Alternative and renewable energy company Ormat this week refuted charges that it’s trying to circumvent California Energy Commission jurisdiction by building two geothermal projects—which some claim constitute a single 150 MW facility. Two projects would remain outside the commission’s control, but one would land squarely within CEC boundaries. The accusations of illegal activity, formally filed with the commission in June by California Unions for Reliable Energy, were the subject of a Sept. 26 Energy Commission evidentiary hearing. CURE maintained that Ormat’s North Brawley Geothermal Development Project and East Brawley Geothermal Development Project in Imperial County each meet the 50 MW threshold that requires projects to be overseen by the CEC rather than by the county where the projects are based. The union group contends that the two facilities were planned as one development, with each segment capable of an output of 75 MW. “The facilities will be owned and operated by one entity, are part of one larger project, and are so interconnected that they share facilities, such as a substation,” union attorney Tanya Gulesserian said. Ormat attorney Christopher Ellison said the unions’ allegations were “frivolous” and without merit. The North Brawley project—operational since 2007—has only a 30 MW capacity, Ellison said. He also accused CURE of basing its case upon statements that are out-of-date, taken out of context, or referencing capacity measured differently than the Energy Commission. Ellison said the projects at issue “are entirely separate projects.” He added, “They have been developed on entirely different timelines; they’re at least three years apart, if not more.” He said they were located close to each other because they tap into the same geothermal field. This week’s hearing was one step in the process before a ruling is issued. The following step is for both sides of the issue to file briefs by Oct. 12. CEC hearing advisor Ken Celli said he wanted CURE’s opening brief to show “what evidence, where and how it proves that jurisdiction is conferred upon the Energy Commission.”
