I attended the California Public Utilities Commission's pre-hearing conference in Ramona for SDG&E's Sunrise Powerlink and waited four hours to speak for a limited one minute on behalf of the Carmel Valley Community Planning Board and the 35,000 residents it represents in opposition to SDG&E's antiquated and unenlightened approach to solving our future power needs. In all fairness to the CPUC commissioners, this was because there were so many people who wanted to speak out and, thankfully, Supervisor Diane Jacob took the time to express the informed concerns of many of us.

Our reasons for opposing the Sunrise Powerlink are twofold. First, this "transmission first" strategy appears to be in contradiction to the Energy Action Plan and the San Diego Regional Energy Strategy 2030, which stress energy efficiency, reducing demand, producing power in-county and renewables before transmission as preferred strategies to attaining our future energy needs. Second, this transmission line would be a visible, audible blight upon our state park and local preserves as well as a fire and health hazard to nearby residents.

Dan McSwain helped shed some light on a question that the SANDAG Energy Working Group was struggling with at its Aug. 24 meeting and will continue to address at its Sept. 28 meeting. At last month's meeting, local politicians and other interested parties (including competing power companies) were trying to understand why they should vote in favor SDG&E's Sunrise Powerlink transmission line when the San Diego Regional Energy Strategy (which the SANDAG working group is tasked with implementing) emphasizes in-county and renewable energy resources as the most efficient and effective way of addressing our future energy needs.

McSwain argues that the next power crisis looms closer because energy firms aren't building enough power plants in Southern California. Adding to this problem, the Sunrise Powerlink proposal would allow SDG&E to avoid using or supporting energy sources that are already available from their competition in San Diego County. While praising SDG&E for building a plant in Escondido, McSwain, however, forgets to mention that Sempra (SDG&E's parent company) was allegedly one of the first energy suppliers who “learned to strategically turn off their generators, forcing buyers to pay high federal price caps in the first power crisis.”

I agree that local generation is a more efficient, less expensive power solution that could better add reliability and renewables to our energy mix. In addition, such a solution would have fewer harmful impacts on our parks, preserves and communities. Approving the transmission line, however, may well squelch the momentum and incentive to pursue these superior local alternatives.

Citing a flawed energy policy, McSwain has made it clear that the regulatory and business incentives at play make it less risky and financially much more rewarding for SDG&E to try to secure this power line instead of further supporting in-county generation. Nonetheless, what still remains unclear is why certain regulators and politicians were so quick to support the transmission line even though it is clear that we need more local power plants first, as suggested in their own San Diego Regional Energy Strategy. Perhaps there are financial incentives at play there as well?

LAURA COPIC
San Diego

In separate announcements over the past few months, researchers at the University of Johannesburg and at Nanosolar, a private company in Palo Alto, have announced major breakthroughs in reducing the cost of solar electric cells. While trade journals are abuzz with the news, analysis of the potential implications has been sparse.

We approach this news as current and former public electric utility executives, sympathetic with consumer and environmental concerns. South Africa and California technologies rely on the same alloy -- called CIGS (for copper-indium-gallium-selenide) -- deposited in an extremely thin layer on a flexible surface. Both companies claim that the technology reduces solar cell production costs by a factor of 4-5. That would bring the cost to or below that of delivered electricity in a large fraction of the world.