All Energy News, Blogs, and Podcasts

Solitude in Borrego Springs

geoffrey — Wed, 14 May 2008 16:33:59 -0700

Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Solitude in Borrego Springs

Sometimes we need to attend meetings inside to save the wilderness outside.

So it was with a sense of purpose that I headed out to Borrego Springs on Monday to participate in the CPUC's public hearing on the dreaded proposed SDG&E 500KV power line, which would run from their dirty gas-fired power plants in Mexico, all the way to Carmel Mountain north of Los Peñasquitos Canyon Preserve - with a northerly way-point near Lake Henshaw where a large substation would be built to serve as a jumping-off point for a northerly link to the ultimate goal: Electricity customers in Los Angeles, the City of Angels. Along the way, portions of 64,000 acres of proposed federal wilderness stand to suffer the impacts of 7-story tall power towers, high tension lines, and associated road and building infrastructure. The presence of solitude - the very core of federal wilderness - would suffer tremendously should this ill-advised power line be allowed to go forward.

On my arrival, I was greeted to some of the first public comments in an evening that was to include testimony by nearly 70 individuals. I took a number: #65. What I heard as I entered the venue set the tone for the evening: A folk music quartet with a fiddle was singing a heart-warming ode to the desert and the public lands that we all hold so dear to our hearts. It was beautiful, and touching. And it brought smiles to the faces of the four commissioners (one commissioner was absent), and several hundred ‘publics' in the chamber.

What a moving experience it is to hear the 1-1/2 minute soliloquies spoken by citizens who have strong feelings about the proposal. Mothers, fathers, kids, cowboys, riders, runners, homeowners, boy scouts, business owners, advocates for the power lines, advocates against the power lines, biologists, engineers... all of them tax payers, all them rate-payers (well, there were a handful who were off the grid), and all of them heard. Some of them were woefully miss-guided, but what are you going to do? This is a democracy!

As I made my way to the podium, I took a moment to poke my head out the open door. Just as I suspected, the dark night sky was still there, and the bright twinkle of stars penetrated the few dim lights that illuminated the courtyard there. Moments later, I uttered these unrehearsed lines into the public record: "Good evening members of the Commission. Thank you for having us. I hope you can all join me, this evening soon after the hearing adjourns, for a walk out in the desert to view the dark night sky, examine the stars, and have a beer. Or any libation of your choosing - water works. And even if you cannot join me - as I will most certainly be out there very shortly - I urge you to drive your vehicle to a solitary road in the nearby desert, head down the road a bit, stop the vehicle, turn off the engine, and take a walk into the darkness. Look up into the sky, take in the freshness... and experience the solitude. After all that's why we're all here (gesturing to the gallery): Solitude...."

I hope some did.

Geoffrey

After governor touts Sunrise, his cause gets Sempra cash

Sandy Young — Mon, 12 May 2008 10:52:53 -0700

UCAN In the Media

After governor touts Sunrise, his cause gets Sempra cash

By Bruce V. Bigelow, staff writer

The San Diego Union-Tribune

STAFF WRITER

May 10, 2008

Sempra Energy gave $50,000 to one of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's pet causes last month, just days after the governor complained publicly about activists impeding the Sunrise Powerlink proposed by San Diego Gas & Electric Co.

A SDG&E spokeswoman said yesterday there is "no connection" between Schwarzenegger's comments and the corporate donation, which was first reported by The Sacramento Bee.

Sempra's SDG&E subsidiary has proposed building a $1.5 billion, 150-mile high-voltage transmission line to San Diego through Anza-Borrego Desert State Park from El Centro.

SDG&E says the Sunrise Powerlink will improve the reliability of San Diego's power grid and enable the utility to meet renewable energy mandates by tying into solar and geothermal projects planned in the Imperial Valley.

Environmental activists who oppose the powerline argue that it's unjustified and SDG&E is using renewable energy in a "bait and switch" play to win support for Sunrise. They contend the powerline is instead intended primarily to carry electricity from gas-fired power plants along the border, which would take advantage of abundant new supplies from Sempra's liquefied natural gas terminal in Baja California.

"The governor hasn't endorsed a specific route," for Sunrise, said Lisa Page, a spokeswoman for the governor. "But he supports the project because of the environmental benefits and what it will do to help us reach our renewable energy goals."

Schwarzenegger complained during an April 18 appearance at Yale University that SDG&E's project faces opposition "even though it would replace an old carbon-based power plant."

Environmental activists and Democrats exhibit a "kind of schizophrenic behavior," the governor said, because "they say that we want renewable energy but we don't want you to put it anywhere, we don't want you to use it."

Six days later, the California governor made similar comments on "The Tonight Show With Jay Leno."

"You want to go and create more solar plants in the desert, and then they don't let you build, sometimes, the transmission lines to get it on the grid," Schwarzenegger said.

On April 25, Sempra gave $50,000 to California Voters First, the committee backing the state legislative redistricting reform initiative, according to the California secretary of state's Web site.

Schwarzenegger has strongly supported the measure, contributing $2.1 million to the campaign from his own California Dream Team fundraising committee.

"There's no better way to get the love of the governor than to give money to his pet cause," said Michael Shames, executive director of San Diego's Utility Consumers' Action Network, and a Sunrise opponent.

As for the timing of Sempra's donation after Schwarzenegger's comments, Shames said, "You don't have to be Oliver Stone to see the connection. It's pretty obvious."

But SDG&E spokeswoman Christy Heiser said yesterday, "any allegation of a connection with Sunrise Powerlink project is completely false."

"We support good government through various forms, this being among them," Heiser said.

There's no connection between Schwarzenegger's comments and Sempra's contribution because the governor has no control over the redistricting campaign committee that got Sempra's donation, said Julie Soderland, a campaign spokeswoman.

"It's certainly fair to say it's a priority for him," Soderland said. "But other elected officials have endorsed that initiative too, including (San Diego City Councilwoman) Donna Frye."

Bruce Bigelow: (619) 293-1314; bruce.bigelow @ uniontrib.com

Sempra gives Governor money one day after he expresses support for Sunrise Transmission Project

Charles Langley — Thu, 08 May 2008 23:44:03 -0700

UCAN News

UCAN editor's note: Governor Schwarzenegger hasn't done his homework. See our report Why the Sunrise PowerLink must be terminated. In court hearings SDG&E executives have admitted that the Sunrise project may never import green energy into San Diego County. The reason SDG&E says the project delivers "clean, green energy" is to provide political cover to politicians like Schwarzenegger for supporting a multibillion dollar disaster.

Sempra gives $50K to governor's cause

Sacramento Bee Capital Alert, May 8, 2008

Sempra Energy gave $50,000 to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's top fundraising cause days after the governor expressed frustration that environmentalists are trying to "slow down" the company's solar and geothermal project east of San Diego.

The governor has raised $2.1 million for a redistricting initiative this year, and Sempra last month gave $50,000 to California Voters FIRST, the committee running the redistricting campaign.

Environmentalists oppose Sempra's desired route for a 150-mile transmission line from the Imperial Valley to San Diego because it would cut through Anza-Borrego Desert State Park. The company wants to use the Sunrise Powerlink project to meet renewable energy requirements.

Schwarzenegger has not taken a position on the route, though he supports the overall project, said spokeswoman Lisa Page. State regulators are reviewing the matter.

"This is about protecting our environment and meeting our renewable energy goals, so of course the governor is supportive," she said. "There is an urgent need for large-scale geothermal and solar resources in the Imperial Valley that this project could deliver. But he has not endorsed a specific route ... he does not want it to go through the park if it can be avoided."

