" Imperial County has plentiful solar, wind and geothermal resources to produce electricity. San Diego Gas & Electric must soon produce 20 percent of its power from renewable sources. But it must also get that power from Imperial County to its San Diego County customers."

UCAN RESPONDS: Mr. Kittle's headline and introduction make four statements that sound like facts. The first two statements are correct: Imperial County does have plentiful resources, and SDG&E is required under state law to produce 20% of its power from renewable "green energy." The third statement is false - it says that "SDG&E must get that power from Imperial County."  Finally, the headline is extremely deceptive, it suggests that the CPUC "heed the experts" on the need for the PowerLink. There's only one problem - every "expert" that isn't on SDG&E's payroll has determined that the Sunrise PowerLink is a horrific waste of $2 billion and even SDG&E's experts couldn't make a compelling case for the line (see below).

Here are the facts: The solution proposed by SDG&E for Imperial County is based on outdated, overpriced, and unproven technology from Stirling Energy Systems (see Reader Article by Craig Rose). What's more, it hasn't been built yet. UCAN's solution is to generate the power inside San Diego County. Locally produced power is cheaper, employs San Diego workers, and does not require a powerline to get it.

"The Sunrise Powerlink, first proposed in 2005 and amended in response to critics, is SDG&E's preferred approach. In time, this transmission line is projected to save ratepayers $100 million to $200 million a year. Last month, the California Public Utilities Commission approved it. "

UCAN RESPONDS:  The above paragraph makes two major points. The first is that the Sunrise PowerLink is SDG&E's "preferred approach."  This statement is incorrect. SDG&E wanted a line to run through northern San Diego.  This route was rejected and revised by the CPUC staff --- based upon a proposal by UCAN. Until October,  SDG&E violently opposed a southern route claiming it to be unreliable and infeasible.  As to the issue of saving ratepayers $100 to $200 million a year, this is grasping at straws.........it assumes that renewable power built in Imperial Valley will be cheaper than renewable power built anywhere else in California or other states.

"Last week, two groups that make a living trying to kill such projects renewed their attacks on the proposed power link."

 UCAN RESPONDS:  UCAN was formed in 1984 to protect consumers from San Diego Gas & Electric. To suggest that we "make a living trying to kill" SDG&E projects is a gross distortion. The facts are that UCAN's 900 pages of expert testimony show that the Sunrise PowerLink is a complete waste of money that only benefits SDG&E.

"The Utility Consumer's Action Network, financed in part by SDG&E ratepayers under a perverse state law, asked the utility commission to reverse its approval of the transmission line. UCAN's solution, it says, is cheaper, though it may or may not deliver renewable energy. The Center for Biological Diversity, which has never purported to represent people but rather wildlife, asked the California Supreme Court to stop the project because of potential environmental damage."

UCAN RESPONDS: UCAN offered a 113-page narrative listing almost 70 different mistakes, oversights and perversions of fact that justify a reversal of the December 24th CPUC decision.   Apparently,  Mr. Kittle didn't read UCAN's rehearing application. 

"To support a reversal, the commission would have to reach the dumbfounding conclusion that UCAN knows more about producing reliable, adequate and clean power than SDG&E, the four utility commissioners who approved the Powerlink and the state's Independent System Operator, which says power reliability requires the transmission line. For good reason, the utility commission is not likely to endorse UCAN's plan."

UCAN RESPONDS:   It is notable that the editorial fails to mention that the PUC staff, two administrative law judges and at least one CPUC Commissioner also refused to accept SDG&E's arguments.  The two judges found that SDG&E's justification for building Sunrise was inadequate and recommended outright rejection.  Industry insiders pretty much agree that SDG&E failed to make a compelling case for the power line and, but for heavy lobbying and analysis done by the CAISO, the CPUC would have had no choice but to reject the line.  SDG&E's experts' analysis was thrown out during the hearings as being contradictory and incomplete. 

"To halt the project, a majority of Supreme Court justices would have to agree that puddles in the project's path that may harbor fairy shrimp trump enough power to serve 600,000 homes. That conclusion, too, would be no less dumbfounding."

UCAN RESPONDS:  Hardly.  the plight of, or existence of, "fairy shrimp" weren't even involved in the case.  T'is a shame that the U-T allows such ill-informed editorials to see the light of day.