Saturday, May 2, 2015

L'affaire Peevey: Declining Isn't Always the Wisest Choice

Why not hit the "answer" button?
We have previously posted about the Peevey scandal which seems to have drifted from Berkeley to UCLA. The San Diego Union-Tribune carries this excerpt: ...The next week, two days before a key hearing over the proposed San Onofre settlement, the director of the California Center for Sustainable Communities at UCLA sent Peevey a “concept proposal SONGS,” according to emails obtained from the university. “We are at your disposal for further clarifications or modifications as you might find necessary,” center director Stephanie Pincetl wrote May 12. “Thank you for soliciting this work initiative.” Photos posted on the UCLA website show Peevey visited the campus and met with Pincetl in May 2013, less than two months after his secret meeting in Poland. Documents show he met with her and others in December 2013. In an interview with U-T San Diego last month, Pincetl could not explain how she knew about the San Onofre funds months before the grant opportunity was made public. Pincetl and UCLA officials have declined to answer follow-up questions or provide a copy of her proposal...

Edison eventually agreed to provide the research funding —$4 million for each of five years from its corporate foundation and $1 million annually from minority plant owner San Diego Gas & Electric. With Peevey out of power, UCLA is on tap to receive about a fourth of the money. UCLA officials did not respond to an inquiry this week about whether Peevey remains on the Luskin Center board.

Since the scandal in this matter seems to originate on the PUC/Peevey side, not the UCLA side, it's hard to see how UCLA benefits by not being forthcoming.

Note: "SONGS" refers to the San Onofre nuclear power plant. Earlier postings on this matter can be found at

No comments: