Laserfiche WebLink
<br />and Rio Grande Projects. The initial puqlic information forum was held <br />on May 22, 1980, in Salt Lake City, Utah~ Most recently, revised proposed <br />post-1989 power marketing criteria for resources associated with those <br />four projects, called the Salt Lake City Area Integrated Projects, were <br />published at 49 FR 34900 (September 4, 1984). Upon completion of environ- <br />mental work, transmittal of this report to the Congress, and making any <br />necessary or desirable modifications to the September 1984 proposal, the <br />new marketing and allocation criteria will be completed. Western expects <br />to publish the final marketing criteria by August of 1985, and to allocate <br />the power by the end of 1985. The proposed criteria would financially and <br />contractually integrate the CRSP, Collbr~n, Provo River, and Rio Grande <br />Projects. The projects are now essentially integrated, operationally. As <br />a result of recognizing operational integration, and the adoption of more <br />realistic criteria for water availability, additional amounts of firm <br />power can be marketed. <br /> <br />Two innovative features contained in the proposed marketing criteria are <br />(1) allocating energy on a proportional basis and (2) allowing the <br />customer to request capacity based upon its own load characteristics. <br />These flexible features recognize that s.ome customers have relatively <br />constant loads, while other customers need Federal capacity over certain <br />peak periods. By allowing the individua'l customer to receive Federal <br />power in a manner that best serves that ~ustomers needs, the resource is <br />effectively utilized and the ultimate cqnsumer's power costs are minimized <br />through advantageous use of the versatility of Federal reservoi rs. <br /> <br /> <br />Western proposes to market from the integrated projects at least 1,472 MW <br />in the summer season and 1,433 MW in the winter season, including Federal <br />project priority uses. These amounts may be moderately increased when the <br />level of required reserves is finally de~ermined. The proposed offer is <br />for a 10-year contract period starting with the October 1989 billing <br />peri od. <br /> <br />C. Proposed Criteria -- Distribution of Resources Between Northern and <br />Southern Divisions <br /> <br />One of the major issues that the Septem~er 1984 proposal addressed is the <br />controversy over whether CRSP power sho~ld be withdrawn from the Southern <br />Division. Southern Division customers ~dvanced the concept that the <br />Southern Division should be assigned 20;percent of the net CRSP capacity <br />available for load in the summer and 7 percent in the winter on a perma- <br />nent basis. Some Northern Division customers disagreed, arguing that the <br />Southern Division allocation was for the term of the original power sales <br />contract only, and should not be deemed 'perpetual , since Northern Division <br />preference loads are now large enough to absorb all of the CRSP <br />generation. ' <br /> <br />The proposed post-1989 CRSP allocations:in Arizona (location of most of <br />the Southern Division allocations) repr~sent only about 3 percent of the <br />1984 summer energy sales and 1 percent of the winter sales from all <br />generation sources to all entities in that State. Withdrawal of Southern <br />Division allocations would not create problems from an electrical <br /> <br />16 <br />