Schwarzenegger used the dispute last month as an example of how environmentalists can obstruct environmental projects. In an April 18 appearance at the 2008 Conference of Governors on Climate Change at Yale University, he said it is a "myth" that only "businesses and Republicans are the obstacle to progress on renewable energy and on greenhouse gases."

He added that environmental activists and Democrats take on a "kind of schizophrenic behavior" because "they say that we want renewable energy but we don't want you to put it anywhere, we don't want you to use it."

At Yale, he specifically said, "San Diego Gas & Electric wants to develop solar geothermal fields in Imperial Valley and build 150 miles of transmission lines to go and take this power right into San Diego, but it faces opposition even though it would replace an old carbon-based power plant. So the point I'm making is it's not just businesses that have slowed things down, it's not just Republicans that have slowed things down, it's also Democrats and also environmental activists that slow things down."

Schwarzenegger made a similar point April 24 on The Tonight Show With Jay Leno: "And it's sometimes even environmentalists that are obstacles ... you want to go and create more solar plants in the desert, and then they don't let you build, sometimes, the transmission lines to get it on the grid."

Sempra gave $50,000 to California Voters FIRST on April 25. Many contributors to the committee are friends of the governor, and their money came on top of the $2.1 million raised by the governor. New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg gave $250,000. Developer Rick Caruso gave $100,000. Texas oil executive T. Boone Pickens also gave $100,000.

Julie Soderlund, a campaign spokeswoman, said Schwarzenegger has "absolutely" no association with the Sempra donation.

"The governor makes policy decisions based on what is in the best interest of the people of California," she said.

Sempra did not donate toward redistricting when it was on the ballot in 2005, and it is unusual for Sempra to donate to a government reform cause, said Michael Shames, executive director of the San Diego-based Utility Consumers' Action Network, a utility watchdog group.

"They have stayed aloof of these issues until now, so it's either a massive change of policy or they're looking for the governor's love," Shames said.

Sempra was unavailable for comment Thursday afternoon.

Posted by Kevin Yamamura on May 8, 2008 04:26 PM

May 8, 2008: Final report from the Sunrise Powerlink hearing room

michael — Thu, 08 May 2008 13:16:57 -0700

It is May 8th and the evidentiary phase of the Sunrise Powerlink hearings are finally over. It took the better part of two years to get here. SDG&E is going to be submitting one more exhibit (SD-144) today and we will have wrapped up the fact-gathering part of this case and moving into the briefing mode.

What I can say today is that SDG&E's case has effectively fallen apart. It's alleged economic annual savings claim of $400 million a year shrank after the first round of hearings to $140 million per year. Now, in the latest round, those savings have pretty much disappeared. SDG&E was pretty much forced to concede yesterday that San Diego can save far more money by building just one 500MW in-basin combined cycle power plant than it can by building a powerline to Imperial Valley.

Ex. SD-144 is revealing. It confirms that SDG&E's Enhanced Northern Route has a B/C ratio, according to themselves, of 1.22 compared to an 8100 Btu/kwh Carlsbad-based "super-peaker" plant and 1.06 compared to a 7165 btu/kwh. The net dollar benefits are $35 million/year compared to an 8100 Btu/kwh Carlsbad and $10 million/year compared to a 7165 Btu/kwh Carlsbad. So UCAN shouldn't have any objections to SD-144 being admitted into evidence.

But wait, there's more. The two new Table 11-6 variants, looked at together, show that a 935 Btu/kwh efficiency improvement lowers net ratepayer costs by $25 million/year. So a further improvement to the same 7000 Btu/kwh value that SDG&E used for all other combined cycles would, other things being equal, save a further $25 million/year x 165/935 = $4.4 million per year, knocking the net benefit of the ENR down to under $6 million per year. Bottom line compared to a reasonable range of gas-fired alternatives, the net benefits of Sunrise (ENR version) according to SDG&E's own numbers would be $6-35 million/year.

Now here's the kicker. As will become more evident as UCAN's briefs are released, the actual benefit of Sunrise is a NEGATIVE $133 million. In other words, Sunrise is a remarkable money loser -- some $8 billion over its estimated 60-year lifespan.

Remember, Ex. SD-144 reflects SDG&E's rosiest scenarios. But if you look at a more realistic scenario, the benefits of Sunrise over generation alternatives crumbles like week-old scones. It starts by deducting $36.5 million/year in alleged benefits when you no longer assume (as SDG&E does) that non-local RA is free. Another $27.5 million/year gets lopped off due to increased capacity of Miguel which SDG&E has all but conceded. As will be set forth in UCAN's upcoming brief, the list goes on and on. Reality is a bummer --- especially for trumped-up powerline projects.

SDG&E's claim of access to renewables also fell apart. Aside from the increasing signs that most of the promising, cost-effective renewables are located outside of the Imperial Valley, it was also readily determined that SDG&E could comply with the state's Renewable Portfolio Standard without having Sunrise constructed. And some very compelling testimony relating to the use of indigenous solar power along with Edison's announcement of its ambitious solar project undercut much of SDG&E's claims. There was also the embarrassing revelation that the controversial Stirling project has plans to build regardless of whether Sunrise was built or not. Oops. Of course, no one in California is betting that Stirling will be built anytime soon -- there are no signs that its technology will actually ever work in the field.

As to the question of Sunrise being needed to maintain reliability, or in SDG&E's parlance, "to keep the lights on", SDG&E fell flat on its face. UCAN and the PUC staff made overwhelming showings that SDG&E has a panoply of short and long-term lower-cost options to keep up with electricity demand without Sunrise. Even the California ISO distanced itself from SDG&E's claim that the line was needed for reliability.

The truth about the October wildfires also became clearer during the hearings. The transmission lines were found to be major contributors to wildfires. And the proposed Sunrise route runs directly through a fire-prone area. Moreover, testimony about seismic dangers showed that the Sunrise route begins at a spot that is the most seismically active in the United States with a high degree of likelihood for a 7.0 or larger quake. One of SDG&E's experts claimed that the Imperial Valley substation can withstand quakes in excess of 7.0 without suffering any damage. Yeah right. We'll see how confident they are when their own money is at stake.

So why is SDG&E continuing to push so hard for a powerline that is not justifiable on economic or reliability grounds other than "wouldn't it be nice"? The answer is three-fold:

1. It's about money. The appx. $800 million that SDG&E can reap in profits in building this powerline is simply too much potential profit from which the company can walk away. Sunrise is not just a cash cow, its a cash herd. Plus, SDG&E assumes that it will recoup all of the $200 million that it has and will continue to spend to make this project happen, so it has got nothing to lose by pursuing the project. It gets paid if it loses, it gets paid big-time if it wins. Las Vegas would go broke with those odds.

2. Second, this is about creating the ability for power companies to send power through San Diego County into Northern California. SDG&E views this project as the first of two powerline projects. The "full loop" that the company was found to be planning continues with another major 500kV line into the Edison territory. Why? Well, Sempra's Baja power plant is just one of many reasons.

3. It's about politics. The Bush administration has been pushing transmission construction for the better part of its 8-years in power. These big construction projects are the mothers milk of the utility industry. With fewer new power plants being built and with those plants being increasingly risky propositions, the utilities need some long-term investments that will ensure their economic welfare for the next generation. Transmission is it -- whether it is needed or not. And the Federal government and the Schwarzenegger administration hell-bent on pushing these utility cash-cow projects, the politics behind Sunrise may well eclipse the merits of this project.

