Laserfiche WebLink
<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 />