REGIONAL: Edison initiative adds twist to power-line debate

250-megawatt rooftop solar project sparks questions for SDG&E

By DAVE DOWNEY - Staff Writer | Tuesday, April 8, 2008 3:21 PM PDT ∞

SAN DIEGO ---- When Southern California's largest utility said recently that it was going to generate 250 megawatts of electricity from solar panels on warehouse rooftops, it introduced a new element in the debate over a proposed power line in San Diego County.

 

Southern California Edison's announcement has implications for San Diego Gas & Electric Co.'s proposed $1.5 billion Sunrise Powerlink transmission line. One of the power line's opponents has proposed a similar project in place of wires to power the county's future: solar panels on the roofs of large commercial buildings and over sprawling parking lots.

 

That opponent, engineer and activist Bill Powers of San Diego, is scheduled to take the stand Tuesday during a court-like proceeding examining the merits and environmental impacts of the power line.

The California Public Utilities Commission is expected to rely on evidence gathered at hearings this week in San Diego and later this month in San Francisco to decide this summer whether to license the project.

 

Tuesday's hearing is the second of three scheduled through Wednesday at the California Center for Sustainable Energy.

 

The San Diego utility is proposing to string a 150-mile high-voltage line from El Centro to Carmel Valley by 2011, if given the green light by either state or regulators. If denied by the Public Utilities Commission, the utility can appeal, as early as October, to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

 

The line would pass through Anza-Borrego Desert Park, Santa Ysabel, Ramona and Rancho Penasquitos. Many residents of the communities and environmentalists oppose the project; business leaders and a number of prominent politicians support it.

 

In previously filed written testimony, SDG&E dismissed Powers' vision for 920 megawatts of rooftop solar energy as "hypothetical and not feasible," saying nowhere near that amount could be developed. The company expressed strong skepticism at Powers' suggestion that solar panels could be installed at a cost of approximately $5 per watt, saying more than $7 was more realistic.

 

But Powers maintained in a recent telephone interview that Edison's March 27 announcement lends credence to his vision.

 

"To have the biggest utility in Southern California embrace this changes the dynamic of the discussion," Powers said. "What it does is, it shifts the discussion of major photovoltaic deployment into the mainstream. Until (March 27), it could be categorized by our local utility as an unworkable pipe dream."

 

By proposing a 250-megawatt network of solar panels, with the potential for expansion to 500 megawatts later, Edison is showing that rooftop sun power can be used on a scale that is needed to meet the San Diego area's needs, Powers said. SDG&E wants to increase its supply by 1,000 megawatts ---- about 20 percent of its current supply.

 

 

And Gil Alexander, a spokesman for Edison in the Los Angeles area, said his company had found a way to install the solar panels for $3.50 per watt.

 

Edison's first solar installment will be on a warehouse in San Bernardino County and it is expected to be operating by August, Alexander said. Such buildings are considered ideal for rooftop solar because they are big, flat and use only a fraction of the energy their panels produce, he said.

SDG&E spokeswoman Jennifer Briscoe said the San Diego-based utility was "intrigued" by the project. "It is a new model," she said.

 

However, Briscoe said it would be hard to replicate the Edison example because there are fewer warehouses in San Diego County than there are in the Inland Empire.

 

Powers dismissed Briscoe's conclusion.

 

"What's a Wal-Mart? What's a Costco? They are big and flat," Powers said. "And they are ready to go."

 

Starting with a 600,000-square-foot distribution center owned by ProLogis in Fontana, Edison proposes to pave rooftops throughout its service territory, which spans northern Orange, Los Angeles, Riverside, San Bernardino and several other counties.

 

Edison estimates the project will cost $875 million, a figure that includes charges for leasing rooftop space from building owners.

 

When completed in 2013, the rooftop network will negate the need for a new power plant, Alexander said, in an interview last week.

 

"What we are doing essentially is building a two-square mile solar utility power plant," he said. "And the wires that come off these roofs will go right into neighborhood distribution circuits."

 

Because panels produce the most electricity when the sun is high in the sky, this project will help keep air conditioners humming on hot August and September afternoons.

 

"It's a type of generation that matches almost exactly the peak needs of our customers," Alexander said.

