Laserfiche WebLink
<br />ilr. Al Gabiola <br />Page 2 <br />July 21, 1982 <br /> <br />For some two decades now these entities have been repaying the <br />debt owed the United States through these power purchases and <br />have come to rely on this resource as a significant resource for <br />their continued operation and fulfillment of their governmental <br />purposes. Should these resource now be lost or significantly <br />diminished, these entities would be severely disadvantaged in <br />attempting to acquire other resources, Such economic dislocation <br />in these difficult economic times is not warranted whatsoever. <br />Furthermore, these entities have foregone the opportunity to <br />participate in or acquire other resources and are now left with a <br />time frame that would make it difficult if not impossible to do <br />so by the time present contracts expire. For all these reasons, <br />we urge that existing contracts be renewed with existing <br />contractors. <br /> <br />2. Contract options. At our meeting with you on July 13, <br />1982, the CREDA Marketing Cornmi ttee explored several contract <br />options that might be beneficial to various preference customers. <br />One was the opportunity to acquire energy at up to a 70% load <br />factor. Our members would be very interested in discussing <br />further with you such an option both as a group discussion for <br />these criteria and individual discussions in contract <br />negotiations. Another possibie option was the renewal of <br />contracts .on a basis of projected capacity higher than that shown <br />by projected adverse water conditions. We concur in CREDA's <br />recornmentation that CRSP capacity be sold on the basis 75% <br />exceedance values, or, as one of your staff put it, with Western <br />assuming a risk that 25% of the time contracted capacity may not <br />fully be available. Under these circumstances, we discussed the <br />option of a contractor purchasing this additional capacity from <br />Western on a contingent basis or Western firming up the <br />contingent capacity when necessary for its customers. We would <br />also like to further explore these aVenues. They may be <br />especially advantageous for our members which. do not have their <br />own sources of generation. <br /> <br />We are also interested in the possibility of contracting for <br />capaci ty earmarked for federal project uses that is not yet <br />needed for such uses. We understand that such a contract would <br />have to be on a recapturable basis with five years I written <br />notice of withdrawal. Such capacity would nevertheless be of <br />interest to our members if marketed on a firm basis with energy. <br /> <br />. We also were pleased to explore with you at the meeting the <br />option of a 20 year contract with a possible adjustment in <br />allocation after 10 years, if hydrologic conditions vary <br />significantly from projections used by Western for the <br />allocation. We urge you to actively consider such mechanism and <br />think it is in the best of the United States as well as the <br />customers to provide the stability that such contract term would <br />for tpe CRSP Project and the Basin. <br /> <br />33 <br />