Laserfiche WebLink
<br />~ <br />.\0, <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />September 5, 1979, brochure entitled "Revised Proposed Power Rate Adjustment." <br />Further comments were received through October 5, 1979. These comments did <br />not raise any new issues. <br /> <br />In addition, briefings were held with the Governors of Colorado, New Mexico, <br />Utah, and l~yoming (or their repre.sentatives) on May 22, August 22, <br />September 6, and September 12, 1979, to discuss the proposed power rate <br />adjustment. <br /> <br />Subsequent to the September 5, 1979, public forum, Western discovered that, <br />contrary to a statement in the April 1979 rate brochure, the investment costs <br />for all except three participating projects were at the January 1976 level <br />and the costs of the three were at the October 1967 price level. A second <br />revision of the repayment study, with the three projects' costs indexed to <br />January 1976, was'made in February 1980. This study showed a need for a 25.8 <br />percent rate increase or 2 percent hi9her than the previously revised pro- <br />posed rate. A brief report showing the details of the study was sent to all <br />customers by letter on February 12, 1980, (February IS, 1980, for CRSP <br />customers in Boulder City area) and the second proposed revision was pub- <br />lished in the February 15, 1980, Federal Register (45 FR 10399) and was <br />announced in a press release dated February IS, 1980. Further comments were <br />received through March 17, 1980. No new issues were raised by the comments. <br /> <br />Procedures followed call for another 30-day period in which interested <br />persons may comment on the proposed power rate adjustment. The Assistant <br />Secretary for Resource Applications published her initial decision on <br />August 8, 1980 in the Federal Register. Comments will be received and reviewed <br />before the Assistant Secretary approves the provisional rates on an interim <br />basis and submits them to FERC. <br /> <br />It is evident from the above that, except for the few entities not reselling <br />CRSP power, representing only about 2 percent of the load served by CRSP, the <br />proposed rate increase will have a minor impact on the ultimate consumer. <br />Also, the proposed CRSP rate for the ultimate consumer receiving direct CRSP <br />delivery will still be considerably less than alternative power rates. <br />Hence, the proposed rate increase is not reasonably likely to cause large <br />individual or collective changes in energy consumption, location preferences, <br />or costs. Consequently, the proposed rate increase is not likely to result <br />in any further adverse environmental or socioeconomic impacts. <br /> <br />" <br /> <br />14 <br />