Opinion ID: 675684
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Contents of the Permit Application

Text: 24 The petitioners here contend that the Commission's licensing regulations require an applicant to identify a viable water source for its proposed hydroelectric project, that Eagle Mountain failed to do so, and that the Commission's grant of a preliminary permit was therefore arbitrary and capricious. The FERC's regulations governing the preliminary permit process are not as specific as the petitioners imply, however. The regulations, which were obviously drafted with a conventional hydroelectric (as opposed to pumped storage) project in mind, require only that a permit applicant, as part of its statement of the location of the proposed project, identify the [s]tream or other body of water involved, 18 C.F.R. Sec. 4.81(a)(2), and provide a map that shows [t]he location of the proposed project as a whole with reference to the affected stream or other body of water. Id. Sec. 4.81(e)(1). 25 In the decision under review, the Commission explained how it applies these regulations to an application for a preliminary permit for a pumped storage project: 26 In Russell Canyon Corporation, 58 FERC p 61,288 (1992), we noted in regard to pumped storage projects that, once the reservoirs have been supplied with water, they operate essentially as a closed system. Therefore, unlike proposals involving typical hydropower projects harnessing the water power of streamflow, proposals for pumped storage projects may involve competition primarily for the reservoir sites rather than for the water resource to be developed. 27 62 F.E.R.C. p 61,066 at 61,321. With this understanding of the nature of a pumped storage project, the Commission concluded that the applicant identified the project sufficiently to secure priority for the proposal when it indicated where the necessary reservoirs would be located, identified the boundaries of the project, and stated its intention to use the Colorado River Aqueduct to transport water to the project. Id. In denying the petitioners' later motion to cancel the permit, the Commission also commented that Eagle Mountain, by investigating the feasibility of various sources of water, is using its permit in a manner consistent with the intent of Section 5 of the FPA, 62 F.E.R.C. p 61,163 at 62,122, i.e., for making examinations and surveys, for preparing maps, plans, specifications and estimates, and for making financial arrangements, 16 U.S.C. Sec. 798. 28 It is a commonplace that [w]e must accept an agency's construction of its own regulations unless it is 'plainly wrong,' that is, 'plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation.'  Hazardous Waste Treatment Council v. Reilly, 938 F.2d 1390, 1395 (D.C.Cir.1991) (quoting respectively Chemical Manufacturers Association v. Environmental Protection Agency, 919 F.2d 158, 170 (D.C.Cir.1990), and Udall v. Tallman, 380 U.S. 1, 17, 85 S.Ct. 792, 801, 13 L.Ed.2d 616 (1965)). Here the Commission's regulations require the applicant only to identify the stream or other body of water affected by the project; they neither make, nor require a permit applicant to make, reference to the source of the water for its proposed project. The petitioners nonetheless insist that the regulation makes no sense unless the body of water affected by a pumped storage facility is interpreted to mean the stream or waterway from which the water to supply the project will be taken. The Commission's explanation of how its rule should be applied to a proposed pumped storage project makes good sense to us, however. Unlike a conventional hydroelectric project, such a facility has no significant continuing effect upon any stream or waterway. No purpose would be served, therefore, in requiring the applicant to advise the Commission up front of the precise source of its water. That question is not of interest to the Commission because nothing turns upon the answer. Therefore, we uphold as reasonable the Commission's interpretation of its permit regulation; so interpreted there is no question of the agency's compliance with the regulation. 29