Laserfiche WebLink
<br />$4,205,457. Since the replacements in recent years have been at <br />,interest rates as high as 12.375 percent (see section G.2. below), <br />replacements have significant effect on the magnitude of the power <br />rate needed. <br /> <br />A comparison of the FY 1983 Revised PRS to the FY 1985 Final <br />Revised PRS for replacements projected for FY 1984 through FY 1990 <br />reveals the following: <br /> <br /> FY 1983 FY 1985 <br />FY Revised Final Revised <br />Year ~S ~S Difference <br />1984 106,000 10,496 ( 95,504) <br />1985 132,000 0 (132,000) <br />1986 221,000 590,435 369,435 <br />1987 74,000 274,231 200,231 <br />1988 60,634 462,903 402,269 <br />1989 108,835 609,129 5nn,294 <br />1990 776,866 368,892 (407,974) <br /> 1,479,335 2,316,n86 836,751 <br /> <br />In the FY 1983 Revised PRS the fi9ures shown above for years <br />1984 through 1988 are budget projections for replacements from <br />Reclamation whi le the figures for years 1989 through 1990 are computer <br />generated projections. In the FY 1985 Final Revised PRS, FY 1984 and <br />FY 1985 are actual amounts from financial statements and FY 1986 <br />through FY 1990 are Reclamation budget projections. The projection <br />for FY 1986 (in the FY 1985 study) has increased by about $220,000 for <br />replacements estimated to go into service in FY 1984 and FY 1985 in <br />the earlier study. As discussed under Annual O&M and Other Expenses, <br />(Section VII.D.) the extraordinary O&M expenses, part of which were <br />replacments, were included under O&M expenses in the FY 1983 Revised <br />PRS. In the FY 1985 Final Revised PRS, $960,846 of extraordinary O&M <br />for FY 1984 through FY 1990, was shown as replacements, along with <br />$238,351 of interest during construction (interest during construction <br />was not previously included). <br /> <br />G. Reimbursable Capital Investment Costs to be Repaid by Power <br />Revenues. <br /> <br />1. Cost Allocations. The method for allocation of RGP <br />costs, as used 1n the power repayment study for previous rate <br />adjustments, was developed in a report approved July 1949 by J. A. <br />Krug, then Secretary of the Interior. That report provided for <br />allocations of RGP joint costs based on an average of the <br />alternative-justifiable-expenditure and priority-of-use methods. The <br />alternative-justifiable-expenditure method assumed the cost of a <br />federally-financed alternative steamplant for power and assumed for <br /> <br />14 <br />