Final briefs will be completed by June 13th. At that time, the public will finally have an authoritative and complete accounting of all of the "facts" behind this ill-conceived nightmare. At that point, the real truths behind the proposed powerline will become far more apparent.

Talk about the Sunrise Powerlink here!

How Michael Shames installed Solar Power and declared independence from SDG&E in 48 hours.

Charles Langley — Tue, 06 May 2008 21:45:57 -0700

UCAN In the Media

Watch Video

Sun Power: Michael Shames Switches To Solar
Note from UCAN: visit our new PV Web page with a great selection of "how to" tools, vendor quotes, and shopping tips

On May 6th, KFMB-TV ran a very nice story chronicling our installation of photovoltaic (solar cells) on our Mission Valley home. The video is cute -- I recommend you view it. Here's a text version of the story that ran that day:

More and more Americans are considering solar energy to power their homes as a way of saving money and saving the environment. One of San Diego's best-known consumer advocates is making the switch to solar. From flicking the light switch to turning on the microwave to surfing television channels, Michael Shames is now powering his entire home from sunlight.

"Hey, this is the time I get to tell SDG&E that I'm not interested in it anymore. I'm not paying anything, not paying a dime. It's pretty good," Shames said.

The executive director of the non-profit consumer advocate group UCAN, or Utility Consumers Action Network, says he and his wife were paying $800 a year for electricity - an expense that is now eliminated.

"We're not paying for the cost of the sun, at least not yet. No one's figured that one out," Shames said.

It's a shift in power that News 8 began documenting in February, when the Shames' selected a contractor, Real Goods Carlson, to install their new solar energy system. The next step was taking a bird's eye view of the project, which could cost up to $25,000. It was discounted dramatically by government rebates and tax credits.

"We were essentially able to cut the price of this installation in half, so this $25,000 investment actually turned out costing us close to $12,000," Shames said.

Last month installation got underway and was completed in under two days. The solar panels, attached to the rooftop by a series of brackets, have a lifespan of up to 50 years, according to Shames. They capture the sun's energy and feed it to a solar inverter located in the garage. Depending on how much solar energy is generated and how much electric energy is consumed, the Shames' are actually able to donate unused energy back to the power grid. Even on a cloudy day, the solar cells are able to capture enough light to make the meter run backwards.Despite the thousands of dollars this system set the Shames' back, they say the investment is worth it. From increasing the resale value of their home to insuring against future rate hikes, Shames estimates he'll recoup the investment in about 10 years' time.

"This is probably the most financially attractive remodel you can do on your house, appreciating the value of your house, as well as increasing the quality of your life. And by the way, you're not polluting," Shames said.

There's also another factor driving their switch to solar: his family also plans to buy batter-powered electric cars next year, energized for free by the sun's rays. "When you factor in the fact that our car may end up being charged by these solar cells, suddenly we're looking at a very lucrative investment for us", he said. "Plus, its also a long term investment in the future of the planet".

But that's not the end of the story. My PV system is running really well (thanks for asking). Even though it is rated to produce only 394 kwhrs per month, it is currently generating at a rate of closer to 500 kwhrs each month and that's during the "May gray" season where the coastal clouds are obscuring the sun for most of the day! Pretty impressive.

Governor caves in to Big Energy ... again

Sandy Young — Mon, 05 May 2008 12:12:19 -0700

UCAN In the Media

By Michael Rothfeld
Los Angeles Times
Article Launched: 05/03/2008 10:26:34 PM PDT

SACRAMENTO - California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is pushing state regulators to sign off on a high-voltage power line that a San Diego utility wants to build through the middle of California's largest state park.

Proposed for Anza-Borrego Desert State Park, the project puts Schwarzenegger again at odds with environmentalists and some state officials - who believe he is allowing California's unrivaled collection of public preserves to be threatened.

The latest controversy follows the governor's proposal to close 48 parks to save money, his backing of a six-lane toll road through San Onofre State Beach and his decision not to reappoint two foes of that project - brother-in-law Bobby Shriver and actor-director Clint Eastwood - to the state parks commission.

Schwarzenegger, who says the power line is needed to transport clean energy, was concerned that Shriver and Eastwood might fight it, too, said some officials and others familiar with the situation. The governor's aides have said he removed the pair to give others a chance to serve.

The battle highlights the tension between California's demand for infrastructure and its desire to protect natural resources.

East of San Diego in the Colorado Desert, Anza-Borrego is among the largest state parks in the United States and runs 70 miles south from Riverside County nearly to Mexico. It shelters a variety of wildlife and contains structures thought to be ancient
Advertisement
human dwellings. Nearly 1 million people visit each year.

The 150-mile transmission line would run through the park for more than 20 miles, replacing wooden poles that carry lower-voltage lines with industrial-style towers up to 160 feet tall.

San Diego Gas & Electric and its parent corporation, Sempra Energy, promise that the proposed line, known as Sunrise Powerlink, would carry renewable power from the sun, wind and ground, mostly via still undeveloped plants in the bright, hot Imperial Valley.

State law requires utilities to supply 20 percent of their energy from renewable sources by 2010 - a benchmark SDG&E has said it cannot meet. The San Diego utility supplies 6 percent today.

"The project's significance lies not only in its supplying additional power for a thriving and growing region but in doing so in a way that truly moves California into the future," Schwarzenegger wrote to Dian Grueneich, the California public utility commissioner overseeing the project's application, in a December letter that came to light in March.

But the project would mar sweeping vistas of mountains, desert and scenic roads on 90,000 of Anza-Borrego's 600,000 acres, spoil the solitude of campgrounds with loud buzzing and jeopardize species such as the endangered bighorn sheep, according to parks officials and a draft state and federal environmental review completed in January. That report found five preferable alternatives, including a route south of the park along Interstate 8 through the Cleveland National Forest.

"The idea that we're going to sacrifice critical pieces of our environment to protect other pieces of our environment seems a little ironic," said Elizabeth Goldstein, president of the nonprofit California Parks Foundation. "That's an irony I cannot accept. We have to find a way to do both."

Schwarzenegger, in turn, called environmentalists and Democrats hypocrites for trying to block clean-energy projects.

"It's a kind of schizophrenic behavior," the Republican governor said in April at a Yale University conference on climate change. "They say that we want renewable energy, but we don't want you to put it anywhere."

He cited opposition to SDG&E's plan for "150 miles of transmission lines" - the precise distance of the company's proposed route through Anza-Borrego. The alternative southern route is 40 miles shorter.

The governor's parks director, Ruth Coleman, objects to SDG&E's plans and told Grueneich in February that she prefers a route that avoids the park. But in deference to Schwarzenegger, she has remained otherwise silent on the matter in recent months - as she eventually did on the toll road plan - since issuing a blistering statement to the Public Utilities Commission in 2006.

Coleman, who declined an interview request, wrote then that the power line "would forever change the character of this pristine park and wilderness area."

Some environmentalists question how much renewable energy the line would carry, because production is still scant in the Imperial Valley. Development is uncertain, they say, and the utility could use the line to import electricity from Sempra's natural gas-fired plants in Mexico and Arizona.

The Public Utilities Commission is expected to reach a decision on whether the line should be built, and where, by late summer. "I believe very strongly that the public needs to have confidence this process has been fair," said Grueneich, who has arranged public hearings in Borrego Springs, near the park, on May 12.

