It’s the Infrastructure, Stupid

Sunrise Powerlink Disconnect

Once again, I am reading in two publications (The North County Times and The San Diego Union Tribune) about alternatives to the Sunrise Powerlink...  But again, these stories are missing a huge point.  That is, that the CPUC list of alternatives assumes too much -- and the press thus far is missing that critical fact.  I don't blame them, since the fine points are burried in the 7000 page EIR, but let me breake them down to two simple points:

The CPUC list of alternatives ranks the Powerlink near the bottom of their list -- but when you read the assumptions that lead to this ranking -- the assumption is that in-basin generation will not only be around, but greatly inhanced.  In the case of 1. South Bay (City of Chula Vista) -- the City has already terminated any future of the powerplant remaining in its current location by denying the renewal of the lease (you see, the generator at that site does not own the land!), so one would have to subtract those megawatts as available after a date certain; and 2. in the case of Encina -- the other large in-basin generator -- (City of Carlsbad), while that facility is in the permitting process to repower -- it will only likely repower to half of the current megawatt output.  Again, subtract some megawatts...

Bottom line: Even with the in-basin generation (which is greatly needed to supply power in the event of wildfires, or to supplement renewables, for example) as the "better" alternative to the line, the region continues to grow it's demand for juice, so the reality is that the power thirst is going to have to likely be quenched by a source other than local generation.  Better build more transmission!

Regulatory Uncertainty Will Result in Power Shortages for US

The Financial Times (www.ft.com) has run a very interesting and troubling article quoting some of the US' top electricity industry CEO's saying that regulatory uncertainty due to future carbon regulation is creating delays in infrastructure development that may lead to power shortages.  In the article (Fears raise doubts over US power supply, 1/22/08), the CEO's correctly point out that while there continues to be wide debate over what kind of generation (infrastructure) should be built -- conventional fosil fuled generation (for the most part we are talking natural gas fired generation) vs. "green" renewable generation (wind, solar, etc.) -- the fact is that we need it all.

This article makes a very bold observation: "Without additional capacity, some areas are projected to fall below their target capacity margins within two or three years."  Translation:  Some areas will fall short on power!  Not in the US, you say?  Could never happen to us... right? 

Sure it can.  Look at how transmission has been opposed in the West.  The Arizona Corporations Commission late in 2007 told a California utility that they would not allow them to expand capacity on a proposed power line just so that Californians could get cheap power.  In other parts of the West, energy commissions are saying no to specific types of generation.  In California, the regulatory process continually hampers energy infrastructure development -- in some cases freezing investment in infrastructure, resulting in project cancellations and venture capital going to other parts of the West (mostly to Texas) or out of the country all together.

Regulators, legislators and activists must realize that there will be collateral impacts to the regulatory uncertainty that is being created today.  And in a couple of years, we will be struggling to figure out this mess -- only those discussions may likely be taking place in dark buildings.

Public vs. Grid Operator on Sunrise... Who wears the blame if the lights start to flicker?

With the recent release of the EIR on the Sunrise Powerlink, public opinion was again sparked -- and another round of articles spoke about the opposition.  Naturally, the crowd gravitated to the "priority list" -- but also buried in the report was the fact that some generation will be retired -- obviating the need for electricity resources to come from other than those currently located or contemplated within the San DIego area (that means we will need new tranmission!). 

Add to this a little noticed report released on Friday  by the grid operator -- the folks charged with the responsibility of keeping the lights on (1/18/2008 www.caiso.com/1f52/1f52d6d93a3e0.pdf ) -- titled "Final 2008 CAISO Transmission Plan Report."  The report is a 170 page sleeping pill, but interestingly the grid operator pumps up the need for the Sunrise Powerlink with the following superlatives:

*** "CAISO evaluated over 60 proposed alternatives to Sunrise and ran more than 80 models analyzing the reliability and economic impacts of these alternatives.  Based on CAISO's analysis, Sunrise provides superior long-term benefits to any of the alternatives."

