|
<br />project No. 4024-001, et al. -11-
<br />
<br />arrangement to obtain an unjustified competitive advantage through
<br />municipal preference and remove them from the competition for a
<br />sufficient period of time such that all interested competitors,
<br />whether or not they previously filed an application. will have a
<br />fair opportunity to come forward with their proposals. Accordingly,
<br />we will dismiss Uncompahgre's license applications on the basis
<br />of municipal preference abuse, and reopen the sites for competition,
<br />processing the applications pursuant to our regulations. ~/
<br />
<br />F. With respect to HDR's appeal ~/ of the denial of late inter-
<br />vention, we believe that such denial was proper and will there-
<br />fore deny HDR's appeal.
<br />
<br />HDR claims that its late petition should have been granted
<br />because it complied with the test articulated in Consolidated Gas
<br />Supply Corp., et al. ~/ As the engineering firm responsible for
<br />preparing Uncompahgre's license applications HDR did not identify
<br />an interest that would persuade us to accommodate its request.
<br />Unlike Energenics, HDR was not a competitor of Uncompahgre in an
<br />earlier permit proceeding. To the extent that HDR has any cogniz-
<br />able interest in this proceeding, that interest is fully represented
<br />by uncompahgre. Pursuant to the standards of our Rule 214, 18 CFR
<br />S385.2l4 (1983), we do not find good cause to grant HDR's request.
<br />
<br />IV. CONCLUSION
<br />
<br />By this decision we are dismissing, because of municipal
<br />preference abuse, the six license applications filed by Uncom-
<br />pahgre for six sites along the South and the Montrose and Delta
<br />Canals in Montrose County, Colorado. By refusing to accept
<br />for filing any application or proposal for development, we are
<br />precluding Uncompahgre and any other participants, including the
<br />City of Montrose, Colorado, who aided uncompahgre in the prepara-
<br />tion of its applications or otherwise assisted in bringing about
<br />this result, from competing in any way for these project sites
<br />for one year. Similarly, by this action, we are reopening the
<br />sites for further competition and will accept and process the
<br />applications in accordance with our regulations.
<br />
<br />Of course, we will favor those applicants who file license
<br />applications. See S4.33(f){1983).
<br />HDR captioned its pleading as a rehearing petition, apparently
<br />believing that the initial denial was a Commission action.
<br />It was not. Therefore, we will treat HDR's pleading as an
<br />appeal.
<br />~/ 19 FERC '161.305 (1982).
<br />
<br />~/
<br />
<br />~I
<br />
<br />project No. 4024-001, et aJ.. -12-
<br />
<br />The Commission orders:
<br />
<br />(A) The petition filed by uncompahgre Valley Hater Users
<br />Association and Montrose Partners on October 21, 1983 is denied.
<br />
<br />(B) The petition filed by Gregory wilcox on October 21,
<br />1983 is denied except to the extent clarification was given
<br />above.
<br />
<br />.
<br />
<br />(C) The "Complaint and Petition to Consolidate Proceedings,"
<br />filed by Energenics Systems, Inc. on October 20, 1983 is denied.
<br />
<br />(D) The petition filed by Henningson, Durham and Richardson,
<br />Inc. on November 28, 1983 is denied.
<br />
<br />(E) The applications for license for Project Nos. 6423,
<br />6424, 6425, 6426, 6427 and 6428, filed by uncompahgre valley
<br />Water Users Association and Montrose Partners are dismissed.
<br />
<br />(F) No application, notice of intent or any other pleading
<br />proposing development of the sites here involved submitted by the
<br />uncompahgre valley Water Users Association, Montrose Partners,
<br />the City of Montrose, Colorado and any participants in the
<br />preparation of the six license applications listed in (E) above
<br />will be accepted for filing for a period of one year from the
<br />issuance date of this order. If any of the sites involved
<br />herein are available for the filing of initial or competing
<br />applications after one year from the issuance date of this
<br />order, applications for any of these sites may be filed by
<br />any of these entities pursuant to the Commission's regulations.,
<br />
<br />(G) The "Notice of ~iithdrawal of Pleadings," filed by
<br />Gregory wilcox on May 4, 1983, is approved.
<br />
<br />.
<br />
<br />(H) The application for permit for Project NO. 6439,
<br />filed by Gregory wilcox on June 17, 1982 is dismissed.
<br />
<br />By the Commission. Commissioner Hughes concurred with a
<br />separate statement attached.
<br />
<br />( SEA L )
<br />
<br />plQ.~
<br />Lois D. Cashell,
<br />Acting Secretary.
<br />
<br />.;
<br />
<br />...
<br />
|