Laserfiche WebLink
<br />too imprecise to be used as a basis for rate setting; and by averaging the year-to- <br /> <br /> <br />year variations in income and expense over a lengthy period, mistakes could result <br /> <br /> <br />which might cause a significant increase for future ratepayers. As FERC put it, <br /> <br /> <br />erroneous PMA forecasts could: <br /> <br />. . . create . . . a possible crisis when the amount (Ed. Of <br />remaining repayment) that is to be spread over a small <br />number of years becomes too large to impose on ratepayers <br />(Federal Register, Vol. 48, No. 207, October 25, 1983, p. <br />49303) . <br /> <br />In its notice of proposed rulemaking, which would have established procedures <br /> <br />and filing requirements for rates proposed by power marketing agencies, FERC sought <br /> <br />comments on how power repayment studies could be improved or whether there were <br /> <br />preferred alternatives to the PRS. <br /> <br />The proponents of the ultimate development concept in power repayment studies <br /> <br />have a number of supporting arguments from the fiscal perspective. One argument <br /> <br />states that, at least in the case of the Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program and the <br /> <br />Colorado River Storage Project, large multi-purpose water projects were conceived <br /> <br />and authorized by Congress as comprehensive "packages," even though they may have <br /> <br />been subsequently amended. The argument continues that to arbitrarily modify the <br /> <br />power repayment studies by deleting individual features of the project as FERC and <br /> <br />others have proposed would be contrary to congressional intent and would make it <br /> <br />impossible to achieve repayment of project costs as originally conceived (Weinberg, <br /> <br />1983) . <br /> <br />Also in a fiscal context, supporters of the ultimate development concept point <br /> <br />to the Department of Energy Organization Act of 1977. This Act created the <br /> <br />Department of Energy and transferred to it (and its PMA's) the federal power <br /> <br />-10- <br />