Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Agenda Item 9 <br />November 8. 1989 <br /> <br />increase from the current 9.92 mills per kWh to 13.4 mills per <br />kWh. This is considerably less than we had been hearing might <br />be the case. although it is still a large increase. <br /> <br />Under these circumstances. I do not know if the Central <br />Utah Project legislation will speak to this issue or not. <br />Likewise. no further contacts have apparently been made by <br />Western or the power customers to discuss use of the provision <br />in section 5(e) of the 1956 CRSP Act which allows revenues <br />apportioned in one state to be used in another state with the <br />former state's consent. <br /> <br />since comments on the proposed rate increase are not due <br />until January 25. 1990. and since the Central Utah Project <br />legislation has not yet been introduced. no action is required <br />by the Board at this time on this issue. However. we should <br />anticipate addressing it at the January Board meeting. <br /> <br />Proposed "Colorado Basin Conservation Fund" <br /> <br />At the September 28-29 Board meeting. I reported to you <br />that it was not known whether or not the Central Utah Project <br />legislation would call for the creation of a basinwide <br />environmental mitigation and enhancement fund using a surcharge <br />on power revenues as the source of funding. Since that time. <br />Congressman Wayne OWens (D-Utah) has released a proposal to <br />establish a Colorado Basin Conservation Fund. The enclosed <br />letter to Dan McAuliffe. who is on Congressman Campbell's <br />staff. and the briefing memo and legislative language attached <br />thereto. set forth Congressman OWens' proposal. <br /> <br />The proposal has three main elements: <br /> <br />(1) The Colorado Basin Conservation Fund would be created <br />with revenues from a two mill per kWh surcharge on <br />the price of electrical power sold from CRSP and a $1 <br />per acre foot charge on Upper Basin depletions. See <br />section 402(a) and (b) on page 55 of the draft bill. <br />Given the way section 402(b) (2) is worded. it <br />appears that the depletion charge would be levied <br />annuallY and would apply to any federal project. not <br />just CRSP participating projects. If this is the <br />proper interpretation of this language. it would <br />apply to projects such as the Fryingpan-Arkansas <br />project. the Colorado-Big Thompson project. the Grand <br />Valley project. and the Uncompahgre Valley project. <br />as well as the CRSP participating projects built <br />since 1956. <br /> <br />-2- <br />