<br />.'"
<br />
<br />27 FEl!.CI61.315
<br />
<br />UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
<br />FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION LICENSE
<br />REHEARING
<br />
<br />Before Commissioners: Raymond J. O'Connor, Chairman;
<br />Georgiana sheldon, J, David Hughes,
<br />A. G. Sousa and Oliver G. Richard III.
<br />
<br />Gregory Wilcox Project Nos. 4024-002,
<br />-003 and -004, and
<br />6439-000
<br />
<br />uncompahgre Valley Water Users
<br />Association and Montrose Partners
<br />
<br />Project Nos. 6423-000,
<br />6424-000, 6425-000,
<br />6426-000, 6427-000
<br />and 6428-000
<br />
<br />ORDER DENYING REHEARING
<br />
<br />(Issued June 7, 1984 )
<br />
<br />I. BACKGROUND
<br />
<br />The (Jncomphagn~ Valley Water Users Association and Montrose
<br />Partners (hereinafter "Uncompahgre"), Eoergenics Systems, Inc.
<br />("Eoergenies"), and Gregory Wilcox ("Wilcox") have filed separate
<br />p8titions Eor rehf!aring of the Commission's f'ehruary 2, 1984 order
<br />in this proceeding. 1/ Therein we dismissed, because of municipal
<br />preference abuse, the six license applications filed by Uncompahgre.
<br />We also determined that for one year we would not accept any appli-
<br />cations or development proposals filed by Uncompahgre or any entities
<br />which assisted Uncompahgre for the sites covered by the six dismissed
<br />license applications. We further decided not to reinstate the permit
<br />applications filed by Energenics and Wilcox for certain sites covered
<br />hy Uncompahgre's license applications. 2/ Rather, we found that the
<br />puhl ic interest would be best served by-reopening the si tes for
<br />equal competition by all potential applicants.
<br />
<br />In its petition, Uncompahgre argues that our February 2 order
<br />is invalid because it did not cure the defects that Uncompahgre
<br />had asserted were contained in the Commission's "Order on Abuse of
<br />
<br />y
<br />y
<br />
<br />26 ~~RC ~61,l13 (1984).
<br />
<br />As we noted in our September 21, 1983 Order on Abuse of
<br />r.lunicipal Preference in this proceeding, the permit appli-
<br />cations filed by ~nergenics and Wilcox lost to the permit
<br />application filed by the City of Montrose, based on the
<br />City's municipal preference. 24 FERC. '161,317 (1983).
<br />
<br />DC-A-33
<br />
<br />,...
<br />
<br />.
<br />
<br />
<br />JUL 2 - 1984
<br />
<br />projects Nos. 4024-000, -003,
<br />-004, 6439-000, 6423-000,
<br />6424-000, 6425-000, 6426-000
<br />6427-000 & 6428-000
<br />
<br />COLORADO WATER
<br />CONSERVATION BOARD
<br />
<br />-2-
<br />
<br />MUni?ipa~ Preference." ~/ Uncompahgre further urges that, since
<br />a~Pl~catIon~ have now been filed for the sites covered by its
<br />dIsmIssed lIcense applications, 4/ the Commission should reduce
<br />the sanction peri?d that it imposed so as to allow Uncomp~hg~e to
<br />compete. For theIr part, Energenics and wilcox contest our decision
<br />to reopen the sites for further competition without affording them
<br />some measure of equitable relief from the prejudicial effects of the
<br />arrangement between Uncompahgre and the City of Montrose ("City") .
<br />For the reasons given below, we affirm our February 2 order and .
<br />deny the petitioners the relief requested.
<br />
<br />IT. DISCUSSION
<br />
<br />A. UncompahQre's petition
<br />
<br />. That part of uncompahgre's rehearing petition which merely
<br />Incorporates by reference and elaborates on the arguments against
<br />the Order on Abuse of Municipal Preference which we have previously
<br />addressed and rejected is denied for the reasons stated in our
<br />February 2 order.
<br />
<br />Uncompahgre, while continuing to maintain that our sanction
<br />is punitive and arbitrary, urges us at least to reduce the one-
<br />year sa?ction imposed in our February 2 order, arguing that its
<br />underlYIng purpose has been achieved, as evidenced by the fact
<br />that permit and license applications for the six sites have been
<br />filed ~y a new competitor as well as by the previously unsuccessful
<br />competItors. Uncompahgre asks that it be allowed to file its
<br />license applications on the last day in which the Commission will
<br />
<br />1/ Additionally, Uncompahgre asks that we reconsider our decision
<br />not to accept its settlement offer of December 8, 1983. We .
<br />again reject uncompahgre's request for the reasons noted in
<br />our February 2 order, as well as for the reasons given here.
<br />i/ On January 30, 1984, wilcox filed a permit application (project
<br />No. 8016) for the same site (Shavano Falls) on which he had
<br />previously filed permit applications (project Nos. 4024 and
<br />6439). On February 2, 1984, Energenics filed five permit
<br />applications (project Nos. 8034, 8035, 8037, 8038 and 8039).
<br />two of which covered sites for which it had not previously
<br />filed. Also on February 2, 1984, West Slope Hydro Partners,
<br />Inc. filed six license applications (project Nos. 8022, 8023,
<br />8024, 8025, 8026, and 8027) for the same sites covered by
<br />Uncompahgre's dismissed license applications.
<br />
|