FLOOD06374 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

.#lIT' 27 !'E&Cl61.8111 UNITED STATES OF ~MERICA FEDP.RAL ENERGY REGllLATORY COMMISSION LICENSE REHEARING Before Com~issioners: Raymond J. O'Connor, Chairman; Georgiana Sheldon, J. David Hughes, A. G. Sousa and Oliver G. Richard III. Gregory wilcox Project Nos. 4024-002. -003 and -004, and 6439-000 Uncompahgre Valley Water Users Association and Montrose Partners Project Nos. 6423-000, 6424-000, 6425-000, 6426-000, 6427-000 and 6428-000 ORDER DENYING REHEARING (Issued June 7, 1984 ) I. BACKGROUND The Uncomphagre Valley Water Users A.ssociation and Montrose Partners (hereinafter' "uncompahgre"), Energenies System!';, Inc. ("Bnergenies"), and Gregory wilcox ("Wilcox") have fi led separate petitions for rehearing of the Co~mission's Fehruary 2, 1984 order in this proceeding. 1/ Therein we dismissed, because of municipal preference abuse, the six license applications filed by Uncompahgre. We also determined that for one year we would not accept any appli- cation!'> or devl~lopment proposals filed by Uncompahgre or any entities which assisted Uncompahgre for the sites covered by the six dismissed license applications. We further decided not to reinstate the permit applications filed by Energenics and wilcox for certain sites covered by Uncompahgre's license applications. 2/ Rather, we found that the pUl)lic interest would be best served by-reopening the sites for equal competition by all potential applicants. In its petition, Uncompahgre argues that our February 2 order is invalid because it did not cure the defects that uncompahgre had asserted were contained in the Commission's "Order on Abuse of y y 26 PERC ~61,113 (1984). As we noted in our ~eptember 21, 1983 Order on Abuse of r"lunicipal Preference in this proceeding, the permit appli- cations filed by Energenies and wilcox lost to the permit application filed by the City of Montrose, based on the City's municipal preference. 24 FERC" 1161,317 (1983). DC-A-33 :~ @1ffi~\W f? JUN 18 1984 projects Nos. 4024-000, -003, -004, 6439-000, 6423-000, 6424-000, 6425-000, 6426-000 6427-000 & 6428-000 COLORADO WATER CONSERVATION BOARD -2- Muni~ipa~ Preference.U ~/ uncompahgre further urges that, since a~pl~catlon7 have now been filed for the sites covered by its dlsmlssed llcense applications, 4/ the Commission should reduce the sanction period that it imposed so as to allow Uncompahgre to compete. For their part, Energenics and Wilcox contest our decision to reopen the sites for further competition without affording them some measure of equitable relief from the prejudicial effects of the arrangement betwe:n uncompahgre and the City of Montrose ("City"). . For the reasons glven below, we affirm our February 2 order and deny the petitioners the relief requested. II. DISCUSSION A. Uncompahgre's Petition . That part of uncompahgre's rehearing petition which merely lncorporates by reference and elaborates on the arguments against the Order on Abuse of Municipal Preference which we have previously addreSSed and rejected is denied for the reasons stated in our February 2 order. uncompahgre, while continuing to maintain that our sanction is punitive and arbitrary, urges us at least to reduce the one- year sa~ction imposed in our February 2 order, arguing that its underlYlng purpose has been achieved, as evidenced by the fact that permit and license applications for the six sites have been filed ~y a new competitor as well as by the previously unsuccessful competltors. Uncompahgre asks that it be allowed to file its license applications on the last day in which the Commission will ~/ Additionally, uncompahgre asks that we reconsider our decision not to accept its settlement offer of December 8, 1983. We again reject uncompahgre's request for the reasons noted in our February 2 order, as well as for the reasons given here. !/ On January 30, 1984, Wilcox filed a permit application (project No. 8016) for the same site (Shavano Falls) on which he had previously filed permit applications (project Nos. 4024 and 6439). On February 2, 1984, Energenics filed five permit applications (project Nos. 8034, 8035, 8037, 8038 and 8039), two of which covered sites for which it had not previously filed.. Also on February 2, 1984, West Slope Hydro Partners, Inc. flIed six license applications (project Nos. 8022, 8023, 8024, 8025, 8026, and 8027) for the same sites covered by Uncompahgre's dismissed license applications. .