Laserfiche WebLink
<br />01241 <br /> <br />November 19. 1993 <br /> <br />Alternatives/Options <br /> <br />Opt ion 1: Ma i ntai n AveraGe EnerGY Assumot ions. No Further Ana 1 YS is. <br />This option would mean maintaining the status quo (average <br />energy assumptions) without further consideration of the <br />affects of changes to ri sk assumpti ons and annua 1 energy <br />values. This option would then assume that the difference <br />between average (mean) versus median generation is acceptable <br />given the sensitivity of the firm power rate determination to <br />other more variable expense components. <br /> <br />Option 2: Maintain AveraGe EnerGv Assumotions. InvestiGate Alternative <br />Risk-based EnerGY Assumptions for Future PRS. This optlon lS <br />similar to Option 1. however a what-if PRS would be performed <br />uSing median CRSM energy projections in place of average CRSM <br />energy. A comparison of median and average energy projections <br />and their associated rate effects should then be developed. <br /> <br />Recommendations <br /> <br />Option 1 is recommended. <br /> <br />C:\MCCOY\RATES.93\ISSUES11.17\I15 AVEN.ISS <br />1st Review (w. New Write-Up): May 11. 1993 <br />Revised 11-19-93 jMc. <br /> <br />2 <br />