Opinion: Electric line expansion is a bad idea
By Ann Nichols
Today the forests between Kings Beach and Tahoe City are connected by the Tahoe Rim Trail, nature trails, dirt roads and a mostly paved route located at the summit of Highway 267 known as Mt. Watson Road or the “Fiberboard Freeway”.
This great North Shore recreation asset has it all: views of Lake Tahoe, access to Watson Lake, Jeep and equestrian trails, snowmobiling, cross country skiing, snowshoeing, and hiking. All are close to town, yet not marred by unsightly power lines.
That’s all about to change if Liberty Utilities and CalPeco, Liberty’s parent company, get approval for their proposed $45 million plus project. The company wants to double the existing power to serve the demands of new projects with prominent new power lines; think 1,200 units at Squaw, 1,000 more at Northstar Highlands, 760 units at the top of Highway 267 put forth by East West Partners, and the new lifts at Northstar.
The power company folks want to run the new power line between Kings Beach and Tahoe City along the Mt. Watson Road. The poles will visually dominate the pristine forest lands. They claim it will be easier to access and maintain the poles. That’s a given, but at what environmental cost?
The new thicker and taller poles will exacerbate their visual effect and degrade existing views. Here are some disturbing project highlights:
1. Trees removed: 47,000 (whole project including along Highway 267)
2. Damaging stream environment zones by removing 1,542 trees.
3. Power poles increase in diameter from an average of 16 inches to a maximum of 4.5 feet for self-supporting poles.
4. Power pole heights increases up to 12 feet or as much as a total height of 92 feet (nine stories). Most poles are now 40-feet high
5. Right-of-way increases width from 30 feet to 40 feet along the new Mt. Watson Road line.
6. Trees and vegetation within 150 feet of the power lines can be cleared producing a scar in the forest.
7. 7.5 miles of new right-of-way within the basin
Who will stand the cost of the expansion? A measly 49,000 ratepayers between North and West Shore and pay attention folks on the California side of South Shore, you are on the hook too. The power company is guaranteed an 11.8 percent return on these infrastructure improvements and it is likely we will see our power bills go up 20 to 30 percent. This huge project could easily run over $50 million. It’s a no lose situation for the power company, a boon for developers, but loaded with adverse effects for tourists, residents and wildlife.
Let’s not lose our public areas and diminish the quality of a great recreational experience with the permanent installation of unsightly power poles. Leave the power lines where they are now … they’ve served us well in that location since the ‘70s. Underground the new lines that will go through the east Kingswood neighborhood.
Do we really need five years of traffic impacts and 12,000 one-way truck trips? The basin is already 90 percent built out; is this major project absolutely necessary for Lake Tahoe? CalPeco, develop a project that won’t negatively impact our beautiful area.
Ann Nichols is president of the North Tahoe Preservation Alliance.
Another NIMBY (Not In My Backyard) group. There certainly is merit in Ann’s argument, but I see no specifics on just where she might want the lines to be run. I have a long memory of electric transmission problems at Lake Tahoe; not the least of which were similar arguments, and a lot more, when Sierra Pacific wanted to upgrade the power lines into the Basin. Old timers will remember the loss of power to REGIONS here, not just a few blocks or a fraction of a square mile when there was a problem with a blown transformer or a downed line in some neighborhood. Remember the brownouts too? Remember when we lost natural gas AND electricity at the same time? If Ann is against development of more homes and businesses, a proper way to approach that goal is to influence the population and the regulatory agencies and limit building; not a back-door approach to what amounts to saying NO to improved electrical transmission reliability. I’d prefer no power poles on my hikes into scenic areas…so, Ann, where is your MAP on where to place the power transmission lines?
Taking Ann’s numbers, which usually are manipulated to make her point, then each of the 49,000 rate payers would be responsible for $918 in costs likely amortized over 30 years for a total impact of $30 per year.
Shocking!
Destructive utility expansion through a “scenic corridor” in Tahoe’s basin is generally discouraged – unless of course it provides enhanced infrastructure and utilities for huge corporate recreational development and tremendous fees for local governing environmental agencies ………..