SDG&E executives argue that building through Anza-Borrego would allow northward expansion connecting with Southern California Edison's system in Riverside and Orange counties, increasing the reliability of the state's electrical grid.

In addition, they say, the southern route would come too close to another power line the company has, creating a fire hazard; would bisect tribal territory; and would be more disruptive to communities than building in the park along the easement for the smaller line, which pre-dated by nine years the park's establishment in 1933.

"If we took the southern corridor we would probably have four times as many miles of newly disturbed lands as we would through the northern corridor," said Michael Niggli, SDG&E's chief operating officer. "There are some considerations here that suggest this may be a very appropriate way to meet the goals of the state of California."

Mark Jorgensen, the Anza-Borrego superintendent, said the park has been targeted before for power lines, water tunnels and fuel lines heading to San Diego from the east.

"We realize that life goes on outside of Anza-Borrego," said Jorgensen, who has worked in the park for 32 years. But "we feel it is important to stand up for the park values."

A spokeswoman for the governor, Lisa Page, said Schwarzenegger "doesn't want to go through the park if it can be avoided," and he has not backed a specific route.

But in his December letter to the Public Utilities Commission, the governor said he wanted "to offer my support" for the project.

project before you for consideration."

Schwarzenegger sent a copy of his letter to commission President Michael Peevey, a former energy company executive who has taken an interest in the project, although he is not assigned to oversee it. On March 20, Peevey's chief of staff flew by helicopter over the proposed routes with Niggli, the utility's chief operating officer, who described the advantages of the Anza-Borrego route, according to a PUC filing.

"In the 25 years I've been doing this, I've never seen this kind of hands-on intervention by the commissioners and the governor this early in a case," said Michael Shames, executive director of the Utility Consumers' Action Network, a San Diego nonprofit advocacy group fighting the power line.

Sempra donated $25,000 to Schwarzenegger's 2007 inaugural committee, state records show. In 2004, the company gave the governor a $50,000 political contribution, which he returned because of a pending lawsuit between Sempra and the state.

There is a dispute between SDG&E and state parks officials over whether the Park and Recreation Commission would need to vote on a new power line.

Shriver and Eastwood would have been in a position to exert influence over the project had it come before them for a vote, although they had not taken a position on it.

SDG&E says new rates should boost use here

Sandy Young — Mon, 05 May 2008 10:25:51 -0700

UCAN In the Media

SDG&E says new rates should boost use here
By Bruce V. Bigelow, staff writer
The San Diego Union-Tribune

May 4, 2008

The California Solar Initiative provides rebates to homeowners, businesses and nonprofit organizations that install rooftop solar panels, also known as photovoltaic systems.
Now a progress report reveals that fogbound homeowners in San Francisco and Northern California are rushing to "Go solar" at a much higher rate than residents in sunny San Diego and the rest of Southern California.

The difference is practically like night and day.

Solar proponents offer a variety of explanations for the difference, but most agree that utility and government support have been stronger for installing rooftop solar systems in Northern California.

But that could change in San Diego.

San Diego Gas & Electric Co. officials and clean-energy advocates say new optional electricity rates that took effect last week are expected to help energize local participation in the statewide solar program.

The California Solar Initiative was intended to spread the benefits of clean energy and fundamentally alter the industry's economies of scale by spending $3.4 billion over 10 years to subsidize solar installations. The program provides rebates to homeowners, businesses and nonprofit organizations that install rooftop solar panels, also known as photovoltaic systems.

Yet most of the residential applications for solar rebates during the first 15 months came from Pacific Gas & Electric's service area, according to the progress report prepared by the California Public Utilities Commission.

Of the 8,786 applications that homeowners filed for solar installations on existing homes, 6,247 came from PG&E's service area. In contrast, 697 residential applications came from San Diego Gas & Electric territory over the same period.

When adjusted for SDG&E's smaller customer base, the application rate among PG&E homeowners is almost 2.5 times the pace in San Diego.

"PG&E really does stand out in that they really do have a lot more residential applications," said Molly Tirpak Sterkel, who supervises the solar initiative for the commission's energy division. "But I would say just because Northern California is surging forward does not mean that San Diego is lagging behind."

The numbers for new homes are even more lopsided, according to data collected by the California Energy Commission from January 2007 through April 2008.

Of the 3,981 applications submitted for new homes that include rooftop solar panels as a standard feature, 3,521 came from PG&E's territory.

In contrast, the commission counted 121 solar rebate applications for new homes in SDG&E's service area - despite San Diego's famously mild climate and a lower latitude that translates to about 10 percent more radiant solar energy than in Northern California.

Of California's three major utilities, SDG&E has been the most intransigent in terms of encouraging development of local solar systems, said Michael Shames, executive director of San Diego's Utility Consumers' Action Network.

The difference between SDG&E's attitude toward solar and PG&E's "is like night and day, which is striking since we have a lot more sun than any other area of the state," Shames said.

SDG&E officials dismiss such criticism, saying the utility is committed to developing solar and other renewable energy sources, notably in the Imperial Valley as part of its controversial Sunrise Powerlink project.

Sterkel and other solar proponents say there are many facets to the initiative and San Diego compares more favorably in other measures of the progress so far.

Residential installations account for only part of California's effort to subsidize enough solar installations to generate 3,000 megawatts of electricity by 2017 - enough capacity at peak output to match six modern natural-gas-fired power plants.

More than half of the total is expected to come from "nonresidential" solar installations, which include industrial and commercial buildings as well as schools and nonprofits.

San Diego's applications for nonresidential solar installations under the initiative are more proportionately "on par" with SoCal Edison and PG&E, said Andrew McAllister of San Diego's California Center for Sustainable Energy. The nonprofit center in Kearny Mesa administers the solar incentive program in SDG&E's territory.

Such applications represent about 20 megawatts of solar-generated electricity, or about 17 percent of the 10-year goal for San Diego, according to the commission's progress report.

That is proportional to the rate of nonresidential applications in the 10-year goals set for PG&E and SoCal Edison, which have far more industrial customers than SDG&E. Together PG&E and SoCal Edison represent about 61 percent of California's statewide load for electrical power.

SDG&E, on the other hand, accounts for 7 percent of the statewide power load. The San Diego utility's 1.4 million customers include 1.2 million residential meters.

Still, the disparity between solar fervor in Northern and Southern California has become a topic of discussion in the state's halls of government, said state Sen. Christine Kehoe, D-San Diego.

"People who know both ends of the state, so to speak, say that Northern Californians - and especially people in the San Francisco area - are embracing green energy and the California Solar Initiative at a much higher rate," Kehoe said.

Experts say the biggest reason is that PG&E's electric rate structure has been much more "solar friendly" than either SDG&E's or SoCal Edison's - at least until SDG&E implemented new optional rates for solar customers.

"The rate structures make a big difference - probably the biggest difference," said Sue Kateley of the California Solar Energy Industries Association.

"Your rate structures were not what I would consider solar friendly at the time the initiative started," Kateley said. "It wasn't that anyone made them intentionally solar unfriendly. We were all on the frontier when the solar initiative started. It's just that we look at rates differently now."

Officials of several San Diego school districts acquired a deeper respect for the nuances of SDG&E's electric rates after installing solar systems.

Unlike residential utility customers, who are billed for the electricity they use, there are two parts to the electric bill that SDG&E usually sends to schools and other nonresidential customers.

One part of the nonresidential bill is based on electricity "time of use" - how much power is used and when. The most-expensive charges are imposed during the peak period of energy demand, from 11 a.m. to 6 p.m., with lower charges set for semi-peak or off-peak hours.

