FERC denies New Energy's request for rehearing

On April 30th, 2013, New Energy Capital LLC (a New Hampshire investment firm) filed a motion for late intervention in APGI's Yadkin Project (as well as a motion to reopen and restart the licensing process) with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC).

On May 30th, FERC's Secretary denied New Energy's motion for late intervention, finding that the events identified by New Energy were not sufficient to show good cause for intervening late.  (Very very late)

On June 27th, New Energy filed a request for rehearing of the notice denying its late motion to intervene.

Earlier today, FECR issued a nine-page Order denying New Energy's request for rehearing:  http://elibrary.FERC.gov/idmws/file_list.asp?accession_num=20130919... 

There are several particularly informative points in the FERC Order.

"First, it has been the Commission’s practice since the issuance of licenses began in 1920 to leave disposition of project power in the hands of the licensee unless Congress has made a legislative directive to the contrary, which has not occurred here. Accordingly, Alcoa Power’s decision as to where to sell project power is not a relevant issue in the relicensing proceeding and could not provide good cause for intervention at any time, let alone late. Further, New Energy has not shown that it has any cognizable interest in Alcoa Power’s sale of project power, and it accordingly lacks standing to raise the matter."

Secondly, "under section 16.9(b)(3) of the Commission’s regulations, the Commission will reissue a public notice of the application and provide an opportunity for intervention if an applicant materially amends its application. Section 4.35(f) of the Commission’s regulations defines a material amendment as one that results in “any fundamental and significant change” to an applicant’s plans of development. Such a fundamental and significant change includes, but is not limited to: (1) a change in installed capacity, or the number or location of any generating units, if the change would significantly modify the flow regime associated with the project; (2) a material change to the location, size, or composition of the dam, the location of the powerhouse, or the size and elevation of the reservoir if the change would enlarge, reduce, or relocate the area of the body of water that would lie between the upper end of the proposed impoundment and the point of discharge from the powerhouse or cause adverse environmental impacts not previously addressed in the application; (3) a change of the number of discrete units of development to be included in the project boundary. As the Commission explained in Erie Boulevard Hydropower, L.P., changes that would be considered material are those that “are of such a fundamental nature as to constitute the proposal of a different project.” "

I think that puts an end to that argument.

Views: 249

Tags: Alcoa, FERC, New Energy, Yadkin Project, relicensing

Comment by Whigkid on January 25, 2014 at 4:42pm

Well, seems it only puts an end to that argument from people who listen, and who are not argumentative by nature.  :-)    On December 12, 2013, New Energy filed a lawsuit against FERC in the Washington DC US Court of Appeals asking for a review of FERC's decision.  Seems to me it's so obvious any 3-year old would agree with it, but that's just me.  As far as I'm concerned, New Energy is trying to interfere with matters that have nothing to do with them, and which they don't understand.

On January 21st New Energy filed a "Supplement" with FERC.  Some update on events, but mostly the kind of thing you think of later and say to yourself "what I should have said was ......"

New Energy is going to be a pain in the you know what.  Maybe a pimple would be a better analogy.  Roger already has an intervener who could bring up anything he wants brought up (Central Park), so I don't see why he thinks he needs another one.

BTW, whatever happened to AltaGas?  They sure came and went quickly.

Comment by flowerchild on March 3, 2015 at 5:27pm

Today, March 3, 2015, FERC issued a notice denying New Energy's motion to reopen the record (relicensing process) because only interveners can make motions, and New Energy is not an intervener.  (FERC had previously denied their request for very very late intervention.)  FERC really doesn't like to 'splain stuff.

http://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/common/OpenNat.asp?fileID=13792376

Comment

You need to be a member of Yadkin Voices & Views to add comments!

Join Yadkin Voices & Views

The Yadkin River's Online Community

JOIN THE CONVERSATION!

News, views, and tidbits about:

  • Alcoa relicensing issues (Alcoa Yadkin, Yadkin Riverkeeper, Central Park NC, Uwharrie Regional Resources Commission, Stanly County officials and elections)
  • Environment & Conservation
  • Events
  • Recreation
  • Fishing & Hunting
  • Bird watching
  • Wildlife
  • Scenic vistas
  • Art & Photography
  • History
  • and anything  else of interest!

