Here is the first installment of the more interesting quotes from the transcripts of the California Energy Commission's business meeting held Wednesday, June 23, 1999 where the Metcalf Energy Center application was voted data adequate.

Here is the transcript of Commissioner Moore addressing the zoning issues related to the Metcalf Energy Center application:

"COMMISSIONER MOORE: Mr. Chairman, I don't have a question, but I do have a comment on this item. This particular Application has the potential to be the most complex of the filings we have done to date, because it involves not just a general plan amendment, a rezone, but also because it involves LAFCO. And if there is an unpredictable entity in this state, LAFCO certainly personifies it.

So one of the things I had hoped we would see at this point is a mock-up, a map of how the different documents were going to be used by the different government agencies. It didn't appear in the data adequacy filing from Staff. I'm disappointed, but I understand the argument that gets made is that technically the law doesn't call for it and so therefore it's not in. That doesn't help my decision-making ability very much at all.

But I would suggest, and I offer this as openly as I can because I think it's working, certainly working in the Derby Acres case, that we avail ourselves of a scoping session at the front end of this to outline -- I'm sorry -- that the Committee avail itself of a scoping session to outline and satisfy itself that they have a clear idea of where the documents are going to go, to what agencies and what is going to be called for, because I think this Committee is going to have to stretch and do some pretty unique work to blend all the different agencies involved.

So I hope the precedent we have established in terms of trying to expand the role of scoping turns out to be a valuable tool for the Committee that is assigned to this and that the cooperation with LAFCO turns out to be beneficial to all of us."

Here is Commissioner Laurie's response to the above comments:

"COMMISSIONER LAURIE: Mr. Chairman, if I may. I certainly share Commissioner Moore's views and concerns about the complexity of the local issues surrounding this submittal. I understand it, although I won't anticipate who the Committee might be that is assigned to hear this case, should I be involved it would certainly be my anticipation that workshops or conferences would be held forthwith to address the issue as a matter of top priority.

We have had some very good lessons learned about addressing local issues. This matter cannot wait. It will be addressed upfront and to the greatest extent possible, and that would certainly be a matter of my top priority.

With that in mind, Mr. Chairman, I would move Staff's recommendation."

Here is Vice Chair Rohy's comments on the issue:

"VICE CHAIR ROHY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will use my regular point here on these cases. I am very upset with any case that comes forward to us that does not have land control prior to us beginning our work on a case. Here is another example where we are going to get involved, we are going to put a lot of resources into it with an uncertain future as to whether land control will actually be achieved.

It is my urging to myself and fellow Members here that we need to change our data adequacy so we do not get into this trap. We have done this before. It cost us and the applicants a lot of time. It is confusing to the public. I would like to see us take the action to correct this issue. Thank you."

The response by Mr. Harris who I believe is one of Calpine's lawyers (the transcript only says he is from Ellison & Schneider)

"MR. HARRIS: Good morning, Mr. Chairman. It's good to be before you today. My name is Jeff Harris. I'm here on behalf of Metcalf.

Just a couple of quick comments. I think Commissioner Moore's comment about a scoping process is a good idea. And the workshops we have used in the past to get through that scoping process have been very helpful.

Just to let you know a little background quickly. Both Calpine and Bechtel are local companies in this case. This is the closest we will get to a home project. Calpine has offices in both San Jose and Pleasanton. So while we have a very high standard to meet with you all, we also have a very high standard to meet with the employees who live in these communities. So we take this very seriously. We understand the local agencies. We are glad Lorraine and Staff have already started working with the local land use agencies. We are very engaged in that process.

And we understand there are issues that need to be worked out. Some of those are communication issues. Some of those are more of a comfort level, and that workshop process will go a long way towards dealing with those issues. So with those comments, we thank the Staff for their hard work on getting us to the data adequacy point."

Although the CEC has the power to overturn any local zoning codes as mentioned in a previous posting, how is the CEC going to resolve the local zoning issues "upfront" when San Jose's zoning changes require a vote of the San Jose City Council that is not scheduled to occur until much later in the process? Hopefully "scoping session" is an open meeting where all members of the public can see how these local zoning issues are going to be resolved. I am concerned though with the comments from Calpine's lawyer where he says they are already "very engaged".

Many of these zoning issues were raised in the CEC Issue Identification Report released yesterday. The document can be found at http://www.energy.ca.gov/sitingcases/metcalf/documents/1999-07-0 9_ISSUES_RPT.PDF

Sincerely,

Steven Nelson