Laserfiche WebLink
<br />federal projects, and currently does so based upon power repayment studies conducted <br /> <br />by PMA's, FERC has the final authority to approve the rates. This authority was <br />delegated to FERC by the Secretary of DOE in the case of four PMA's (Delegation <br />Order No. 0204-33), and given to FERC by Congress in the case of the Bonneville <br />Power Administration through the provisions of the Northwest Power Act (16 U.S.C. <br /> <br />839-839h, Supp. V 1981). <br /> <br />FERC has stated that its role in reviewing and approving or disapproving PMA <br /> <br />rates set by the Secretary of Energy: <br /> <br />. . . ultimately could be viewed as in the nature of an <br />appeHate court, deciding whether proposed rates have a <br />rational basis and are consistent with statutory requirements <br />(Federal ReRister, Vol. 48, No. 207, October 25, 1983, <br />p. 49301). <br /> <br />Proponents of the ultimate development concept maintain that FERC has no <br /> <br />right to second guess Congress, the Department of the Interior and its Bureau of <br /> <br /> <br />Reclamation regarding whether an entire project (the ultimate development) is or is <br /> <br />not a "rational basis" for setting power rates (Weinberg, 1983). In a letter to this <br /> <br /> <br />effect, then Bureau of Reclamation Commissioner Robert Broadbent stated in part: <br /> <br />We do not believe tha t the Departmen t of the In ter ior is <br />required to prove to the satisfaction of FERC that the <br />projects authorized by Congress and scheduled by the <br />Secretary of the Interior will be built in order to have the <br />required funds included in the power ra te. This would <br />subject the program of the Secretary of the Interior to <br />oversight by the FERC. If Congress intended such an <br />oversight function over the development of water projects <br />authorized as part of the Colorado River Storage Project, it <br />would have clearly expressed its intent. Congress alone must <br />express that intent, as the Secretary of Energy has no <br />au thor ity to oversee the Secretary of the Interior's water <br />resources development program (Weinberg, 1983, pp. 14-15). <br /> <br />This issue of jurisdiction has yet to be resolved. In its notice of proposed <br /> <br />rulemakinR of October 25, 1983, fERC stated: <br /> <br />-12- <br />