NOTE: which limited hiring of new staff. The reason for the variance between allocation and FTE usage in FY 1983 and FY 1984 is attributed to salary shortage Consultant and Related Services Question: Provide the Committee with a list of the amount requested for consultant and related activities for each program area and a description of the need for the services. Answer: The following list details the Commission's FY 1984 consultant and related services. The Commission's FY 1985 Congressional Budget does not include funds for consultant and related services. Gregory County Pumped-Storage Hydroelectric Power Project Question: The Corps of Engineers has identified in the Gregory County hydropower project what they believe is the most cost-effective means of meeting future increased load factors in our region of the nation. Because of the large scope of the project, however, the cooperation of most of the utilities in the region will be required if the project is to be viable, and the State of South Dakota has attempted to organize the necessary participants. Indeed, the State has filed a preliminary application with FERC to build the project. When do you anticipate FERC will approve or disapprove the State's application? Answer: A public notice of application for a preliminary permit for Project No. 6774 was issued by the Commission on January 25, 1983. The public notice specified the due date of April 1, 1983, for acceptance of comments, protests, motions to intervene, and filing of an application for license. No petitions to intervene were filed in response to the public notice. The public notice also specified a due date of May 1, 1983, for filing of competing preliminary permit applications by interested parties. No competing applications or notices of intent were filed with the Commission. The application is now pending Commission action to determine issuance of the preliminary permit. The application for Project No. 6774 presents a question of Commission jurisdiction that has been raised in several other proceedings involving Bureau of Reclamation facilities. Specifically, the Bureau of Reclamation has challenged the Commission's jurisdiction to issue preliminary permits and licenses for a number of non-federal projects to be located at federal facilities at which some hydroelectric power has been authorized for federal development. Although no similar challenge has been made in this case by the Corps of Engineers, the legal principles in the cases are similar. The Commission's resolution of the Bureau of Reclamation's challenges, therefore, may affect its determination of whether the Commission has jurisdiction to issue a permit or license for Project No. 6774. The Commission resolved the first of the Bureau of Reclamation's challenges in December 1983, when it rejected applications for the Buffalo Bill Project on the ground that the Commission lacked jurisdiction to issue the requested permits and license. Several others are expected to be resolved soon. Based upon this schedule, I anticipate that the Commission will be able to act on the application for Project No. 6774 this Spring. Question: Does FERC believe at this point that the project appears to be needed and justified based only upon the needs of the Federal preference power users and including as much as $100 million in associated multipurpose (irrigation and water supply) features, as provided in Section 701(b)(10) of S. 1739? Answer: At this preliminary phase of studies for the proposed project, there is insufficient information to determine the need for the project. However, a license, if issued, would authorize the Licensee to construct, operate, and maintain a hydroelectric project under Part I of the Federal Power Act. Also, before issuance of a license for the Gregory County Pumped Storage Project, the relationship of the plans of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the scheme of development proposed by the Applicant would be carefully reviewed and investigated and all the conditions of the proposed license would be coordinated with the agencies involved. The need and justification for the project would also be evaluated at that time. Question: The State believes and the President's public pronouncements would tend to indicate that such projects Answer: For a pumped-storage hydroelectric project whose sole purpose is the development of energy, we are aware of no joint Federal and non-Federal funding program that exists. Such a program would likely require special legislation. Question: Are there any cases where "regional preference" applies under existing law, and might not regional preference be in order if in fact the State provides a portion of the construction funding? Answer: There are several cases where "regional preference" applies under existing law. These include the Columbia River basin under the Bonneville Power Administration, and the Niagara Power Project under the authority of the Niagara Redevelopment Act. Customers within the Columbia River basin are granted preference for power generated within the basin over customers outside the basin. Similarly, the Niagara Redevelopment Act gives preference to customers residing within certain eastern states for power generated by the Niagara Project. The Commission has not used ownership or State funding as a determination of preference. Regional preference, in fact, has only been applied by the Commission through Congressional legislation. SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 23 A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION, Memorializing the United States Congress with regard to the authorization and construction of the Gregory County hydroelectric pumped storage facility. WHEREAS, the state of South Dakota has included the Gregory County project as one of the highest priority water projects in the state water plan; and WHEREAS, it is the policy of the state that power generated from hydroelectric projects financed by the state shall, insofar as prudently possible, be made available to all citizens of the state; and WHEREAS, the South Dakota Conservancy District has submitted a preliminary permit application to the United States Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to secure and maintain a priority for a license to construct the Gregory County project; and WHEREAS, the state has the authority and responsibility to develop and allocate its water resources in a manner that best serves the interests and welfare of the public of this state; and WHEREAS, the state is willing to form a new partnership with the federal government for the purpose of constructing the Gregory County project, if the state receives its share of the immediate and direct benefits equal to the value of the development opportunity provided and the state resources utilized for the project; and WHEREAS, successful water development in the state can best be accomplished through federal recognition of the state's right to participate in the planning, development and management of its water resources; and WHEREAS, federal legislation has been introduced, S. 1739, which would deny the state and all South Dakotans the full opportunity to participate in the planning, development, management and allocation of the potential benefits associated with the Gregory County project; and |