In other testimony Tuesday morning addressing fire threat, Joseph Mitchell of Ramona, speaking for the Mussey Grade Road Alliance, said San Diego County has had more fires sparked by power lines in recent years than other Southern California counties.

 

He acknowledged, however, that precise causes for the October 2007 fires have not been determined.

Still, Mitchell said he found that on three other occasions 230-kilovolt lines have caused fires in San Diego County. Between Warner Springs and Carmel Valley, Sunrise would be a 230-kilovolt line.

Contact staff writer Dave Downey at (760) 745-6611, Ext. 2623, or ddowney@nctimes.com.

Advertisement

20 comment(s)[-]Go to Top

Michael B. wrote on Apr 7, 2008 2:50 PM:Thank you Edison! Innovation like this is what we used to depend on from utilities like that one. It should be mandated that all major structures have solar on the roof, plus most if not all the houses. Why not use something that is free to all to generate power?

Burt wrote on Apr 7, 2008 3:58 PM:a ray of sunshine for the sunrise power link tombstone. We don't need to pipe the desert sun to San Diego, we have all the sun and rooftops that we need.

Ratepayer wrote on Apr 7, 2008 4:25 PM:Sempra/SDG&E ought to be commended for their complete inability to think outside the box/Powerlink. There are many large big box buildings in the county -- have they even tried to look? Talk to Lowes, Home Depot, Costco, Walmart, or, God forbid, their own headquarters building?
There are plenty of malls, with lots of surface area on the roofs. There is plenty of sun. There is a great deal of electricity lost when it's transmitted over long distances. So, SDG&E, get your head out of the sand for a change.

SDGE wrote on Apr 7, 2008 5:13 PM:why dont you take a lesson from a better run energy company and put your pride aside and do what's right.

Escondodo wrote on Apr 8, 2008 4:12 AM:I have 3500 plus square feet of flat roof space just waiting for affordable solar options! Give us these affordable options. I'm in. I don't have AC - I pay my dues.

North County Havoc wrote on Apr 8, 2008 6:53 AM:Solar is not affordable yet..it must be heavily subsidized by your and my tax dollars to afford the installation cost. Edison is really stepping out there taking some real risk to develop 250 MW of solar capacity, that only works when the sun is shining, that is paid for in full by the ratepayer (who cares how much it costs, its not our money), and who has historically not paid thier own power generators due to mismanagment of the Edison company when the money gets tight. Think carefully what you ask for, you may just get it. SDG&E is solvent, PG&E and Edison are not, remember we changed Governors over this issue a few years ago? SDG&E may be barking up the wrong tree for the route of the lines, but without a major overhaul of the permitting process for power generation, they have a point. They can't deliver power reliably if they don't have enough of it, renewable or not.

To Havoc of small minds wrote on Apr 8, 2008 1:34 PM:The true cost of the powerlink is still being discovered. Today's Union said $186 million just to get this far in the approval process. That's a cost ratepayers will pick up in the long run, and the project still is in the planning stages. Solvency of power companies had more to do with unregulated trading and Enron -- the health of SDG&E is probably due to our high rates, and the sales of generating plants on the coast.

Vista Resident wrote on Apr 9, 2008 12:12 AM:Why even consider creating major infrastructure out in fire country? If the line burns in the next fire storm, SDG&E customers will end up paying for it. So, it's really us that's taking the risk here.

When the next fire storm comes up, the expensive power line is likely to get first priority of fire fighting attention over protection of residents. So, it's also a security issue.

We need a lot of electricity when it's hot. And, when it's hot is when the lines are likely to be shut down due to fire hazard. So, it's also just plain impractical.

Solar is Feasible wrote on Apr 9, 2008 12:40 AM:I put 3kw on my roof for 18k before rebates. Of course I did my onw labor, but I am sure when you do a megawatt or so of panels the costs come way down.

Paleolithic wrote on Apr 9, 2008 6:37 AM:Leave it to a company whose prime source of energy is still dinosaurs to think them.

Kudos to Edison (never thought I'd hear myself saying that) for realizing that even if it isn't 100% cost effective today, with the price of oil and natural gas doing what it is, it will be very, very soon. What's more, it's even environmentally sensitive. What's corporate America coming to??