But another major part of the nonresidential bill is based on the fixed costs of SDG&E's power grid, and it depends on the customer's maximum power demand over the previous year. This "demand" charge represents how much standby power-generating capacity the utility must be ready to deliver to each of its biggest customers.

The schools that installed solar power systems could offset the "time of use" charges during the day when they are generating their own electricity, but they were surprised by the size of SDG&E's demand charges.

"The new tariff should be better," said McAllister at the California Center for Sustainable Energy, which began working on the problem with a number of school districts last year.

Under a new nonresidential tariff, solar customers have the option of choosing a different billing rate that charges more for the time-of-use energy drawn from the power grid and substantially reduces the fixed-cost demand charges.

SDG&E analyzed the utility bills at 30 schools equipped with solar systems in San Diego, and it concluded that savings under the new optional rate would range from 10 percent to 66 percent, said SDG&E spokeswoman Denise King.

Other nonresidential solar customers also should be able to offset their higher time-of-use charges, depending on the size of their solar-power systems, said Joe Velasquez, SDG&E's director of commercial and industrial services.

SDG&E also implemented a similar optional rate for residential solar customers that likewise imposes higher charges for energy used during peak demand periods, King said.

"Solar can be a good option for our customers," King said. "The key is to know that we are available to help our customers understand the new rate so they can make an informed decision about the best size of solar installation for their home or business."

Bruce Bigelow: (619) 293-1314; bruce.bigelow @ uniontrib.com

SDG&E's Publicity Stunt: Sunrise Powerlink Delivers Renewable, Reliable Power

ucansue — Sun, 27 Apr 2008 10:38:41 -0700

UCAN In the Media

'Renewables' a magic word to sell public on Powerlink

SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE April 27, 2008 - Dean Calbreath

Two weeks before Christmas 2004, a handpicked group of 12 movers and shakers met at Lou & Mickey's Seafood and Steak Restaurant in the Gaslamp Quarter to talk about San Diego Gas & Electric's plans to build a new power line.

For several hours, the group – which included two San Diego City Council members – talked about how the public would react to the power line, as well as discussing the “political cover” that elected officials would need to support it.

In the end, the group decided the best argument SDG&E could make was to emphasize that the project would bring renewable energy to San Diego County as well as making the system more reliable.

Eight months later when Edwin Guiles, SDG&E's chairman, unveiled the Sunrise Powerlink project, he echoed the findings of the focus group.

"By tapping into the developing renewable energy market in the Imperial Valley, we can improve our overall system reliability and the environment at the same time,” he said.

To Sunrise's critics, the focus group's stress on building “political cover” raises questions about SDG&E's emphasis on getting renewable energy through Sunrise. Is it real, or is it public relations?

“The focus group told them to focus on renewables,” said Michael Shames, who heads Utility Consumers' Action Network.

Shames and other critics say the talk of renewables is a smoke screen. The real purpose of the line, they say, is to create a connection with the state power grid so SDG&E can transport power from gas-fired plants in Mexico.

A deal like that would generate profits for SDG&E's parent, Sempra Energy, that San Diego ratepayers would not share in, the critics say. In the meantime, Sunrise would cut a broad swath through Anza-Borrego Desert State Park.

SDG&E denies that the emphasis on renewables is a PR ploy. It says the Mexican plants are already connected to the California grid and there are no plans to build more.

“If we are going to have any of our renewable goals, we have to have Sunrise,” said Mike Niggli, SDG&E's chief operating officer. “Renewables in Imperial Valley cannot be developed without it.”

At this point, SDG&E is lagging behind the statewide switch to renewable energy, which includes solar, geothermal and wind generation. Despite a state mandate requiring utilities to draw 20 percent of their energy from renewables by 2010, SDG&E is only at 5.5 percent, compared with about 14 percent at Pacific Gas & Electric and 16 percent at Southern California Edison.

SDG&E plans to tap into solar and geothermal energy in Imperial Valley. But there's no guarantee how much renewable power would come over Sunrise. Once the power line is built, Niggli said, it will be up to the California Independent System Operator, which oversees the state's energy network, to decide what mix of energy sources it will use.

“The ISO will operate it for whatever provides the lowest cost and highest benefit to the state,” Niggli said.

Critics say there are plenty of quick and easy ways that SDG&E can boost its renewables without Sunrise. They point to Edison, which is erecting solar panels on industrial rooftops. And they say that if SDG&E wants to bring renewables from Imperial Valley, it can use its existing Southwest Powerline by reducing the amount of fossil-fuel energy it carries.

Besides bringing in renewables, Niggli said one reason SDG&E likes its proposed route for Sunrise is that it runs close enough to the state power grid to allow for a connection at some point. He said that would allow the company to bring even more power to San Diego County.

That sounds a bit like a previously proposed power line known as Valley Rainbow, which SDG&E promoted as a way of connecting San Diego County's lines to the state grid. “There's not an exact continuum between (Valley Rainbow and Sunrise), but there may be some similarities between the two,” Niggli said.

In December 2002, the state Public Utilities Commission ruled that Valley Rainbow was simply not needed for economic or reliability reasons. In April 2003, it rejected SDG&E's last appeal. Roughly a year later, SDG&E started planning for Sunrise. In October 2004, SDG&E drafted a public affairs plan whose aim was “to chart a political course that provides SDG&E with the greatest chance possible to license and build a new 500 (kilovolt) transmission line in its service territory.”

Which brings us to the 2004 Gaslamp meeting of 12 “trusted SDG&E allies,” as they are described in a memo by Southwest Strategies, a public affairs firm SDG&E hired to develop support for the power line. The attendees included representatives of the Chamber of Commerce, Economic Development Corp. and Sycuan and Barona Valley casinos, who all opined on methods for building community support for Sunrise.

“A number of comments seemed to focus on how to sell this thing,” Pete Headley, who then headed the San Diego Military Advisory Council, recalled last week.

City Councilman Jim Madaffer warned that the public generally looks askance at power lines. Then-Councilman Michael Zucchet said he felt SDG&E had not been forthright in its positioning of Valley Rainbow. Labor leader Jerry Butkiewicz – who would become an employee of Sempra Energy in December 2007 – said public officials might not support the line for fear of upsetting voters.

“Elected officials might not support a new transmission line unless they believed 'political cover' existed to get behind such a project,” the Southwest Strategies memo said. Among the suggestions was that support should come from a grass-roots, “bottom up” movement rather than from the top down.

Eventually, SDG&E formed its own grass-roots group – the Community Alliance for Sunrise Powerlink – to get its message out. Using SDG&E funds, the group has erected billboards along the freeway, emphasizing Sunrise's use of renewables.

This is not to say that SDG&E isn't sincere in its desire for renewables from Imperial County. But the talk of renewables might look less like “political cover” if the utility were more aggressively pursuing renewables from elsewhere, too.

Dean Calbreath: (619) 293-1891; dean.calbreath @ uniontrib.com

Questions raised about Sunrise Powerlink's green power

Laura — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 14:18:26 -0700

UCAN In the Media

Powerlink critic questions utility's green promise

Hearing continues through Wednesday on SDG&E power line proposal

By DAVE DOWNEY

North County Times Staff Writer

Tuesday, April 8, 2008

SAN DIEGO ---- San Diego Gas & Electric's Sunrise Powerlink project is unlikely to deliver on its promise of providing a substantial amount of "green" electricity, the head of a consumer advocacy group suggested during a public hearing Monday.

