Energy and Environment in the 

California – Baja California Border R

Race to the Bottom?

Good Neighbor Environmental Board MBill Powers, P.E., Powers Engineering June 16, 2011 
U.S. and Mexico nominate members for cross

electricity task force – no environmental presesource: Business News Americas, Governments nominate members for cross-border task force – Mexico, November 3, 2010. 

 Presidents Barack Obama and Felipe Calderon a

establish cross-border electricity task force in Ma

 Charged with advancing power transmission, gri

connections, and trade in renewable energy tech

 October 18, 2010 task force scoping meeting (Sa

co-sponsored by Mexico energy ministry SENER 

 Following day government officials met by thems

nominate the task force members. 

 No U.S. or Mexico environmental agency repres

were at scoping meeting or are on the task force

 No public information on who the task force mem
Senators Feinstein and Boxer are not onboard 

Baja California as energy hub for California source: Joint Sen. Feinstein/Sen. Boxer letter to Sempra CEO Don Felsinger, March 9, 2011.  March 2011 letter to Sempra: Adding power from 

to Sunrise Powerlink 

(transmission line) would li

ability to deliver renewable power from Imperial 

 Imperial County has highest unemployment rate 

California at 28 percent. 

 Very concerned that cross-border transmission 

undermine employment opportunities in (Imperia

 April 2011 CA State Asso. of Electrical Workers 

opposes construction of cross-border transmissfrom Mexico into California and strongly condemactions in Mexico to crush the Mexican electricia

CFE (Mexico) border power plant assumptio

another 600 MW Sempra plant in Mexicali source: Florencio Aboytes PhD – CFE, CFE Generation and Transmission Expansion Plan Baja California System 2003-20
Original SDG&E transmission plan – 

border 

Basin interconnection source: D. Korinek 

SDG&E direct testimony, R.01-10-024 Valley-Rainbow Transmission Line Proceeding, April 1
Sempra on advantages of Baja California

source: Gas Turbine World, , Sempra Energy – Mexicali Plant Spurs Surge of Capacity, March-April 2004. 

“Advantages for Mexican programs include “Availability of low cost labor.”  “Avoiding some of the stringent environmental ru

new U.S. facilities.” 

 “Another overriding factor is that under Mexican 

regulations permitting for a new plant takes only months, compared with much longer periods – utwice that – to gain approvals for U.S. projects.” 

 Sempra vision – energy maquiladoras. 
InterGen gives in, unplugs turbine 

source: San Diego Union Tribune, InterGen gives in, unplugs turbine, January 17, 2004.  “InterGen has shut down one generating unit at 

Mexicali power plant.” 

 “InterGen 

misled the government into believing t

of the plant's export turbines were fitted with polcontrol devices.” 

 “Environmentalists recently discovered that Inte

not fitted one of the turbine units with the SelectCatalytic Reduction technology, SCRs, for NOx c

 “Officials in Imperial County, concerned about e

from both the InterGen and Sempra plants, also the InterGen unit was equipped with scrubbers.” 
Gaming the system, border style 

sources: 1) press release, Sempra Energy Reaches Agreement To Settle Energy Crisis Class-Action Litigation, January 4, 2006 (http://investor.shareholder.com/sre/releasedetail.cfm?releaseid=183120); 2) CA Dept. of Water Resources press more than $70 Million in Dispute with Sempra Energy - Arbitration Panel Rules Sempra Energy Acted in Bad Faith and in Breach Long-Term Energy Contract with DWR , April 21, 2006 (http://www.water.ca.gov/news/newsreleases/2006/042106seDiego Union Tribune, SDG&E set to pay after misstating Sunrise info, March 7, 2009.  January 2006: Sempra $350 million Continental 

settlement – 

ricochet natural gas trades to CFE 

Baja California power plant drive up SoCal natuprices during 2001 energy crisis. 

 April 2006: Sempra $70 million fine for violating 

10-year electricity contract with state, includes SMexicali plant. 

 March 2009: $1.1 million settlement, SDG&E mi

California utility commissioners on viability of soroute for Sunrise Powerlink 

transmission line. $2

allocated for ethics training for senior executives
Sempra’s border doubts – end of 10-year state 

electricity contract, low natural gas prices hursources: 1) Sempra contract with DWR: http://www.cers.water.ca.gov//pdf_files/power_contracts/sempra/0504pdf. p. 31; 2) Jakarta Post, Appropriate sale price for Tangguh LNG is imperative, June 18, 2007.  Sempra’s 10-year, $7 billion electricity supply co

with state of California ends in September 2011

 Mexicali power plant will have no captive buyer 

state contract ends. What to do with the Mexical

 Sempra buys LNG from BP Tangguh (Indonesia

per million Btu under 20-year contract. 

