The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2014-02-11 Additional Information Item 09(SDG&E) /�-dd�'��a„a.p 1 k.{�r►�a�- ��brka.ry 1►, 2�1� �7connected �+ � •`" '�"'�s'""" ��/7 �r� Senmr V�ce 1'res�drnt S�� General Counsel 8330 Cenmry 1'ark Q San Diego,CA 92123�Ii30 A �,Sempra Energy U�a�ty' T`' g�b'ob,�' `/ Fuc:619 6i06106 \VDSmithCasempnucili[ics mm Februar} 11,2014 VIA FACSIh11LE AVD ELECTRONIC�4AIL Honorable\4ayor Cox and Councilmembers Cicy oE Chula Visea 276 Fourth A��enue Chula Vis[a,CA 91910 RE: FEBRUARY ll,2014 CITY COUNCIL�4EEI-ING AGE\'DA ITE\4 9(RESOLUTION OF THE CITI'COUNCIL REGARDI\TG THE SOUTH BAY SUBSTATI01' RELOCATIO\'PROJECT) Dear\4ayor Cox and Councilmembers: I am��ri[ing on behalf oE San Diego Gas�Electric Company(SDGS'E)to urge che Chula\'ista Cicy Council no�co adopc che drafc resoludon regarding che South Bay Subscacion Projec�(Project)daced February 6,2014. The draE[resolueion calls for addi�ional analysis and agency�approvals�ha�would necessarily dela}�construcrion. The dela}'s associa[ed��th the draft tesolution aze categorically ad�•erse�o SDGF�E and che Project. SDG6;E has pre«ously cau�ioned�he Cicp agains<<al:ing an}'ac[ion tha��vould cause furcher delays and insread has urged the Councll co ad�ocace for espedirious re�ie�v and approval oE�he Projecc(see attached letter dated December 17,2013). Unfortunacely,che drah resolucion ignores these concerns and would,if adopced,marerially delay the Projecc Among ocher�hings,che drah resolurion Eormally requeses cha�the Coascal Commission conduc�additional'analysis'of�he'Eeasibilicy'and'benefi�s'of unspeciEied undergrounding oE'any and all additional aansmission lines'. As the Citp is well a��are,�he CaliEornia Public Utilicies Commission(CPUC)has alread}'considered and rejeceed requescs Eor more undergrounding. As che City�is also a��are,the Coascal Commission's re��e�� oE the Project has alread}'been postponed and is suscepcible co Eur�her postponement,particularl}�to allo«•Eor more cime co respond to Eormal requests b}'�he Cin�. The addirional analysis and design changes eo che Project requesced b}'the draE�resolution�vould necessarily require futther ce�2ew and agency approval. Honorable\da}'or and Councilmembers Cin�of Chula\'ista February Il,2014 Page 2 The Project opponen[,Inland Industries,con[inues ics aggressive campaign ro block relocation of the subs�acion. The Cin�should noc allo��icself co be an accessory co Inland's straceg��of delaying che Projecc ' un�il[he land eschan�e agreemen[s expire b}'their o��n terms. SDG6:E s�rongly urges the Ciry not co adopt the draEc resolu�ion. The only accion che City should cake ac chis la�e stage is to express unequivocal suppor�Eor che Project and to urge the Coascal Commission�o approve the Project at iu�4azch 2014 mee�ing. Sincerely, � -� �\'. Da��s Smich,General Counsel San Die�o Gas S-Eleccric Company ��".Davis Smrth A connected Senior v¢e IResident 6�1 General Counul E 8330 Cenmq•Pazk Q Sm D�ega.CA 9?L3-Ii30 A �� Tel 8�8.650 6H1 Sempra Energy utility" F'x bi96'ob�o� `/ \vDSmich@sempraunlicies com December 17,2013 VIA FACSI�-IILE A\TD ELECTR01'[C \1AIL Honorable\4avor Coa and Councilmembers Cit}'of Chula Vista 276 Fourth A�enue Chula Vista,CA 91910 RE: DECE\4BER 17, 2013 CITl'COU\iCIL\4EETI\'G AGENDA ITE\4 li (ST:ITUS UPDATE AND OPPORTU\ilT1' FOR CITY COUNCIL DIRECTION ON SOUTH BAl'SUBSTATIO\ RELOCATION PROJECT) Dear\-ta}�or Cox and Councilmembers: San Diego Gas� Electric