Regulators Okay Contested Edison-PV Deal

Southern California Edison’s 20-year agreement for the 247 MW Panoche Valley solar project slated for ranchland in San Benito County was approved on a 4-1 vote by the California Public Utilities Commission March 12.

The resolution recommending approval of cost recovery for the photovoltaic project output was pulled from the commission’s consent agenda and placed on the regular agenda last minute at commissioner Carla Peterman’s request to allow discussion of the matter.

Peterman said she was “troubled by some environmental issues,” of the solar project, including its potential impact on the endangered San Joaquin Kit Fox and Golden Eagle—species of which the state has spent considerable sums of money to protect. She, as well as other regulators, noted their authority, however, doesn’t include environmental review.

Mike Picker, commission president, objected to using the commission “to litigate environmental issues.” He noted that project risks also are not core matters for his agency. “Risk is an issue to be determined by the market and other regulators.”

“Environment issues for the commission are one aspect of the economic risk,” noted commissioner Catherine Sandoval, who opposed the agreement.

Sandoval also took issue with the condensed public input because of the use of the advice letter process to seek approval. “I would have preferred more process.”

The deal is a result of Edison’s 2013 renewable request for offers. In late October 2014, the utility filed an advice letter with the commission seeking approval of the contract. Panoche is projected to come online in late 2019.

The cost of the agreement is confidential.

According to the commission resolution, Panoche “compares reasonably from a net market value and cost basis relative” to renewable offers Edison received following its 2013 solicitation and “comparable contracts executed in the 12 months prior.”

The project site was recently used for grazing and the developer is allowed to cancel contracts entered into by the landowner, which provide tax breaks in exchange for preserving farm land under the state’s Williamson Act.

Opponents insist the project online date is a pipe dream because of significant economic and project viability challenges and concerns over impacts to endangered species and agricultural land.

Project opponents include the Office of Ratepayer Advocates, the Imperial Irrigation District and several environmental groups, including the Sierra Club and Defenders of Wildlife.

Doubts about the project online date have been raised because of outstanding state and federal permits. The “ time required for obtaining the necessary permitting does not allow for the project to attain commercial operation by December 31, 2016, which is necessary if the project is to obtain the desired amount of federal investment tax credits. —Elizabeth McCarthy