Board Meeting 03/08/1995

• Board Meeting Date: 3/8/1985
• Description: Minutes, Agenda, Memorandums March 8, 1985
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Meeting

Association of Municipal Utilities (CAMU) . CAMU would like a
complete status report on the power revenue proposal. CAMU is
not generally opposed to the end objective, but it does have
certain objections and concerns with the proposal as it now
stands. Mr. McDonald indicated that the Board wants to work
primarily with the utilities in state now to further refine the
proposal. Mr. McDonald noted that there is only one bottom-line
objective and that both the Board and he will listen to any
reasonable alternatives. The lack of congressional funding for
water projects has created the need to convert hydropower
revenues into a front-end funding devise as well as using them
as the traditional repayment vehicle.
Ms. Linda Lazzerino noted that the Platte River Power
Authority was also opposed to the proposal as it now stands. The
issue is not water but money. She noted that power pays only for
the power and irrigation components of a project at present.
Mr. Lochhead moved, seconded by Mr. Covert, that the Board
authorize Mr. McDonald to continue negotiations with municipal
hies in the state with the objective of obtaining financing
' for the development of uthorized CRSP projects or other projects
,• which would result in u.
uvalent level of development. The means
to achieve thig objective are negotiable. Motion adopted
unanimously.
Agenda Item 13 - Colorado River Enhanced Snowpack Test (CREST)
Mr. McDonald recalled that at its January 14-15 , 1985, meeting,
the Board discussed funding proposals for CREST and adopted motions
reiterating the state's previous position on CREST. Also, the
Board provided comments for the Governor's consideration as he
prepared his response to the November 23 , 1984 , letter from the
Commissioner of Reclamation regarding CREST.
On January 31, 1985, the staff met with representatives of the
other basin states and the Bureau of . Reclamation to discuss ways
that would permit the CREST program to move ahead. At that meeting,
Colorado restated its opposition to the use of CRSP power revenues
for the funding of CREST.
A proposal by California was discussed that would defer the
states ' "share" of the cost of implementing CREST until an opera-
tional program could be implemented. Then, a surcharge against
only the increased generation resulting from augmentation would be
assessed, which surcharge would be sufficient to repay the cost of
the CREST program. In effect, the federal government would fund
the CREST demonstration program, and those costs would be recovered
by surcharges on power generated through an operational program
(assuming that the demonstration program was successful) .
Although this proposal has, according Mr. McDonald's
-9-