Home

Keep up with UCAN.org by following us on Twitter!

Thanks for visiting UCAN.org! Please remember our services are available because of grassroots donations from people like you. Please help us continue our work with a donation of any amount.  Click here to visit our secure donation page.

KPBS interview of Michael Shames on Sunrise PowerLink

Posted December 17th, 2008 by Charles Langley

UCAN In the Media

Vote Expected on Sunrise Powerlink

Dec 19, 2008, Ed Joyce KPBS Radio

Transcript:  (click here for audio).
The California Public Utilities Commission is expected to vote tomorrow or Friday on whether to approve a major electric transmission line project.  San Diego Gas and Electric says its proposed Sunrise Powerlink is needed to tie into renewable energy projects in the Imperial Valley. KPBS Environmental Reporter Ed Joyce spoke with Michael Shames of the Utility Consumers Action Network about the upcoming decision.
Joyce: San Diego Gas and Electric says the project is needed to keep the lights on in San Diego. Is that the case?
Shames: Even the state Independent System Operator, who is promoting and endorsing this powerline, acknowledged that the lights are not going to go out if the Sunrise Powerline is not built. And in fact, SDG&E has a panoply of some 15 different feasible, lower-cost options that it can employ to make sure lights stay on in San Diego and our needs are met. So it was not an issue of "hey, lights are going to go out" if we don't build this line. And SDG&E knows that.
Joyce:  Is the need for this project to bring renewables from the Imperial Valley versus in-basin opportunities?
Shames:  Pretty much. I think the most compelling argument that SDG&E has is it wants to be able to import renewable power into the San Diego region rather than trying to produce it here in San Diego. Their belief being that the renewables in the Imperial Valley may be more affordable than the options here in San Diego. And there is partial truth to it. The big question is do you want to spend $1.7 billion on that issue, on just that one purpose. Because if it does, now suddenly those marginally cost-effective projects  in the Imperial Valley become exceedingly expensive.
Joyce: Environmental concerns?
Shames:  One thing I must tell you is one of the reasons I initially got involved in this project and the opposition to the project, was because it didn't seem right that a major large transmission line should run through a state park, a desert state park, dedicated to preservation of the natural beauty. And turns out it isn't necessary to run that line through a state park. There are alternative routes that are feasible, as it turns out, that SDG&E could have directed these lines through. But because of an ulterior motive, SDG&E wants this line to go through the park so it can head north into the Edison territory and create a full loop. So SDG&E's motives here are far from pure. And you really have to ask yourself do you want to build a major transmission system through a preserve, a desert preserve, unless it's absolutely necessary. In this case it is absolutely not necessary.
Joyce:  Are there better alternatives and what are they?
Shames: Yes, well there are a number of better alternatives. Truthfully, the best alternative, the most cost-effective alternative, is don't build the bloody transmission line. It's expensive:  $1.7 billion! So UCAN actually proposed a number of different alternatives that satisfy all of the needs that SDG&E claimed it had without building a major line. There's another alternative. You can build south along the Mexican border, paralleling an existing transmission line, not cause the same degree of environmental damage, the line would be 80 miles shorter than the proposed SDG&E line and less expensive.
The public utilities commission considers three options - the shorter, southern route Shames mentioned with a requirement that the project transmit a certain amount of renewable energy to San Diego, the same route with no renewable energy requirement; and the third would reject the project.
A representative from Sempra Energy, the parent company of SG-&E, was asked to appear and respond to the same questions.  However, after repeated attempts by phone and e-mail dating back to last June, the company did not provide a representative and did not answer questions.
Ed Joyce, KPBS News.
Filed Under

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <em> <p> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <!--break-->
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options



Like what you see? Go ahead and show your support! UCAN is a truly independent non-profit watchdog organization, dependent on grassroots donations like yours!

Utility Consumers' Action Network

(619) 696-6966 or file a complaint about a company online.

Terms & Conditions

UCAN.org is made available by the Utility Consumers' Action Network to assist you in becoming what you always knew you could be, a consumer ROCK STAR! We take no corporate money, and are beholden only to you, the consumer. As such, the site is here for educational, advocacy, and empowerment purposes, as well to to give you general information and a general understanding of the law. Just remember this site is NOT here to provide specific legal advice. By using this web site you of course understand that there is no attorney client relationship between you and the Web Site publisher, UCAN. The Web Site should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a licensed professional attorney in your state.

That said, get to digging on the site, inform yourself, speak your mind, and earn Watchdog Bones! This is YOUR site, and we mean it. So comment on any of the content, discuss the latest issues in the forums, file a complaint on a company with the fraud squad, and generally cut loose.

See our Privacy Policy and Copyright Policy, Some Rights Reserved