Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />1 if, now Utilh. Note that the sh,1ded area reprf!sent in') the <br /> <br />? cumulAtive revenue requirements meets the revenue av~ilable <br /> <br />1 line in the year ?OS7. 1'his point is cAlled the rate setting <br /> <br />4 point since the cumulative requirements by this year determines <br /> <br />5 the revenues required. <br /> <br />(, <br /> <br />Delaying the five In~ctive projects also had a minor <br /> <br />7 effert upon the projected energy and capacity since delaying <br /> <br />R Rome or the Upper Rnsln depletions allowed added generation for <br /> <br />'l the period of the del "y. This graph compares September, 1981 <br /> <br />In d"plption schedule AS shown h"re, with the modified schedule <br /> <br />11 <br /> <br />shown in hlue. <br /> <br />In hoth cases, an ultimate depletion of S.8 <br /> <br />I? million Acre fept Annually was Assumed. <br /> <br />13 <br /> <br />There Are many other assumptions that were marle in <br /> <br />14 projecting the revenues anrl costs in the 1981 power repayment <br /> <br />15 study that are rliscussed In the brochure, and we invite you to <br /> <br />III refld tl1ilt informat.ion once ilgilin. <br /> <br />17 I would like to conclude with an explanation of how we <br /> <br />18 dpveloped the proposed trilnsmission rAtes. The method used to <br /> <br />19 determine the proposerl firm transmission rate shares the <br /> <br />20 benefits of the exch,'nge agreement between the United States <br /> <br />21 and the Salt River project, and Colorado Ute Electric <br /> <br />2~ nssociAtion with hoth the firm power customers and those who <br /> <br />23 purchase trAnsmission service. The exchange Agreement with <br /> <br />2~ Colorado Ute provides for up to a IOO-MW of exchange. The <br /> <br />~5 agre~ments with Salt River rrovirles for the exchange of up to <br /> <br />24 <br /> <br />Intermountain Court Reporters <br />?1i.l-11% <br />