WSP12154 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

The implication of the FERC statement, of course, is that the power repayment study is too imprecise to be used as a basis for rate setting; and by averaging the year-to-year variations in income and expense over a lengthy period, mistakes could result which might cause a significant increase for future ratepayers. As FERC puts it, erroneous forecasts which might cause missed principal or interest payments could: . . . create . . . a possible crises when the amount (Ed. Of remaining repayment) that is to be spread over a small number of years becomes too large to impose on ratepayers (Federal Register, Vol. 48, No. 207, October 25, 1983, p. 49303). In its notice of proposed rulemaking, which seeks to establish procedures and filing requirements for rates proposed by power marketing agencies, FERC sought comments on how power repayment studies could be improved or whether there were preferred alternatives to the PRS. Comments were to be filed with FERC by December 20, 1983 (FERC Docket No. RM80-40-000). The proponents of the use of the ultimate development concept in power repayment studies by PMA's have a number of supporting arguments from the fiscal perspective. One such argument states that, at least in the case of the Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program and the Colorado River Storage Project, large multi-purpose water projects were conceived and authorized by Congress as comprehensive "packages," even though they may have been subsequently amended. The argument continues that to consciously modify the power repayment studies by deleting individual features of the project as FERC and others have proposed would be contrary to congressional intent and would make it impossible to show repayment of project costs as originally conceived (Weinberg, 1983). Also in a fiscal context, supporters of the ultimate development concept point -10-