Laserfiche WebLink
<br />2 <br /> <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />was published in the Federal Register on April 3, 1979 (44 Fed. <br />Reg. 19533), and amended by 44 Fed. Reg. 30759 (May 29, 1979). <br />Public information forums were held on the proposed rate increase <br />in Phoenix, Arizona; Salt Lake City, Utah; and Denver, Colorado, <br />on April 24, 25, and 26, 1979, respectively. At those forums <br />numerous customers and interested persons were in attendance. <br />Procedures were reviewed, a summary of the brochure was pre~ <br />sented, and all questions asked were answered at the forums by <br />departmental representatives or answered in writing before <br />June 1, 1979. <br /> <br />A public comment forum was held in Salt Lake City, Utah, on <br />June 26, 1979, with customers and interested persons in attend- <br />ance. Written comments were received until the close of the <br />comment peri od on July 11, 1979. <br /> <br />IV. Revisions Made in Repayment Study <br /> <br />The revised proposed rate adjustment was determined by prepara- <br />tion of a new repayment study. A copy of the study is available. <br />Following is a discussion of the changes from the study in the <br />April 1979 brochure. <br /> <br />A. Future Wheeling Expense <br /> <br />The repayment study in the April 1979 brochure included the <br />estimated escalation of wheeling rates in future years. <br />Western has reconsidered the matter and has decided to <br />exclude the escalation. This reduces the future average <br />annual wheeling cost for the 1978-2052 period from $4,347,000 <br />to $3,071,000 and reduces the proposed power rate adjustment <br />by 3.5 percent. <br /> <br />B. Application of CUP and Seedskadee Power Revenues <br /> <br />The repayment study in the April 1979 brochure was based <br />on application of above revenues to Utah after 2038 and to <br />Wyoming after 2018--50 years after CUP and Seedskadee power <br />in-service dates, respectively. In comparing the early <br />repayment studies with current studies, one inconsistency <br />was discovered. It appears that an unexplained change was <br />made in 1973 regarding retention of excess revenues from <br />certain participating projects within the States. Section 5(e) <br />of P.L. 84-485 states power revenues from a participating <br />project should be applied to repayment of projects within <br />the State and not be diverted into the Basin Fund to meet <br />other States' requirements. Due to the express language in <br />