Countywide : Ruling Delayed in SDG&E; Suit to Block New Pollution Fees

A Superior Court judge on Monday delayed a ruling in a lawsuit filed by San Diego Gas & Electric to block pollution fees imposed by the county Air Pollution Control District.

Judge Patricia D. Benke said she will need more time to study the numerous documents and arguments presented by lawyers for both sides.

SDG&E; has argued that the air quality agency has no authority to impose what the utility sees as an unconstitutional tax under Proposition 13, the property tax-slashing amendment approved by California voters in 1978. Lawyers for SDG&E; have argued that such a tax is illegal because it has not been approved by the voters.

The new fees are based on the amount of pollutants that San Diego County industries release into the air. SDG&E;, which emits more than 9,000 tons of pollutants a year, would be penalized the most under the new tax, which the San Diego County Board of Supervisors approved last year. The board imposed the fees for a 12-month trial period to make up for shortfalls in the air pollution district’s budget.

Lawyers for the pollution district argue that the agency has the authority to impose such a fee because other districts--such as the South Coast Air Quality Management District in Los Angeles--have adopted similar emission fees.

Proponents of the fees have called them more equitable. The previous system charged industries only a straight fee to obtain a special annual permit, an arrangement some claim put the relative financial burden on smaller businesses that emit less pollution. With the new emission fees, the permit fees have been lowered across the board, they say.

In SDG&E;’s case, its permit fees have been lowered from $181,000 last year to $75,000, said Lynn Eldred, the district’s citizens assistant specialist.

But the utility has more than made up the difference by paying $130,000 in the new emission fees.

The company has objected bitterly and filed a lawsuit in December to overturn the emission fees. Officials for the utility have argued that the company already has spent millions of dollars to monitor pollution emitted from its plants.