Daily Rules, Proposed Rules, and Notices of the Federal Government


Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2205-039]

Central Vermont Public Service Commission; Notice Dismissing Filing as Deficient

On February 13, 2007, Commission staff issued an order modifying and approving a recreation plan under article 415 of the project license for the Lamoille Hydroelectric Project, located on the Lamoille River in Chittenden, Franklin, and Lamoille Counties, Vermont.1 On March 14, 2007, Central Vermont Public Service Corporation (Central Vermont or the licensee) filed a timely request for rehearing, seeking to modify the February order.

Specifically, the licensee requests rehearing of a provision in the February order regarding an access area for canoes and car-top boats at the south end of Arrowhead Mountain Reservoir. The February order modified the licensee's recreation plan. Ordering paragraph (C) of the February order provided that:

The licensee requests that the paragraph (C) requirement be deleted and suggests that, instead, the licensee will conduct a study of alternative access sites.

The licensee's rehearing request is deficient because it fails to include a Statement of Issues section separate from its arguments, as required by Rule 713 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure.2 Rule 713(c)(2) requires that a rehearing request must include a separate section entitled "Statement of Issues" listing each issue presented to the Commission in a separately enumerated paragraph that includes representative Commission and court precedent on which the participant is relying.3 Under Rule 713, any issue not so listed will be deemed waived. Accordingly, Central Vermont's rehearing request is dismissed.4

We note that, even if the pleading had included the required statement of facts, we would nevertheless deny rehearing. Central Vermont concedes that "the provision of public access for canoes and car-top boats at the south end of [Arrowhead Mountain Reservoir] is desired," and that "no detailed analysis of alternative south end access for canoes and car-top boats has been performed." It shows no deficiency in the February order, but merely speculates that some other form of access might be preferable. Accordingly, we find the request for rehearing to be without merit.5

Philis J. Posey, Acting Secretary.
ACTION: 5We note that the licensee may file a request for an amendment to the license that would allow for the consideration of an alternative site for an access area, but note that such a proposal would require consultation with relevant resource agencies as well as public notice with the opportunity for comment.