 For more information, please read the About page. 

follow us on twitter and facebook
 

Events

ARCHIVED POSTS

Click on the "BLOGS" tab to see all Blog posts.

Politics

Look who's paying for Pat McCrory's campaign!

NC Division of Water Quality issues 401 Water Certification to Alcoa

Clean sweep for Alcoa against McCrory administration in court

So Much for that River of Opportunity!

Judge asks "Why isn't this like some banaba republic that confiscates property?"

State Board of Elections refers Hartsell campaign finance case to prosecutors

State loses second Alcoa lawsuit

Judge nixes State claim

Three Updates

Dean Naujoks sails into the sunset

Keith Crisco loses primary bid for U.S. House

Former Cabarrus County Clerk of Court Challenges Fletcher Hartsell in District 36

Alcoa remains committeed to the community

Judge throws McCrory lawsuit for a loop

NC Wildlife shoots itself in both kneecaps

FERC denies New Energy's request for rehearing

McCrory's DENR has double-standard

Non-existent URRC acting like nothing's changed

NC Dept. of Administration files suit to have Alcoa riverbed declared state property

URRC:  A legacy of Big Bad Government stains the State's history of freedom

Uwharrie Regional Resources Commission (URRC) dissolved

Mud-slinging as strategy

News Flash:  FERC denies New Energy Capital motion for late intervention

Beating a Dead Horse - Revisited

Stanly County ends dispute with Alcoa

The Masked Marvel Strikes Again!

Stanly County and Alcoa close to settlement

THE ALCOA DRAMA CONTINUES.....

Davidson County signs Alcoa Relicensing Settlement Agreement

$120,000 Geyser of Opportunity (for attention)

Hartsell faces accusations of profiting illegally on two fronts

Davidson Commission support Alcoa relicensing agreement

Political changes

Vote Ascuitto and Lisk Stanly County Commission

MORE STANLY COUNTY LEGAL EXPENSE ON THE ALCOA DISPUTE

Judge approves Alcoa motion to dismiss

Stanly County's KEYSTONE KOMMISSIONERS

Alcoa to seek NEW Water Quality Permit

MORE LEGAL EXPENSE ON ALCOA -- STANLY COUNTY BUDGET

Ascuitto ad runs in Sunday SNAP

Questions for the anti Alcoa Leaders and County Commissioners to answer

Of all the unmitigated gall

Two Stanly Commissioners Break Ranks

STANLY COUNTY BUDGET & "THE LETTER"

MORE STANLY COUNTY MYSTERY....

BANK OF STANLY

PROPOSED STANLY COUNTY BUDGET -- ALCOA & STANLY COMMUNITY COLLEGE

SOME THOUGHTS WHILE REVIEWING THE STANLY COUNTY BUDGET

STANLY COUNTY BUDGET ~~ Schools Loose Again Next Year, ALCOA Dispute Climbs Again This Year

Another mysterious Stanly County Committee

WHAT A POOR JUSTIFICATION IN A LETTER TO THE STANLY NEWS AND PRESS ON THE STANLY COUNTY COMMISSIONERS $5+ MILLION LOCAL TAX DOLLARS DISPUTE WITH ALCOA & MY RESPONSE

Letters to the Editor 5/24/12

Transparency: Alcoa vs. Stanly County

SALISBURY POST ON ALCOA AND STANLY COUNTY

Who is the NC Water Rights Committee - REALLY?

Money and Influence behind the Takeover Campaign

Incumbent Stanly Commissioners in primary faceoff over Alcoa

Stanly County jobs left knocking at the (closed) door

Stanly County & ALCOA

STANLY COUNTY TAX FUNDS SPENT BY THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ON THE ALCOA DISPUTE

"LET'S EXPLAIN THE FACTS RIGHT" not "LET'S GET THE FACTS RIGHT"

Split decision in Stanly County

Bingham primary challengers favor relicensing Alcoa

This 'n' that

Big Bad Government no matter how you look at it

© 2017   Created by Arielle Chastain.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service