Laserfiche WebLink
<br />8 <br /> <br /> <br />about 2 percent higher than the R4-Fl rate, still considerably less than <br />prevailing power rates in the market area. <br /> <br />- <br /> <br />Customers were also informed that, starting in April 1976, the <br />firm energy sales would be limited to 2550 kWh per kW per season (a <br />seasonal load factor of about 58.2 percent) and further that sales of <br />power from future powerplants would be made as peaking power; i.e., <br />with no energy. Furthermore, in order to encourage customers to <br />obtain supplemental sources of power supply instead of relying on the <br />CRSP for overruns, a provision was added in April 1975 that any <br />unauthorized CRSP energy or capacity consumed by a customer in excess <br />of contract commitments would have a rate of 5 times the regular rate. <br /> <br />Repayment studies made each year after fiscal year 1972 indicated <br />a steadily declining financial position of the CRSP because of escalating <br />costs of construction, operations, and maintenance, including higher <br />purchase prices for firming energy. In the fall of 1975, a rate increase <br />was proposed, and after rate adjustment procedures were completed, a new <br />rate, UC-F2, became effective in June 1977, increasing the monthly demand <br />charge from $1.32 to $1.34 per kW-month and the energy charge from 3.0 <br />to 3.4 mills per kWh. The UC-F2 rate at 58.2 percent load factor is <br />6.55 mills, about 7 percent higher than the UC-Fl rate. At the time of <br />initiating this rate, the average nonFederal power rate in the market <br />area was about 12.5 mills, about 90 percent higher than the UC-F2 rate. <br />A peaking rate (UC-FP2) also went into effect June 1977, with a rate of <br />$8.04 per kW-season. The determination of the demand charge as the <br />greater of the maximum demand or seasonal contract rate of delivery was <br />applied to sales of both firm and peaking power. <br /> <br />Also, in order to further encourage customers to obtain supple- <br />mental sources of power supply and to prevent overruns on the CRSP, the <br />penalty for unauthorized overruns of capacity and energy was increased <br />in June 1977 from 5 to 10 times the regular rate. <br /> <br />V. PROPOSED POWER RATE <br /> <br />Based on data available as of the end of the fiscal year 1977, a <br />power repayment study was made using the existing power rate. The <br />study showed that the existing rate would be sufficient to pay annual <br />expenses, but would not repay the power investment cost within the <br />allowable time frame and would not provide the assistance needed to <br />accomplish repayment of irrigation features within the allowable time <br />frames. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Project annual expenses and the investment costs of power and <br />irrigation features have been escalating rapidly since the existing <br />power rate was established. Figure 2 is a pie-chart showing the <br />increases in costs between those of the present study and those used <br />in the supporting study for the rate now in use. The total cumulative <br />increase in cost in the 78 year period, fiscal year 1975 through 2052, <br />