The utility's chief operating officer, Michael Niggli, acknowledged it's possible the line could deliver more fossil-fuel-generated electricity than green power. But Niggli said such a scenario is unlikely, given the state's move toward clean, so-called renewable energy.

Niggli's comment came as he was being questioned by Michael Shames, executive director and attorney for the Utility Consumers' Action Network. Shames was allowed to question Niggli on behalf of ratepayers.

The utility has said repeatedly that the $1.5 billion power line is crucial if the company is to comply with a statewide mandate that California's major urban power providers secure 20 percent of their electricity supplies from sun, wind and geothermal power by 2010.

Niggli said the utility expects Sunrise Powerlink to put the company over the 20 percent goal, even though the company's green-power proportion had reached just 5.2 percent by last year.

Because of project delays, the controversial line could not be up and running until 2011 at the earliest, so the 2010 goal is not doable, he said. But Niggli said the utility could reach that threshold soon after the line was turned on.

Administrative Law Judge Steve Weissman, who is presiding over the hearing, wanted to know what the company has been doing to boost its green supply. Niggli said it has been asking entrepreneurs to propose solar, geothermal and other projects.

"The image I get is of a passive process," Weissman said.

Other utilities are building green projects on their own, Weissman said. He cited a Southern California Edison project to lease space on the rooftops of warehouses in San Bernardino County to build the equivalent of a 250-megawatt power plant through solar panels.

Niggli said SDG&E wished Edison well, but local utility officials don't believe it is practical to replicate the rooftop project locally because San Diego County has fewer warehouses.

The public hearing before the California Public Utilities Commission continues through Wednesday at the California Center for Sustainable Energy's office in San Diego. The commission is gathering evidence to help it decide this summer whether to license the project.

If the line is rejected, the utility would have the option of asking the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to approve it. The federal government has the authority to overrule a state decision because Southern California, including San Diego County, has been declared an electric transmission corridor of national interest.

In attempting to plant doubts about the line's future use, Shames asked Niggli whether importing green energy was one of the original purposes of the region's only existing 500-kilovolt line, the Southwest Powerlink, which runs parallel to Interstate 8. Niggli acknowledged that was the case.

In the early days of the Southwest line, Niggli, said, a significant chunk of electricity from geothermal sources in the Imperial Valley and Mexico was transported to San Diego County over the line ---- up to 220 megawatts at a time. But today, 24 years later, he said, a small fraction of that is brought in from geothermal energy produced by hot underground geysers.

By comparison, the Sunrise project would deliver 1,000 megawatts, or 20 percent of the region's current supply.

Given that Southwest Powerlink brings mostly other types of energy into San Diego County, Shames suggested the same result could happen with Sunrise ---- 24 years from now little green power might come across its 500-kilovolt wires. He asked Niggli whether SDG&E would guarantee the delivery of clean, so-called renewable power.

"There are no such guarantees that we can give," Niggli said. "It's an open access system." He said the California Independent System Operator, which operates state's electrical grid, would control what type of power is moved on the line.

Given the state's desire to use much more green power than now, in the wake of growing concerns about global warming, Niggli said it is unlikely the line would be filled with electricity generated by natural gas or coal.

Niggli also dismissed a frequent suggestion of project opponents that the line would carry electricity from expanded natural gas-fired plants just across the border from El Centro near Mexicali.

"That is not on anyone's planning horizon," Niggli said.

The line, strung from metal towers 160 feet tall, would run from El Centro to Carmel Valley, meandering through Anza-Borrego Desert State Park, Ramona and Rancho Penasquitos.

As for an environmental study's conclusion that those towers pose a threat to desert bighorn sheep in Anza-Borrego, Niggli said the company disagrees.

"We have many, many instances where sheep graze under lines, under towers. It doesn't seem to have any impact on them," he said.

Contact staff writer Dave Downey at (760) 745-6611, Ext. 2623, or ddowney [at] nctimes [dot] com.

California's utility customers will pay for a $600-million global warming think tank

Laura — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 13:39:36 -0700

UCAN In the Media

California utility customers to fund think tank on climate

bas

The PUC-approved institute would research ways to cut emissions, but some question the fairness of charging ratepayers.

By Elizabeth Douglass, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
April 11, 2008

California utility customers will foot the bill for a $600-million global-warming think tank under a Public Utilities Commission program that critics say is a costly and questionable departure from the agency's mission to make sure ratepayers get affordable and reliable power.

The California Institute for Climate Solutions, approved Thursday, was pushed by commission President Michael Peevey, and the concept behind it -- accelerating research into ways to quickly cut harmful greenhouse gas emissions -- enjoyed broad support.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger praised the commission for creating the institute, which "will bring together the state's preeminent colleges, universities and laboratories to fight climate change."

The project also won backing from several environmental groups as well as a long list of research institutions that hope to be awarded some of the institute's money.

"California, with all its resources, can afford to be bold," Peevey said in an interview after the vote. But, he added, "I realize that it's not a universal view."

Peevey, whose term ends in December, faced fervent opposition from lawmakers and consumer groups who called the project too expensive and the funding an unfair tax on customers of Southern California Edison, Southern California Gas Co., Pacific Gas & Electric and San Diego Gas & Electric.

"Consumers are already paying their fair share for renewable energy and conservation programs," said Mark Toney, executive director of the Utility Reform Network. "Forcing them to pay more for an expensive academic exercise that may or may not provide benefits in the end is simply going too far."

Don Kempf, 82, is one of the ratepayers who will begin paying for the new institute in a few months. Edison expects the surcharge to add 12 cents a month to residential bills, but Peevey said it would add 25 to 30 cents a month. Kempf believes global warming is a threat, but he objects to being singled out to fund research that would benefit all of the state's residents.

"It really disturbs me," said Kempf, who lives in Orange and gets his power from Edison. Of the utilities commissioners, he said: "Are they consumer advocates? I just wonder."

John Bohn and other commissioners had misgivings about the plan, but Peevey won unanimous commission support by making several last-minute changes. To tie the institute's work more closely to the needs of ratepayers, Peevey added a requirement that projects be judged using a "ratepayer benefits index" that would gauge each project's cost-effectiveness and emissions reductions and whether the results could be applied in the energy industry.

Before adding his vote, Bohn read a six-page statement that called the program an "audacious leap" that "pushes the boundaries of our duty and our jurisdiction almost to the breaking point."

After the meeting, Bohn said he voted for the institute because "with proper and vigorous commission supervision, the likelihood is that it will make a positive contribution."

He said, however, that he was wary of the cumulative effect of a succession of new charges for utility customers.

"As commissioners, we need to think through every time we take money out of ratepayers' pockets," Bohn said. "We need to remember that it's not our money, and it's not taxpayers' money. It's from ratepayers who are paying for a utility service . . . and they don't have any choice."

State Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata (D-Oakland) didn't comment on the commission's action Thursday, but in February, he made it clear that he didn't approve.

"I think it's a singularly bad idea," Perata told utilities commissioner Timothy Alan Simon during his confirmation hearing. "I don't know if there's anything that we can do about it during the budget, but if we can, I assure you I will."

Under the program, electric and gas utilities regulated by the state commission would collect $60 million a year for 10 years to fund the institute. Utility customers would be assessed a small surcharge for each kilowatt-hour and therm of natural gas they used.

The plan requires the institute to raise matching funds over time.

The surcharge wouldn't be added to bills sent out by the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power or any of the other government-owned utilities. Peevey said the commission doesn't have the authority to assess customers of publicly owned utilities.

