California:Power line gets support

TESTIMONY: ISO staff say it's needed. Residents dislike SDG&E's route choice in the county.

SAN FRANCISCO - Managers of California's electricity grid voiced strong support Friday for San Diego Gas & Electric's bid to build a new high-voltage transmission line in southwest Riverside County.

Although the Independent System Operator hasn't officially blessed SDG&E's proposed route, its staff members sought to bolster SDG&E's case for the controversial line during hearings this week at the Public Utilities Commission.

The ISO, a nonprofit corporation created by the state under its 1996 electricity deregulation law, coordinates operations of private utilities' power lines to ensure a reliable flow of power. It also watches, and has limited powers over, the bulk electricity market.

"We believe that the line should be permitted because it's needed," said Jeanne M. Sole, a lawyer for the grid operator.

SDG&E's lawyer and opponents of the 31-mile, $350 million transmission line claimed they scored points through five days of highly technical testimony this week. The hearings are scheduled to continue through Wednesday. The PUC could decide the line's fate by August 2003.

The line is opposed by every local government in southwest Riverside County as well as local state legislators. It has spurred strong opposition from a grass-roots organization that formed to battle the power lines, raising hundreds of thousands of dollars for legal fees and experts.

Sole and two ISO employees who testified Thursday and Friday pointed to a slump in new power-plant construction in California to press for the line, which would connect SDG&E's system to Southern California Edison's grid.

Their argument: If you throw up more 500,000-volt lines, you can keep predatory power merchants honest and prevent anyone from gaining a monopoly because you can import power from more places. You can avoid blackouts, too.

While SDG&E officials hailed the ISO endorsement of the need for a power line, somewhere, as a sort of seal of approval for the project, opponents dismissed it as more tunnel-vision thinking from a booster of transmission-line construction.

"The ISO favors this line for a pretty simple reason," said Marc Mihaly, a lawyer for opponents such as Temecula Valley residents, the city of Temecula and the Pechanga Indians.

"The ISO is to 500-kilovolt lines like Caltrans is to freeways," he said. "They have a very narrow focus, which is to build the strongest electric grid they can. They don't look at issues like land use and quality of life . . . and cost to rate-payers."

Mihaly said the line isn't needed because new plants being built in Mexico and around San Diego could protect SDG&E's customers in San Diego and southern Orange counties from blackouts and price gouging.

"But (SDG&E executives) have not attempted to negotiate" with Mexico so its customers could enjoy those benefits, Mihaly said.

However, the ISO sees no guarantee the new plants and necessary hookups will be built south of the border, Sole said.

"It's wishful thinking, and the ISO can't rely on wishful thinking," she said. "The ISO has a responsibility to make sure that when folks turn on their light switch, the power is there."

Sole acknowledged that the ISO doesn't weigh the social and environmental effects of grid enhancements. That's the PUC's job, she said.

Administrative Law Judge Michelle Cooke, who will give the five-member PUC a recommendation on whether to license the power line SDG&E wants to build, closely questioned two ISO employees Friday on whether Mexico's plans to build new plants in Northern Baja might prove a godsend to San Diego.

Jeffrey Miller, the ISO's regional transmission manager, said it would be too costly for Mexico's national power company to make the line improvements needed so that a hookup to Edison would serve no purpose. But he acknowledged later that he hasn't studied what those costs might be.

For at least two years the ISO's staff has backed the SDG&E proposal, known as the Valley Rainbow Interconnect. But the grid operator's governing board hasn't been as enthusiastic. On two occasions in 2000 it voted to try to explore whether the line could be avoided. It told its staff to invite builders of big and small generating plants to propose backup supplies in San Diego's back yard that might eliminate the need for a tie to Edison's grid.

As the state's energy markets melted down in late 2000 and early last year, Gov. Davis and the Legislature reorganized ISO's board to reduce generator and utility influence on it.

"In the confusion that followed, I think the (ISO) staff prevailed in their view" that Valley Rainbow is needed, Mihaly said. The board, he noted, dropped the idea of soliciting alternatives to the line.

Steven C. Nelson, a lawyer for Sempra Energy, SDG&E's parent company, said the ISO understands that San Diego could have shortages by 2005 or 2006 if the line isn't built.

"The ISO is the independent expert here that comes to the table, you know, with no interests," Nelson said. "They're the independent, technical experts and they strongly support the need for the project."

Keith Casey, an ISO economist, stressed that not building Valley Rainbow -- and relying on new power plants instead -- might increase the price-setting power of energy companies.

But lawyer Osa Armi, who represents Save Southwest Riverside County, a citizens' group opposed to the power lines, said that if the project isn't built, San Diego consumers might benefit. The power generated by new plants near the border couldn't be exported to Northern California, and power prices in San Diego could drop, she said.

Calpowercrisis:

To find all articles tagged or indexed using Calpowercrisis, click below:
	click here >>>	Calpowercrisis	<<< click here
(To view all FR Bump Lists, click here)

Here in Washington State the Seattle City Council is refusing to allow a new transmission line to run through the Cedar River Watershed which the city controls for their drinking water source. It is the only viable location and would have little or no affect on the watershed but Seattle wants to prevent any development. I wouldn't complain if all local power shortages caused by the lack of sufficient power grid would blackout the City of Seattle and leave the rest of us with power, but Seattle will be the first to scream when power is short.

I just about puke every time I see the term "Administrative Law Jusge," as if separation of powers doctrine didn't exist.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.