STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Energy Resources Conservation
and Development Commission
In the Matter of:
Application for Certification
for the La Paloma Generating Project
Docket No. 98-AFC-2
PETITION TO INTERVENE
The Committee of the Commission, having considered the Petition to Intervene before it, finds:
- On June 22, 1999, a Petition to Intervene in the above-captioned proceeding was filed by:
3568 O'Banion Road
Yuba City, CA 95993
- The Petition states the extent to which Petitioner desires to participate, and indicates that he desires to represent himself in the proceedings. In addition, Petitioner states that he:
...has an interest in the proceeding in that the Commission's certification process does not comply with the substantive requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, by failing to produce either a traditional Environmental Impact Report (EIR) or its substantive equivalent, or by failing to conduct an [sic] Notice of Intent proceeding.
- The Applicant has filed opposition to said Petition; and
- The Petition contains no assertions of good cause for late filing.
Section 1207 (b) of the Commission's regulations [Cal. Code of Regs., tit. 20, § 1207(b)] states that a Petition to Intervene in a power plant siting case must be filed "...at least 30 days prior to the first hearing...". Petitions filed after this time may be granted only upon a showing of "good cause" by the Petitioner. [Cal. Code of Regs., tit. 20, § 1207(c)].
Evidentiary hearings pursuant to section 1748 [Cal. Code of Regs., tit. 20, § 1748] commenced in the present case on April 21, 1999, and concluded on June 29, 1999. Petitioner filed his Petition to Intervene on June 22, 1999. On its face, therefore, the petition is untimely; moreover, Petitioner has not alleged any "good cause" for such late filing.
Furthermore, Petitioner's stated interest (quoted in Item 2, above) echoes that recently raised in the "Petition for Reconsideration of the Sutter Decision (Docket No. 97-AFC-2)." In its Order dated June 23, 1999 (Order No. 99-0623-2), the Commission rejected the argument that the Commission's power plant certification process does not comply with current law because it fails to either produce an environmental impact report or conduct a Notice of Intent proceeding. This is essentially the same argument now offered by Mr. Foster as the sole basis for his interest in the La Paloma case.
Based upon the facts before us, we conclude that the Petition was not filed in a timely manner, does not establish good cause for late filing, and does not state appropriate grounds for intervention. Therefore, the Petition to Intervene in this matter is denied.
Date On-line: July 9, 1999 ENERGY RESOURCES CONSERVATION
AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
ROBERT A. LAURIE,
DAVID A. ROHY, Ph.D.,
| Back to Notices Page | Homepage | Calendar | Directory/Index | Search |