair comparison without that information. If NC Times wants to make their case based on environmental and economic benefits, then do it fairly.
John wrote on Jul 1, 2007 10:36 AM:Save the wild desert views from coastal creep. The view on most of the coast is already ruined unless you are looking out to sea from Camp Pendelton. Otherwise it's views of urban sprawl.
Henry wrote on Jul 1, 2007 3:59 PM:Dear NC Times: Tell me it isn't so! Did you really have Chistmas in July for SDG&E and you didn't invite anyone else to your editorial fest? Go ahead, put a steak through the county's heart(land). See if anyone responds over the holiday weekend. Most of the backcounty fires are caused by downed powerlines or arson. So who cares if you live on the coast? It's already gone. Where's Buffy the vampire slayer when we need her? Oh you editors are such a disappointment.
To NC "editors" wrote on Jul 1, 2007 7:58 PM:Bad editorial, no donut.
Love the sunsets wrote on Jul 1, 2007 8:17 PM:I just love the sunsets in SD. Million dollar homes crumbling down the bluffs into the deep blue sea. It's breath taking! For God's sake, let's protect these scenic wonders from any unsightly power lines.
John wrote on Jul 1, 2007 8:19 PM:Oh yeah... Pendleton's northwest end already has power lines to mar the view. At least the nuclear reactor is pretty when it is all lit up.
Jay wrote on Jul 1, 2007 11:18 PM:Your editorial staff needs to actually study up on the issues. Your own staff has reported on these, but it appears that you don't grasp them.
Bern wrote on Jul 1, 2007 11:29 PM:Did you get the payoff in small unmarked bills? That's the only logic I could see you applied to reach this conclusion. And if is it good for the coast (which I don't agree with), what about the rest of San Diego county? Next time, have someone read your editorials for 3rd grade logic and information errors before you print it. Also: I usually try to respond to wrongheadedness with reason, but I've judged it would be wasted in this case.
John wrote on Jul 1, 2007 11:40 PM:The park is one of many objections. The biggest is that ratepayers are likely to be stuck with a huge bill because the technology that will supposedly supply the power is completely untried. But, hey, trash east county so the rich can have better views. You need to do your homework. If you don't have time to get the facts, at least read your OWN paper and educate yourself on all the other objections.
Denis wrote on Jul 2, 2007 7:27 AM:As you attempt to drive a stake into the hearts of the majority of the people in our Beautiful backcountry, including our State Park, presumably for the benefit of those who use almost all of this perceived energy requirement,you together with SDGE are creating an uprising in East County that will not subside. Come to the Ranchita Rocks Concert and learn more. And I will be running 75 miles in the desert to raise more awareness of this ill conceived and unneccessary project. I'm doing this to celebrate the 75th Anniversary of our Anza Borrego Desert State Park on Anza Borrego Days weekend.
Disappointed wrote on Jul 2, 2007 11:03 AM:Show us the proof of renewables? The nevada plant is not renewable. The LNG power they plan to bring on the line from BAJA is not renewable. Your staff has been duped by a visit ffrom SDG&E's president. Shame on you NCT editorial board, don't you even read your paper's own articles?
janet wrote on Jul 2, 2007 9:07 PM:Wow, trash east county so the beauty queen coast with all its rich people can preen. You guys really know your audience. I hate to think people really are so parochial. Where do you guys live? (It's all about me, I want it to be 72 all the time, so the AC/Heat must always be running. I need it!!! I might sweat.) Let's keep the coast beautiful and build a fence to keep those nasty people from OTHER areas from coming here. When we had the last rolling blackouts, I polled people (friends and work) on how they'd cut back. Nobody had switched to florescents and the most common answer was "Why should I suffer? No one else is cutting back." Hey, let's NOT cut back. Let's just trash some place we don't have to look at!
Elizabeth wrote on Jul 5, 2007 4:52 PM:I still haven't made up my mind about the Powerlink. But what I do know is that those who don't want the Link DO want renewable resources. I don't see how you can have it both ways. You have to be able to transmit the power that renewable resources create.
First name only. Comments including last names, contact addresses, e-mail addresses or phone numbers will be deleted. Attempts to misrepresent your identity or impersonate any person will not be approved. All comments are screened before they appear online, so please keep them brief. Comments reflect the views of those commenting and not necessarily those of the North County Times or its staff writers. Click here to view additional comment policies.
Today's Stories
Advertisement