 Shale gas has dropped U.S. domestic natural ga

to ~$4 per million Btu – low domestic prices expforeseeable future. 

 What to do with the Costa Azul LNG terminal? 
Half court shot – Sempra’s Costa Azul LNG b

regional natural gas-fired power plant energy source: California Energy Commission, Comparative Analysis of Future Gas and Electric Infrastructure OptioCalifornia/Mexico Border Region, October 2008, Figure 6. 
Environmental impacts of export energy 

development in Baja California source: B. Powers, San Diego Smart Energy 2020, October 2007, Attachment C. See: http://www.etechinternational.org/new_pdfs/smartenergy/52008_SmE2020_2nd.pdf. Costa Azul LNG terminal: 

 Greenhouse gas burden of LNG imports is ~25 percen

than domestic natural gas. 

 BP Tangguh raw field gas is rich in CO2 which is vente

atmosphere at the liquefaction plant. 

 Liquefaction and shipping of LNG are energy intensive Seawater LNG re-heat system at Costa Azul uses larg

of seawater in once-through heating system. 

Mexicali export power plants: 

 No air emission offsets required on Mexico side of bord

poor air quality in Imperial County and Mexicali. 

 No requirement to report results of continuous emissio

monitoring. 
Sempra’s Energía Sierra Juárez (ESJ) wind pr

– live or memorex? Source: California Energy Markets, Mexico Could Be Wind Hotspot If Wires, Border Issues Are Solved, June 1 Mexican renewables are ineligible for U.S. tax c

which for wind equate to about 3 cents/kWh in v

 La Rumorosa (Energía Sierra Juárez) develope

quoted wind capacity factors of 30 percent compthe 35 to 40 percent touted by U.S. wind compa

 The ($2 billion SDG&E) Sunrise Powerlink or so

transmission solution would be required to move Rumorosa wind to load centers. 

 SDG&E has applied to contract for 450 MW of p

gas turbines, a ~$500 million investment, to addpart) the intermittency of wind power. 
Sempra as gatekeeper for export of renewable 

from Baja California to California –ESJ “gene

source: U.S. DOE, Energía 

Sierra Juarez Transmission Line Project – 

Scoping Report, September 2009, Figure 2. 
Distributed solar PV and ESJ wind cost abou

no reason to pay for transmission and gas tursources: 1) San Diego Union Tribune, SDG&E buying power from Mexican wind farm, April 19, 2011; 2) Renewable EnInitiative, RETI Phase 2B Final Report, May 2010, p. 4-8 (PV at $135/MWh, see: http://www.energy.ca.gov/2010pu1000-2010-002/RETI-1000-2010-002-F.PDF); 3) B. Powers - confidential 10 MW PV project, May 2011, $120/MW Estimated long-term contract price between Sem

SDG&E for up to 156 MW of ESJ wind power: $megawatt-hour. 

 Estimate cost of electricity production from 10 to 

solar PV array at substation near San Diego: $1$140 per megawatt-hour. 

 Solar PV is reliably available on hot summer afte

when electricity demand, and cost of power, is h

 Wind production in San Diego area is lowest in s

and lowest on 24-hour basis during mid-day. 
Output of solar PV systems on hot summer d

source: Renewable Energy Transmission Initiative, RETI Phase 1B Final Report, January 2009, p. 6-23. 
Output of San Diego area wind on hot summ

source: 1) U.S. DOE, Energy Information Administration, 2008 Form 923 Monthly Time Series, 50 MW KumeyaaSan Diego Regional Renewable Energy Study Group, Potential for Renewable Energy in the San Diego Region – 

Chapter 4: 

Month-to-month 2008 wind energy SDG&E Summer Loa

production, 50 MW Kumeyaay wind (blue) and Summer Wi

project (Campo, CA) (purple) 
California moving away from mega-scale rem

renewable energy projects to local projects sources: Clean Energy Jobs Plan - http://www.jerrybrown.org/sites/default/files/6-15%20Clean_Energy%20PlanSDG&E May 9, 2011 presentation: http://www.energy.ca.gov/2011_energypolicy/documents/index.html#050920 California Gov. Jerry Brown “Clean Energy Jobs 

local renewable energy focus. 

 12,000 MW of local renewable power by 2020, o

20,000 MW target. 

