| Independently Powered Energy News

The California First District Court of Appeals is expected to rule on whether the California Public Utilities Commission and the California Energy Commission violated state law in approving the controversial 624 MW Oakley power plant. A related suit is pending in the California Supreme Court. If the suits by environmentalists and consumer advocates succeed, it could curb both commissions’ authority on fossil-fueled project approvals. In the appellate court case, The Utility Reform Network is challenging the CPUC’s approval to build the plant and put the cost in rates. In the high court case, an environmental group is contesting both the Energy Commission’s environmental review and the CPUC’s approval. The appellate court appeared to agree to hear the consumer advocates’ case in a terse Jan. 9 ruling, according to Bob Finkelstein, TURN attorney. That case is considered the lead case, he added. The organization filed its lawsuit in June 2011. “Nobody thinks this thing is needed,” said Shana Lazerow, Communities for a Better Environment attorney, referring to the gas-fired power plant. “It violates the Clean Air Act and the Endangered Species Act.” Her organization filed suit in the California Supreme Court in July 2011. The state Supreme Court is the first venue for challenging Energy Commission power plant approvals. The $1.5 billion Oakley plant--to be owned by PG&E--was authorized by the CPUC in December 2010. The project is contentious because of its cost, and whether its 624 MW of capacity fits into the state’s electricity “needs” forecast. The Energy Commission approved constructing the plant in May 2011. Here’s a summary of the plaintiffs’--TURN and Communities for a Better Environment--cases: -In the Court of Appeals, the ratepayer advocate’s pleading alleges a lack of state “need” for the plant’s electricity. Oakley’s approval “seems to be the product of some CPUC commissioners having become such fans of a proposed power plant that they deeply regretted having to reject it due to lack of need,” wrote Finkelstein. The brief notes that the timeline given by the commission was shortened from its usual schedule, resulting in legally “insufficient” public feedback on the project. -In the California Supreme Court, Communities claims that the CPUC’s decision marks a “dangerous and unacceptable deviation” from its public process that concluded in an “abuse of discretion.” It adds that the Oakley plant isn’t needed and will worsen air quality in the state and that Oakley will contribute to global warming. The group charges that the CPUC “deprived” the public of “vital” protections in its process to approve the plant and “abused discretion.” The organization claims endangered species such as the Lang’s Metalmark butterfly, Antioch Dunes evening primrose, naked-stem buckwheat, and Contra Costa wallflower may be impacted. Communities also claims the Energy Commission did not consider the habitat impact from building the Oakley facility. The non-profit also alleges the Energy Commission violated the Warren-Alquist Act. The CPUC opposes both the supreme and appellate court reviews. In a letter to the California Supreme Court, the state alleged environmentalists’ arguments have “no merit.” The Energy Commission, in its reply to the high court, noted that the expected environmental impact from the plant would not kill endangered species and that the required mitigation measures suffice. “Petitioners are simply wrong to imply that it was improper for the Energy Commission to calculate the mitigation measure consistent with the project’s proportional contribution to cumulative impacts,” wrote the agency. In the appellate case, the CPUC notes that the benefits of Oakley exceed the costs, and that “need” for “adequate generation for 2016 and beyond” would be helped by the facility. It argues that there were sufficient fact findings to approve the power plant, and that the commission followed its standard rules. It also notes that the Oakley plant would be “capable of integrating intermittent renewable resources.” PG&E, which is set to own and operate the Oakley plant after it’s built, did not return requests for comment. In its filings with the CPUC, the utility noted the Oakley plant would be “environmentally beneficial” and “cost-effective.”

No Result