Home Oakley Radback Energy and Wellhead Electric Issue Statement on Oakley Power Plant Ruling

Radback Energy and Wellhead Electric Issue Statement on Oakley Power Plant Ruling

by ECT

Radback2

Radback Energy and Wellhead Electric vow to stay committed to bringing the Oakley Power Plant online after a 1st District Court of Appeal ruled 3-0 Wednesday against  the Oakley Power Plant.

The companies issued a joint statement to the ruling.

We are disappointed in the Court’s decision, especially since project financing was expected to close in April. We remain committed to the Oakley project and seeing it through to its successful completion.

We believe strongly that Oakley is a good project and that it is needed both for electric grid reliability and to support the large amount of wind and solar energy that is coming on line in California over the next few years. Oakley uses new GE technology that is designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and be able to take into account the variability of wind and solar energy, and still keep the grid reliable.

We also take confidence in the fact that so many prominent people, agencies and organizations who understand electrical energy continue to strongly support the Oakley Project. Even with this additional delay, appointed and elected leaders of energy policy in California have expressed strong support for this project as well as all of the major regulatory agencies, environmental groups, the local communities in Oakley and Contra Costa County, the working men and women of California, PG&E and the financing parties whose confidence is needed to build a project of this size and importance. That tells us that we are doing the right thing to continue to work hard to get the Oakley project approved and operational for the ultimate benefit of PG&E Customers and all Californians

The timing of the next steps for gaining approval of the Oakley project will be determined in the near future after consultation with PG&E and the CPUC said the companies.

The court decision used “hearsay” as the reason to nullify an earlier CPUC ruling. The court concluded that there was an evidentiary processing shortcoming during the CPUC hearings, in that the court concluded that CPUC should not have relied on CAISO testimony that was not supported by a live witness, and so corrective action will be needed.

File Photo

You may also like

1 comment

ECVsBrother Feb 6, 2014 - 7:09 pm

Ironic on how the other article shows how we need to conserve, yet Oakley will not be allowed to create more power. Eventually this project will pass and be built. Just like most controversial projects there needs to be a time period when all get to vent and have their say. In the end the right to build the new plant will be successful. Oakley and it’s residents could use a nice injection of new jobs and city revenue. It will just take a bit longer than planned.

Comments are closed.