My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP12154
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
12000-12999
>
WSP12154
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 3:20:04 PM
Creation date
10/12/2006 5:25:06 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8410.300.60
Description
Basin Multistate Organizations - Missouri Basin States Association - Reports
State
CO
Basin
Statewide
Date
5/17/1984
Author
MBSA
Title
The Ultimate Development Concept in Power Repayment Studies by Power Marketing Administrations
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Report/Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
77
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />Or!')~,,:'~ <br />U V._ . ) <br /> <br />setting process. The task force recommended that: <br /> <br />. . . (PMA's adopt) . . . approved cost accounting methods <br />that are consistent with the statutory requirements to <br />recover costs including interest and the amortization of the <br />capital investment over a reasonable period of years . . . . <br />The preparation of revenue and cost statements based on <br />current performance and forward estimates limited to one <br />year (Ed. Rather than through the ultimate development of <br />the entire project) will remove any further need for <br />preparation of repayment studies (PPSSCC, 1983, p. 44). <br /> <br />The conclusions and recommendations of the task force apparently echoed those <br /> <br /> <br />of some earlier reports and audit findings by, among others, the General Accounting <br /> <br /> <br />Office, Office of Management and Budget, the DOE Inspector General, the Federal <br /> <br /> <br />Energy Regulatory Commission and the House Committee on Appropriations. Some of <br /> <br />these earlier reports date back 30 years or more (PPSSCC, 1983). <br /> <br />Similar concern over the use of the power repayment study, and ultimate <br /> <br />development concept where used, was expressed by the Federal Energy Regulatory <br /> <br />Commission in a notice of proposed rule making recently published in the Federal <br /> <br />:1 <br /> <br />Register. The 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. 11 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 />repayment. 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 />-9- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.