Why is RTRP necessary?
Riverside is growing, and so is the city’s demand for electricity. Riverside only has one connection to the state power grid, putting the city’s residents and small businesses at risk for major outages as it did in 2007. The solution is the RTRP.
Why does the city need a second connection to the state grid?
Riverside is the only large city in Southern California with one connection at 69 kilovolts to the statewide power grid. If that connection fails, Riverside will have a serious and lengthy power outage that could have serious economic impacts. The need for this project was demonstrated clearly in 2007, when transmission lines that feed Riverside were damaged, and power was out across the city for over four hours. More recently, in summer 2018, weeks of hundred-degree temperatures and a natural gas shortage threatened Riverside's ability to meet peak summer demand. Riverside residents and businesses must be able to count on having reliable power.
Doesn’t the City of Riverside have power plants that can supply power if the single connection to the state grid goes down?
The city has two power plants inside the city that primarily offset peak electricity demand during the summer, when the City’s power demand typically exceeds what can be delivered through their current single connection to the state grid. These power plants, however, are a short-term fix rather than a long-term solution and cannot replace the reliability of a second connection to the statewide power grid.
Why are some portions of the RTRP not being undergrounded?
The CPUC’s Environmental Impact Report already specifically analyzed and rejected alternatives to the RTRP that included additional undergrounding beyond what was approved in the Certificate for Public Convenience and Necessity, noting that such alternatives were rejected in part because they would generate additional environmental impacts.
The City of Riverside and SCE have consistently supported cost-effective transmission planning, and the current project, as approved by state regulators, is the most cost-effective and environmentally sound option for all ratepayers. The existing RTRP plan protects ratepayers from the financial burdens of additional undergrounding.
I still feel undergrounding is necessary to avoid future maintenance risks or concerns. Why can’t we underground?
Undergrounding is less efficient, costs significantly more, has unique maintenance requirements, and involves more substantial disruptions while being installed. It can also require significant vegetation clearing and cause substantial environmental impacts while presenting unique challenges in emergency situations. Identifying issues and restoring power to an underground line can take weeks or months. Undergrounding creates unnecessary access and safety risks, not only for the community but for those committed to servicing the area. Undergrounding would delay the project’s goal of improving long-term reliability of the transmission and distribution system in the area.
Why should I support the existing RTRP plan?
RTRP serves the community’s long-term electric reliability needs. Riverside is home to the county seat of government; three universities and one community college; major hospitals; the county, state and federal courts; the county emergency communications center; the county jail; several dozen schools; a regional water quality control plant; and a convention center. Maintaining reliable power to these institutions is essential to the public interest and the economic vitality of the community.
What could happen if RTRP continues to be delayed?
Continued project delays would increase project costs and keep Riverside’s residents, employees, and businesses continually at risk of citywide power outages for many years. The lack of power would also hinder sales in the area and dramatically impact the city’s economy. Since 2008, Riverside ratepayers have paid a reliability charge on their electric bills. That ratepayer charge pays for the planning and construction of the part of this much-needed project that is within Riverside’s service area. The longer this project takes to complete, the longer local ratepayers will pay that reliability charge.
Additionally, these types of projects bring necessary jobs and promote economic growth which are desperately needed in the region.
Why can’t this project be built somewhere else?
The City of Riverside is one of the fastest-growing cities in California and this new transmission project is essential to address the city’s growth and provide its customers with adequate transmission capacity to serve existing and projected electrical demand. To sustain the city’s growth and prevent economic fallout, we must ensure that we have adequate resources to achieve the city’s sustainability and development goals. This means increased demand for electricity and an even greater need for the construction of RTRP without any more lengthy and costly delays. As for potential alternative routes, two EIRs – one by the City of Riverside and one by the CPUC – looked at other locations for the proposed transmission line and found that no other route could feasibly achieve the same objectives with fewer environmental impacts.
How sure are we of the safety of this project since it was approved prior to the devastation caused by recent fires?
It is important to remember that most powerline-caused ignitions come from distribution lines, which are closer to the ground, not transmission lines like RTRP that are much higher. Safety is SCE’s number one priority and SCE takes the risk of wildfire ignition seriously as transmission lines are designed. The design of the RTRP overhead lines appropriately addresses these risks.
I heard that the cities were collaborating with legislators and other local leaders to enact legislation to consider further options for RTRP, including undergrounding.
The City of Norco did submit a Petition for Modification to revise the current approved project, but it was unanimously denied by regulators in March 2024 because the issues it raised had already been studied. Assemblymember Essayli authored AB 3076, which would have required additional environmental reviews, but this bill was not approved in the assembly and is dead for the year.
SCE states that undergrounding a project will cost customers more money, but I hear that costs will be spread out over every ratepayer in the state and that it will only cost me an additional $1 per year.
The cost per customer of a project is dictated by the transmission access charge or TAC. There are currently many proposed or active projects in the state, not just this one, which affect costs for the ratepayer. We do not believe that additional undergrounding costs should be borne by the TAC as the CPUC found the current undergrounding balance to be in the public convenience and necessity. Additional TAC costs are a consideration for SCE as it affects affordability for all our customers moving forward. The CPUC’s ratepayer advocacy organization also opposed additional undergrounding of this transmission line based on the additional cost burden to ratepayers.
How much money will SCE make from this project? I understand that the proposed costs are elevated so that SCE can keep any money that isn’t spent?
How Southern California Edison Makes Money
I have heard that SCE will make a lot of money from the project. How exactly does SCE make money?
How SCE makes money
Can the City of Riverside use a different contractor to underground all RTRP?
No. In 2006, SCE was ordered to partner with Riverside by the operator of the state’s power grid. SCE has already spent millions on the project and is the incumbent utility most qualified to complete it. Changing to a different contractor now would re-start environmental reviews and further delay construction due to increased costs. RPU would also not have access to the TAC further burdening its customers with increased utility rates.
