
Report from the Sunrise Transmission Project Hearings (day 3)
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.
In the afternoon, the Division of Ratepayer Advocates (DRA) further impeached Brown's testimony by pointing out the flaws in her low-ball estimates of savings in SDG&E's demand-response savings. Rarely has an expert witness in a utility proceeding known as little as she. But she's not done yet.....more tomorrow.
Remember, you can view UCAN's cross-examination from day 2.
-Michael
Like what you see? Go ahead and show your support! UCAN is a truly independent non-profit watchdog organization, dependent on grassroots donations like yours!
Utility Consumers' Action Network
(619) 696-6966 or file a complaint about a company online.
Terms & Conditions
UCAN.org is made available by the Utility Consumers' Action Network to assist you in becoming what you always knew you could be, a consumer ROCK STAR! We take no corporate money, and are beholden only to you, the consumer. As such, the site is here for educational, advocacy, and empowerment purposes, as well to to give you general information and a general understanding of the law. Just remember this site is NOT here to provide specific legal advice. By using this web site you of course understand that there is no attorney client relationship between you and the Web Site publisher, UCAN. The Web Site should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a licensed professional attorney in your state.
That said, get to digging on the site, inform yourself, speak your mind, and earn Watchdog Bones! This is YOUR site, and we mean it. So comment on any of the content, discuss the latest issues in the forums, file a complaint on a company with the fraud squad, and generally cut loose.
See our Privacy Policy and Copyright Policy, Some Rights Reserved
- Remember, if you have any questions about copyright law or need legal information regarding intellectual property, the internet, or new technologies, visit our affiliate New Media Rights at www.newmediarights.org. If you are in the San Diego region, you can also can apply to use our multimedia studio and equipment for free.









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