A Summary of UCAN's investigation into the Sunrise Transmission Project
If approved, SDG&E's Sunrise Transmission Project will cost ratepayers $3.7 billion more than UCAN's proposal. To read the in-depth testimony in PDF format, click here [2].
June 1, 2007 - Today UCAN filed testimony with the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) demanding that SDG&E's plans to build a 150-mile powerline through Anza-Borrego State Park and much of San Diego County is a bad idea. This expert analysis shows that SDG&E's arguments for the transmission line are unsupported by the utility's own internal documents. UCAN has offered an alternative proposal that costs less than 10% of SDG&E's proposal and delivers billions of dollars in benefits.
The testimony of David Marcus and Michael Shames (see attachments below) outline UCAN's findings about how SDG&E has deceived regulators and government agencies about the cost of the project. It has made false statements about the need for the project in its advertising, public relations, and political outreach in an effort to thwart the development of cheaper, locally generated power.
SDG&E has saturated the local media for almost two years with what seem to be four compelling arguments in favor of the Sunrise Transmission Project (STP). Those compelling, but faulty arguments are as follows:
Faulty Argument #1: "There are no good alternative plans to STP."
UCAN uncovered a large collection of more reasonable alternatives, none of which involve defacing a state park and all of which cost less than Sunrise. SDG&E didn't analyze any of them.
Faulty Argument #2: "The law requires that SDG&E supply San Diego with 20% "green" or renewable energy from earth-friendly sources, and STP is the only way this can be accomplished."
UCAN's expert evaluation shows that adequate renewable power can be brought in over existing powerlines. Moreover, UCAN recommends a San Diego-based idea for renewable power that wouldn't require importing clean power.
Faulty Argument #3: "Without STP, San Diego will be plunged into rolling blackouts by 2010."
This statement is absolutely false. SDG&E's own records show that it has numerous and less expensive options for ensuring reliability. Moreover, the state Independent System Operator's analysis confirms UCAN's assessment that the line isn't needed before 2018. UCAN has identified 10-15 times as much power as SDG&E will need by 2017 with AMI.
Faulty Argument #4: "STP will save ratepayers money."
In perhaps the most stunning part of UCAN's findings, not only does STP not save, but it actually costs ratepayers some $93 million more each year for 40 years ($3.7 billion) than UCAN's alternative.
The UCAN analysis also documents a two-year misinformation campaign abetted at the highest levels of SDG&E's management and at a cost of $3 million, so far, to ratepayers. Most all of UCAN's analysis relies upon SDG&E's own documents, or those of CAISO, thus making them difficult to deny by the utility. And it discloses SDG&E's potential profits from the proposed project (a cool $780 million!) which drive the utility to pursue a controversial boondoggle, despite the factual weaknesses of its application.
Click on the files below to view UCAN's testimony filed at the CPUC on June 1st
[3]