Edison Asks That Redondo Noise Case Be Thrown Out : Regulation: The electric utility says Redondo Beach does not have the authority to set noise limits at its plant. City officials reject that argument.

Facing trial on charges of violating Redondo Beach’s noise ordinance, Southern California Edison Co. is asking that the case be thrown out, saying the city lacks authority to regulate the utility’s Harbor Drive power plant.

In court papers, Edison says the city cannot set noise limits on the 1,310-megawatt electric station because under the state Constitution only the California Public Utilities Commission can regulate utilities.

Edison also argues that the case should be dismissed because the noise ordinance infringes on the company’s right to use its property. The only way to comply with the ordinance, Edison says, would be to close the plant.

“Edison has made virtually every possible modification to the plant itself to reduce unreasonable noise,” the utility said in a Dec. 3 motion for dismissal. “If Edison were required to achieve further reductions, it would have to consider measures of doubtful efficacy and preposterous cost.”

Edison’s arguments drew a sharp rebuttal from the city, which filed criminal charges against the utility in October, alleging that Edison violated the noise ordinance on seven occasions in September.

In a brief filed Monday, the city termed Edison’s motion for dismissal “wholly irrelevant” because the utility fails to prove either of its arguments.

“This case is not about the relative authority of local governments and the Public Utilities Commission. Nor is it about a city’s attempt to ‘take’ the defendant’s property,” the city said. “This case is about noise.”

Edison’s motion is set for a Jan. 7 hearing in South Bay Municipal Court. The case, tentatively scheduled to go to trial Jan. 15, marks the second time Redondo Beach has attempted to prosecute the utility for noise violations.

The city lost the first case last year--partly, officials say, because their sound measurements did not adequately distinguish plant noise from other sources of noise. City officials have said their sound measurements this time were taken correctly.

In questioning Redondo Beach’s authority to regulate plant noise, Edison cites language in the state Constitution that says cities “may not regulate matters” that the Legislature has left to the PUC.

The PUC’s broad powers, the utility argues, “plainly” give it authority to order noise abatement measures and set noise levels.

Redondo Beach’s attorneys respond that even though the PUC has the power to regulate noise from public utilities, it has not done so. Citing case law, the city asserts that a local government in such circumstances has the authority to step in and establish its own regulations.

“If the court were to accept the defendant’s position, the defendant would be free to emit whatever levels of noise it wants, whenever it wants, and without regard to the effects on the city’s population,” the city said in Monday’s brief.

Edison is also arguing that enforcement of the city ordinance would deprive the utility of the only “reasonable” use of its land--electricity generation--and would amount to an unconstitutional “taking” of its property.

If the utility were forced to close the plant, Edison said in its Dec. 3 motion, its “electricity grid would lack needed capacity, and a replacement plant would have to be built. It would now cost approximately $1.5 billion to build a new plant.”

The city, however, dismissed Edison’s property rights argument in its brief filed Monday as “premature and without factual support.” Edison, the city said, has never tried to seek an exemption from the noise ordinance, so it is in no position to claim that the measure is usurping its property rights.

The city also questioned Edison’s argument that enforcement of the ordinance would force the utility to close its plant. Said City Atty. Gordon Phillips on Thursday: “Their declarations are totally useless; they are totally unsupported.”