Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />II-16 <br /> <br />Depletions <br /> <br />The amount of power generated at CRSP power plants is directly related <br /> <br />to the amount of water available and flowing in the Colorado River. As in the <br /> <br />previous case) assumed water depletions in the CRSP system are in question. <br /> <br />Energy generation after 1981 was based on runoff and depletion records <br /> <br />for the Colorado River drainage system above each of the reservoir sites for <br /> <br />the period 1906 through 1980. Estimated future depletions, based on the Bureau <br /> <br />of Reclamation's September 1981 depletion schedule, are then subtracted ilS a <br /> <br />modification to these records. <br /> <br />These modifications are explained and shown by Western in its 1982 <br /> <br />Rate Brochure. <br /> <br />On page 22 of the Rate Brochure, it states that by FY 2040 <br /> <br />there would be 5.8 million acre-feet of depletions in the Upper Colorado River <br /> <br />Basin including some 157,000 acre-feet of unidentified depletions. <br /> <br />In the <br /> <br />previous rate proceeding, unidentified transmission plant additions were elimi- <br /> <br />nated by Western as should be the case here concerning these unidentified deple- <br /> <br />tions. <br /> <br />Similarly, depletions associated with the five participating projects <br /> <br />whose construction schedules are not definite are included. Since these proj- <br /> <br />ects have no definite construction plan, Western felt it could slide their con- <br /> <br />struction to a point in the FY 1981 PRS where repayment of their investment <br /> <br />would not influence the rate-setting "pinch point". Even acknowledging that <br /> <br />these projects may never be built, Western justified the inclusion of the water <br /> <br />depletions associated with those projects (96,000 acre-feet beginning in FY <br /> <br />2031) by stating, ".. .other uses for the water will develop by FY 2031." <br /> <br />Although the FERC allowed Western to include unidentified depletions in the <br /> <br />last case, Western should have more definite justification than they have put <br />