San Diego Gas & Electric Co. has denied misleading the California Public Utilities Commission about its Sunrise Powerlink proposal and asked the commission to dismiss a sanctions proceeding before it gets started.
The five-member commission initiated proceedings to punish the San Diego utility in an 11-page ruling issued Aug. 1 by Dian Grueneich, the commissioner overseeing SDG&E's request to build the high-voltage transmission line.
In a formal response filed late Monday, SDG&E argued that there is no evidence supporting the core allegation that the utility misled commission staffers.
Grueneich's ruling asserts that SDG&E officials insisted during meetings held in June that any alternative route through southern San Diego County would have to cross Indian tribal lands. But the ruling says SDG&E officials knew they had agreed a month earlier to revise the “southern route” specifically to circumvent the tribal lands of Indians who refused to grant a right of way.
In its response, SDG&E contended that records of the May meetings, including declarations of those involved, showed there was no formal agreement to modify the route to avoid tribal lands.
“Moreover, the allegation itself makes no sense when placed in the context of facts in the commission's public records of this proceeding,” SDG&E said in its 35-page response. The formal declaration of one energy regulator described the southern-route revisions as “an ongoing process,” SDG&E said.
SDG&E conceded that it had erred by omitting certain documents in disclosures that must be filed after such informal meetings are held. But the utility said it has filed amended disclosures that correct the record, and argued that no substantial harm was caused by the mistake.
A lawyer assigned by the commission to review SDG&E's response will determine what happens next in the unusual case.
If the inquiry finds that such misstatements occurred, SDG&E faces a variety of sanctions that include a fine ranging from $500 to $20,000 for each offense and banning the utility from certain PUC proceedings.
SDG&E's response amounts to “an unexpected and high-stakes strategy,” said attorney Michael Shames of San Diego's Utility Consumers' Action Network, who has opposed the Sunrise project in proceedings before the PUC.
“It is essentially challenging the commission and its staff and raises the stakes by threatening high-pressure litigation tactics if the commission doesn't back down,” Shames said.
SDG&E spokeswoman Christy Heiser said, “We are defending ourselves against this claim that we have been untruthful.” She rejected the “suggestion that we have made any misleading statements.”
SDG&E applied two years ago for regulatory approval to build the 150-mile transmission line from its Imperial Valley substation near El Centro to Rancho Peñasquitos at a cost now estimated at $1.5 billion.
SDG&E says the line is needed to improve the reliability of San Diego's power grid and will enable the utility to meet renewable-energy mandates by connecting with solar-and geothermal-power projects planned for the Imperial Valley. But the utility's preferred route through Anza-Borrego Desert State Park has triggered intense opposition from environmentalists and residents along the proposed right of way.
A draft environmental review that state and federal regulators released in January found that a southern route along Interstate 8 was environmentally preferable to the “northern route” favored by SDG&E. But utility officials continued to argue that the southern route posed more significant challenges, including rugged terrain and ownership rights to tribal lands.
Bruce Bigelow: (619) 293-1314; bruce.bigelow@uniontrib.com
