Looks like SDGE has received the go-ahead to proceed with the Sunrise Powerlink. On April 11, SANDAG voted 17-3 in favor of approving the transmission lines. From another San Diego blog:

"The SANDAG Board of Directors received a recommendation from their own energy experts on the SANDAG Energy Working Group that these transmission projects were in NOT CONSISTENT with the goals of their own San Diego Regional Energy Strategy. The majority of the board chose to ignore this recommendation. They also heard from over 70 community members, business owners and energy experts in public comment on a ratio 2-to-1 against the Sunrise Powerlink. Nonetheless, they voted 17-3 in favor of transmission to meet future energy needs and refusing to note that this is NOT and endorsement of Sunrise (see this article). Those voting against the motion and deserving of recognition were the City of Del Mar (Henry Abarbanal), City of Solana Beach (Lesa Heebner) and Diane Jacob of the County Board of Supervisors (Supervisor Pam Slater-Price is not on the Board but spoke against the Sunrise Powerlink in Public Comment)."

The next event is May 12 @ Borrego Springs Resort, starts at 1:30pm. This meeting will be a quorum of California Public Utilities Commision (CPUC) commissioners. Please be present if at all possible. If not, please visit this link and download the pre-written letter and mail it to your local representatives: http://www.dpcinc.org/_sunrisepowerlink.shtml

Dear UCAN,

Thank you, UCAN, for opposing the devastating sunrise powerlink. I’m writing in hopes that you'll support environmentally superior alternative one described in the draft EIR and continue to vigorously oppose the proposed route through Anza-Boreggo Desert State Park and also alternative 4, both of which would have severe negative environmental consequences.

Alternative 4, also called the Interstate 8 alternative, allows 50 miles of new powerlines, 20 of which traverse the Cleveland National Forest along one of the most scenic and popular highways in the country. This area was jointly designated a Scenic Byway by Federal State and County representatives in 1992, including George Bailey and his young staffer, Diane Jacobs.

More than 15,300 people travel this scenic byway each day. This section of the Cleveland National Forest is designated as Scenic National Forest. Alternative four is not environmentally superior and hinges on de-designation of the Cleveland National Forest as Scenic. Because of its high scenic value, environmental groups should certainly oppose such de-designation. Alternative four is not environmentally superior and should be removed from the draft EIR.

An alternative not adequately addressed in the draft EIR is to apply the best available technology for power transmission to the existing SouthWest Powerlink. Steel cables could be replaced with aluminum composite cable with ceramic cores that resist heat and sagging and can transmit three to four times the power of current steel cable. SDG&E won't even say if the SWPL is overloaded. They should be compelled to report this through a motion.

Several routes on the existing Southwest Power Link could be refitted with aluminum composite cables to meet transmission needs without the construction of any new transmission towers through Anza Borrego Desert State Park, or elsewhere. This fact needs to be fully developed as an environmentally superior alternative in the final EIR.

Its also a fact that solar power is largely unavailable during periods of peak electricity demand from 4 to 8:30 PM. This is when the peaker plants described in alternative one can be used to prevent blackouts. The facts that no commercial solar facilities exist in Imperial Valley and that solar energy is largely unavailable during peak electrical demand periods directly contradict the applicants often stated need to transmit solar renewable energy.

Transmission of solar energy is therefore not a rational basis for construction of these new powerlines. All mention of the need to transmit solar energy should be removed from the final EIR.

In the view of many experts, construction of long-distance powerlines is not the answer to energy security or reliability for California. In fact, most power failures result from interruptions of long distance transportation and failures of the power grid. Local generation facilities like those described in environmentally superior alternative 1 are well known to be more efficient and economical. Ironically, these small independant peaker plants are threatened by the energy trading practices which long distance powerlines facilitate.

Thank you, UCAN, for your consideration of these points and for your continued work protecting the bests interests of the people of San Diego and California.

Sincerely,

Gifford Pinchot's Ghost

The proposed route would take the line within yards of Tamarisk Grove campground, one of only two serviced camping areas in the park. It would then go on through the Yaqui Well camping area, one of the most popular backcountry campgrounds, probably because of its proximity to Tamarisk and its water!
Further, has anyone seriously considered the effect of this proposal on potential donors to projects in this park or any other in California? Who is going to contribute to build a park which can be destroyed for the benefit of big business?

The first day of hearings were spent by a morning of "opening arguments" by the various parties in this case. The afternoon involved the cross examination of James Avery, senior vice-president for electric transmission at SDG&E.

The opening statements were a recapitulation of the parties' position. SDG&E provided a handout recounting the "benefits" of Sunrise. But embedded in the handout were some of the more damning elements of Sunrise. SDG&E touted Sunrise reducing greenhouse gas emissions. But then I pointed out and Commissioner Grueneich seized on the fact that SDG&E's modeling for Sunrise shows that the Southwest could import an additional 1000 MW (8000 gwhrs) of coal power if Sunrise is built. While SDG&E might not buy coal power (but they didn't deny it), SDG&E conceded that Sunrise could facilitate more coal power being brought into the Southwest.

The handout also listed all of the renewable resources in the Southwest. Amazingly, the list was bereft of geothermal power (as none is in the CAISO queue). It had only wind and solar. And most of that wind did not require Sunrise. Only 1400 of the 7144MW listed in the handout were located in the Imperial Valley and required Sunrise for importation. Again, the Commissioner focused in on that handout and asked questions about whether Sunrise is necessary.

The cross-examination of James Avery resulted in a couple of bombs. One big one was in response to my questioning about the cost of Sunrise. SDG&E claims the cost is $1.3 billion. Avery admitted that the project might be more expensive and that if there were overruns, the costs would be approved (or denied) by FERC, not the CPUC. In other words, there was very little that the CPUC could do if the project turned out to be more expensive than SDG&E has projected.

I just returned from a meeting with the Editorial Board of the Union Tribune. The five editors claimed that they wanted to know UCAN's thoughts about SDG&E's proposed project. While appreciative of the invitation, the meeting revealed itself to be perfunctory and disturbing. With the notable exception of Bill Osborne, the editors appeared to be remarkably ill-informed about SDG&E's proposal. They'd not read UCAN's testimony, nor the DRA testimony, nor even the CAISO testimony. From what I could gather from the embarrassingly basic questions, the editors had only a rudimentary understanding of SDG&E's proposal and an even more underinformed appreciation of the energy markets in general. The loss of Jim Gogek and Dan McSwain (two very knowledgeable former members of the U-T Editorial Board) was apparent. The editors were clueless and unprepared to have an intellectually honest discussion about the controversial project.

I left the meeting quite convinced that the U-T editors would endorse the project. The tenor of their questioning made it quite clear that they neither understood nor were all that interested in seriously questioning SDG&E's claims.

I've almost never insisted that anyone agree with my position on matters relating to energy. My 20+plus years of advocacy have proved that there isn't only one way of viewing an issue. However, I do expect that any position be supported by some degree of intellectual integrity -- that homework be done and effort expended to understand an issue. The meeting today with the U-T Board screamed out the absence of intellectual integrity. The Board clearly hadn't done its homework. It hadn't read UCAN's testimony nor educated itself about the issue beyond reading press releases. The healthy skepticism that one would expect from a journalistic exercise appeared to be distressingly absent from the discourse. Is this too much to expect from a local opinion leader like the U-T? We'll know in the coming days.