Would it be illegal for CAISO to conspire with Southern California Edison to purposely defraud the voters of California and lock us in to a future dependent on nuclear power? Our Attorney General says "No."
Just weeks after Fukushima, and at the same time an initiative was filed to close our state's nuclear power plants, Edison Mission Energy (EME), an affiliate of Southern California Edison, the major owner of the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS), filed with the Energy Commission to both buy and retire the only backup generation that existed for SONGS, thus locking California into a nuclear power-dependent future. Why would the owner of SONGS want to buy and retire the only backup generation for its nuclear plants just weeks after the worst nuclear accidents in history? Why would both the Energy Commission and the PUC approve such a retirement?
The California Nuclear Initiative (CNI), which seeks to place an initiative on the state ballot to close the Diablo Canyon and SONGS nuclear plants, says it has evidence obtained through Public Records requests suggesting that the California Independent System Operator (CAISO) and Edison may have conspired to defraud the voters of California by purposefully misleading the Legislative Analyst's Office to believe that no backup generation existed for SONGS, when in fact there was. CAISO simultaneously gave erroneous information to the Energy Commission and the PUC by assuring them that it was acceptable to retire Huntington Beach because doing so would cause no grid instability. Neither the Energy Commission nor PUC were told in these retirement proceedings that Huntington Beach was the only backup generation for SONGS and that without Huntington Beach, if SONGS were to be shut down by the pending initiative or any other means, there would be certain grid instability.
This erroneous information from CAISO regarding backup generation led the LAO to determine that there would be rolling blackouts costing the state up to tens of billions annually if SONGS were closed by the initiative, thus killing any chance of getting the initiative on the ballot. Only months after the LAO published their finding, based on the false assumption that no backup generation for SONGS existed, did the Energy Commission and the PUC approve the retirement of Huntington Beach.
(CAISO issued the following statement in response to the CNI charges: The California ISO is a highly transparent nonprofit, public benefit corporation that is regulated by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and complies with mandated national reliability standards that set the criteria the ISO uses for its planning studies. The ISO denies any claim or suggestion that it has misled the legislative analyst’s office, other state agencies, the media or the public. CSI responded: CAISO's statement is very general and does not address the specific charges that it says misled three state agencies, the public and the press about the need for the Huntington Beach units.)
Neither the Energy Commission nor the PUC appeared aware they were retiring the only backup generation for SONGS because they had both been assured by CAISO that the retirement would cause no grid instability. And had SONGS not been taken off line because of a nuclear accident there in January, 2012, no one would have ever found out that the state had just two months before retired the only backup generation we had for the nuclear power plant.
In an unprecedented emergency effort coordinated by the Governor's Office and involving the Energy Commission, the PUC, Cal ISO, various state and local air and water quality Boards, and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Huntington Beach was brought out of retirement to avoid rolling blackouts in the LA Basin that would have cost the state untold billions. The press covered the story as a courageous action to avoid blackouts. No one ever asked why the plants had been retired in the first place. No one noticed that retiring these plants had derailed a legitimate initiative.
So, if CAISO and Edison conspired to defraud the voters of the state by misleading these state agencies, what made them think they could get away with it? CNI suggested to the Attorney General’s Election Division that a crime may have been committed. The Reply? Apprised of all the facts detailed above, the AG Initiative Department representative stated that "I have vetted your concerns internally, and we can perceive no basis for criminal charges to be filed. As you probably know given your involvement in these issues, the Attorney General does not regulate the CAISO or electric utilities." It was also added that "… you might consider bringing your concerns to the attention of their regulators..." In essence, even if all these allegations of a conspiracy to mislead these state agencies and the voters are true, they do not constitute a crime. There is apparently nothing illegal about purposely affecting the election process in this way.
For the full story on the issue, see the CAISO Press Release.
For further information go to California Nuclear Initiative.
