FLOOD06374 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

- .'-..,-" Project Nos. 4024-002. et a1. -5- We reject wilcox' claim that he is entitled to the permit under our City of Redford decision. In that proceeding, after. rescinding the permit issued to the originally successful appll~ cant, we issued a permit to the next-in-line applicant, concludlng that the existence of a timely appeal had kept the permit proceeding open pending a final decision by the Commission. Here, however, the permit issued to the City had become final; no appeal or re- hearing petition was pending in this proceeding when Uncompahgre's applications were subsequently dismissed. ~/ Thus, wilcox's reliance on the City of Bedford decision is misplaced. As to Wilcox's request for 12U days to file a license application before competition is reopened, we deem it neither appropriate nor necessary to further delay the solicitation of development proposals for the sites on the basis of his statement that he intends to file a license application. Should wilcox actually file a license application, we will at that time entertain his re4uest for a waiver of the first-to-file rule or for any other equitable considerations he may wish to raise. The Commission orders: (A) The request for rehearing of Uncompahgre Vall~y Water Users Association and Montrose Partners, filed March 5, 1984, is denied. (A) The petition for rehearing filed by Energenics Systems Inc. on March 2, 1984, is denied. (e) The royuest for rehearing filed by Gregory wilcox on March 2, 1984, is denied. ~y tho Com~ission. Commissioner Hughns concurred in part and dis- sented in part with a separate statement at- tached. ( S Po A L ) ~=t. .fL..Pr Kenneth F. Plumb, Secretary. 12/ As noted in our earlier order, wilcox had appealed the decision by the Director, Office of Electric Power Regulation, issuing the permit to the City. The Commission rejected the appeal and wilcox's subsequent rehearing petition. While Wilcox petitioned the u.S. Circuit Court of Appenls for,the Dist:ict of Columhia for revi~w of our orders, he later w~thdrew h18 appeal. (See, 24 FERC ~61,317 at p. 61,681 (1983)). r , ~ ~' <' .~ Uncompahgre Valley Water Users Association and Montrose Partners Docket No. P-6423 et a!. {Issued June 7, 1984} HUGHES, COMMISSIONER, concurrinq in ~ dissentinq in part: When we adopted our February 2, 1984, oroer in this matter. I voiced misgivings about the sanctions we imposed on Uncompahgre and its associated parties. Continueo reflection has not allayed these qualms. Uncompahgre continues to argue, and with some merit, that it has not been treated fairly in the course of these proceedings. Beyond that lies the question whether the Commission's action is more punitive than remedial in character, and whether the penalty has consequences for the licensing program well beyond the con- fines of this case. . The Commission's choice of sanctions was made with explicit recourse to equitable considerations. 26 FERC 11 61,113 at 61,276. Uncompahgre argues that equitable powers should be exercised for remedial, not punitive, purposes, citing Hodqson v. First Federal Savinqs i Loan Association, 455 F.2d 818, 826 (5th Cir. 1972); SEC v. JiB Industries, Inc., 388 F. Supp. 1082,1084 (n. Mass. 1974J; and SEC v. Computronic Industries Corp. 294 F. Supp. 1136, 1138 (N. D. TeX. 1968). This sanction, of course, has multiple effects. It attempts to recreate the competition that would have occurred at these sites absent the objectionable filings. It also aims at depriving Uncompahgre of any unfair advantage or gain. A third purpose is deterrence of like abuses by other entities. Uncompahgre's argument is that such deterence can only be effec- tiVe by making a punitive example of Uncompahgre. The example is a sure deterent only if it deprives Uncompahgre of any advantage or gain, whether fairly or unfairly obtained. Yet we might have achieved the ends of effective deterrence had we stopped at the purely remedial step eliminating the unfair advantage, but allowing Uncompahgre to take advantage of the information fairly obtained. . These points stand out in tracing the procedure the Com- mission has created. Other private parties have filed permit and license applications for the sites involved. The license applications for the sites will be evaluated by staff. If a license application is found acceptable. the ComMission will establish a deadline for filing competing applications. The permit applicants and any other interested developers, public or private, may file competing license applications, except uncompahgre and its sympathizers. Those entities are barred