Should the Sunrise Powerlink line traverse a desert park?

For those of you just tuning in, this is a white-hot issue in its third year of debate. San Diego Gas & Electric in 2005 proposed a 150-mile high-power transmission line that would bring solar energy or other renewable power to San Diego. A worthy goal, given the high cost and planet-warming downside of fossil fuels.

But as proposed, the line would cut through the Anza-Borrego Desert State Park, one of the state's most beloved natural areas.

Hmmm. No one would object to that, would they?

The final environmental impact report for the proposed $1.5-billion Sunrise Powerlink transmission line, released Tuesday, reiterates the conclusion of a July draft: that the "environmentally superior" option is not to build it at all and instead add traditional power plants in the San Diego region. Choice #2 would also axe the lengthy mega-volt line but would provide more local electricity via renewable power plants, instead of the fossil-fueled versions.

Choices #3-8 rank various routing and transmission options.  The preferred versions, to the south, avoid the Anza-Borrego park. No major surprises there, but even minor zigs and zags in the power line's proposed path will matter a great deal to the landowners and communities involved. The two paths proposed by SDG&E came in at #6 and #7, environmentally speaking.

The battle to sunset the Sunrise has engaged environmentalists, park visitors, desert landowners, power companies, consumer groups, chambers of commerce and city officials. There were concerts to raise money to fight the project. 

At one point, the California Public Utilities Commission accused SDG&E of lying to the commission about an important routing detail [SDG&E said it was a misunderstanding]. And even Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger got involved and created a stir by writing to a state utilities commission to urge the project's approval -- and leaving the impression that he was OK with SDG&E's trans-park routing. [his staff said he didn't endorse any specific route].

The public record is overwhelming. A first draft, released in January by the utilities commission and the federal Bureau of Land Management, was more than 7,500 pages long, in six volumes. A recirculated draft came out in July. Testimony was heard at 11 workshops and seven hearings, and an additional 900 pages of comments were added to the record.

The CPUC expects to issue a proposed decision on the project itself "shortly," and vote on the project before the end of the year.

-- Elizabeth Douglass

Photo: In Anza-Borrego Desert State Park, San Diego Gas & Electric's existing poles would be replaced by large transmission towers, some more than 100 feet high. Photo credit: Don Bartletti / Los Angeles Times

Comments

[sheila]

Thanks for mentioning this important process. More proof that local, point of use renewables are the only future for this region, state and nation.

You left out probably THE most important finding of the EIR/EIS, however:

BUILDING AND MAINTAINING THIS TRANSMISSION LINE WILL EMIT SO MANY GHGS THAT, NO MATTER HOW MUCH (AHEM) "RENEWABLE" POWER IT LINKS TO OVER THE FULL 40 YEAR LIFE-CYCLE, NO MATTER HOW MANY (AHEM AGAIN) "MITIGATIONS" ARE DONE, HOW MANY (AHEM #3) CARBON "OFFSETS" ARE PURCHASED, THERE IS NO WAY TO GET THE MASSIVE, MASSIVE TOXIC, CLIMATE-CHANGE CAUSING EMISSIONS FROM THE POWERLINE ALONE LOW ENOUGH TO PERMIT THE PROJECT.

If that doesn't pretty much tell us all we need to know about the devastation of these remote, industrial power-plants-for-private-profits, I don't know what does. The transmission is usually an offhand afterthought for many of the cheerleaders of these horrible projects (including MAJOR BRIGHT SOURCE INVESTOR ROBERT KENNEDY, HEAD OF NRDC), but even without the devastation of their ill-conceived, wilderness-killing power plants, and even factoring in the mythical reductions in GHGs from huge wind and solar plants, their mercenary processes will contribute enormously to global warming, rather than prevent it, as they claim.

I've said it a million times - the ONLY clean, sustainable, ecologically and economically feasible solution is a generous feed in tariff (a la Germany and the 40 other countries who are waaaaay ahead of us) for power that WE THE PEOPLE produce on our own previously developed properties (i.e., roofotops), and policies encouraging, rather than discouraging (yes, CPUC, I mean YOU) oversizing of privately owned generation. Aside from record-breaking adoption of installation of PV, the FIT has proven to exponentially increase conservation over raised rates and net metering because getting a check is such a tangible benefit. Double win. No GHGs, no dead wilderness, no ratepayer hijacking - Quintuple win.

I hope people will finally recognize that remote, wilderness killing monopolistic infrastructure is terrible for ratepayers, taxpayers and the planet, and will start pushing MUCH HARDER for point of use solutions and rewards to US for doing the right thing. NO on Props 7 and 10 are the first step towards saving the planet and all its inhabitants from eminent domain, pollution, destroyed property values, lost habitats, and the destruction of an incredibly effective carbon sink, which is also known as the Mojave. The next thing is to push hard for generous feed in tariffs that reward people who do the right thing - produce more clean power than they consume.

Let's not fall victim to another Big Energy scam in the renewable era. Now that sun and wind are the primary fuels being implemented, t is OUR TURN to control our energy production and usage, and that means we need independence from Pickens and Bright Source just as much as from Chevron, Big Coal, Sempra and the other crooks.

[Bob Baran]

Hi Elizabeth,
Great to see that for all SDG&E's touting this as a green energy superhighway the EIR clears away this smokescreen and places SDG&E's proposals at #6 and #7.

There is nothing green about cutting a path through Anza Borrego Desert State Park regardless of all the glossy ads that SDG&E throws at us.

Bob

W

[Lhogue]

No one knows what kind of power the Sunrise Powerlink will carry. SDG&E admits, when it has to tell the truth to the CPUC rather than lying to the public, that they can't guarantee that any amount of renewable power will be carried by this transmission line. Since the main proposed solar power facility they want to link to uses highly speculative technology, it's very likely that the renewable power will take a long time to come on line if it ever does. Sunrise could easily go the way of the Southwest Powerlink, which was billed as being for renewable energy back in the 1980s, but today carries less than 5% renewable power. Why not just make the Southwest Powerlink do the job it was originally supposed to do, instead of building a new line? Because SDG&E only gets paid for building new lines, not for switching the power on existing lines.

[Austin]

Last I checked, the sun shines in San Diego. Local generation of renewable power is the only choice that makes environmental sense. A dispersed grid is also less vulnerable to terrorist sabotage, wildfire, or natural disasters.

This is not a choice of "local environmentalism vs. global" -- it is a choice between locally owned and controlled power vs. mega-corporations, and a choice between environm,ental responsibility vs. destruction.

Also do not be fooled by the false coice "public lands vs. private"-- ALL proposed routes will require taking private lands via eminent domain.