Feds favor hydro plant site near school

By: JOSE CARVAJAL - Staff Writer | Tuesday, January 30, 2007 11:32 PM PST ∞

LAKE ELSINORE -- If a proposal to build a hydroelectric power plant southwest of the lake moves forward, the project's underground powerhouse should be built right next to Butterfield Elementary School, federal energy officials say in an environmental report released Tuesday.

That's not sitting well with Lake Elsinore Unified School District officials.

"A power plant right next to a school is probably not a good idea," district board member Kim Cousins said.

District officials already have said that if the site selected for the powerhouse ends up being near Butterfield Elementary, they will be asking the project's backers to build them a new campus elsewhere. If the powerhouse goes forward and that doesn't happen, the district could turn to the courts.

"They would have to find a site and replace Butterfield Elementary School," board president Tom Thomas said. "The district would bear no cost for the construction of and relocation to the new school."

As it considers whether to grant the project a license, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has been studying over the last couple of years potential locations for the project's three main components: the reservoir that would store water for the plant, an underground powerhouse that would generate electricity and a high-voltage transmission line that would link the project to the state power grid.

In its 600-plus-page report, commission staff recommend that a reservoir for the plant be built in Decker Canyon in the Cleveland National Forest and not in nearby Morrell Canyon, which was also being considered.

Commission staff also suggest that the 30-mile transmission line be built underground in one three-mile stretch and that other parts be built partway down the side of the hills facing the lake. The Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District and its private partner on the project, The Nevada Hydro Co., had been pushing for the transmission line to be built in a less visible area on the other side of the ridge.

But representatives of both said Tuesday that they were generally pleased with the report and the recommendations it makes.

"We're very comfortable with them," Nevada Hydro spokesman Chris Wysocki said. "There's nothing in this document that we're not excited about. ... We know where it's going now and we can begin the process of making sure this is built."

Powerhouse problems?

Water district board member Phil Williams has a different take. Though he is OK with many of the recommendations, he admitted he was troubled by the recommended site for the powerhouse.

"The biggest concern that we have is the school site," he said. "We need to be able to figure out some way around that. I'm not a proponent of that site by any means."

When they learned last year that the federal energy commission was eyeing land near Butterfield Elementary, school district officials raised questions about the appropriateness of the location. Construction of the powerhouse would create noise, dust and increased traffic on Grand Avenue that would not be conducive to learning, they said.

While the federal licensing process continues, the district must still wade through state environmental requirements. And Williams says that, as that process gets going, the district and Nevada Hydro might be able to convince the federal commission that the site is not suitable.

Building a brand-new school, which could cost more than $50 million, doesn't seem likely, he said.

"That is tremendously expensive," Williams said. "It would be a real problem for the project to bear that expense."

Wysocki, meanwhile, said that Nevada Hydro is willing to work with the district on finding a solution. He said that the state environmental process could turn up measures that would alleviate the impact on the school.

"We're very committed to working with the school district and we're very sensitive to any short-term impacts on the school site," Wysocki said. "We're willing to work with the district to identify any reasonable and feasible mitigation."

In recommending the site next to the school for the powerhouse, commission staff decided that the other location they were studying -- land to the northeast near where Grand Avenue meets Ortega Highway -- was too valuable a resource for hang gliders.

Gliders, who are said to come from all corners of the world to take advantage of the optimal conditions in the area, use that undeveloped spot as a landing zone. Their permit to glide in the area requires that they have a dedicated landing zone nearby.

The plan for that location had involved the creation of a formal landing zone for the hang gliders. Because construction of the powerhouse would place restrictions on landing there, according to the energy commission report, that plan was dropped.

But Ken Niemi of the Elsinore Hang Gliding Association said his group isn't necessarily opposed to locating the powerhouse on the land now used as a landing zone. The association is embroiled in a land dispute with a local developer over rights to the land and Niemi said that building the underground powerhouse there would help remedy that issue.

Niemi said that the water district, which has taken an interest in preserving hang gliding in the area, would obtain the land from the developer and could work with the association on creating a formal landing area there.

More visible power lines

The transmission line would be buried for several miles leading away from the powerhouse and would proceed above ground to electricity substations to the north and south. The line would come partway down the hills southwest of the lake and would be visible from almost anywhere in the valley.

Williams said that an important aspect of commission staff's recommendation is that the line would be built about a mile away from the Horsethief Canyon community just north of the city.

To the south, according to the report, the line would come closer to the La Cresta and Tenaja communities than the district and Nevada Hydro had initially proposed. Building the line deeper into the national forest away from those communities would pose a greater fire risk, according to the report, and would destroy untouched back-country areas of the forest.

Though pleased that a portion of the line would be buried, under the report's recommendations, Niemi said that the hang gliding association is still concerned about the sections of line that would be above ground.

Niemi noted that the line is buried only in a small area near the gliders' launching zone in the Cleveland National Forest. Gliders could still get caught in a line a little bit farther from that area, he said.

"Power lines and hang gliders just don't get along," Niemi said. "Even away from the launch, we can avoid them, but we still get nervous around them. We don't have an engine."

Chris Hyland, a former water district board member and a staunch opponent of the project, was critical of the commission Tuesday for going out of the way to accommodate hang gliders but failing to consider the concerns of residents opposed to the power lines.

Opponents have said that the transmission line would pose a fire risk and that its unappealing appearance would lower the values of nearby properties.

If part of the line can be built underground for the hang gliders, Hyland said, then the entire line should be buried to alleviate these concerns.

"Why are they going ... underground for them and not for the rest of the people," she asked. "Why are (the hang gliders) so privileged?"

Energy commission staff state in the report that they investigated the possibility but decided that it would be cost-prohibitive to bury the entire line.

The need for power

Williams and Wysocki both said they were particularly pleased to see in the report admissions from commission staff that the hydro plant and the transmission line would be energy assets to the region.

"... If licensed, the power from the project would be useful in meeting a part of the regional need for on-peak power," the report states.

Williams said that was a big admission from commission staff.

"What they've done is they said, 'OK, we think it should be a project,'" he said.

Opponents of the project, however, aren't so excited.

Like Hyland, current water district board member and hydro plant foe John Lloyd questioned the viability of the project based on an economic analysis included in the commission's report.

The project, if ultimately approved by the commission according to staff's recommendations, would cost about $1.3 billion to build. Also according to the report, the plant would cost $146 million a year to operate.

Because of that, Nevada Hydro has been seeking from the energy commission a guarantee that would ensure project backers would receive a 14.5 percent return on their investment.

And in the end, company executives have said, the project would lead to more than $200 million in energy savings to the state's electricity customers. So even though the project would lose money in operations, they have said, that would be offset by these benefits.

But Lloyd pointed out that the rate guarantee would mean the state's electricity customers would be picking up the tab for the annual operations costs.

"Somebody still has to pay it," he said. "It still doesn't mean it's a better value."

Critics such as Lloyd and Hyland will have plenty of opportunities to continue to register their concerns because there's still a long way to go in the process. Though the commission is expected to decide on the project this spring, there are still other hurdles it faces.

Williams said there are state and local requirements the project has to meet.

"This is a big milestone for the project," he said. "But it's not like it's going to get built next year. It's still got a ways to go."

Contact staff writer Jose Carvajal at (951) 676-4315, Ext. 2624, or jcarvajal@californian.com.