WSP04561

• File Number: 8220.200.05.R
• Description: Hoover Dam/Lake Mead/Boulder Canyon Project
• Basin: Colorado Mainstem
• Date: 5/9/1983
• Title: Federal Register: Part IV Dept of Energy - Western Area Power Administration-General Consolidated Power Marketing Criteria or Regulations for Boulder City Area Projects
• Water Supply Pro - Doc Type: Report/Study

P..... · 't. I Vol ... No. .. I MoDday. May 9. 1983 I Notlcel

.,.

L~
N
C
C\':

__ from _t1aalmrd.
1lpo<ML".lr excluded from dda _ ..
_--r:i.J. iDdaa1r\aJ. aDd ~L tI.IJ
--
w..... bu adoptacl1hla deIIaI1Iaa
aMd br Rec:lamatlaa far ......J ,..,..,
IrrdIu IrrIptlaa ...~,.... tbat do DOt
__ tba CoIando Rl9W b.1.._
DnIa Daa aDd tba bonier between the
UaftMllllatea aDd MexIco will nol be
., ad far lIIullocation of priority
- poww. .
.. ---.u '" Current Boulder
arn,un Project Contrael8. The Criteria
provides for a renewal of current
Boulder Canyon Project contracll under
new tenDJ and condition.. The
principlec and pideline. for renewal
contrac" are contained in the Crileria.
ThroU8hout the public proceu We.tem
ba. received extencive lesal briefs and
commenll concerning the markelin8 of
Boulder Canyon Project power,
Commen.. concerning the Boulder
Canyon Project bave centered
principally around the interpretetion of
Section 5 of the Boulder Canyon Project
Act. The CalIfornia Boulder Canyon
Project contracto.. bave taken the
po.ition that Weotem b.. no authority
to do anytbins but ren.w the prelCDt
contracll in kind. This contention i.
based upon an interpretetion of the
renewal language of Section 5(b) of the
Bould.r Canyon Project Acl Th. States
of Arizona and Nevada (Stat.'J, on the
other band. contend that Weotem i.
ItatutoriIy required by Section 5(c) of
the Boulder Canyon Project Act to
dlvid. the pow.r from the Hoov.r
relOurce equa11y for u.. within .ach of
the State. of Arizona. CalIfornia and
N.vada; .xcept that any power not
appli.d for by the State of California ..
a stete mUlt be divided betw..n
Arizona and Nevada. Th. Stetes ....rt
that thi. risbt II .uperior to the renewal
langu..e of Section 5(b) of the Boulder
Canyon Project Act. Comm.nts from the
citi.s of Anaheim. Azusa, Riv...ide,
Banning. and Colton. and oth.r
int.rested parti.. propo.e that W.stem
sbould reallocate all of the Bould.r
Canyon Project pow.r ba..d upon the
broad public interest interpretetion of
the Boulder Canyon Project Act.
The Slate of Nevada, on AUSU.t27,
1JIZ, IIled suit in La. Ves.. District
Comt qalnst the Unlt.d State. and the
Ca1IfamIa Boulder Canyon Proj.ct
.....tracton. The IiliBation advancec the
afaremrmtioned elaim. to a .tatutory
ri8Jrt to cme-third of the Hoover reoource
upon contract termination and to any
amount of power not applied for by
California.. a stet., The State of
Arizona b.. .inc. join.d the State of
Nevada. Th. California Hoov.r