Are you seriously trying to deny safe, reliable power to residents and visitors because of the tiny amount of time that you might spend near a power line during a hike? If you want pristine forest lands, there are plenty of them, millions of acres within our state borders in fact, but you have to leave some of your creature comforts behind. NIMBY, indeed. I am in agreement with Bob.
Why do the customers have to pay the $45,000,000.00?
If the power is for the resorts, then the resorts should pay the $45,000,000.00 yeah?
safe and reliable roads, safe and reliable power, safe and reliable communications, safe from fire, safe from terrorism…..every transportation district, power company, phone company, fire department, and police/military organization will argue for these benefits – we could build a nuclear power plant in Tahoe and that would be argued to give us more reliable power. Sorry folks, every once and a while the power goes out and guess what, most of us live through it. Citizens have the right to say enough is enough and we want to control our environment – yes, NOT IN MY BACKYARD!
Folks- this system needs to be revisited and phased properly. The proposed expansions for Northstar, Squaw and Homewood are relying on this system for their grand planned resorts. A needs assessment and analysis must be completed to show the basin residents do not need this upgrade. When the cost was spread over approx. two million NV Energy customers this was a no brainer but to expect South Shore, Coleville, Portola as well as North Shore and other residents (only 49,000) to support an upgrade that benefits big developments is asking too much
Too bad the parent company, which is headquartered in Ontario, cannot exercise a little more vision for their offshoot here, as Ontario has some very progressive projects that could be looked at for HERE, a place supposedly using a Regional Plan UPDATE (i.e.,for the 21st century).
The Liberty purchase of the Tahoe Basin “franchise” from Nevada Energy (which was in financial need at the time) included a very unique arrangement (not very many like it anywhere in this country) that allowed power to be sold in BOTH states within the Basin, something which is apparently now being squandered in the rush to be like everyone else needing transmission lines to control their own cash flow.
Many improvements have been made in alternative directions now, so that the idea of simply going with the ‘status quo flow’ is to be more in the category of “white elephants” than good for a sustainable future. . .
The same level of thinking went into the Kirkwood situation – spend inordinate amounts of money to dig a 30+ mile trench, when the technology exists to sink that money into progressive, sustainable alternatives. . .to do that in the name f “growth” is merely asking for trouble ‘down the road’. . .
If they don’t have engineers that can figure out better ways than this, I know of many that can. . .
The resorts want people to think this is the ONLY option – let us go big or you won’t have reliable power. This is a false either/or; when you look at the details, this is SOLELY to support the resort’s future upgrades and not necessary to simply improve power for existing customers. If improving service was the point, there are alternative options for doing that which cost far less and don’t cause this much damage – but they were dismissed by the agencies. Look at the draft EIR.
As a ratepayer, I also take issue with paying for upgrades to support the ski resorts who will make the profits. We already spend our taxes to subsidize them by providing assistance to resort employees who are not paid enough to live on. Vail is even finding ways to pay employees even less. Beware because a huge portion of those profits are spent on public campaigns to convince people of things that are not true. When will it stop? Thank you Ann Nichols for laying out the facts that are so often overlooked.
If the power company is guaranteed a fixed return of 11.8% on whatever is spent on these improvements, then there is a built-in incentive to spend as much as possible. The direct beneficiaries of this project should be paying for the expansion, not the existing ratepayers. The fox should not be allowed to guard the henhouse.
I’m glad we are having an important discussion. To respond to Moral Hazard, the power co will receive approx. a 15% return on $45m each year- that’s $6.75m divided by 49,000 residents equals $131/yr per person, but it is more complicated than that. Their recent rate increase to cover just a $4m shortfall raised non power related costs on our bill 47%. Who knows how much the project will end up costing and we’ve asked what it will do to our bills…the response has been it’s complicated since residents, commercial, ski areas all pay different rates. But this is something we need to know.
I’m glad we are having an important discussion.
