Laserfiche WebLink
<br />5 <br /> <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />clear from the legislative history of P.L. 84-485, which <br />established CRSP, and from the first repayment study, <br />which provides a contemporaneous interpretation and <br />guide for repayment procedures, that it was the intent <br />of Congress to include all authorized participating <br />projects in CRSP repayment studies. This, of necessity, <br />limits the Western role to an analysis of whether the <br />repayment procedures submitted to Congress are a <br />patently unreasonable interpretation of P.L. 84-485. <br />It is clearly the intent of sections 6 and 13 of <br />P.L. 84-485 that rates be established to meet all <br />payment requirements of all authorized projects. <br />Western has concluded that the inclusion of all <br />authorized participating projects is legislatively <br />and administratively proper. <br /> <br />A number of customers in their comments raised the issue <br />of whether section 730 DM 4 of the Department of the <br />Interior Departmental Manual, which was made applicable <br />to Western ratemaking procedures by DOE, should not <br />limit the period of analysis to a maximum of 5 years. <br />This argument appears to be without merit as 730 DM 4 by <br />its terms makes exceptions for both statutory require- <br />ments and for interpretations by the Secretary of the <br />Interior. As has been previously discussed, both the <br />statute and the interpretation of the Secretary of the <br />Interior made contemporaneously with inactment of the <br />statute require that the sections of 730 DM 4 relating <br />to cost evaluation periods not apply. The proposed <br />rate is clearly within this 730 DM 4 exception. <br /> <br />2. Apportionment of Revenues <br /> <br />In the repayment study for the April 1979 brochure, <br />revenues from the Basin fund are apportioned to the <br />States in accordance with the provisions of section 5e <br />of P.L. 84-485. This results in a large credit to some <br />States in excess of that required for currently author- <br />ized participating projects. This excess has been <br />referred to as "surplus surplus." Customers advocate <br />apportionment of such revenues to repayment of partic- <br />ipating project features as the feature repayment <br />becomes due. It is clear that this "surplus surplus" <br />will accrue when the proposed rate increase is put into <br />effect. Despite this, it is equally clear that Western <br />is without authority to deviate from the statutory <br />apportionment criteria. Western is bound by the historic <br />interpretation of the law regarding the handling of <br />revenues and cannot deviate from this interpretation <br />