Laserfiche WebLink
<br />U U J ~ -~ 1_ <br /> <br />. . . approved cost accounting methods that are consistent <br />with the statutory requirements to recover costs including <br />interest and the amortization of the capital investment over <br />a reasonable period of years . . .. The preparation of <br />revenue and cost statements based on current performance <br />and forward estimates limited to one year (Ed. Rather than <br />through the ultimate development of the entire project) will <br />remove any further need for preparation of repayment <br />studies (PPSSCC, 1983, p. 44). <br /> <br />The conclusions and recommendations of the task force apparently echoed those <br /> <br /> <br />of earlier reports and audit findings by the General Accounting Office, Office of <br /> <br />Management and Budget, DOE Inspector General, Federal Energy Regulatory <br /> <br />Commission and House Committee on Appropriations. Some of these earlier reports <br /> <br />and audits date back 30 years or more (PPSSCC, 1983). <br /> <br />Concern over the use of the power repayment study, and ultimate development <br /> <br />concept where used, was also expressed by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission <br /> <br />in a notice of proposed rulemaking recently published in the Federal Register. The <br /> <br />notice stated in part: <br /> <br />Use of a PRS can be a useful regulatory tool in ensuring <br />that a PMA's rates cover its costs, including the cost of <br />repaying the federal investment. If the estimates are <br />accurate, the federal investment will be paid in a manner <br />that is timely and fair to the federal taxpayer. The <br />Commission has, however, experienced problems with its use <br />in the past. There is no annual schedule of capital <br />repaymen t. The test of sufficiency of revenues is whether <br />the capital investment can be repaid within the overall <br />repayment period established for each power project, each <br />increment of investment in the transmission system, and each <br />block of irrigation assistance. This approach to repayment <br />scheduling has the effect of averaging the year-to-year <br />variation in cost and revenue over the repayment period <br />(Federal Register, Vol. 48, No. 207, October 25, 1983, <br />p. 49302). <br /> <br />The implication of the FERC statement is that the power repayment study is <br /> <br />-9- <br />