ELECTRIC INFRASTRUCTURE:
BALANCING COMPETING INTERESTS
Tehachapi Renewable Transmission Project (TRTP)
May 2013
DELIVERING MORE RENEWABLE POWER
 SCE is expanding and upgrading its
transmission and distribution networks to:
 Meet the region’s growing demand for electricity
 Improve grid performance
 Meet California’s ambitious renewable power goals
 Renewable resources such as wind and
solar are located far from the populated
areas where customers can put that power
to use
 Building new or upgrading existing high voltage transmission lines makes it possible
to transport power from its generation
source over long distances to where most
Californians live and work
THE PLAYING FIELD
B U I L D ING IN F R A STRUC TU RE M EA N S
BA L A N CING CO M PETING I N TE R ESTS…
VARIOUS INTERESTS
AFFORDABLE ENERGY
SAFETY,
RELIABILITY
PUBLIC POLICY,
RENEWABLES
3
TEHACHAPI RENEWABLE
TRANSMISSION PROJECT (TRTP)
The nation’s largest transmission project
devoted primarily to renewable energy
Total project length: 250 circuit miles of
infrastructure (spanning 173 miles) across 20
communities in 3 counties; nearly all in existing
utility right-of-way corridor
Overall project cost: $2.1 billion
New capacity: Enough renewable energy
capacity to power approximately 3 million
homes (4,500 megawatts)
CPUC approved the overhead project in 2009
with completion targeted for late 2015
TRTP Segments 1-3 (shown as green lines)
were approved in March 2007 and are
complete
4
CURRENT STATE
TRTP: $2.1 billion project spanning 20
communities to import up to 4,500 MW of
renewable power to the Southern
California basin
2009
2011
NOW
2015
CPUC approves
overhead
construction
after extensive
engineering
and
environmental
analysis
Construction
begins and
Chino Hills
portion later
halted by CPUC
CPUC directs
SCE to explore
undergrounding
Complete
project to
meet state
renewable
mandate
12 of 18
transmission
structures
complete in
Chino Hills
CONSTRUCTION ON OTHER TRTP
SEGMENTS CONTINUES
5
OVERHEAD IS THE BEST OPTION
 Most effective route for transmitting 500 kilovolts to
import up to 4,500 MW of renewable power over distance
 Least enviro nmental impact
 Most cost-effective: extra $400m-$7 00m to underground
 3 miles is less than 2% of overall project
 $400m - $700m is approximately 25% - 33% of total project budget
 Constructio n method
 Overhead proven reliable over time
 Underground of 500 kilovolt transmission is first in US
6
OVERHEAD/UNDERGROUND
COMPARISON
Tehachapi (Chino Hills)
Supports state’s renewable energy goals
Environmentally sensitive
Underground
YES
YES – But potential schedule delays
YES
-
Best use of financial resources
NO
75% complete
TRTP EIRs completed/approved
-
Two transition stations and extensive construction
Unknown artifacts underground
-
$400m-$700m additional costs
Paid by all CAISO ratepayers (SCE, SDG&E, PG&E)
YES
Safe construction method
NO
YES
Quick restoration time if outage
FIRST IN US (500 kilovolt)
YES
-
Benefit to all ratepayers
Overhead
NO
Easy to identify problem overhead
Hours/days to restore
YES
-
Hard to identify problem underground
Weeks/months to restore
NO
7
ORGANIZATIONS OPPOSING IMPACTS
OF UNDERGROUND OPTION
Partial list, to date, of individuals and organizations urging the CPUC
to oppose the underground consideration:
 Assemblymember Steve Bradford
 State Senator Alex Padilla
 Board of Equalization Vice Chair
Michelle Steel
 County of Kern
 Ventura County Econ. Dev. Agency
 City of Whittier
 City of Pico Rivera
 American Assoc. of Blacks in Energy
 CA Manufacturers & Technology
Assoc.
 Congress of CA Seniors
 CA Asian Pacific Chamber of
Commerce
 Numerous other chambers of
commerce throughout CA
In Orange County…
 Huntington Beach Chamber of
Commerce
 Fullerton Chamber of Commerce
 Cypress Chamber of Commerce
 Seal Beach Chamber of Commerce
 Orange Chamber of Commerce
 Placentia Chamber of Commerce
 Orange County Black Chamber of
Commerce
 Orange County Hispanic Chamber of
Commerce
STATEWIDE ISSUE
 Potential cost impacts
 Precedence for an
undergrounding project
like this
 Bad public policy of a state
agency reversing an earlier
decision
QUESTIONS?