8. It does not appear that the alter ego question has arisen under the Commodities Clause cases except in those instances where the common ownership interest by the two companies was a controlling interest. The Supreme Court has held in two of the most recent cases that "resulted and was intended to result, in the Conclusion It is my opinion that to hold Colowyo ineligible to accept an assignment of a Federal lease under Section 2(c) would be expanding the words of that statute beyond their normal, accepted meanings. I see no support for such a construction in the legislative history of the Section, in the current canons of statutory construction or in any need for a broad interpretation to enforce clear and compelling statutory policies. H. Gregory Austin APPENDIX II Responses to Additional Subcommittee Questions ROCKY MOUNTAIN James C Wilson October 9, 1981 The Honorable John W. Warner, Chairman Senate Subcommittee on Energy and Natural Resources Dear Senator Warner: Re: Response to September 22, 1981 I am pleased to enclose our responses to the written questions posed to Rocky Mountain Energy by the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources, subsequent to the September 11 hearing on S. 1542. In addition to my responses to the Subcommittee's questions, I am submitting with this letter, for inclusion in the appendix of the hearing record, a USGS geologic report on the Red Rim Federal lease tract and a memorandum on the "cost" of the Union Pacific land grant. These submittals were discussed during my testimony on October 1. Once again, I want to thank you for providing an opportunity to appear and present testimony on behalf of S. 1542. Your interest and concern have helped create a very useful and informative hearing record. RESPONSES OF JAMES C. WILSON, PRESIDENT OF ROCKY MOUNTAIN Question: How many acres of federally-leased coal does Rocky Answer: Rocky Mountain Energy Company currently holds federal acreage in five joint ventures. RME is charged with one-half of the total acreage contained in the Federal leases held by the ventures. RME is currently chargeable with 13,278.30 federal acres, all of which are located in the State of Wyoming. Question: Have you calculated how many new acres of federal in light of the acreage leasable limitations in Answer: Rocky Mountain Energy Company, under the limitations prescribed by the Mineral Lands Leasing Act of 1920, as amended, would be limited to acquiring an additional 31,520 acres of land in the State of Wyoming before it reaches the legal limit of 46,080 acres allowed to be held in any one state. Nationwide, Rocky Mountain Energy would be limited, as other companies are, to a total of 100,000 acres. In the land grant checkerboard in southern Wyoming, the deposition of the coal deposits results in logical mining units encompassing very large acreages. Thus, the acreage limitation would allow Rocky Mountain Energy to lease two or perhaps, three additional parcels of federal coal in southern Wyoming before it reached the acreage limitation. Question: Does your company have any interest in federal coal located in areas other than the checkerboard? Answer: Rocky Mountain Energy Company does not presently hold an interest in federal coal leases outside of the Union Pacific land-grant checkerboard. However, RME intends to participate in upcoming federal lease sales in several other coal basins outside the checkerboard. Question: How do your company's coal reserves compare to other coal reserves in the region such as the Powder River Basin? Answer: It has been asserted that railroad coal producers will have the power to monopolize western coal development if Section 2(c) is repealed because the railroad reserves possess a competitive advantage over other western coals. This claim is simply not supportable. RME land grant coal is at a disadvantage in competing with coal controlled by the coal companies from other areas. The major sales of western coal in recent years have been from coal developments off the land grants in areas such as the Powder River Basin and northwestern Colorado. The reason is that non-railroad reserves, in non-land-grant areas, have proved to be cheaper to mine, of higher quality, and otherwise more desirable to customers, than most railroad coal. The dominant coal in the West is not now, and will not be in the foreseeable future, land grant railroad coal, but coal from other areas located far from the land grants. The truth of the foregoing statement was supported by customer-specific marketing information in a confidential memorandum submitted by RME to the Department of Justice in May, 1980. In the May, 1980 memorandum, RME disclosed specific information concerning the customers to which its land grant coals were then being marketed, and the regions from which it was facing active competition in attempting to capture such markets. The memorandum demonstrated that, in attemping to sell land grant coal, RME faced intense competition from other producers in its own region of southern Wyoming, as well as |