WSP05932 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

operation standpoint. However, any withdrawal of CRSP hydropower from the Southern Division would have adverse impacts on Western's present CRSP customers in Arizona and Nevada. While Western believes that no legal bar exists to the total withdrawal of CRSP firm power from the Southern Division, such a proposal would most likely give rise to a legal challenge by the adversely impacted entities. Recognition of the economic dislocation that would result from a total withdrawal resulted in a compromise proposal for adjusting existing allo- cations. If a total withdrawal of the CRSP firm resource from Nevada and Arizona'were to take place, the resulting rate increase to Western's cus- tomers in those States could be expected to range from, 1 to 58 percent, depending on a particular utility's resource mix. The rate increase for the most representative customers (those with an auxillary power require- ment of 85 percent) could be expected to range from 9 to 20 percent, depending on the amount of non-CRSP Federal power available to the uti- lity. Such an increase in price could be expected to concern the Southern Division customers, to the extent that they might seek legislative relief from such an action. The September 1984 proposal exercises Western's authority to adjust the amount of the CRSP resource allocated to the Southern ~ivision and pro- poses an adjustment that reduces Southern Division allocations by 55 MW in the summer and increases the winter allocations by 26 MW. This compromise proposal was based upon preserving the spirit of the allocation that was made in 1962 while recognizing changing conditions. The Northern Division seasonal load diversity in the 1960's was a key factor in finali- zing the 1962 criteria. Current load studies indicate that this diversity no longer exists because of changed load patterns in the Northern Division. The loss of this diversity in the Northern Division was the primary basis for making the proposed adjustment in Southern Division allocations. Table 3 displays the amounts of long-term energy with power that would be offered (or set aside for Federal use), by season and division under the September 1984 proposal. In summary, under the September 1984 proposal, the Southern Division would be offered the following percentages of the available resources: Summer M ~ 15.1% 14.3% Winter MWh MW 8.7% 8.3% No increases in the available long-term power from federally financed resources in the Northern Division are expected in the post-1989 contract period. Comparisons between the amounts of CRSP long-term energy with power available for allocation and the existing CRSP contract commitments are shown in Figures 5 and 6 for each Division. 17