OCR Text |
Show 441 for federal development; that Roanoke Rapids Dam has not been authorized; and that there is no assurance it will be authorized in the near future. Moreover, maintaining that its proposed development is in substantial accord with that recommended for the site by the Army Engineers, the appli- cant argues that its prompt development of the site and of the power benefits under a license containing the safeguards authorized by Congress would be in the public interest and would meet the requirements of the Federal Power Act. The position of the Commission's Staff is much the same as that of the applicant as regards compatibility of the applicant's project with the general plan of development approved by Congress.238 Another point of dispute relates to the necessity for, and availability of, steam support to assure maximum utilization of the hydroelectric potential. In this case, the Commission had by letter expressed approval of the Army Engineer plan, later printed in House Document No. 650.239 Thereafter, Congress "approved" that plan.240 The summation of the questions thus raised is whether the Com- mission may subsequently authorize nonfederal development of one of the projects comprehended by that plan. The decision of the Presiding Examiner, which is subject to review by the Commission, ordered that a license be issued.241 A somewhat similar question has arisen in connection with the King's River Project in California where an irrigation dis- trict and a private company have applied for Federal Power Commission licenses to develop three of the projects compre- hended by the Bureau of Reclamation's general plan for de- m See briefs of Virginia Electric and Power Company, and of the Staff of the Federal Power Commission, filed in Re Virginia Electric and Power Co., Project No. 2009, Federal Power Commission. 289 H. Doc. No. 650, 78th Cong., 2d sess., p. 2 (1944). 840 Act of December 22,1944, § 10, 58 Stat. 887, 891. 841 Examiner's decision of March 17,1950. After a rehearing, the Examiner concluded on November 16,1950 that the order "needs no modification." On November 22,1950, the Secretary of the Interior filed a motion "for suspen- sion of the 20-day rule for the filing of exceptions, for abbreviation of the record, and for fixing the date for filing exceptions." |