Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />2. Obtain consent of the four Upper Division States (Colorado, New Mexico. <br />Utah, and Wyoming) to reapportion revenues for repayment of the participating <br />projects' investment costs. <br /> <br />Discussion: P.L. 84-485 has a special provision in section 5(e) stating that <br />revenues in excess of the requirements for paying operating costs and repay- <br />ing power and storage unit investment costs shall be apportioned among the <br />Upper Di vi si on States in the foll owi ng proportions: Colorado - 46 percent; <br />New Mexico - 17 percent; Utah - 21.5 percent, and Wyoming - 15.5 percent. <br />The law states further that revenues so apportioned to each State shall be <br />used only for repayment of Construction Costs of participating projects or <br />parts of such 'projects in the State to which ~uch revenues are apportioned <br />and shall not be used for such purpose in any other State without the consent, <br />as expressed through its legally constituted autho.rity, of the State to which <br />such revenues are apportioned. In the repayment study, revenues from the <br />Basin fund are apportioned to the States in accordance with the provisions of <br />section 5(e) of P.L. 84-485, based on Colorado receiving just enough revenue <br />to meet its obligations in the year 2046. This results in credits to some <br />States in excess of amounts required for curr~ntly authori zed part i ci pati ng <br />projects. A smaller rate adjustment would result if the four states would <br />consent to a different apportionment. <br /> <br />Western met with representatives of the four States to apprise them of the <br />situation. The States' response was to adopt a resolution passed by the <br />Upper Colorado River Commission which supported the apportionment speCified <br />in the legislation, as included in the power repayment studies. Therefore, <br />reapportionment by consent is not a viable option at this time. <br /> <br />3. Seek legislation to reapportion revenues' among the four Upper Division <br />States. <br /> <br />Discussion: As noted in Option No.2, revenues from the Basin fund are <br />apportioned to the States in accordance with the provisions of section 5(e) <br />of P.L. 84-485. This results in a credits to some States in excess of <br />amounts required for currently authorized participating projects. At one <br />public information forum there was a question whether Western would seek <br />legislation to change the apportionment among the States to eliminate the <br />excess credit. <br /> <br />Western has considered the question. It is clear that credit will accrue <br />when the proposed rate increase is put into effect. Despite this, it is <br />equally clear that Western's charge is to operate the project in accord with <br />the express language of section 5(e) of the law regarding the handling of <br />revenues. Western follows legislative direction,' and feels it would <br />not be appropriate for it to seek legislative remedies of this kind. <br /> <br />4. Limit the investments shown in the study to those occurring in the <br />5-year cost evaluation period. <br /> <br />Discussion: A number of commentators raised the issue of whether Department <br />of Energy (DOE) order number R.A. 6120.2 (formerly Department of the Interior <br />730 DM4) should be interpreted to limit the period of analysis for all <br />investments to a maximum of 5 years into ,the future. This approach would <br />have the effect of limiting the congressionally authorized projects which <br /> <br />3 <br />