Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />An analysis of the possibility of the CRSP rate increase inducing utilities <br />to switch to other sources such as. fossil or nuclear fuel s has been made. <br />This analysis indicates the proposed CRSP rate is so far below the cost of <br />self-generated energy (for example, Provo City has indicated its self-generation <br />costs to be 24 mi 11 s per kWh ) and/or energy supp 11 ed from other sources that <br />it is highly unlikely customers would switch to other energy sources in lieu <br />of CRSP energy. Power demand for the project will not increase since all <br />energy generated is under firm commitment and there is a finite amount of <br />energy in the CRSP project. <br /> <br />Neither the proposal nor any of the alternatives will have any effect on the <br />way the existing system of hydroelectric dams is operated under CRSP. <br />Consequently, there will be no change in the hydrologic regime of the Colorado <br />River drainage system. Reservoir fluctuations and river flows will not be altered <br />from their historic patterns as a result of the proposed rate adjustment or <br />its alternatives. <br /> <br />Soil erosion or reservoir siltation in the drainage basin will not be affected <br />by the proposal either beneficially or adversely. Erosion and siltation will <br />continue to be an environmental concern in the Colorado River Basin regardless <br />of which alternative is selected. <br /> <br />Air quality in the basin will not be affected either directly or indirectly <br />as a result of the proposed rate adjustment. <br /> <br />The proposed rate adjustment will have no effect on either the flora or fauna of <br />the Colorado River Basin either directly or indirectly. While there are numerous <br />pressures being exerted on these resources as a result of general growth and <br />physical expansion of the Western economy, the (EA) analysis indicates that the <br />rate of adjustment will not affect that growth. <br /> <br />A cursory analysis of the rate adjustment and its alternatives indicates that <br />it will have no effect on the cultural and/or recreational resources of the <br />Colorado River Basin. <br /> <br />The alternatives to the proposal are: Do not adjust rates; obtain consent of <br />the four Upper Division States (Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming) to <br />reapportion revenues for repayment of the participating projects' investment <br />costs, seek legislatian to reapportion revenues among the four Upper Division <br />States, and limit investments shown in the study to those occurring in the <br />5-year cost evaluation period. The alternatives were not selected for the <br />following reasons: <br /> <br />1. Do not adjust the power rates. <br /> <br />Discussion: Consideration was given to the alternative of not adjusting the <br />power rates. However, P.L. 84-485 requires that power revenues must be <br />sufficient to pay a substantial portion of the operation, maintenance, and <br />replacement (OM&R) costs and repay much of both the interest-bearing and <br />interest-free investment for the storage units. Power revenues must also pay <br />a substantial portion of the interest-free investment of the participating <br />projects. P.L. 93-320 requires that CRSP power revenues pay the salinity <br /> <br />2 <br />