Peevey turned to ratepayers for the funds, he said, because power companies account for one-third of the state's greenhouse gas emissions. In addition, the state Legislature isn't likely to set aside funds for the institute while it faces a gaping budget deficit, he said.

"The imperative is so great . . . and we don't have the luxury of waiting," Peevey said. "That's the bottom line."

The institute's work and funding would accelerate applied research and technological developments that reduce greenhouse gas emissions, as called for under California's Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. Some research would be aimed at helping California adapt to climate change.

While they praised the institute's mission, the Consumer Federation of California, the commission's independent Division of Ratepayer Advocates and others warned Peevey that it could be illegal to use ratepayer funds to tackle such a broadly defined statewide issue.

"We've questioned the legality of using utility bills as a way of raising taxes," said Alexis K. Wodtke, staff attorney at the Consumer Federation.

Michael Shames, executive director of San Diego-based Utility Consumers' Action Network, echoed the sentiment. "It's audacious, daring and probably illegal."

State Air Resources Board Chairwoman Mary D. Nichols, whose agency oversees many of the state's climate change initiatives, said she backed Peevey's plan.

"We've absolutely embraced this proposal, and we were involved in its design," Nichols said Thursday. "We're very familiar with it, and we're very enthusiastic about it."

elizabeth.douglass [at] latimes [dot] com

Sunrise PowerLink unlikely to deliver promised "Green Energy"

Charles Langley — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 17:13:09 -0700

UCAN In the Media

UCAN Editor's Note: "promises, promises ..." In today's Sunrise testimony, Michael Niggli admitted that in 1984, SDG&E built the Southwest Powerlink to deliver "green" energy to San Diego, yet now, 24-years later, that promise has not been kept, and it has been the primary selling point for the entire project. UCAN asserts that the Sunrise Transmission Project is a wasteful boondoggle that increases fire risks, forces San Diego into a state of helpless dependency on ruthless out-of-state energy providers, and leaves the entire region vulnerable to blackouts during earthquakes.

Powerlink critic questions utility's green promise

Hearing continues through Wednesday on SDG&E power line proposal

By DAVE DOWNEY - Staff Writer, North County Times | Tuesday, April 8, 2008

Niggli said the utility expects Sunrise Powerlink to put the company over the 20 percent goal, even though the company's green-power proportion had reached just 5.2 percent by last year.

"The image I get is of a passive process," Weissman said.

Niggli said SDG&E wished Edison well, but local utility officials don't believe it is practical to replicate the rooftop project locally because San Diego County has fewer warehouses.

By comparison, the Sunrise project would deliver 1,000 megawatts, or 20 percent of the region's current supply.

Niggli also dismissed a frequent suggestion of project opponents that the line would carry electricity from expanded natural gas-fired plants just across the border from El Centro near Mexicali.

"That is not on anyone's planning horizon," Niggli said.

The line, strung from metal towers 160 feet tall, would run from El Centro to Carmel Valley, meandering through Anza-Borrego Desert State Park, Ramona and Rancho Penasquitos.

As for an environmental study's conclusion that those towers pose a threat to desert bighorn sheep in Anza-Borrego, Niggli said the company disagrees.

"We have many, many instances where sheep graze under lines, under towers. It doesn't seem to have any impact on them," he said.

Read this story in the North County Times and view North County Reader Comments Here.

SDG&E launches $45,000 ad campaign to promote Sunrise PowerLink

Laura — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 14:24:48 -0700

UCAN In the Media

Campaign launched to promote Powerlink plan

By Dave Downey

North County Times Staff Writer

NORTH COUNTY ---- An advertising and public relations campaign financed by San Diego Gas & Electric Co. to promote its proposed $1.5 billion Sunrise Powerlink transmission line was launched Tuesday just days before crucial public hearings on the proposal.

The utility-financed group, called the Community Alliance for the Sunrise Powerlink, unveiled a pair of giant billboards that attempt to portray the debate over the line as pitting a dark future of polluted skies fueled by local power plants versus a bright future of blue skies and clean wind power.

Some critics maintain that the campaign deliberately tries to give the impression of grass-roots support for the power line, when it is primarily a coalition of large businesses and local politicians who back the utility's plan. SDG&E spokeswoman Jennifer Briscoe said the company is not hiding behind the group and has always been upfront about the fact that it is a member of the coalition.

The pictured generator is the South Bay Power Plant in Chula Vista. One of the billboards is along Highway 163, just north of Interstate 805, in Kearny Mesa.

Another one is along Interstate 5 at E Street in Chula Vista, near the South Bay plant. That plant is scheduled to be retired soon, but one of the project alternatives being explored entails construction of additional, natural gas-fired generators.

In a news release, the alliance also said it purchased advertising in newspapers, on radio spots and an Internet site that will run for up to 30 days.

Dubbed "Your Choice," the campaign carries a price tag of $45,000, said Julie Meier Wright, co-chairwoman of the alliance and chief executive officer for the San Diego Regional Economic Development Corp.

She said she believes it is fair for the ratepayer-funded utility to pay for a campaign advertising a company project.

"I think that if we're going to make infrastructure investments only when we are in a crisis, we are really going to be at a disadvantage as a region," Meier Wright said Tuesday during a telephone interview. "And I think SDG&E is trying to educate the public. I don't think SDG&E is in a conflict by running it."

Michael Shames, executive director for the Utility Consumers' Action Network, said the utility's spending choice isn't illegal but is questionable.

"It's disturbing and irritating that ratepayers are being asked to foot the bill for a faux grass-roots campaign," Shame said.

He characterized the campaign as an attempt to brainwash people into believing the line is needed by stressing its ability to bring in up to 1,000 megawatts of "green power."

Bill Powers, a San Diego engineer and project opponent, maintained the region could obtain much of its electricity from solar panels on rooftops of local businesses ---- without the ugly footprint of 160-foot towers required by the Sunrise line.

Powers called the campaign a "gross misuse of ratepayer funds."

In defending the utility, Meier Wright said the business group was trying to persuade many San Diego County residents to tell state regulators they want the line built.

The campaign comes as the California Public Utilities Commission, the regulatory agency that will decide the fate of the project, is conducting public hearings next week at the California Center for Sustainable Energy at 8690 Balboa Ave., Suite 100, in San Diego.

The hearings that begin at 10 a.m. Monday and continue Tuesday and Wednesday will explore the environmental impact of the project and alternative ways of meeting the county's electricity needs.

SDG&E is proposing to string a high-voltage line from metal towers reaching as high as 160 feet, along a 150-mile path between El Centro and Carmel Valley.

The utility's preferred route would run 23 miles through Anza-Borrego Desert State Park and cross neighborhoods in Ramona and Rancho Penasquitos. About 10 miles of the wires would be laid in the ground near homes.

A voluminous environmental impact study released in January found that five alternate projects could meet the region's needs for a 20 percent boost in its power supply.

Those alternatives included new natural gas-fired power plants in San Diego County, an assortment of solar and wind energy projects and a much shorter, 32-mile high-voltage line through western Riverside County and Camp Pendleton.

The report also said laying large sections of the line in the ground or moving it to the south along Interstate 8 would avoid harming the popular Anza-Borrego park.

The utilities commission is scheduled to rule on the line by August.

"We're running out of time to really make the case as a region that we need this power line," Meier Wright said.

Contact staff writer Dave Downey at (760) 745-6611, Ext. 2623, or ddowney [at] nctimes [dot] com. Comment at nctimes.com.

