|
<br />l.
<br />
<br />162
<br />
<br />PUBLIC LAND LAW REVIEW
<br />
<br />[Vol. 15
<br />
<br />19941
<br />
<br />GRAND CANYON PROTECTION ACT
<br />
<br />163
<br />
<br />L
<br />
<br />management will end up being a focal point of section 1809 review, despite
<br />the lack of a firm mandate. If some aspect of the collaborative decision
<br />process is successfully implemented, conservation techniques may playa
<br />substantial role in providing additional capacity in the Southwestyn.
<br />Additionally, Western is attempting to increase capacity through
<br />improvements in customer efficiency. Theagency is establishing an Energy
<br />Planning and Management Program with two primary objectives,184 The
<br />first objective is to "provide greater stability in planning for future
<br />resources through extension of a major portion of existing hydropower
<br />commitments."185 The second objective is to "encourage customers to use
<br />electrical energy efficiently; and, promote full and open consideration. . . of
<br />[demand-side management} alternatives and supply-side alternatives
<br />including renewable resources. "let Because of the significant environmen-
<br />tal and economic issues involved, Western is preparing an EIS for the
<br />program, a draft of which was made available in March 1994.181 The
<br />preferred alternative for the program would extend commitments of
<br />federal energy resources by anywhere from ten to thirty-five years, but
<br />would also require integrated resource planning by all customers.188 The
<br />program waS validated by the Energy Policy Act of 1992.189 which requires
<br />a number of items already in Western's program, including integrated
<br />resource planning by the agency's customers. UN) The Energy Planning and
<br />Management Program not only stands on its own, but is touted as an
<br />integral part of the Salt Lake City Area/Integrated Projects Electric
<br />Power Marketing EIS!91
<br />Finally, as would be expected, advances in technology may further
<br />power system efficiency and assist in minimizing the impact of changed
<br />
<br />operations at Glen Canyon Dam. Western hopes to provide technical
<br />assistance and technology transfer services to utilities as part of its
<br />Conservation and Renewable Energy Program.ltl Apparently the agency
<br />has had some success, as Western and Siemens Energy and Automation
<br />Inc. of Germany recently unveiled new computer technology that can
<br />increase the capacity of high-voltage power lines by up to one-third.193The
<br />ultimate result could be more flexibility in reallocating power flows, thus
<br />reducing the need for more power plants by allowing electric power to be
<br />swapped among distant regions.194
<br />Although the GCP A does not follow \he model legislative criteria for
<br />promoting efficiency, its reprioritization of values may be enough to further
<br />such a goal. An express mandate for demand-side management considera-
<br />tion may have been preferred, but it may be enough just to provide for
<br />broad-based participation in the decision~making process for replacement
<br />power. The resulting policies implemented in the GCPA's wake will
<br />indicate whether the notion of efficiency in natural resource use is an
<br />.accepted theory.
<br />
<br />,
<br />"
<br />
<br />'"
<br />
<br />18). Susupranates 154-58 and accompanying te:lt.
<br />184. WESTERN AREA POWER ADMINISTRATION, PROPOSED ENERGY PUNNING MANAGEMENT
<br />PROGRAM 3 (May 1991) [hereinl.lfler PROPOSED El'IERGY Pu..NNt~ PROC-p....Mj. The program is thIS
<br />latest element in a process to influence energy use among Western's customers. In the early 1980's.
<br />Western implemented a contract article n:quiring long-term firm power customers to develop a
<br />conservation and. renewabl.ee\'lergyprogr:l.m. Legislation reinforcing the program was enacted in Title
<br />II of the Hoover Power Plant Actof 1984,Pub. L. No. 98.381, 98Stat. 1333. 1340-42 (1984) (codified
<br />as amended in scattered sections of 43 US.C.).
<br />185. PROPOSED ENERGY PUNNING PROGRAM, supra note 184, at 3.
<br />186. fd.
<br />ts? WE~"{ERN AREA POWER A:DMINISTRATION, ENERGY PUNNING AND MANAGEMENT
<br />UPDATE (Mar. 1994).
<br />188. !d. "Integrated Resource Planning is a process where supply and demand side re:sour<:<:
<br />optionsareevaluatedtogethertodeterminehowloservetheelectricltyneedsofconsumersatthelowest
<br />reasonable cost." PROPOSED EmRGY PUNNING PROGRAM, supra note 184. at 8.
<br />] 89. Energy Policy Act, Pub. L No. 102.486, S t 14, 106 Stat. 21'16 (1992).
<br />190. Id. i 114,QJ7ZeMed by 42 US.C. S 7216 (Supp. 1993). Seta/so WESTERN ARE" Pawn
<br />AOMlsrSTR"T10N. ENERGY PUNNING ~ND M~NAGEMENT UPDATE (Nov. 1992).
<br />19L See 5Ilplanole9().
<br />
<br />VI. CONCLUSION
<br />
<br />The implications of the Grand Canyon Protection Act are two-fold.
<br />First and foremost is the preservation of the Grand Canyon, one of the
<br />crown jewels in the National Park System. Second is a continued
<br />movement toward efficiency in resource use and development. The QveraU
<br />goal is to restore an equilibrium between humans and nature. Too often,
<br />such restoration is attempted only after the balance has long been lost.
<br />In preserving the Grand Canyon, it is important to realize that the
<br />ecosystem has been forever altered by the construction of Glen Canyon
<br />Dam. A ....new.. river was created by the dam, one wi:fl. cold, clear water arid
<br />a new capacity for biological productivity.196 Not all of the changes have
<br />been bad,tet and it is impossible for resource managers to try and recreate
<br />the pre-dam environment.l9'l' Doing so would seem to be a gross over-
<br />
<br />]92. PROPOSED ENERGY PUNNlNG P!tOOttJ.,M, sUp1G l\Qle 184, a1 10. Su also 42 U.S.CA.
<br />S '12763 (1988 & Supp. IV 1992).
<br />. ]93. St~e Hinchman, Pow~r: A Nrw El~ctric Powu T<<hnofogy Could H~lp Gratld CanyOll.
<br />'Salmon, HIGH COUNTRY NEWS. Oct. 19, 1992, at I. ~
<br />194_ /d.
<br />]95. C"ROTHERS & BROWN, Slll"a note 29. at lC).tl.
<br />196. One example of positive change is the creation of a highly pri:ted trout fishery which wOtlld
<br />not have been possible before the dam was in place. C"ROTllERS & BROWN. SUp1(1 note 29.al 10.11.
<br />197. One proposal that has been discussed. however, is the possibility of taking the heated
<br />effluent from acarby Navajo Generating Station. and discharging it into the Colorado River below
<br />Glen Canyon Dam to compensate for the cold water dischatge which preseDlly occurs. Presumably.
<br />thisma,. assist theresUlration of native fish species. Meeting with L.D.Shakespeare & Mike Outlaw,
<br />Salt River Project, Nayajo Generating StatiOn (Mar. 25.1993).
<br />
<br />\
<br />
<br />.:: ',,; ,t,~"
<br />,'~::1~;'3f",
<br />"",t", "\.",
<br />
<br />
|