WSP12154 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

OD32:8 While the Commission historically has not substituted its policy judgement for those of the PMA administrators and DOE, the Commission has some concern that certain PMA practices may not have been adequately explained and supported in a rational basis and may, in some instances, even conflict with statutory standards. . . . the Commission is . . . reexamining whether a PRS is the best, or even an adequate, method of determining whether the rates will adequately pay back the federal investment (Federal Rel?;ister, Vol. 48, No. 207, October 25, 1983, pp. 49302-49303). With respect to the jurisdictional argument, former Interior Department Solicitor Weinberg has st~ted: If in any given case it is considered by either power users or irrigation users that the Bureau of Reclamation has inappropriately either included or excluded future authorized irrigation developments from the basis for payout studies, the officials with whom those matters should be taken up are the Commissioner of Reclamation and the Secretary of the Interior, not the Secretary of Energy or the members of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. If a power or water user group is unable to obtain what it considers to be a satisfactory determination from the Commissioner and the Secretary, then, I suggest, the proper forums for review are the Congress or the courts. In sum, I believe that the ultimate question about the ultimate development concept comes down to whether the Secretary of the Interior and the Congress, subject to judicial review in proper cases, have the final say on what is and what is not a part of a reclamation project and when it is to be developed (Weinberg, 1983, pp. 16-17). On December 14, 1983, Secretary of Energy Donald Hodel issued Delegation Order No. 0204-108 revising various authorities for developing, confirming, and approving PMA power rates (Federal Rel?;ister, Vol. 48, No. 241, December 14, 1983, p. 55664). The order, which was generally well received by proponents of the ultimate development concept, stated that while FERC retained the authority to " . . . confirm, approve, and place in effect on a final basis, to remand, or to disapprove, rates developed by each (PMA) Administrator," it specifically" . . . shall not review policy judgements and interpretations of laws and regulations made by the power -13-