Work in progress. This page is an early draft — the full, sourced deep-dive is still being written.
- “No project”
- CEQA requires the review to weigh building nothing at all
- Policy-driven
- Justified to move renewables — not to serve local demand
- Denied before
- The CPUC rejected an SDG&E 500 kV line here for failing the need test
The idea, in brief
Every other alternative assumes a line is needed somewhere. This one questions that premise. The project was justified in CAISO's planning as policy-driven — to move renewable power — not to serve local demand, and no specific local-demand driver has been stated for it. That alone is reason for an updated, independent look at whether a new corridor is warranted at all. [1]
And there's precedent: in 2002 the CPUC denied an SDG&E 500 kV line in this same corridor (Valley-Rainbow) for failing to demonstrate need — over the objection of both SDG&E and the grid operator — and in its 2025–2026 plan, CAISO canceled a brand-new 500 kV line because cheaper options won. The need is not a given; the review must take the “no project” alternative seriously. [2] [3]
Read it honestly
This isn't a claim that California doesn't need clean power — it does. The question is whether this particular line, in this place, is needed, and whether that need has been independently and currently proven. (Stub — a fuller treatment, drawing on the need research already on the site, is coming.)
Go deeper
Sources
- [1]SDG&E says its proposed transmission line would meet growing power demand, but opposition is growing — KPBS
- [2]CPUC Decision D.02-12-066 — Denies SDG&E's Request for CPCN for the Valley-Rainbow 500 kV Interconnect (A.01-03-036) — California Public Utilities Commission
- [3]CAISO 2025-2026 Transmission Plan — cancels the Serrano–Del Amo–Mesa 500 kV line — California ISO / Utility Dive