To Bob, I’m saying leave the 625 line where it is-away from the Rim Trail and Watson Rd. The backup Kings Beach generator was only used 80 hours of the allowed 720 last year…it had a recent $12m upgrade…it should work.
To Moral Hazard, the power co will receive approx. a 15% (11.8%plus extras) return on $45m each year- that’s $6.75m divided by 49,000 residents equals $131/yr per person every year, but it is more complicated than that. Their recent rate increase to cover just a $4m shortfall raised non power related costs on our bill 47%. Who knows how much the project will end up costing and we’ve asked…the response has been it’s complicated since residents, commercial, ski areas all pay different rates. But this is something we need to know.
Yes, guilty as charged, I’m a TIMBY, Tahoe is My Back Yard.
The proposed project is doubling the capacity -from 60kV to 120kV for two lines (from Truckee to Kings Beach and from Tahoe City to Kings Beach) to complete a loop that serves mostly Martis Valley developments and 3 ski resorts outside the Basin. Electrical loads in the Basin are not the cause of the upgrade. It is to serve the mushrooming growth outside the Basin over the last 15 years and future demand outside the Basin. This project is not about growth in the Basin. But the impacts to the Basin and costs by Basin ratepayers is the issue, when the beneficiaries are outside the Basin. The Tahoe Basin has had growth restrictions under Federal law for 30+ years, and our loads have changed little. If one does not care about paying 30% more for electricity to support development outside the Basin I think you are in a small minority.
$30 a year is a 30% increase?
I would encourage people to get the facts on the electrical line upgrade project for themselves. The environmental documents are available at http://www.trpa.org/get-involved/major-projects/ and public comment is being taken on the draft documents until January 7th. Please consider weighing in so that the final document can best reflect the overall community’s priorities and values. There are many trade-offs to consider. For example, if you run a powerline down an already existing road, you may impact the scenic value of that road. However, moving it away from the road and up into the forest, means building more roads and cutting more trees. What are the community’s values? If you want to underground the powerlines, that improves scenic values but greatly increases the cost. Once again, what are the community’s values?
These are some of the oldest powerlines in the state and they need to be upgraded to provide reliable power for local customers now and in the future. The Northstar resort, for example, does not need power from this upgrade to complete its Master Plan. It has its own power source. Most locals are not that fortunate and do want reliable power for their family’s comfort and safety. It would be good to get as many comments from the public as possible as to how you want this reliable powerline upgrade to occur. Please consider going to the public workshops on this project being offered on Tuesday, December 10th from 2-4 p.m. at the Tahoe National Forest Truckee Ranger District Office at 10811 Stockcrest Springs Road, in Truckee,and from 6-8 p.m. at the North Tahoe Events Center at 8318 No. Tahoe Blvd. in Kings Beach, so that you can get your questions answered and make an informed decision on how best to meet the community’s reliable power needs.
For the sake of full disclosure, Kristi Boosman is a spokeswoman for TRPA.
LTN staff
Kristi,
Interesting how TRPA is already advocating for Liberty’s $50 million upgrade by repeating the talking points about reliability as if there is no alternative. A Liberty official said at a recent NTRAC meeting,”we make money building stuff,” and in this case whether it is needed or not.
The Northstar Resort has its own power source? needing nothing from the upgrade? Really? Please back that up by explaining what it is, how much power does it generate, and for what duration can it run?
TRPA must back up this kind of statement.
Dave, please back up the implication of your comment that Liberty is being deceitful in saying the system is at or beyond capacity today.
You and Ann have two problems. The line is at capacity and that’s not up for debate. Or at least you better have some high quality information stating otherwise because Liberty has provided their evidence. The second problem is you need a map. If not this project then what project?
Encouraging people to seek out the facts for themselves is not advocating for anything other than a well-informed public. You will need to check with Northstar on the details of their power generation.
Dave,
Encouraging people to seek out the facts for themselves is not advocating for anything other than a well-informed public. You will need to check with Northstar on the details of their power generation.
