Ferguson: Energy Matters Navigating the Transmission Minefield

Ferguson: Energy Matters Navigating the Transmission Minefield After two years of working on plans to expand California's grid by providing transmission access to two major renewable resource areas, my colleague Dave Olsen and I have learned that building transmission lines in California ain't easy. In the last year, this work has been supported by a contract with the California Energy Commission. Planning and analysis of transmission lines to access the Tehachapi wind resource area and geothermal resources in Imperial Valley have moved to the California Independent System Operator. Staff recommendations are due in mid-July for potential action by the CAISO board in early August. Details are available on CAISO's Web site. The betting is that the CAISO board will support both projects. San Diego Gas & Electric, a Sempra subsidiary, is the proponent of the so-called Sunrise Powerlink connecting the Imperial Valley to urban San Diego. An application for permits to construct this power line is also scheduled to be submitted by SDG&E to the CPUC in early August. Opponents of the line are already gearing up for action. As a card-carrying environmentalist, I strongly support developing the geothermal energy in the Imperial Valley and providing transmission access to California consumers. If load growth in the San Diego area is not met with renewable energy, it will be met with more energy from fossil fuels, exacerbating global warming. The state's renewable energy goals, enshrined in the renewables portfolio standard, cannot be achieved without new transmission lines. Sunrise is being touted as needed for renewable energy access, but as yet there is no commitment to develop the Imperial geothermal resources. When fully developed, Imperial geothermal is expected to supply as much energy as the San Onofre nuclear plant. It would be a major source of electricity for Southern California, avoiding the need for a lot more natural gas while creating no nuclear waste. But how can the state ensure that development will occur if Sunrise is built? I am also sympathetic to some opponents' arguments. No new power line comes without its problems. One salient concern is that the Sunrise route proposed by SDG&E slices through Anza-Borrego Desert State Park. Must the people of California sacrifice the integrity of a unique state park to reduce global warming? Alternative routes around the park have other problems. There is no painless way to build a new power line into San Diego. I have urged the utility to look again at alternatives to the proposed route to find a path that doesn't cut the state park in two. Another worry is that Sunrise would also allow Sempra to expand its power plants across the border in Mexico. Indeed, there is reason to believe that Sempra's true motivation for Sunrise is its desire to increase the market for liquefied natural gas that it will import through Ensenada, Mexico. But if Sempra's Mexican plants are not built to California standards, pollution will increase. How can we ensure that Sunrise will not be used by substandard fossil-fueled plants instead of for clean renewable energy? What role should the public in San Diego and Imperial counties have in the decision whether or not to build Sunrise? The California Environmental Quality Act review process will allow plenty of opportunity for comment, and no doubt everyone living near the proposed route will object. Nobody, including me, wants to live next to a 500 kV power line. Since the citizens of San Diego and Imperial counties will be most affected by Sunrise, should they decide its fate at the ballot box? On the other hand, important state policies are at stake. Is it better to have the Sunrise decision made by bureaucrats in Sacramento and San Francisco? Another wild card is the possibility of federal preemption. The federal legislation passed last year gives the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission authority to override state transmission decisions under certain circumstances. Word is that Sempra was strongly in support and continues to lobby Congress to jam Sunrise through the state park. My guess is that the Feds have no desire to use their newfound authority to trash a California state park, but who knows these days? If they do get involved, the inevitable litigation could go all the way to the Supreme Court. Surely there is a better way. Unfortunately, lines in the sand are already being drawn by Sempra and by opponents. It is much too early to go to war. All the parties need to back off and become more flexible. Political, business, and environmental leaders should be spending their energies trying to develop consensus rather than preparing their litigation positions. It will be up to the CPUC to navigate this minefield. I wish them success. (Disclaimer: As always, comments in this column are my personal insights and opinions and are not to be interpreted as those of the Energy Commission or even as those of my employer, the Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Resources - or of anyone else, for that matter.)

Over 11K Stories!

| Independently Powered Energy News

Ferguson: Energy Matters Navigating the Transmission Minefield

vdharadmin

Related Posts

Regulators Require Edison to Pay $100M for Shoddy Efficient Light Bulb Program

Utility Regulators Pitch Cutting Big Fixed Fees on Small Solar Units

Guest Juice: Sunnova Seeks to Create a California Micro-Utility

Utility Credit Requirements Undermine Renewables