PG&E threatens legal action against city

In a strongly worded letter fired off to City Attorney Larry Anderson obtained by the Daily Journal, PG&E attorney Richard W. Raushenbush strongly discouraged the city from adopting the ordinance for a number of reasons including the city's lack of authority to do so and insufficient evidence of health concerns.

"There is no rational basis for the [electromagnetic field] ordinance even if the city of Burlingame had the authority to adopt it," Raushenbush wrote.

The letter's tone did not sit well with Councilwoman Terry Nagel.

"It sounds like we're being threatened, and I don't like being threatened," she said.

Despite PG&E's shot across the bow, Nagel said the city and its residents need to be vigilant in keeping the proposed power lines away from homes and schools.

Health concerns and property values

The dispute stems from a proposal to place a 230 kilovolt power line under Trousdale Drive in Burlingame as part of an expansion of power capacity to the northern Peninsula and San Francisco. Dubbed the Jefferson-Martin 230 kV Transmission Project, the power line would run underground from Redwood City along Skyline Boulevard, down Trousdale Drive, then north on El Camino Real to just south of San Francisco.

PG&E officials say the line is necessary to prepare for future power needs. However, a number of residents worry that the electromagnetic fields the lines create will have a deleterious effect on their health and will affect property values.

In early May, the City Council introduced an ordinance that would ban any new power line 150 feet away from a school, business or home. Trousdale Drive is lined with houses and has an elementary school and a high school on it. The City Council has yet to hold a second reading of the ordinance, which would put it on the books and open the city up to legal challenges. However, the city can rescind an adopted ordinance at any time if facing legal action.

Financial concerns

When to hold the second reading has been the topic of some discussion among councilmembers who both want to send PG&E and the CPUC a message while keeping the city away from a bitter and expensive legal fight. It is estimated that a legal battle could cost the city up to $750,000 and councilmembers have indicated it won't be worth going into reserves to fund it. Mayor Rosalie O'Mahony said she will not consider proceeding with the fight if other governmental bodies such as the school and hospital district pitch in and help pay for future costs and the $110,000 the city has already spent on the battle.

Nagel, who has experience fighting PG&E with her work on Burlingamers Unwilling to Live with Blackouts, said the city and its residents need to fight smart by lobbying the CPUC. A battle in court may not be the best way to win, she said.

"We have to decide at what point does it start to cost the city. We do not want to initiate a lawsuit," Nagel said.

The city has already committed $6,000 toward $19,050 needed for an independent consultant hired to study the effects of electromagnetic fields and report to the city on her findings. The Burlingame School District and the Peninsula Healthcare District have also contributed money toward the study. Residents along Trousdale Drive contributed $2,050 as well, said Dennis Zell, a Trousdale Drive resident and an attorney who is donating his legal expertise to the city.

Zell said he has had some trouble obtaining all the necessary information from PG&E on the line's proposed capacity. The company sent 100 pages of documents but left some questions unanswered, Zell said.

Olmstead-Rose said the company has provided the information requested and if additional information is needed, it will do what it can to provide it.

"If there is information still outstanding, then we will certainly comply," Olmstead-Rose said.

Zell said he wants to obtain the information before a report can be presented by the council's June 21 meeting since the next scheduled meeting is in late July.

Judge to make recommendation

Before she votes on the city's next step, Nagel said she wants to hear the consultant's independent report.

In the meantime, an administrative law judge is sorting through a 25-pound environmental impact report on the project before making a recommendation to the CPUC. Her decision was estimated to take place in May, yet she is still asking for more information. That's an indication she may be keeping an open mind, Nagel said.

The judge's decision is considered a recommendation to the CPUC, who is required to make a final decision within 30 days of the recommendation.

The City Council will discuss the possible legal action in a closed session Monday night.

Jon Mays can be reached by e-mail at jon@smdailyjournal.com or by phone: (650) 344-5200 ext. 107. What do you think of this story? Send a letter to the editor: letters@smdailyjournal.com.