Compan}� (SDG6:E) has learned�hat the City of Chula Vis�a Ciry Council��ill hold}'e�another public meecing�his e��ening to consider the Sou�h Bay Substation Project (Projec�). The published agenda indicates thae ehe purpose of�he meeting is to provide a "S�ams Update on�he South Ba}�SubsCa�ion and Oppormniry for Ci�}'Council to Provide Direction to Staff on Future Actions Before che Coascal Commission and/or the CPUC." �l�e are�vritina to stron,lv caution the Council aeainst providing any direction to staff tha� �ti211 lead to further undue delavs of the Project. Such delaas include further re�ie�� by the City,Coastal Commission,and CPUC oE anp chan�es[o [he approved subs[a[ion design (includin�under�roundin��he 230k\�loop-in) as ordered by�he CPUC in Decision 13-10-02� issued on Oc�ober 17, 2013�rantino SDGS—E a Permit to Cons�ruc�. Reconsideracion of�he substation desi�n at this late stage��ill resul�in dela}'s �hat are directl}�adverse co SDGSE and �he Cit}%s staCed goal of reloca�ing the subs�a�ion. ��'e urge the Council instead to direct stafE to advocate for espeditious revie�v and approval of�he Project, including before the Coastal Commission and anv other apenev with jurisdiction over the Proiect. �1s the Ciq*is �vell a�vare,the Project still requires approaal b}'a number of agencies,includino The Coaseal Commission. In light oE Inland Industries' unrelenting effores�o derail �he substation relocarion b}'crea[ing delays,[he CPUGapproved subs[a[ion design requires the Ci[}''s aEfirmative and unequivocal support. 283i98r1 Honorable Mavor and Councilmembers Cirv of Chula Vista December 17. 2013 Page 2 • As}�ou kno�v,on October 17, 2013,the CPUC unanimouslp appro��ed SDG6:E's Pernu�to Cons�ruct�he Sou�h Bay Subs�ation. The Permi� �o Constmct approved b}��he CPUC au�horizes SDGSE to relocaCe the substation consis�ent�vich Che Chula\�ista Ba}'fron� titaster Plan-even afCer Inland Industries and CPUC stafE conresCed t��hether the substation should be relocated. Noeably,the Permit to Construct also includes exrensive undera ounding of exis�in� and proposed electric facilities -including facili�ies�r•hich are conremplaced under�he 2004 \40U �o be paid out of the City's 20A funds. The CPUCs decision to allow SDG6rE�o reloca�e the substation did not come easil}�and should not be taken for granted. :1s }'ou and}*our stafE are��ell a«are,the CPUCs estensive analpsis ori�inall}�supported not relocatin�che subs�a�ion,and Project cos�s��ere a signiEican[focus during[he ptoceedin�s. To have overcome �hese objections and secured CPUC approval oE subs�ation reloca�ion and approxima�ely �23 million of associated undergrounding is remarkable. Despite having attained these communi�p-�vide beneEits,members of the City Council appear to be swa}�ed b}'one proper�}'o«'ner, Inland Industries,and its representatives,who are urgin��he Cit}'to advocate for"more under¢row�dine"ro be paid Eor b}'ratepa}'ers and"more time"�o consider additional changes ro the subs�a�ion design iha� [nland[ndustries clauns ��ould lower�he subs�ation profile andlor accomplish more undergrounding. The alcerna�i�•es advoca�ed b}' Inland Industries�vere manufac�ured late in the CPUC proceedings,are not supported b}'any credible e��idence or detailed engineerin�evaluation and��ere previousl}�rejec�ed by�he CPUC. These alterna�ives,�vhich include an extensive redesi;n of the subsCation depiceed in a conceptual simula�ion circulated b}'Inland Indus�ries,cannot be