*** "Sunrise facilitates SDG&E compliance with California's Renewable Portfolio Standard requirements by providing access to renewable resources expected to be developed in the Salton Sea and other areas in the Imperial Valley."

*** "Sunrise will provide insurance against unexpected load growth and or extreme weaher conditions, such as the July 2006 heat storm experienced in Southern California."

Having lived through the energy crisis in 2000-2001, while working for the California Power Exchange--I can assure you that you do not want to be the one blamed for having any role in creating the next energy crisis.  The grid operator, by advocating their position has effectively innocculated itself against such blame.  So, if Sunrise were to not be built -- who wears the blame?  I am sure former Governor Gray Davis would advise John Q. Public, "don't let it be you!"

Oppostion to Transmission in the West is a Bad Idea

Two recent articles in The Press-Enterprise and the San Diego Union Tribune caught my attention in the last couple of days -- Critics hit energy corridor plans, The Press-Enterprise (www.PE.com) and Fire threat a new snag in push for PowerLink, The San Diego Union Tribune (www.signonsandiego.com).  Both stories outline arguments against new transmission projects in the West.  In the first story we see the concern over expending energy corridors and in the second we hear concerns over fires.  In both cases, however, the articles fail to affirm that all development projects of this nature face very strict environmental reviews.

In the case of the PowerLink, the California Public Utilities Commission devoted over 300 pages to just such a review (issued on 1/3/2008: http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PUBLISHED/NEWS_RELEASE/77349.htm).  If you were to read through this dociment, as I have, you would discover that the revwiews are incredibly thorough. 

But guess what?  The conclusions are not to ignore the need for infrustructure -- but rather that we need more!  As I read other stories and blogs, I see that people are calling for renewables.  I say that we may even agree that there is a moral imperative to build more renewable generation.  But I have a couple of questions:  1. How will you bring that energy to the load centers (that is, where the energy will be consumed) if you don't build the infrastructure to get it there or to even make the projects viable?  2. Will we meet our carbon emission reduction goals if we don't build the infrastructure that is needed to bring the "green power" on-line? 

Once upon a time ago, a Governor (now California's Attorney General) thought that "if we don't build it -- they won't come."  Oops.  Let's get it right for once and get behind the infrastructure that we desperately need.   

BTH Secretary Bonner is Right

January 7, 2008 -- Some years ago, I had the pleasure of working with Secretary Bonner.  An incredibly smart man and in this Op-Ed, he is again hitting the nail on the head when talking about improving our infrastructure.  Think of the dynamic growth that our state is experincing and then think about what it will take to make that happen -- we need infrastructure:  tranmission, generation, roads, water, natural gas.  Think about it, how many of these have you used today?  Well, if you turned on your lights this morning, and took a shower and then drove to work, you can check off all of the above!  Delays to infrastructure development will only hinder our economy and cost us jobs.

Op-Ed: Improving infrastructure through public-private partnerships, San Diego Union-Tribune, January 7, 2008

By Dale E. Bonner

We all know that as the population in our state continues to grow, so to does the demand on our infrastructure. Currently, there are more than 37 million people in California, but our infrastructure has not kept pace. In fact, what we have now is designed to support only half of that population and an even smaller fraction of our current economy's size.

In the News...

In this category, expect to see my comments on recent news articles, editorials or other blog postings.

1/4/2008 CPUC ISSUES PRESS RELEASE ON SUNRISE POWERLINK.  This is the transmission project proposed by SDG&E to help bring in renewable generation.  While the ranking of the project was down on the list -- the fact is that it was on the list.  Also, consider that the state is mandating reduction in GHGs -- to me this means that that the project has to eventually get built.  Remember that without the proper infrastructure, the goals of reducing GHG or maintaining grid reliability will not come to pass. 

Reading the clips on this issue I noticed some very strange quotes, but these are the facts:  while we are working on conservation and green power, at the end of the day, we still need more transmission and we still need more generation.  A blend of all of these will allow our economy to prosper and grow.  We should all embrace the need for new infrastructure.