 Proposed allocation of 2,000 MW of local renew

power for San Diego. 

 SDG&E asserts that 2,000 MW of local solar pro

could result in San Diego having too much solar some days, requiring some export of solar powe
Too many projects are going on undeveloped 

both countries, not retired ag lands or brownfisource of photos: B. Powers and Solar Done Right website: http://solar.ehclients.com/images/uploads/env_impacts_of_lg-sca
1,000 MW Solar Millenium Blythe Solar – 

dist

land alternative is feasible, ARRA deadline is Sept 2010 CEC Decision: http://www.energy.ca.gov/2010publications/CEC-800-2010-009/CEC-800-2010-009-C Blythe Mesa Alternative 

would include a 1,000 MW solar facility on three noncontiguous areas totaling approximately 6,200 acres. 

 Blythe Mesa Alternative is 

potentially feasible andmeets all but one of the project objectives. 

 Private parcel acquisition

would likely not occur quickly enough to complete permitting in 2010 to qualify for ARRA funding. 
1,000 MW Solar Millenium Blythe Solar will distu

acres of undisturbed public land 

-

nearly size of 

sources: photo of Washington, DC – 

Google Earth; 7,000 acres of disturbed land -

California Energy Commission, 

webpage: http://www.energy.ca.gov/sitingcases/solar_millennium_blythe/index.html 
550 MW Desert Sunlight in shadow of Joshua 

National Park – 

too big and too close 

August 2010 BLM DEIS: http://www.blm.gov/ca/st/en/fo/palmsprings/Solar_Projects/Desert_Sunlight.html December 2010 CEC Decision: http://www.energy.ca.gov/2010publications/CEC-800-2010-010/CEC-800-2010- Project site surrounded on three sides by Joshua Tre Disturbed agricultural land nearby in Desert Center ( Large project not appropriate on border of national p
Recommended guidance to Department of In

for use in prioritizing 2011 projects source: California Desert & Renewable Energy Working Group, Recommendations to Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar Planning and Permitting for the Next Generation of Solar Energy Projects on BLM Land in the California Desert, December 22, #1 Low Conflict Areas: timely or expedited perm

probable permit approval 

 Mechanically disturbed lands such as fallowed agricult Brownfields, idle or underutilized industrial areas.  Locations adjacent to urbanized areas and/or load cen

edge effects can be minimized. 

 Locations that minimize the need to build new roads.  Meets one or more of the following transmission sub-cr

transmission with existing capacity and substations is aavailable; minimal additional infrastructure would be nesuch as incremental transmission re-conductoring or uand development of substations; new transmission line permitted and no legal challenges. 
Signers of December 2010 recommended guid

who’s who of utilities, solar developers, NGO Lisa Belenky, Center for Biological Diversity  Darren Bouton, First Solar, Inc.  Barbara Boyle, Sierra Club  Laura Crane, The Nature Conservancy  Kim Delfino, Defenders of Wildlife  Shannon Eddy, Large-scale Solar Association  Sean Gallagher, Tessera Solar  Arthur Haubenstock, BrightSource Energy  Rachel McMahon, Solar Millennium  Michael Mantell, Chair, California Desert & Renewable E

Working Group 

 Wendy Pulling, Pacific Gas & Electric  Johanna Wald, Natural Resources Defense Council  Peter Weiner, Solar industry attorney  V. John White, Center for Energy Efficiency & Renewabl

Technologies 
EPA’s “RE-Powering America's Land” initia

see: http://www.epa.g

ov/renewableenergyland/; photo: PV on former landfill, Ft. Col

 Siting Renewable Energy on 

Potentially Contaminated Land and Mine Sites 

 EPA is encouraging renewable

energy development on current and formerly contaminated land and mine sites. 

 EPA would be the appropriate 

lead federal entity to designate “low conflict area” sites for utilityscale solar projects. 

 Dept. of Interior/BLM is not the 

appropriate entity, as many of these low conflict sites are not on BLM land. 
Conclusion: U.S. – Mexico border region shou

be an energy export zone 

 Border is used by U.S. energy companies: 

 As a shield from U.S. regulatory oversight while gainin

access to U.S. market. 

 To avoid U.S.-level environmental compliance while g

access to U.S. market. 

 To avoid paying U.S. labor rates, or contributing jobs t

economy, while primarily or exclusively exporting to Umarket. 

 Mexico absorbs high environmental impact whil

gaining little in terms of economic development

 The disadvantages of using the U.S.-Mexico bo

region as an energy export zone outweigh the advantages for both the U.S. and Mexico.