<i>By Michael Ellis<\/i> The California Energy Commission attacked the Los Angeles Department of Water & Power?s questionable record in providing data to the commission at its April 27 meeting. The muni is supposed to provide information to the commission on forecasts, prices, resources, and transmission for the 2005 Integrated Energy Policy Report. While LADWP?s documents were not in the proper data form, they were ?responsive to the data requests,? countered Randy Howard, LADWP manager of commercial services. He added that the only thing lacking was what resources will be used to meet those needs, indicating that most of the department?s demand growth will be met with renewable energy sources. ?But as to how we?re going to do that, we?re a little uncertain.? ?I recognize that it is the department?s historical preference that you operate as if you?re a separate planet,? responded commissioner John Geesman. ?I think that the state of California is entitled to quite a bit more information and quite a bit more seriousness in the submittals that you provide us.? Geesman noted that the commission has clashed in the past with the city over its renewables policy and its ?degree of interconnectedness with the rest of the Southern California grid.? For instance, Geesman cited withholding crucial transmission system data from the commission. He said that LADWP has notified Southern California Edison that it plans to take over project sponsorship of the Devers?Palo Verde 2 transmission line project. ?That?s a rather central issue in terms of statewide planning for the electricity system, and on the face of it, it would appear that you filed inaccurate information with us,? Geesman said. The Energy Commission decided to issue a subpoena to LADWP but not serve it for another week, with a due date in 15 days. Another item on the agenda in the commission?s dealings with other entities was the ongoing jurisdictional dilemma with the California Coastal Commission. For power plants that sit on the coastline and use ocean water to cool the turbines, the Coastal Commission wants its input on siting and repowering permits given due weight. The two commissions have been working to reach agreement on each other?s rights and responsibilities (<i>Circuit<\/i>, April 15, 2005). The Energy Commission approved a resulting memorandum of agreement with the Coastal Commission. ?I want to make certain that we are continuing the approach that we took in the Morro Bay decision, which is to include a concept of legal feasibility,? Geesman said. The Coastal Commission?s recommendations must be proportional to the impact and consistent with the Energy Commission?s findings of fact and conclusions of law, he noted. However, Geesman also asked for assurances that the memorandum did not ?obligate the Energy Commission to delay a siting case.? In other actions, the commission approved a $58,600 contract to develop seven case studies of customers who have used new equipment to shift peak use in response to lower prices. This comes on the heels of a California Public Utilities Commission decision April 21 not to pursue critical peak pricing for large customers this summer (<i>Circuit<\/i>, April 22, 2005). The commission also awarded a $1 million contract for research at the University of California, Riverside, aimed at developing a seasonal air-quality model and evaluating a system of trading air emission credits for Central California.