IV. HELICOPTER RIDE

UCAN also contends that a helicopter tour that certain Commission staff members took of the Sunrise route created a conflict of interest. According to UCAN, because the $1003 amount "allegedly" billed to the Commission was not the true cost of tour, the Commission employees were beneficiaries of unreported gifts. As a result, UCAN claims, the employees should have been prohibited from participating in the Sunrise proceeding, and the Decision is invalid. UCAN fails to show any conflict of interest.

UCAN's argument is misplaced for a number of reasons. First, as SDG&E notes, UCAN's claim is procedurally improper. In addition to the fact that UCAN did not motion to disqualify any of the Commission staff members or otherwise challenge the tour during the proceeding, UCAN's current arguments about the value of the helicopter flight have no evidentiary support. The crux of UCAN's argument is that the market value of the flight was more than the employees paid, but there is no evidence in the record to support that assertion. UCAN attempts to introduce new evidence, via a website, but this evidence is not in the record. Moreover, as SDG&E asserts, the helicopter company billed the staff directly for their flight. Assuming this is the case, and UCAN has not shown differently, there is no "gift" from SDG&E.

In any event, UCAN would not have a conflict claim on a substantive basis. The helicopter tour satisfied the "informational materials" exemption to the gift limitation, particularly since it was over an expansive and somewhat remote area. (See Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, § 18942.1.) Thus, a gift of the tour would not be subject to the gift limitation. Out of an abundance of caution, rather than any clear requirement, the Commission paid for the tour. Because the recipients have paid for the tour, and there is no evidence supporting the contention that what they paid was less than market value, there is no support for UCAN's suggestion that the Decision is invalid.