SDG&E: Powerlink Plan Moving Forward
UCAN In the Media
SDG&E: Powerlink Plan Moving Forward
NBC 7/39 Watch Video: On Thursday, the California Public Utilities Commission released a draft document of the environmental impacts of the proposed 150-mile project. The CPUC said there may be more "environmentally superior" options to SDG&E's plan.
The joint study with the Bureau of Land Management identified 27 alternatives to San Diego Gas and Electric Co.'s plan. It also said the Sunrise Powerlink would harm the Anza-Borrego State Park and ruin some views in the Santa Ysabel Valley.
Critics of the Powerlink, a $1.3 billion energy project, said the new environmental report spells an end to SDG&E's effort to the proposed 150-mile transmission line.
"Our issue has been up to now, and will continue to be, is this the best deal for SDG&E customers? Are they going to benefit? Is there an economic benefit from building a transmission line as opposed to the other things SDG&E can do?" asked Michael Shames of Utility Consumers' Action Network.
But SDG&E said Friday it will move forward with its Powerlink plan, despite these new environmental criticisms.
"It's going to bring in more energy reliability for the region and, at the same time, gets us closer to a cleaner, greener San Diego that we all want," said Jennifer Briscoe of SDG&E.
The company said it will study the 7,000-page report and pose challenges to some of the findings. But the utility still insists, the Powerlink is the best answer to San Diego's energy needs.
The public has 90 days to review the draft report and provide comments to the CPUC and BLM. There will also be eight public workshops between Jan. 28 and Feb. 1 to be held in Alpine, Borrego Springs, El Centro, Pine Valley, Ramona, San Diego, Temecula, and Warner Springs.
To view the complete report, click here.
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
Utilities vs Free Market
The Sunrise Transmission Project is a perfect example of what's wrong with how utilities are governed, i.e. regulated. Although the PUC is there to protect the people from over zealous utilities we'll find most of their members have come from the very industry they are to regulate, and will return to that industry when they no longer "serve" the public. Does "Don't bite the hand that feeds you." ring a bell?
Utilities have an inherit guarantee of a profit on any of their expenses. If it costs more to run a business, charge more. It's justifiable! Take trips, have lunches, build offices and dig up the street again (after just having done it.) But that pales to the "expense" of building the Sunrise Power Link. And with that type "expense" they can surely justify a major rate increase.
When do we see this as an "investment" and something done with the profits made from the already too high rates? Shouldn't the benefit that SDG&E is claiming be a total justification to their investors to put the money into the project instead of dividends? In a free market it would get done based solely on the benefits and future profit to be gained. If the public is charged for the creation of this type asset they should be given ownership. I'm still waiting for my shares of San Onofre.
Post new comment