conscructed��thout a detailed engineering evaluation and CPUC appro��aL In considering�vhether to appro��e an}�change to the design of the Projece, �he CPUC�vould likel}°�eesamine �he cos�s �o ra�epayers,including the costs associa�ed��th the substa�ion reloca�ion and an}�undera ounding included in �he Project,and compare these costs to xhe aleernacives, including rebuilding xhe subs�ation az�he existing location. Nei�her SDG�E nor Che Ciry��ouid be able to control[he scope,timing,or outcome of addi[ional proceedin�s at CPUC. \�teamvhile,the land exchange a�reements negotia�ed b}'SDG6�E�viCh the Scate Lands Commission and Port Distritt[hat enable �he substation Co be relocated��ill expire by their o�vn �erms in ?Ol�. Extension of Che land exchanJe aa eemen[s requires appro��al by the CaliEornia State Lands Commission and Port Distritt and�vould almost certainl}'be challen�ed b}'Inland Industries,��=ho previously filed a la�vsuit�o undo Che land eschange agreemencs. For all oE these reasons,the changes co Che Project ad��ocated b}'Inland Industries are no� Eeasible Erom a[echnological,environmental,social,legal,economic or timino perspec�ive. :1n}' action by che Cin�in support oE Inland's position�vill materially delay The Project and is ad��erse zss�9s.•i I Honorable Mavor and Councilmembers ' Ciw of Chula Vista December 17, 2013 Page 3 �o SDG�E and che Projec�,as�vell as the Cin%s o�vn desire to relocate the substa�ion consisten� �aith the Chula Vista Ba}�front ��tascer Plan. SDGSE is concerned tha<<he Projec�has alread}'endured numerous dela}�s, including delays caused b}'the Citp,��hich could compromise SDG�E's abiliry to successfull}�relocate the substation and deli�er the communit}'-�vide benefits contemplated in the \90U. In addition to �he dela}'s reques�ed expressl}'by the Cir}�(e.�.,pos�ponement oE�he CPUCs��ote co approve �he Permit to Construct),se�eral dela}�s have accrued due to the Cit}�stating or indicating[hat i� has"concerns" abou�the project, for example by�vithholding its consent to the Coastal Commission's consolidared re«e�v oE the coastal development permit,or b}�scheduling public meetings�vhere[he Cic}'Council ma}'"change its mind" about the Project Coastal Commission considera�ion oE�he Project,previousl}*anticipaced in Januar}�2014,has been posCponed,in patt to allo�e Coastal Commission staff�o unders�and the Citp's position on the Project. These ac[ions ha��e placed a�reat strain on the"cooperative relationship bet��een the City and SDGS-E"required b}'�he \-fOU. Coupled«zth the controversy generated b�� Inland, the City's "concerns" and dela}'s pose a signfficant threa�to the Project SDGS-E has repea�edl}' recalibrated its eapecta�ions and Project schedule,bu<<ime is running out. SDG6:E strongl}' urges�he City to consider the implications of its actions a[toda}�s Cit}'Council meeting and not �o take any further ac�ion that�vould be adverse �o che Project. For all oE�hese reasons,SDG�E urges�he Cicy to ignore the Ealse claims of a project opponenC, remain Eocused on the mumal�oal of relocatin��he substation, and presen•e the favorable CPUC approval of the Projecc. SDG&zE uraes the Council co relect anv further changes co the desipn of the substation and to direct staff to advocate for expeditious approval of the Proiect before Coastal Commission and all other agencies with jurisdiction over the Project. Sincerel}'. � -��Y��/'irv� W. Davis Smith,General Counsel San Diego Gas S- Elec�ric Company 283798v1