TO: Editors, News Directors

DATE: November 26, 2001

FOR: Immediate Release

Big Sandy Doesn't Fly
Commission Votes to Deny Certificate for Big Sandy Power Plant

Phoenix - Citing numerous unanswered questions, the Arizona Corporation Commission voted unanimously to deny a certificate of environmental compatibility for the Big Sandy power plant. Caithness Corporation had applied for a permit to build the 720-megawatt project in Wikieup, south of Kingman, Arizona.

"The unanimous vote today shows that my colleagues and I take very seriously our role as stewards of Arizona's environment," Commission Chairman Bill Mundell explained. "The Siting Committee went through an exhaustive process of hearings, public comment and cross examination. The Siting Committee could not support the development of this power project at this location. That was the matter before us - whether this power plant at its location along the Big Sandy riparian habitat met the detailed criteria outlined in the siting statutes," Mundell added.

As Chairman Mundell emphasized in explaining his vote, the Commissioners are charged with balancing "the need for adequate, economical and reliable supply of electric power with the desire to minimize the effect thereof on the environment and ecology of this state." [Arizona Revised Statutes 40-360.07 (B)].

Commissioner Marc Spitzer cited some of the pros and cons to the project but said: "The facts suggest several unresolved issues - there are serious concerns about water and concerns expressed by the sovereign Hualapai Nation - and I believe the site and application are not appropriate for this community. Therefore, I vote to affirm the Siting Committee's decision to deny a certificate for the Big Sandy project." The Hualapai Nation opposed the plant, citing threats the power project might pose to their Native American cultural and religious sites.

The applicant's legal brief requesting that the Commission overturn the Siting Committee's denial contained several of what Commissioner Jim Irvin stated were "false or misleading statements and errors in fact." Commissioner Irvin had questioned Caithness representatives about these statements during an oral argument session held by the Commission in October. "In my analysis of this project, I did not find any compelling reasons to overturn the Siting Committee's decision," Irvin said.

"Public support for the project was sharply divided," Irvin added. "At a Commission public comment session on October 24, 2001, it was clear that there were high emotions on both sides. However, we must decide the case based on the facts before us."

The Big Sandy River region is home to a small, endangered bird called the southwestern willow flycatcher. Water to cool the plant would have been pumped from an underground aquifer. After testimony by hydrologists and environmental impact studies, it remained unclear as to the effect the groundwater pumping would have on the aquifer. By contrast, several other power projects approved by the Commission rely on surface water, reclaimed water or a combination of those sources.

"Groundwater pumping itself was not the undoing of this project," Spitzer said, adding "we have to be sensitive to the fact that we live in a desert but realize also that farming and agriculture pump a lot of groundwater. We were offered inconclusive evidence on the total environmental impact of this project and that is why I voted the way I did."

The Caithness Big Sandy power plant was the first plant to be denied a certificate by the Arizona Power Plant and Transmission Line Siting Committee. Today's action also marks the first time the Commission has denied a power project, though several have passed with stringent operational and environmental conditions attached.

For more information on the Arizona Power Plant and Transmission Line Siting Committee or the process for siting and approving a power project, click on http://www.cc.state.az.us/news/pr07-23-01b.htm for a list of answers to frequently asked questions.