Laserfiche WebLink
<br />OCT-08-9S 11.23 FROH.H.B.5.S. <br /> <br />10.970 247 8827 <br /> <br />PAGE 15/18 <br /> <br />.... <br />"' <br /> <br />the Upper Division states in order that those four states might <br /> <br />finance water project construction which will achieve a level of <br /> <br />c <br /> <br />development equivalent to that represented by eheir authorized, <br /> <br />but as yet unconstructed, participating projects. <br /> <br />Colorado proposes f~.ral legislation amending the 1956 <br /> <br />Colorado River Storage Project Act to make CBSP power revenues <br /> <br /> <br />payable directly to the upper ~ivision states. SuCh funds would <br /> <br />then be used by the states to finance project construction in <br /> <br />order that the level of development agre~ to by Congress, the <br /> <br />seven Colorado River Basin states, and the purchasers of CRS? <br /> <br />power can be achieved. <br /> <br />Availability of CRSP Power Revenue. , <br /> <br />1. Revenues for direct payment to the Upper Oivision states <br /> <br />would come from three sources: <br /> <br />a. The current rate setting procedure would be changed. <br /> <br />to utilize the .window. concept endorsed by the <br />ColOrado River Energy Distributors Association <br /> <br />(CREDA). In addition, repayment of power features <br /> <br /> <br />would take place over a full 50 year period so as to <br /> <br /> <br />minimize the rate for eRSt' power. The net effect of <br /> <br />these changes would be a reduction in the annual <br /> <br />revenues ne.d~ for repayment from what would <br /> <br />otherwise be required under current rate setting <br /> <br />-2- <br />