Minutes 07/25/1983 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

1.r1? . .. ,i.. wi MONDAY JULY 25, 1983 APCo's plans for additions to the company's generating system and the reflection of these plans on future wholesale power costs to the City. In view of the continuing questions as to project benefit, an obvious alternative was to withdraw the license application and to abandon the project. R. W. Beck's people, however, suggested another possibility-- to pursue with FERC a state of suspension for the application. This idea had the obvious attraction of allowing the City to protect its rights and investment in the project site, while avoiding for awhile the expense of license processing--with hopes that economic factors might change sufficently to make the project more viable. It was understood that securing a suspension could be problematic, since such a request would be contrary to FERC's current "fast track" approach to licensing hydro projects. It was further understood, although not by all the members of the Council, that a two-year sus- pension was perhaps the longest that could be reasonably anticipated. Finally, Beck strongly recommended that there by no formal action taken nor publicity given to the idea of pursuing a suspension until after FERC had officially accepted the license application for processing. This was informally agreed. Our strategy in January was, therefore, two-part, as follows: 1. To preserve the project by eliciting FERC to grant it a status of suspension, at the first and most appropriate date; and 2. To avoid major expense while in pursuit of the suspension. As to the second matter, the Council subsequently authorized a pro- fessional services agreement with Beck, effective February 1, under which to pursue the suspension idea. The limit of this authorization was $15,000. In addition we engaged the services of Fred Ritts, with the Washington law firm of Ely, Ritts, Pietrowski & Brickfield, to work in conjunction with Beck and to handle the legalities of applying for and securing a suspension order from FERC. FERC Acceptance of Application On May 3, FERC formally acknowledged and accepted the Ridgeway license application. True to form, the letter of acceptance in- cluded two new dearllines for submitting additional information necessary to begin processing the application. The first of these deadlines, June 18, was met with little difficulty. The second, September 1, and providing the information required, with- out substantial expense, promises to be more difficult.