[California Energy Commission Letterhead]


STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Energy Resources
Conservation and Development Commission



  )  
APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATION )  
OF THE ) DOCKET NO. 02-AFC-4
WALNUT ENERGY CENTER )  
BY TURLOCK IRRIGATION DISTRICT )  
__________________________________________ )  

COMMITTEE RULING DENYING PETITION TO INTERVENE


I. BACKGROUND

On March 17, 2003, Enerland, a Limited Liability Corporation, filed a Petition to Intervene and a Financial Hardship Petition in this case. Petitioner alleges an interest in this proceeding, stating that "it has an alternative site."

On April 1, 2003, Applicant filed formal opposition to this request for intervention.


II. DISCUSSION

Section 1207 of our regulations (20 Cal. Code of Regs., § 1207) governs intervention. Section 1207(a) requires a Petitioner to, among other things, set forth the grounds for intervention as well as its position and interest in the proceeding. Section 1207(c) gives the presiding member the discretion to grant leave to intervene to the extent deemed reasonable and relevant.

We are fully aware of, and agree with, the Commission's typical practice of liberally granting leave to intervene to those so requesting. We note, however, that this practice requires that Petitioner, at a minimum, demonstrate a reasonable and relevant interest in the matters at hand. Enerland's Petition fails in this respect.

Enerland's bare suggestion that it has an alternative site is simply too nonspecific; nor does Enerland suggest such site would be within a reasonable range of alternatives to the site proposed by Applicant. The Petition does not identify the alternative site. Moreover, the Petition does not identify the specific nature of Petitioner's interests, or even assert that the "alternative site" would avoid any potential significant environmental impacts

associated with Applicant's proposed site. Furthermore, there is no suggestion as to how using Enerland's site would allow basic project objectives such as serving Applicant's local loads or providing local area reliability to be achieved.

In our opinion, Enerland fails to state a reasonable and relevant interest supporting its Petition to Intervene in this proceeding. We do not believe it is legally necessary or logically desirable to allow intervention which is based on assertions of interest as vague as those presented in this instance.


III. ORDER

The Petition to Intervene is DENIED. Thus, the Petition for Hardship is rendered moot.

 

 

 

Date: _______________________________

ENERGY RESOURCES CONSERVATION
AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION


_____________________________________
JAMES D. BOYD
Commissioner and Presiding Member
Walnut Energy Center Committee


_____________________________________
ARTHUR H. ROSENFELD
Commissioner and Associate Member
Walnut Energy Center Committee






| Project Main Page | Siting Cases Main Page | Commission Homepage | Site Index | Search Site | Links | Contact Us |