SDG&E representative uncertain about Sunrise project's impact on utility rates

Laura — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 13:18:03 -0700

UCAN In the Media

Encinitas residents hear power line debate

By RUTH MARVIN WEBSTER

Staff Writer

ENCINITAS ---- Fifty or so residents turned out at a community forum presented by the Encinitas Taxpayers Association to hear presentations from representatives from San Diego Gas & Electric Co. and the Utility Consumers' Action Network about how the proposed Sunrise Powerlink project will effect their community ---- and more specifically, their utility bill.

Kevin Cummins, president of the Encinitas Taxpayers Association, said that he hopes forums like this will encourage taxpayers learn about issues affecting them more frequently than at election time.

Longtime Cardiff resident Audrey Bromstad said she attended Monday night’s forum because she wanted "to hear both sides.”

“I think it is something we all should do ---- find out as much as we can about things before we make up our minds,” she said.

Scott Crider, a representative from the utility company, presented a short slide presentation outlining the key elements of the power plan.

“This project is big; it’s expensive. It is cost-effective for our customers and will be with us for a long time,” he said about the project to construct a power line from the Imperial Valley through Anza Borrego State Park and county backcountry to San Diego. He said the three primary objectives of the power line are to improve energy reliability, expand access to renewable energy resources in the Imperial Valley and to lower costs for ratepayers.

“We are currently saddled by the high costs of coastal power plants, which are older and not very energy efficient,” he said, noting that a major transmission line connecting San Diego to the outside grid has not been built in the last 25 years.

The Sunrise Powerlink, Crider said, would transport 1,000 megawatts and is necessary in order to meet state guidelines requiring 20 percent of energy from renewable sources by 2010.

Michael Shames, executive director of the Utility Consumers' Action Network, said that the project has already cost $1.7 billion and rising.

“What is this power line really about?” he asked. “It is about the future of San Diego’s independence. If this line is built, we are going to look at importing most of our energy from elsewhere. It is also about running a major transition line that will never be dismantled. Our children and our children’s children will be viewing this line. And, since 20 years from now, most San Diegans will be generating their power, the best thing that the line could then be used for is to hang laundry.”

Shames said that many of the experts hired by his organization estimate that by spending $100 million, 700 additional megawatts of energy can be provided by expanding existing transmission lines.

Encinitas resident Kathleen Lindermann asked Crider whether she could expect to see a reduction in her utility bill if the power line was built.

“I don’t know,” responded Crider. “There are a lot of forces that go into rates and I can’t tell you that.”

Despite Crider’s evasive answer, Lindermann said she was pleased she attended the forum. “How often do you get people from both sides to talk about an issue like this?” she asked.

Contact staff writer Ruth Marvin Webster at (760) 901-4074 or rwebster [at] nctimes [dot] com. Comment at nctimes.com.

List of energy California bills and "E.P.I.C." accomplishment

Charles Langley — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 13:24:10 -0700

UCAN News

EPIC, the Energy Policy Initiatives Center, is barely a year old, but among their big policy accomplishments is the recent announcement that they have summarized more than 100 California energy or energy policy related bills at the organization's Legislative Center.

Below are just a few of the categories covered:

SDG&E's revised Powerlink proposal makes matters worse in critics' view

Laura — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 12:39:08 -0700

UCAN In the Media

Utility alters power line route

By DAVE DOWNEY

North County Times Staff Writer

Thursday, March 13, 2008

San Diego Gas & Electric Co. offered Thursday to lighten the environmental footprint of its controversial $1.5 billion power line by slightly altering its route through Anza-Borrego Desert State Park.

But opponents of the proposed Sunrise Powerlink transmission line said the change only would make matters worse because towers would be taller and more park visitors would see them.

"If they go higher, then the impact ... is going to be even greater," said Diana Lindsay, vice president of environmental affairs for the Anza-Borrego Foundation that opposes the high-voltage line.

SDG&E, the powerful utility that provides electricity to San Diego County and southern Orange County, introduced in a 500-page report an "Enhanced Northern Route" that it says would avoid park wilderness.

The report responded to a 7,000-page environmental impact study that concluded in January that the Sunrise Powerlink would harm the nation's largest state park outside of Alaska. The utility wants to build a 150-mile superhighway of electricity between El Centro and Carmel Valley, with 23 miles in Anza-Borrego.

This week was the time for parties on both sides of the issue to file reports with the California Public Utilities Commission on the environmental study. The commission will consider those and volumes of other information when it decides next summer whether to license the project.

The filings were watched closely by public officials, business leaders and activists who are tracking the project's progress.

"We're very sensitive to any impacts in the state park and that's why we're proposing the Enhanced Northern Route," said spokeswoman Jennifer Briscoe.

The utility said it intends to stay within a 100-foot easement it claims across the park, negating the need for the California Park and Recreation Commission to amend its general plan for Anza-Borrego and scale back the park's wilderness.

The company said it can narrow the footprint and stay within the 100-foot-wide corridor by building up instead of out ---- with towers that average 160 feet tall rather than 130, as first proposed, according to the filing.

The utility also offered to move the wires out of Grapevine Canyon, the location of sensitive cultural areas, and out of view of popular Tamarisk Grove Campground.

The problem according to Lindsay is that she believes none of the proposals would work. Not only would towers be visible from a wider area of the park, but going around the canyon and campground would mean going directly through wilderness, she said.

"It's definitely not a solution," Lindsay said. "And you're still going to impact cultural sites, flora and fauna."

She said towers still would change forever the character of a 600,000-acre park that accounts for half the territory in California's state park system and 90 percent of the system's wilderness.

"One special thing about the park is its vastness and its sense of timelessness ... and if you see a tower marching across it, you will no longer have that sense of timelessness," Lindsay said.

Lindsay was one of those who filed a report. So was Diane Conklin, a Ramona activist who has repeatedly warned of the potential for more wildfires to break out in the backcountry with more wires.

And Michael Shames, executive director for the Utility Consumers' Action Network in San Diego, pointed out that the environmental study concluded that five alternative projects ---- including new San Diego-area power plants and a power line in western Riverside County ---- would exact a lighter toll on the environment.

One of those watching the flurry of filings was Ruben Barrales, president and chief executive officer of the San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce, a business group that backs the project.

The utility's filing "emphasizes the point that you get more reliability and better access to renewable sources of energy from the northern route," Barrales said.

The public still has time to make formal comments on the environmental study, which was compiled by the Public Utilities Commission staff. People may file written comments through April 11.

The study may be viewed at www.cpuc.ca.gov/Environment/info/aspen/sunrise/sunrise.htm

Most of the project's 500-kilovolt wires would be strung from metal towers in excess of 100 feet each, while about 10 miles would be laid in the ground in neighborhoods.

The route would extend 150 miles through Anza-Borrego, Ranchita, Santa Ysabel, Ramona and Rancho Penasquitos. The lines would deliver 1,000 megawatts, boosting the region's electricity supply by about 20 percent.

Contact staff writer Dave Downey at (760) 745-6611, Ext. 2623, or ddowney [at] nctimes [dot] com.

CA Energy Commission	Green Jobs
CA Public Utilities Commission	Liquefied Natural Gas
Clean Fuels / Vehicles	Low-Income Energy
Clean Technology	Nuclear Energy
Climate Change / Greenhouse Gas	Rates and Tariffs
Distributed Generation	Renewable Energy
Electric Generation	Smart Grid
Electric Market Restructuring	Solar Energy
Energy Efficiency	Transmission
Green Building	Zero Energy Buildings