c

.uo- (except MWD). have answered
tba cIalm aDd have IIled a counter clalm;
aDd tba Olin of ADaIreim. Azusa,
1Ia........ Rivenlde. and Colton bave
II1ed alllOli... to interVene.
NotwIthatandtna the abov. lesal
poaItlona of tba Stalea and the
CalIfoinJa Bouldar Canyon Project
contractors. these entltlel and ..veral
othar prefereoce .entltleo bave Indicat.d
quaIified IlIPPOrl of the proposed
renewals and alIocatlonalhown in the
A......t 1882 Criteria with 10m.
additional proviAiona,
Western bas analyzed the additional
provislona and b.. ineluded .om. of
th... provlsiona in the Crit.ria.
Th. authority (lf8Dted by Congress in
the Bould.r Canyon Project Act
provideo for the neceuary
administrative Dexibility to mark.t
Boulder Canyon Project pow.r after
May 31, 1987, without the limitation of a
mechanical renewal of the exi'lin8
contractc or an automatic rediotribution
of the power 1IID0na the three stete..
W..t.m believeo that the renewals
and alIocationalhown in the Criteria
will provide for a fair distribution of the
reoources without impairirrs the
legitimate reliance of current contracto..
on the relOurce, Three 1l8D.ra1
alt.mative aUocatlon schemeo w.re
conaid.red and evaluated. The..
alternatlv.s, and an analyaiJ of the
elfecll of the.. altematlv.s, are
contain.d in the Envlronm.ntal
Assessment for the Gen.ral
Consolidated Pow.r Markelin8 Criteria
or Resu\ationa for Bould.r City Area
Proj.cls dat.d April 1983,
Th. Bould.r Canyon Proj.ct Act
requirel Weot.m to publisb regulatlono
for contract ren.wal. and for the ..I. of
power from the project. We.t.m ba.
.fat.d that thOle Criteria are the
regulatlono refeJTed to, which are
berewith promu\sated purcuantto the
Boulder Canyon Project Acl
7, Amount of Capaeity ond Energy
Reserved for Renewal to Current
Boulder Canyon Project Contraeto""
The Crit.ria gen.ralIy provid.. for a
ren.wal to the pre..nt nlllD.plat.
capacity ralin8 of the individual unit.
..signed for the use of the contracto.. or
to 1IID0unll of capacity designated in the
current contractc. Th. enefllY re..rv.d
for the renewal offar i. the individual
contracton allocated percent... of 3865
MkWh. th.U-y.ar average of total
sal.s of Boulder Canyon Project enefllY
from 111l18-1lWl1. Th. renewal offer also
containo additionallllDounll of capacity
and en.fllY allocated to the City of Lo.
Ansel... Departm.nt of Wat.r and
Power.

~otwith.tandlna the lap) poaitlona of
the current contractora. qualified
IlIPPOrl for the capacity ....d enersy
amounll ohown in the A......t1882
Criteria bu been axpreued in
commenta from tba current contracto..,
Some ~ were ......ted in
comm..... '- Boulder Canyon Project
contractors and other entltl.s. Western
bal adoptacl some of the l1I8llested
chanaeo. where appropriate,
Th. renewa1 amounll of capacity
were dev.loped consi.tent with
historical power mark.lin8 policy. In
ll8D.ral. the capacity available for
mark.lin8 from reellllDatlon projectl,
bas been based on that capacity, which
II surpluoto proj.ct n.edl, if an adv....
wat.r supply condition were to .xi.t
durill8 a given contract period. Based on
R.elamatlon bydrology studies. for the
period 1987-1llll7, an adve..e water
supply condition would result in
reservoir elevatlono that would still
produce nearly rated h.ad
(approximat.ly 490 feetJ on the
gen.ratlna unill. Thi. means that if the
markelin8 of pow.r for the 1987-1llll7
period from the Boulder Canyon Project
were based upon historical policy, the
nam.plate ralin8 or 1,340 MW of
capacity would be markeled,
R.ellllDation bas publiohed a special
report. entitled "Hoover Powerplant
Upralins Special R.port," U,S,
Departm.nt of the Int.rior, Bureau of
R.ellllDation (May 1980). that indicate.
the powerplant wiU actually produce
1.450 MW at rat.d bead. Argum.nll
bave be.n made that the renewal off.r
to .ach contractor sbould be based upon
the actual output of the dedicated
generalin8 unill at rated bead; the
amounts sbown in Reelamation:s !IlIK!~1
report.
Welt.m bas offered an amount of
capacity to the individual contractoro
based upon the nam.plate ratina of
sen.ralin8 unill prelently dedicat.d for
their Ule, and in lome cases other
contract entitlements, with the
.xception of the renewal capacity for
the City of Lo. Ansel.., Department of
Water and Power. Th. greate.t
reduction in capacity actually available
at rat.d bead to a current contractor
with a renewal off.r at the nameplate
ralin8 of the .xislin8s.neratoro, i. to
the City of Lot Ansele., Department of
Water and Pow.r, Th. sen.ratins units
installed for th.ir use were built in the
.arIy y.an of the project. and bave
ll"'at.r overload capability than
generato.. lnalal1ed in later years.
Therefore, Wect.m bas offered a
renewal to the actual capacity at rated
bead to the City of Lo. Ansel.s.
AdditionaUy, a proportionate share of