Farmer Bill wrote on Apr 9, 2008 7:24 AM:If Edison would pay residential customers for excess power generated from solar panels, I think many people like myself would install PV systems that would create more power than needed to help offset the cost.

Having thousands of small panels feeding back to Edison would need little to no infrastructure investment since it would be borne by the customers that choose to invest, plus it would be more resistant to outages since it would be distributed over a wider area.

alfredo wrote on Apr 9, 2008 9:35 AM:I agree completely with Farmer Bill. If SDG&E (Sempra) would pay for excess electricity generated I and many many others would install PV systems on our roofs right away.
Two years ago or so Sempra said it wasn't feasible to install PV on roof tops, down here, west of I-15 because it is too foggy much of the time. Now it is because there aren't enough warehouses? Which is it?

Kurt wrote on Apr 9, 2008 10:01 AM:SDGE is quick to condemn other's resources in favor of their own. Simple rerouting of powerlink would forego visual destruction of a great state resource, but copper is expensive, and rerouting from a straight 100 mile line to something more intune with proper resource management would cost them money. So, instead we pay.

kathleen wrote on Apr 9, 2008 10:01 AM:Support bill 1920 in the state of California. This bill supports the idea that our energy companies should be paying us for generating our excess solar energy which goes into the grid. In this way we can all become potential solar farms feeding a system where there will always be those who cannot support themselves. Those who can should and be rewarded for doing so.

desarch wrote on Apr 9, 2008 10:03 AM:Distributed electrical generation is the future. Centralized production is an outmoded arcane paradigm, with high transport losses. SDGE clings to an old profit model.

OCBlauski wrote on Apr 9, 2008 11:10 AM:SDG&E/Sempra are concerned with nothing but the profits possible by buying cheap, dirty Mexican power and reselling it at greatly inflated rates.

Sheer Numbers wrote on Apr 9, 2008 4:21 PM:Those of you who think this is economically feasible should do the numbers. Edison's going to get 250MW by spending $875M. To bring in the amount of power that the Powerlink would provide (>1000 MW), you'd need to spend many times more than the cost of the Powerlink. Spend all that money, and you better not have any hot days with cloud cover.

hey, sheer wrote on Apr 9, 2008 6:31 PM:Solar panels still function on cloudy days, and the powerlink is just the extension cord; the billion point seven doesn't include the cost of generation plus Sempra profit. The emerging solar technology is producing lightweight solar sheeting that is further reducing costs per KW, and it requires no structural support.

DD Wiz wrote on Apr 9, 2008 7:53 PM:The posts from "North County Havoc" (6:53am) and "Sheer Numbers" (6:31pm) suggest that solar is not economically feasible.
I put up a 5kw system (32 panels) last December (at retail for panels and installation, through Costco) and it is very cost affordable. Sure, you say it is subsidized by incentives, which is true, but the true cost of energy provided by non-renewable FINITE FILTHY FOSSIL FUELS in terms of damage to the climate, environment and depdendence on dictators and terrorists to sell it to us is also being subsidized by the future generations to whom we are passing along our baggage and the costs of cleaning up this mess.
The whole cost of the war in Iraq, more than half a trillion, is all part of the cost of using non-renewable fuel sources.
Solar, wind, geothermal, hydro and hydrogen fuel cells are all aspects of the solution that is actually, in the long run, far more economically feasible.

O'side wrote on Apr 9, 2008 11:32 PM:Keep educating us Dave Downey.
If So. Cal. Edison predicts to get 250 Megawatts @ $3.50 each for a total of $875 million, then SDG&E could pay $3.50 each and get 428.5 Megawatts for our $1.5 billion. We also get fewer lines strung across the sky over shorter distances, less carbon into the atmosphere, reduced fire hazard, and maybe an 'energy' company that stops trying to manipulate it's ratepayers.
PLEASE pay me to put one on my house. I'd love to see my meter run backward.
This almost makes me want to return to the 'Inland Empire'. Thank you Edison for thinking outside the 'box' that SDG&E is still in.

First name only. Comments including last names, contact addresses, email addresses or phone numbers will be deleted. 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.

Submit Comment[-]

(optional)
   

Advertisement

Videos