On September 3, 1999 the CEC Staff issued a status report to the Commissioners describing their concerns with the review of the application for certification for the proposed Metcalf Energy Center. Some quotes from the report:

"We are very concerned about the applicant's delayed responses to data requests and potential changes in the site configuration and linear routes for the proposed MEC. Because of our extreme workload, staff will not be able to provide a quality product according to the Committee's schedule if the data responses are delayed and if the project is significantly modified or if staff is asked to evaluate multiple project configurations. We also urge the Committee to hold a meeting to discuss the issues on the project as soon as possible."

"The applicant has also informed staff that an AFC supplement will be filed no earlier than October 1, 1999. According to the applicant, the supplement will describe an alternate site configuration and visual treatment, as well as identify additional linear routes they want the Energy Commission to consider. As a result of re-configuring the site, all the air quality modeling has to be redone and new data submitted. Staff has several concerns about the delay in obtaining responses to its data requests and the potential for the supplement to constitute a significant change to the AFC."

"Originally, the Committee was going to hold an Issues and Scoping Hearing to provide guidance to parties in this case. Staff, in its Issues Identification Report, suggested that the Committee hold this hearing no later than August 31, 1999, to ensure parties adequate time to properly analyze the issues the Committee determines to be relevant to this proposal. To date no such hearing has been scheduled. Staff is concerned that: 1) without such a hearing, the Committee will not be aware of the magnitude of issues and concerns surrounding this proposal; and 2) the parties will not be given guidance on the scope or depth of analysis desired by the Committee to prepare its Presiding Member's Proposed Decision."

"The BAAQMD, under its Rule 2-3-403, is required to submit a preliminary determination of compliance (PDOC) with the District's rules and regulations 180 days after the District deems the application as complete. As identified in the Committee's scheduling order, the PDOC is expected to be filed with the Commission by October 25, 1999. However, BAAQMD has informed staff that it is very unlikely that it will meet this date given that the second modeling analysis to be contained in the AFC supplement will be much more complex than the existing analysis because it will contain an increments analysis for PM10 and NOx. Depending on how long the PDOC is delayed, staff may not be able to reflect it in its PSA."

"Staff continues to refine its proposed memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the City of San Jose. Energy Commission and City staffs expect to finalize the MOU by the end of September."

This status report makes it clear the City of San Jose must take responsibility for the environmental review of this project since the CEC is under tremendous pressure to quickly come to a conclusion.

The document can be found at
http://www.energy.ca.gov/sitingcases/metcalf/documents/ 1999-09-08_STATUS_REPORT_01.PDF