The Utility Reform Network filed suit against the California Public Utilities Commission in California’s First District Appellate Court over its decision to allow Pacific Gas & Electric to build the Oakley power plant June 28. The ratepayer group questions the state’s “need” for new fossil fuel power. “The matter at hand seems to be the product of some PUC commissioners having become such fans of a proposed power plant that they deeply regretted having to reject it due a lack of need” in their initial decision, alleges the appeal. Local governments and organizations appearing before the commission praised the project. But consumer advocates and independent power producers opposed it. Commissioners turned out to be somewhat reluctant because of its size and potential cost to ratepayers. Regulators, however, approved the 624 MW power plant in the East Bay Dec. 16, 2010--holding off on charging ratepayers for construction until 2015. The facility is expected to cost $1.25 billion to $1.6 billion. The utility is allowed up to an 11.5 percent rate of return on that investment. Oakley “reflects our strong commitment to meeting our customers’ growing demand,” Tamar Sarkissian, utility spokesperson said about the question of state “needs.” She said Oakley is set to facilitate renewables integration with fossil fuel services support. The utility is reviewing the appeal, and had no comment at this time, she added. The appeal claims the CPUC’s method of first denying--in July 2010--then approving Pacific Gas & Electric’s investment in Oakley in its decisions was illegal. It also questions the propriety of the opposing proposed decisions’ timing with scant notice to stakeholders when the plant was finally approved. TURN maintains a new round of inquiry should have been initiated. “The PUC initially denied the Oakley Project because it was simply not needed, given the amount of new capacity PG&E had been authorized to procure by 2015,” noted TURN’s appeal. “Only by looking beyond 2015 and into 2016 was the PUC able to claim that it had found a risk of capacity shortfall” that Oakley could “help mitigate.” TURN called the CPUC moves to approve PG&E’s investment in Oakley an “abuse of discretion.” If the decision is annulled, stated TURN spokesperson Mindy Spatt, the organization assumes PG&E would have to start the approval process “from scratch.”