California OKs Controversial SDG&E Transmission Project

By Ucilia Wang

The California Public Utilities Commission voted Thursday to approve a controversial transmission line project that aims to bring renewable power from the state's southeastern corner to San Diego.

The decision gave the San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (SDG&E) the go ahead to build the Sunrise Powerlink Transmission Project, which will likely cost roughly $1.9 billion and stretch roughly 150 miles from Imperial County to the coast. [SDG&E is owned by Sempra Energy (SRE).]

The 4-1 vote also capped a three-year contentious public debate over a host of environmental and economic issues. SDG&E said the transmission line is necessary for it to meet the state's renewable energy mandate, which requires utilities to get 20 percent of their electricity from renewable sources such as solar and wind by 2010, and increase the mix to 33 percent by 2020.

The transmission will benefit a host of renewable energy developers in the desert, including Stirling Energy Systems, which is constructing a 900-megawatt solar power plant.

Critics questioned whether SDG&E would build the project only to move largely non-renewable power. They also said the project is too expensive, particularly when its cost will eventually be passed on to ratepayers of three large investor-owned utilities such as Pacific Gas and Electric Co., as well as some smaller ones.

The project is a harbinger of what's to come in California and the rest of the country as more electric service companies aim to build transmission lines to bring solar, wind and other renewable power to cities.

Large solar and wind farms are being developed in remote areas, yet the existing electric grid in the country is old and insufficient to ferry the electricity to towns and cities (see Texas Wind Farms Paying People to Take Power).

Utilities and many renewable energy advocates, such as Al Gore, have championed upgrading and building new transmissions to replace the United States' aging electric grid. To do so could cost $900 billion by 2030, according to the Brattle Group (see National Grid: Dream or Reality? and Al Gore Sets Energy Goal).

The commission had three proposed decisions to choose from. The first proposal, by an administrative law judge, would have denied the project. The judge said SDG&E doesn't need the line to meet the state's renewable energy mandate, and it would cause extensive environmental damage. SDG&E initially proposed building the transmission line through the Anza-Borrego Desert State Park.

The second proposal, coming from commissioner Dian Grueneich, would've allowed the utility to build the line on an alternative route that doesn't go through public or American Indian land. But she wanted SDG&E to agree in writing to use the line mostly for transporting renewable energy.

SDG&E's CEO Debra Reed said in one of the previous meetings that the utility wouldn't consent to signing such an agreement.

The commissioners ended up choosing the third proposal that was put forth by commission president Michael Peevey. Peevey wanted to build the Sunrise project without conditions proposed by Grueneich.

Comments

[Pat Shuff:]

A nuke plant could utilize an existing power line,
generates after sunset and when the wind dies
down with no emissions for less cost. Bankrupt
thinking in conception, bankrupt in execution,
bankrupt in all but bailout.

2008 Dec 19 12:43 PM

[Steven Hansen:]

hello california - land of fruit and nuts. we are in a recession.

the california puc has bankrupted its utilities and made them a laughing stock around the world. what they have done is added additional burden directly to its citizens. this is counter-productive in a recessionary environment.

2008 Dec 20 12:22 AM

[The Proclaimer:]

Helloooo, Have you ever heard of Thermal Emmissions? Nuclear power generators waste 60% of the Thermal energy produced. Guess where ALL, yes ALL of the Thermal energy ends up?


On Dec 19 12:43 PM Pat Shuff wrote:

>
> A nuke plant could utilize an existing power line,
> generates after sunset and when the wind dies
> down with no emissions for less cost. Bankrupt
> thinking in conception, bankrupt in execution,
> bankrupt in all but bailout.

2008 Dec 20 05:12 AM

[Ruffdog:]

...upgrading and building new transmissions to replace the United States' aging electric grid...

Being as transmission lines are made out of aluminum and also lighter weigh cars will use less steel and more aluminum, I shorted X and bought AA this week. Good play.

2008 Dec 20 11:48 AM

[jackooo:]

Limit the illegals in Ca. and scrap the transmission lines. When will it end.
Millions on the roadways and millions more coming to Ca. More fwys.?
When does it end? Limit the entrance to Ca.
Sounds insane until you try it.

2008 Dec 20 11:56 AM

[TinyTim:]

Environmental damage from transmission lines?
What damage? LOL The towers can be aesthetically designed (see FermiLab). US hasn't built any significant T&D infrastructure since the 1970's. I can understand the NIMBY stuff, but a line thru nowhere??

Proclaimer- so the thermal waste from nukes does what? Don't tell me global warning. LOL All steam turbines waste heat, no matter what the fuel, it's thermodynamics. Speaking of hot air...

Sad to say, commissioner Dian Grueneich had it right. This line was probably more to draw power from new gas plants in Arizona and from Palo Verde NGS - largest in the USA & I believe SDG&E is part owner.

2008 Dec 20 08:28 PM

[k9s-4-k8:]

On Dec 20 08:28 PM TinyTim wrote:


> Sad to say, commissioner Dian Grueneich had it right. This line
> was probably more to draw power from new gas plants in Arizona and
> from Palo Verde NGS - largest in the USA & I believe SDG&E
> is part owner.

Since solar power is still so incredibly inefficient, it only makes sense to make use of natural gas electric plants anyhow. We're in desperate need of more power in California to provide for our ever-growing population. State politicians will change their tune when state residents get a whiff of power rates with those stupid California requirements. Lookin' for a sea change with voter attitudes in the next 5-10 years here in the golden state.

2008 Dec 21 04:03 AM