Keep up with UCAN.org by following us on Twitter!
Thanks for visiting UCAN.org! Please remember our services are available because of grassroots donations from people like you. Please help us continue our work with a donation of any amount. Click here to visit our secure donation page.
UCAN spent all morning with Linda Brown continuing the cross-examination. Yesterday, we focused on transmission errors made by SDG&E in its rebuttal to UCAN's proposal. Today, we focused on SDG&E's failure to include numerous available MW in its case. By failing to include various projects, SDG&E was able to justify needing Sunrise. But the transmission project isn't needed when you actually tally SDG&E's current and likely future MW sources. Brown conceded that SDG&E's Utility of the Future contains some 350+MW that SDG&E didn't include in its calculations. And they left out a number of assorted other projects that exceed 250MW. During the remainder of UCAN's cross of Brown, she was either evading questions, denying she knew anything or defering questions to other witnesses. Her credibility continued to sink with each question posed.
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Propeller
Reddit
Magnoliacom
Newsvine
Furl
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
Icerocket









Sunrise Hearings - Day four
Today was a notable, if not a seminal, day of hearings. The morning began with an excellent cross-exam of Linda Brown by RPCC attorney Harvey Payne in which he elicited from Brown how the company had withheld important data and failed to conduct important modelling runs that might have shown how Sunrise caused outages in the SDG&E system. Brown repeatedly contradicted herself or misstated facts. Ultimately, Mr. Payne was able to effectively show that the last extension of the Sunrise line into Penasquitos was more expensive than an alternative offered by RPCC.
The afternoon was largely devoted to questions posed by Adminstrative Law Judge Weissman who attempted to cut through Brown's evasions and get to the core of many of the basic issues in the case. He effectively pointed out the logical inconsistency with the Commission's request for alternatives to Sunrise and SDG&E's insistance that any alternatives be subjected to lengthy studies that could not be performed during the duration of the case. He cut to the chase on the process that SDG&E used to develop Sunrise and the company's conviction that it had to build not only Sunrise but also a northern link into the Edison system at a future date. His questioning is going to prove to be requiredl reading for anyone who is interested in the details of this case.
Brown finally concluded today. The next set of SDG&E witnesses will be dealing with many of the details that Brown could not or would not answer. She was an important witness for SDG&E and her three day appearance may turn out to fatally undercut SDG&E's case for the power line. But, of course, we won't know for sure for many months (or years) from now.
Post new comment