[California Energy Commission Letterhead]


BEFORE THE
ENERGY RESOURCES CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA





IN THE MATTER OF:                       )     DOCKET NO. 99-AFC-5
                                        )
APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATION FOR THE   )     ORDER NO. 01-0530-27
OTAY MESA GENERATING PROJECT            )
(PG&E NATIONAL ENERGY GROUP)            )
________________________________________)


ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION

Intervenor Save Our Bay, Inc. filed a timely Petition for Reconsideration of the Decision in this matter. On May 30, 2001, we conducted a public hearing at which Mr. William Claycomb, representing Save Our Bay, presented argument on the petition. Upon review of the petition, we find and conclude that none of IntervenorŐs assertions present issues of law or fact that would warrant reconsideration of the Decision. (Cal. Code Regs., title 20, section 1720.)

Specifically, the petition asserts:

  1. The Decision does not cite a study on photovoltaic research mentioned by Intervenor in its Petition to Reopen the Record;
  2. The finding that "coordination of locations and interconnections for the large number of rooftop facilities that could achieve 500 MW is beyond the scope of this proceeding" is in error;
  3. The Decision does not explain why the deployment of photovoltaic panels is economically infeasible; and
  4. The Decision does not acknowledge that project emissions of CO2 will increase the severity of global warming.

The studies cited by Intervenor were not submitted into the record nor were they authenticated by expert testimony. Further, the studies are irrelevant to the Otay Mesa Project, which is a gas-fired power plant located on one site. The alternatives discussion in the Decision considered evidence presented by expert witnesses regarding photovoltaic research and concluded that photovoltaic panels would not feasibly achieve the goals of the Otay Mesa project. With respect to CO2 and global warming, the Intervenor presented evidence and cross-examined witnesses on this issue throughout the proceeding. There is no new evidence proffered by the Intervenor that would change the findings and conclusions contained in the Decision.

The petition for reconsideration is DENIED.

Dated May 30, 2001, at Sacramento, California.

WILLIAM J. KEESE
Chairman
MICHAL C. MOORE
Commissioner
ROBERT A. LAURIE
Commissioner
ROBERT PERNELL
Commissioner
ARTHUR H. ROSENFELD
Commissioner



| Back to Main Page | Homepage | Calendar | Directory/Index | Search |