San Diego Gas & Electric’s claims that its proposed Sunrise Powerlink energy superhighway would result in more “green” energy and not increase backcountry fire risk were disputed as hearings on the project resumed this week. During three days of evidentiary hearings held April 7-9 by California Public Utilities Commission Administrative Law Judge Steve Weissman in San Diego, SDG&E witnesses testified that Powerlink would help the utility reach California’s mandate of getting 20 percent of all its energy from renewable sources by 2010. With Powerlink, SDG&E says that it can import enough renewable energy to meet the needs of over 650,000 homes, limiting the need to build more conventional power plants that use fossil fuels. But during his testimony on April 7, SDG&E chief operating officer Michael Niggli acknowledged that due to delays, the project would be online by 2011 at the earliest. Thus, Powerlink wouldn’t be able to help the utility reach the 20 percent renewable portfolio standard by the 2010 deadline. In 2007, SDG&E only received about 6 percent of all its energy from renewable resources, according to the utility’s annual power content label. Also in dispute was the utility’s claim that the proposed 150-mile, 500 kV line would not present any significant fire danger in the San Diego County backcountry. The concern about fires has been magnified due to blazes allegedly caused last October by downed power lines. SDG&E witness Hal Mortier testified on April 8, however, that those downed lines were small and not built to withstand high winds, unlike the proposed Powerlink’s far larger high voltage lines. Conversely, opponents of the project testified that since there have been documented cases in the county of wildfires being started by larger power lines, there’s a definite possibility of a blaze being caused by Powerlink. The high voltage line would stretch from Imperial County through a major portion of neighboring San Diego County. The $1.5 billion Sunrise Powerlink project has come under consistent, heavy opposition from environmental groups, consumer advocates, and residents of the areas where the line would run. Opponents include the Utility Consumers Action Network, the California State Parks Foundation, the Center for Biological Diversity, and numerous community organizations. However, many local, regional, and state agencies, as well as elected officials have come out in favor of the project. Among those expressing their support have been the California Energy Commission, the California Independent System Operator, and members of the San Diego County Board of Supervisors. Weissman is expected to make a recommendation on whether the project should be approved in June or July. The CPUC is expected to vote on the matter in August or September.