Local Opposition to SDG&E Powerlink Grows

Over flow crowd at California Public Utilities Commission meeting. Photo by E.A. Barrera

By E.A. Barrera

Ever since a crowd of more than 400 people turned out on Jan. 31 to protest the SDG&E Powerlink project, opposition to the plan has steadily grown. SDG&E officials have not been able to win converts for their plan to build a massive power line from the Imperial Valley through Julian and Ramona that would service consumers as far west as Del Mar.

From Supervisor Dianne Jacob's blistering comments at the California Public Utilities Commission meeting held on Jan. 31 at the Ramona Community Center, to statements by The Ramona Alliance Against the Sunrise Powerlink condemning the plan as a violation of California environmental law, the proposed power line has managed to unite a wide array of local residents under the common thread that SDG&E is trying to bypass state regulations and develop a project the community does not want.

"San Diego Gas and Electric's proposed 500 kilovolt transmission line is of enormous concern to those who live within the corridors of the identified routes. So far, the proposal has generated tremendous fear and anxiety. Based on too many unanswered questions, I am adamantly opposed to this project and the way in which SDG&E is attempting to process it," Jacob said. "The utility has failed to convince me and many others that the project is necessary."

The proposed project would connect the existing Imperial Valley substation near El Centro to a new "central" substation located in a yet-to-be determined location within San Diego County. SDG&E plans to build two 230 kV lines connecting the central substation to the existing Sycamore Canyon substation and one new 230 kV line between the Sycamore Canyon substation and the Peasquitos substation.

SDG&E has been seeking permission from the CPUC to gain approval of the project in principle, before a route has been established. SDG&E maintains that it is necessary to have the approval first to develop the project, so as to determine what the needs would be as to a specific route. The utility giant estimates that the total mileage for the 500 kV portion of the project would run between 85 to 100 miles.

"The need adjudication is often the most time-consuming part of the process, and by starting now, SDG&E believes it is possible for the CPUC to first determine need for the project by the third quarter of 2006 and then approve the route for the line and ultimately decide this application by late Spring 2007," SDG&E senior vice-president James Avery stated in a Dec. 14, 2005, application for approval to the CPUC.

During the Jan. 31 meeting in Ramona, SDG&E representative Greg Voorhees admitted to CPUC Judge Kim Malcolm that the decision to seek a "need" approval before establishing a route from the CPUC was "a business judgment" and told Malcolm and CPUC Commissioner Dian Grueneich that SDG&E was attempting to streamline the process of developing its new power line.

"We believe that if we have the need established, this would allow us to get the process of determining the route under way," Voorhees said.

In a public statement released at the Ramona meeting, SDG&E attorney E. Gregory Barnes stated the company was following a procedure common to CPUC applications.

"In practice, upon receiving a utility's application, the ... process immediately divides and proceeds on two separate tracks. One is purpose and need," stated Barnes. "The second track ... is the CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) review, which is a site or route specific inquiry."

But RAASP spokeswoman Diane Conklin said that if the CPUC supported this two-track approach, the commission would "hand over ... authority to eventually construct and operate" the power line.

"The commission would also support the idea that routes are not necessary to applications and that the preliminary engineering requirement does not have to be complied with," Conklin noted.

Jacob went straight to the heart of SDG&E's honesty, saying the company's recent past raised questions over its motivations to build the Powerlink project.

"This county was ground zero of the California energy crisis of 2001. Some of the actions of our utility and its parent company have landed before the courts. This sad history causes many to suspect that the utility has ulterior motives for pursing this line, motives other than reliability," Jacob said.

Jacob noted that SDG&E has argued the San Diego and Imperial counties region will need 5,900 megawatt of power by 2015. SDG&E has predicted that without the project, the region will fall about 600 megawatts short of what it needs. But Jacob questioned this predicted need.

"Numerous experts insist that current forecasts have the region meeting or exceeding the 5,900 megawatt goal. Even if the gap were real, SDG&E's eagerness to invest in out-of-county generation is especially troubling," Jacob said. "Why does the utility believe that a costly transmission line through pristine lands is preferable to supporting in-basin generation."

The supervisor pointed to SDG&E's parent company Sempra Energy, and its 600 megawatt plant in Mexicali and said she saw the proposed line as "a veiled attempt to profit from cheap Baja power" by selling it to customers north of SDG&E's service territory.

"Before we change the landscape of San Diego's majestic backcountry forever and before we devalue properties, I respectfully ask the commission to thoroughly investigate all of the legitimate questions surrounding this line," Jacob said.