In the Matter of the Application of San Diego Gas )
& Electric Company (U 902 E) for a Certificate of )
Public Convenience and Necessity for the Sunrise ) Application 06-08-010
Powerlink Transmission Project )
____________________________________________)

Michael Shames
On behalf of UCAN
3100 Fifth Ave. Suite B
San Diego, CA 92103
619-696-6966
mshames [at] ucan [dot] org

June 13, 2008

* Tables of contents and authorities can be found at the end of this document.

I. Introduction.

To compensate somewhat for UCAN's 200+ paged opening brief, UCAN offers this much shorter reply brief. Rather than comport with the opening brief outline, UCAN offers observations on SDG&E's opening brief. UCAN addresses the following six categories:

1. Magic tricks - SDG&E's making material facts disappear through omission
2. Factual claims proffered without any evidentiary support
3. SDG&E assertions that, if true, would compel the Commission to reject the application;
4. Blatantly incorrect statements;
5. Silly Lawyer Tricks, aka carefully constructed misleading statements of fact; and
6. Disputed factual assertions upon which reasonable parties can disagree.

    This brief also addresses assertions made in the CAISO's opening brief and offers rebuttal to dubious legal theories advanced in SDG&E's opening brief. And, because SDG&E relied on Mr. Oatman's testimony in its opening brief, UCAN is compelled to remind the Commission in some detail about how Mr. Oatman's allegedly expert, independent testimony was anything but expert or independent.

In this brief, UCAN's theme is that SDG&E's argument in this case has veered so far from the evidentiary record, it lapses into sophistry. SDG&E repeatedly violates the Commission's rule against citing facts that are outside the record and distorts those facts that are in the record. As UCAN notes here and as State Parks states in its motion to strike, the Commission should not countenance SDG&E's efforts to insert striken facts into the record or be allowed to simply make up material facts. The other theme touched upon in this brief and in the corresponding Motion for Official Notice filed today addresses SDG&E's withholding of or refusal to acknowledge material facts. In a case that is already technically complex, these legal strategies disserve the process.

    UCAN urges the Commission to adopt findings similar those it made in rejecting SDG&E's illconsidered Valley-Rainbow project: because SDG&E will continue to meet the WECC/NERC reliability criteria during the relevant planning horizon and because the STP cannot be justified on the basis of providing economic benefits to ratepayers, SDG&E's request for a CPCN should be denied without prejudice.¹

¹ D. 02-12-066, p. 78