“…The Northstar resort, for example, does not need power from this upgrade to complete its Master Plan. It has its own power source…”
Doubtful that Northstar operates off the grid. This is typically not cost-effective or as reliable. Just ask Kirkwood.
I think we can safely assume that TRPA is blissfully in bed with big recreational corporate development as evidenced by the quiet inclusion of huge recreational acreage development in the RPU for Edgewood and Vail Resorts. Northstar is just another 300+ acre future corporate recreational development potentially furnishing TRPA with even more development technical assistance, importance and mitigation fees for a sustained and growing fed agency empire.
It clearly makes sense they ( TRPA )would embrace a power utility expansion that serves their growing agency needs as well. What the community gets is more tourism congestion, pollution and urban blight.
TRPA truly has never and does not now have a conscience for Tahoe’s commumity economic well being, interests or the pollution caused by condoning endless enhancement of commercial and recreational business.
Most of the economic benefits of this explosive recreational/commercial development finances the salaries of both TRPA administration and these powerfully influential development corporations.
Kristi is right, people need to get the facts – by digging into the 2012 RPU, and asking sensitive questions as to just whom TRPA is catering to.
Dave,
Your observations are right on target…
I seriously doubt Kristi will address what you have astutely pointed out, but rather just continue to tell you to get the facts ………
Kristi,
You are a PR official with TRPA. You said “The Northstar resort, for example, does not need power from this upgrade to complete its Master Plan. It has its own power source.”
It’s your responsibility to state the basis of your claim. TRPA influences people,as a so called voice for the Lake. I’m asking for the facts that led you to make that statement and it is a job you must do.
Or you could retract the statement as a misunderstanding.
Moral Hazard,
There was no implication about capacity. My comment referred to the “reliability” talking point, and reliability of electrical systems is based on technical standards, including past outages, likelihood of additional outages, the duration of the outages, etc. None of this was analyzed in the EIR.
Capacity is another issue, but does influence reliability. There is not a single loop with uniform demand all the way aqround. The loads on the loop are uneven, with the Basin demand being fairly steady over 30 years, while Martis Valley loads have seen huge growth. But it is clearly the peak demand during Xmas/New Years that is stressing the system. There are peak shaving techniques and technologies that would cost much less than $50 million and delay the need for the 625 line (15 miles in the Basin). Liberty has been stingy about releasing load data for distribution segments, because they want the entire loop upgraded now, that’s how they make money.
Dave this is from the Liberty website. Do you have evidence that this statement is incorrect?
“The existing 625 line experiences the most outages in the North Lake Tahoe transmission system due to snow loads and downed trees.
Fire danger is a constant threat because the line is entirely constructed with wooden poles. Approximately 610 wooden poles would be replaced with approximately 570 new, dark-colored steel poles.
Due to the existing line’s placement, it is difficult to access for emergency and routine maintenance.
If the existing 60kV transmission line from Truckee to Kings Beach (known as the 650 line) is damaged, the system will not be able to provide necessary capacity to Kings Beach.
If the 60kV transmission line from Tahoe City to Squaw Valley (known as the 629 line) or the 120kV transmission line from Truckee to Squaw Valley (known as the 132 line) is damaged, the system will not be able to provide necessary capacity to Tahoe City.”
My apologies all. I didn’t mean to imply that TRPA supports upgrading the Calpeco electrical lines. That is a decision for our Governing Board, as well as for the community to determine what constitutes a reliable power system. Once again, I encourage people to get the facts for themselves by reviewing the draft environmental documents at http://www.trpa.org/get-involved/major-projects.
Regarding Northstar, anyone interested in finding out about Northstar’s energy system for their Master Plan can contact the resort directly.
It will be helpful for anyone interested to attend the public workshops on the Calpeco proposal scheduled for Tuesday, December 10th from 2-4 p.m. at the Tahoe National Forest Truckee Ranger District Office at 10811 Stockcrest Springs Road, in Truckee, and from 6-8 p.m. at the North Tahoe Events Center at 8318 No. Tahoe Blvd. in Kings Beach. You can learn more about this project and get any questions answered.