Submitted by Mike Machado

After the Cranston Fire there was increased concern about the Solar project that was underway for Anza Electric. Solar was a State of California mandate, but could it take the place of baseline power delivered on a transmission line in the event of an emergency or PS interruption? The answer was no, in fact without baseline power a Solar installation would be useless and inoperable in an incident like the Cranston Fire. The only solution would be a battery installation to support the Solar installation. By 2021 Anza Electric had both Solar and Batteries and could for a short amount of time keep the downtown area energized even with a system wide power outage. BY 2022 the system had proven itself and during recent outages has been the only lifeline the community has when the power is interrupted or for whatever reason the lights go out.

The Solar and Battery installation of Anza Electric has worked well but it can only generate enough energy under the best conditions to meet about 5% of the community’s energy needs on a typical day. Worse there is a staggering price to pay. Early in the 1990’s Solar projects average energy production had a cost of around 13 cents per KWH 105 times more expensive than coal or natural gas fired generation. By 2023 the costs were not any better given the assets depreciable life span, even though the cost of construction was lower. The Cost of Anza Electrics’ current Solar project is north of 21 million dollars and will have to be replaced somewhere around 2034.  The idea that Solar was affordable or reliable is a myth by anyone who is looking at their electric bill.

With utilities having to increase fire prevention and mitigation plans it became obvious by mid-year 2021, that PS system wide shut offs was going to be the new normal. After all, the people were not complaining being told it was for their own good. Most plans approved by California officials included hundreds of pages on how to turn the power off and little to nothing on how to keep the power on. There was no mention of government overreach, of mandates and permits that prevented utility upgrades to equipment, while environmentalists terrorized Utilities to block any attempt to mitigate dangerous levels

of under growth and vegetation making communities a tinder box for wildland fires.

Few officials paid much attention to the issue after the Cranston Fire, including the Board of Directors at Anza Electric, ignoring the possibility of catastrophic disaster increasingly more probable given the circumstances surrounding the policies of the State of California.

In February of 2022 Anza Electric hosted its annual strategic planning meeting, and again the issue of a second transmission line was raised. It’s alleged that sometime prior work was done as to feasibility although there is no official record that the matter ever made it to Arizona Electric or California Edison Co for serious consideration. In April of 2022 the CEO of Arizona Electric was asked about a second transmission line; his reply was “there is no interest by the Board of Directors of Anza Electric to build a second transmission line”. "With Arizona Electric, it could be built in under seven years."

Is this politics over public interest? Is this the green new deal vs common sense? If not, is it the logistics and cost of a second transmission line again? There are two different routes a second transmission line could take; both would originate in Temecula. The most logical and least cost route might be along the Highway 79 corridor, to the intersection of highway 79 and highway 371. Then go up the hill to the Lake Riverside Substation. This would mean California Edison would build roughly 19 miles of transmission and Anza Electric would build about 6 miles. The total cost would be around $33,000,000.00. For 28 years it has been argued that this project is too expensive. This route would require the least environmental review, would not be in the wilderness and being close to the highway would be defendable. It might even lower the cost of energy and demand charges.

The concept for the current Solar project was conceived in 2012, it was supposed to cost around 4.5 million dollars, but that was without batteries. Solar was a no option for Anza Electric under California passage of the Global Warming final solutions act AB 32 in 2009. In 2015, an Anza Electric member proposed the idea of a company-wide internet service to the Board of Directors. In 2016, the nephew of long-time Anza Electric founder Barbara Bradford joined the company