SDG&E Calls State Charge on Powerlink a ‘Misunderstanding’

San Diego Gas & Electric this week said a ruling by the California Public Utilities Commission that the utility may have misrepresented facts relating to the proposed Sunrise Powerlink transmission line is “the result of a significant misunderstanding.” In a memo from commissioner Dian Grueneich, regulators declared that SDG&E may have misrepresented material facts in its June meetings with commission staff regarding the routing of the proposed Sunrise Powerlink Transmission Project. The transmission project involves building a 500kV line in the southernmost region of the state from the eastern desert to San Diego’s urban consumers. The utility claims it would facilitate moving solar and other renewable energy from its source to consumers. Opponents claim it’s unneeded--that renewable energy sources can be placed near users--and that it would be an environmental hazard, as well as an encroachment on tribal and protected lands.. The commissioner’s memo asserts that SDG&E didn’t disclose to CPUC advisors that there were viable southern routes for the Sunrise Powerlink that avoided Native American lands. “SDG&E appears to have misrepresented that the route went through tribal lands, when in fact an alternate route had previously been jointly developed and agreed to by SDG&E that did not go through tribal lands,” Grueneich said in an August 1 scoping memo. But SDG&E president and chief executive officer Donna Reed stated that the accusations are incorrect. She added that in June meetings with CPUC staff, the utility discussed an alternative route that avoided all tribal lands. “We even provided a map that clearly defined this option,” Reed stated. “It’s clear these accusations aren’t supported by the facts.” The ruling also contends that ex parte notices filed by SDG&E on June 13 don’t include all materials provided to commission staff at these meetings, but also that the notices identify materials that weren’t actually provided to staff. Ex parte meetings are those in which only one side of a dispute is present. “There is also a reasonable basis to conclude that SDG&E violated [CPUC law],” noted Grueneich. SDG&E has until August 15 to file a response explaining why it shouldn’t be found in violation by submitting a response that includes a corporate officer’s declaration attesting to the truth of the utility’s response. If a violation or violations are ultimately found, the utility could be fined up to $20,000 per infraction by the CPUC, depending on the severity of the offense. Additionally, the commission also may consider banning ex parte communications, either for the duration of the Sunrise Powerlink proceeding or a specified time period. A decision on whether to approve the project is expected in late November at the earliest.

Over 11K Stories!

| Independently Powered Energy News

SDG&E Calls State Charge on Powerlink a ‘Misunderstanding’

vdharadmin

Related Posts

California Public Utilities Commission Okays Local Supply Reserves

Bills Pass that Move the Needle on Non Fossil Energy Pass

Legislation to Cut Carbon & Ratepayer Bills Pass

Utilities Skeptical of Air Board Cap & Trade Plan