Laserfiche WebLink
<br />$1.19 billion. All were repaid. Replacements cost <br />$1.68 billion. Aid to irrigation totaled $5.31 billion, but only <br />$2.22 billion had been repaid. The last irrigation investment <br />was shown in 2075. The remaining $3.08 billion in aid to <br />irrigation left to be repaid would be repaid in the next <br />century (about 2134). The first payment to aid to irrigation <br />was in 1997 and large payments started in 2000. This <br />schedule tends to minimize the impact on current rates. <br /> <br />Besides the basic cost allocations that were made on the <br />ultimate development concept, Pick-Sloan has employed a <br />suballocation of power costs to the irrigation function which <br />carries no interest.. The present suballocation is 19.9 percent <br />of the total power investment. It is determined by dividing <br />the ultimate pumping load (about 500,000 kw) by the <br />installed capacity of the project. Thus, the total power <br />investment shown in the repayment study after 1980 is only <br />80.1 percent of the total cost of power facilities. At the <br />present time, the load of irrigation pumping is only 19,475 <br />kw. On a current-use basis, the suballocation to irrigation <br />would be about 0.8 percent -- not 19.9 percent. To put this <br />investment back under the power investment would add <br />capital costs of $253.4 million and would cost about <br />$11.4 million per year with proper interest charges. <br />Furthermore, the cost of interest on this investment back to <br />the time it was incurred would be another $60 million, which <br />would cost about $2.0 million per year. The suballocation of <br />the power investment is based on the ultimate development <br />concept. Under the current-use method, the cost of repaying <br />the power investment would go up by about $13.4 million per <br />year. It would take about 1.36 mills per kwh to pay these <br />new costs. <br /> <br />The joint costs allocated to irrigation in the existing major <br />facilities total $185.8 million. These dam and reservoir costs <br />were incurred years ago. They are in the aid to irrigation <br />figures. They are not incurring interest charges. They <br />would be repaid when planned irrigation is developed. As <br />long as provisions for repayment of ultimate irrigation costs <br />have been in the repayment studies, efforts to shift <br />irrigation costs to power have been successfully resisted. If <br />repayment studies were based on the current-use concept and <br />no provision is made to repay future aid to irrigation, efforts <br />would be made to shift incurred reimbursable joint costs <br />allocated to irrigation to power. I believe this would require <br />congressional approval, but with a repayment process that <br />makes no effort to repay these costs, it is probable Congress <br />would approve the action. <br /> <br />Shifting joint irrigation costs to power would add <br />$185.8 million to the power investment and cost about <br />$10.5 million per year to repay. Retroactive interest costs <br />would add $113.7 million more to the power investment and <br />would cost about $6.9 million per year. It would take <br /> <br />-18- <br />