DesertBlog

Sunrise Powerlink Victory — For Now

Breaking news: Two separate proposed decisions in the Sunrise Powerlink saga have just been issued.

The first, by the California Public Utilities Commission’s Administrative Law Judge Jean Vieth, denies both routings of the Sunrise Powerlink because there are environmentally superior alternatives. The specific reasons given for this decision:

“The proposed decision denies San Diego Gas & Electric Company’s (SDG&E)
application for a certificate of public convenience and necessity (CPCN) to build
the Sunrise Powerlink Transmission Project (Sunrise) for the following reasons:
• It is not needed to meet SDG&E’s renewable portfolio standard (RPS)
obligation of 20% by 2010;
• Assuming a 20% RPS, it is not economic and will potentially generate
significant ratepayer costs;
• It will have many significant and unmitigable impacts on the environment;
and
• Other alternatives will meet SDG&E’s eventual reliability needs more
economically and with fewer significant and unmitigable impacts on the
environment.”

Read the full proposed decision here. Our position remains that an even better alternative is the San Diego Smart Energy 2020 plan, which focuses on energy efficiency, in-basin renewables, combined heat and power technologies, distribution system improvements, and changes to utility incentives. This will achieve a whopping 50% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020. A real feed-in tariff for solar power, as called for consistently by the Alliance for Responsible Energy Policy, would also help the state go a lot farther toward its renewable energy goals.

The alternative proposed decision, by Commissioner Dian Grueneich, would approve the southern route for the Powerlink on certain conditions that require Sunrise live up to its billing. Like the ALJ’s decision, this decision also finds that the Sunrise Powerlink is not needed to meet the 20% Renewable Portfolio Standard goal. However, it goes on to find that the Powerlink would be needed to meet the Governor’s proposed 33% goal, a goal that the CPUC supports.

And now for the conditions of this approval: Grueneich’s proposed decision admits that there are currently no assurances that any amount of renewables would travel over Sunrise. The decision would require SDG&E to provide exactly such assurances, by submitting a “Sunrise Compliance Plan” that will “Explain how SDG&E will ensure, through binding commitments, that substantial amounts of Imperial Valley renewable generation will be developed and delivered via Sunrise starting on the day Sunrise is placed in service.” The plan must also provide specific details about specific renewable projects that will provide the renewable energy, including details on their viability. (I bet SDG&E is wishing it had required commercial test runs for those dish-Stirling systems before now.)

As for what those “substantial amounts” of renewable energy should be, the decision states that they should be in line with what the California Independent System Operator projected for the Sunrise line, summarized in Table 2 on page 68 of the decision: 300 MW of solar by 2010 (ain’t happenin’ – not by 2010 at least) and 900 MW of solar from 2011 through 2015. The CAISO also called for 1600 MW of geothermal by 2015, or 2500 MW of total renewables, clearly more than can be carried on the Southwest Powerlink.

You can read the full details of Commissioner Grueneich’s decision here. (Note that both proposed decisions begin with the same summary of upcoming procedures, and a comparison of the two decisions. )

While this alternative decision is not ideal, doubt remains about Stirling Energy Systems’ ability to deliver the required renewable energy. There should be ample opportunities to question whether SDG&E really can deliver the required assurances, and by what date. On the other hand, Baja Wind, across the border at La Rumarosa, may come on line with 1,200 megawatts of wind power, and then there’s the Iberdrola McCain Valley wind project in the offing. So the situation is fluid, to say the least.

Still, this is overall better news than we might have hoped for. Taking Joshua Tree National Park Superintendent Curt Sauer’s advice that we have to celebrate even small victories, temporary though they may be, let’s pop those champagne corks while we can.

(What’s next: The CPUC will choose one or the other of these decisions, or conceivably another alternative, by December. We’ll give you more details on how and where to comment as they become available. Also, November 15 is the deadline for protests of the BLM’s choice of the southern route of the Sunrise Powerlink as its preferred alternative.)