Laserfiche WebLink
<br />01450 <br /> <br />. WAPA's CRSP legal opinion <br /> <br />WAPA has argued that "Will Be" plan is not "inherently illegal". Furthermore, <br />according to section 7 of the Colorado River Storage Project Act, WAPA has the right <br />to operate the CRSP power plants in conjunction with other Federal powerplants, <br />present and potential, so as to produce the greatest practicable amount of power <br />and energy that can be sold at firm power and energy rates. <br /> <br />The plan would be illegal, according to WAPA, if WAPA management as a result of <br />implementing the "Will Be" plan cause CRSP rates to go up or if the powerplants <br />were operated in a manner contrary to the law of the river, violate environmental <br />laws, or if the Basin states could argue that a violation of some applicable law has <br />occurred. <br /> <br />Furthermore, if WAPA's management in carry out the transformation makes arbitrary <br />and capricious decisions at the expense of CRSP one could also argue that a <br />violation of law has occurred. An example would be, if WAPA fails to implement the <br />most cost effective plan for CRSP, then one could make the argument that WAPA <br />today is making decisions that are arbitrary and capricious based on CRSP revenue <br />being used tp support other projects. An argument could be made after reviewing <br />WAPA's plan that WAPA's is acting in a manner to cause financial harm to CRSP. <br /> <br />. WAPA's 5 "To Be" plan alternatives to closing Montrose <br /> <br />WAPA's examination of options to moving Montrose was done because of CRSP <br />customer and Congressional Office concerns. WAPA looked at 5 alternatives, which <br />were done only to present the appearance of an analysis, When the options are <br />reviewed in detail no option is superior to another. The difference is less than <br />$400,000 per year per option. One option should not have been considered but <br />used by WAPA nevertheless. It showed Montrose needing a computer system that <br />it already has and is ready to be placed in service at Montrose. This option raised <br />the cost of keeping Montrose by $8,0 million when compared to the other options. <br />This option was used by WAPA many times to justify its decision to move the <br />Montrose Office. <br /> <br />. Montrose location is too remote <br /> <br />WAPA has alluded to Montrose being too remote to promote effective coordination <br />with other entities which Montrose must conduct business with. For over 30 years, <br />the Montrose office worked well with others from its present location. 30 years ago, <br />before the emergence of low-cost computers and communications WAPA may have <br />had a point. Not today. Travel to and from the Montrose site is diminishing due to <br />this new technology. <br /> <br />8 <br />