STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Conservation and Development Commission
REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION OF ) Docket No. 97-AFC-1 HIGH DESERT POWER PROJECT ) REQUEST-1 WATER ISSUES BY GARY LEDFORD ) ) MOTION TO SHOW CAUSE ON ) Docket No. 97-AFC-1 HIGH DESERT POWER PROJECT ) MOTION-1 WATER ISSUES BY GARY LEDFORD ) ____________________________________)
ORDER DISMISSING THE REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION AND MOTION TO SHOW CAUSE
INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
The High Desert Power Project (HDPP) consists of a 720-megawatt, natural-gas-fueled, combined cycle powerplant and related facilities. It is currently under construction in San Bernardino County, on the former George Air Force Base (now called the Southern California Logistics Airport) in the City of Victorville. The Commission granted the certificate for HDPP on May 3, 2000, and denied reconsideration of the certificate on June 21, 2000.
On October 12, 2001, Mr. Gary A. Ledford, an Intervenor in the HDPP certification proceeding, submitted a "Request for Investigation CCR Title 20 Section 1231 [sic] To Determine Whether Certification Was Granted Based on Applicant's Fraud; Perjured Testimony; Deceit; or Bad Faith" (Request for Investigation). On October 1, 2001, Mr. Ledford submitted a "Motion to Show Cause and Compel Compliance with Conditions" (Motion to Show Cause).1
In this Order I deny both the Request for Investigation and the Motion to Show Cause, under the authority granted to the Commission's chairman by Section 1232(a)(1) of the Commission's regulations. [Cal. Code Regs., tit. 20, ¤ 1232, subd. (a)(1).]
Mr. Ledford makes many, and to some extent different, assertions in the Request for Investigation and the Motion to Show Cause. Some of those assertions are unclear and many are unsupported by any factual allegation. Moreover, both documents fail to include a statement of the legal authority under which the Commission may take the actions requested. Those defects probably render the Request and the Motion inadequate and subject to dismissal.2 [See Cal. Code Regs., tit. 20, ¤ 1231, subds. (b)(3), (b)(5), (b)(6), 1232, subd. (a)(1).]
However, I do not need to reach those matters here. What is clear is that all of the assertions in both documents deal with same basic issues of water supply and water quality. In addition, all of the Commission action requested by Mr. Ledford in either document is also requested by Mr. Ledford in yet another document, his "Complaint CCR Title 20 Section 1231 [sic] To Compel Compliance of the California Energy Commission To Enforce Conditions of Certification in Final Order for 97-AFC-1" (Complaint), which was filed on October 11, 2001.3 (Compare Complaint pp. 9 Ð 10, Request for Investigation pp. 15 Ð 16, and Motion to Show Cause pp. 12 Ð 13.)
Today I am issuing a Notice and Order Establishing Scope of Proceeding and Setting Schedule in Docket Number 97-AFC-1-Complaint-1 (Notice and Order). The Notice and Order on the Complaint, which accompanies the instant Order on the Request and Motion, sets for hearing the issues raised in the Complaint over which the Commission has jurisdiction.4
Mr. Ledford's Complaint and the Notice and Order thereon render the Request for Investigation and the Motion to Show Cause redundant and moot. I therefore dismiss both documents with prejudice. ("With prejudice" means that they may not be refiled with regard to any issue covered by the Notice and Order.)
Dated November 9, 2001 at Sacramento, California.
ENERGY RESOURCES CONSERVATION
AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
William J. Keese
1Mr. Ledford owns the Jess Ranch, which was a party in litigation concerning its and others' rights to pump groundwater out of the Mojave Basin, which is where HDPP is located. (See City of Barstow v. Mojave Water Agency (2000) 23 Cal.4th 1224, 1230 [99 Cal.Rptr.2d 294, 297, 5 P.3d 853, 856].) HDPP will not use Mojave Basin groundwater for its cooling supply; rather, it will use water imported from the State Water Project.
2For example, neither the Request for Investigation nor the Motion to Show Cause contain factual support for their allegations of misfeasance by the HDPP Applicant or by the Commission or its Staff. Moreover, in the Request Mr. Ledford states that the Applicant's alleged misbehavior violates Section 1 of Title 20 of the California Code of Regulations. That section was adopted by and is applicable to the California Public Utilities Commission, not the Energy Commission.
3All of the relief requested by the Motion to Show Cause is also requested not only by the Complaint but also by the Request for Investigation. I therefore treat the Motion to Show Cause as a complaint or a request for investigation under Section 1231.
4The Commission has no jurisdiction to grant some of the relief requested in the Complain, the Request, and the Motion. See the accompanying Notice and Order.
| Back to Main Page | Homepage | Calendar | Directory/Index | Search | Contact Us |