Powerlink alternatives threaten Alpine as well

By Christy Scott
The Alpine Sun

     ALPINE — Hundreds of concerned residents turned out to various public meetings held by the California Public Utilities Commission and the Bureau of Land Management to discuss the proposed Sunrise Powerlink alternatives. One such meeting took place last Wednesday night, Feb. 7, at the Alpine Community Center.
     The meeting included a presentation from Aspen Environmental, the group conducting Environmental Impact Studies for the 150-mile, $1.3-billion San Diego Gas & Electric transmission line. Aspen presented determinations on routes proposed by SDG&E, as well as several revised alternative routes.
     While Back Country residents got some relief, hearing that some of the routes planned for that area have been recommended for elimination by Aspen; new concerns arose about one route that could travel right through Alpine.
The West of Forest Alternative would travel east, following the same line as the original proposed Route D, through Boulevard and Campo. It would then travel northwest past Alpine until it reaches State Route 67 and turns north. According to Aspen, this route would be about 28 miles shorter than the proposed project.
     In all, Aspen presented four alternative routes that are recommended for a full, detailed EIR/EIS.
Route D, which was modified from the original SDG&E map, would travel west along the border, turning north at Hauser Mountain Wilderness area. It would parallel an existing 69 kV line through Japatul Valley and Descanso.
     The Interstate 8 alternative would travel west along the border and would cut northwest to I-8 through Jacumba just east of Boulevard. The line would follow I-8 for 32 miles, crossing the freeway five times. At this point options are to turn north through Boulder Creek, or to continue west, cutting north in Alpine.
     The fourth, BCD alternative would follow the same route to the south, turning north to cross the I-8 just east of Boulevard. It would continue north, through primarily BLM land, then west through BLM and National Forest land, crossing the I-8 twice and passing south of Descanso. and turning north at Boulder Creek.
     While much of the opposition for the Sunrise Powerlink comes from those trying to protect the Anza-Borrego State Park, all of the alternatives routes will severely impact residents living in the Back Country and border areas.
     According to Jim Avery, vice president of electric for SDG&E, the utility has no intention of harming Anza-Borrego.
     “We don’t have much of a choice,” he said. “The park is so wide, we have no choice but to cross it.”
     All but the southernmost two miles of San Diego County’s eastern border is within the boundaries of the state park.
     The powerlink proposal has met stiff opposition from residents in the line’s path and from environmentalists, who say it is unnecessary. SDG&E contends the line is needed to ensure regional electric reliability and allow for the import of power generated from renewable energy sources it expects will be developed in Imperial County, such as wind, solar and geothermal.
     Many critics have argued that the line isn’t needed in San Diego, for renewable energy or reliability.
     “It’s a false choice,” said Sierra Club representative Kelly Fuller, of Alpine, regarding the alternative routes. “Anywhere they’re going to do this, it’s just not needed.”
     “We don’t want to make this a fight between the north county and the east county about where to put this transmission line,” Fuller said. “All this looking at alternative routes is taking away from the main focus, which should be exploring alternatives that don’t require a power line.”
     Avery said the project is not only for future needs, it is crucial for complying with a new state law that says all major utilities must secure 20 percent of their power from clean fuel sources, which aren’t fossil, by 2010. He said the most promising place to plug into such sources is the Salton Sea area.
     “Imperial Valley is flooded with potential for solar power, wind power and geothermal power,” he said.
     Last week’s meetings will help determine what alternative routes and projects will be analyzed, and what will not. The draft EIR/EIS is expected to be completed in July of this year. The agencies expect to lean heavily on that report as they decide by January 2008 whether to issue permits for the project.
     Planning groups in Boulevard, Pine Valley and Campo have voted to deny the Sunrise project in its entirety, including all alternative routes. Groups in Descanso. and Jacumba also expressed discontent after presentations by SDG&E representatives regarding the powerlink.
     The PUC is accepting comments from residents for the official record on the project. Public comments are invited; copies of revised alternatives data and maps are available at local libraries for review. Written comments on the alternatives can be sent via regular U.S. mail, fax or e-mail are must be received by Feb. 24, 2007. Send comments to: Billie Blanchard, CPUC/Lynda Kastoll, BLM, c/o Aspen Environmental Group, 235 Montgomery Street, Suite 935 San Francisco, Ca. 94104-3002. Faxed comments can be sent to (866) 711-3106. E-mail comments can be sent to sunrise@aspeneg.com.

 E-mail the Editor