[California Energy Commission Letterhead]  


Energy Resources Conservation
and Development Commission

In the Matter of:
Application for Certification for the
for the Pittsburg District
Energy Facility (PDEF)
Docket No. 98-AFC-1


The Committee designated by the Commission to conduct proceedings in the above-captioned matter, has considered the Petition to Intervene filed by Mr. Brad Foster (Petitioner) and finds:

  1. On June 22, 1999, a Petition to Intervene in the above-captioned proceeding was filed by:

  2. Brad Foster
    3568 O'Banion Road
    Yuba City, CA 95993

  3. 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.

  4. The Applicant has filed opposition to said Petition;

  5. As a cogeneration facility, the PDEF project is exempt from the Notice of Intention requirements;

  6. The Petition contains no assertions of good cause for late filing; and

  7. Petitioner's interests are not relevant to this proceeding for the reasons indicated below.

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 28, 1999, and concluded on June 15, 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 the argument recently asserted by the same Mr. Foster in his "Petition for Reconsideration of the Sutter Decision (Docket No. 97-AFC-2)." In an Order dated June 23, 1999 (Order No. 99-0623-2), the Commission rejected Mr. Foster's view 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 only argument now offered by Mr. Foster as the sole basis for his interest in the Pittsburg District Energy Facility proceeding.

Finally, the Petition to Intervene is not relevant to this proceeding since a cogeneration project is per se exempt from the Notice of Intention requirements. [Pub. Resources Code, § 25540.6(a)].

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, is not relevant to this cogeneration project, and does not state appropriate grounds for intervention. Therefore, the Petition to Intervene filed by Mr. Foster in this matter is DENIED.


Vice Chair
Presiding Member, PDEF Committee

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