Parker-Davis Project, Pacific Northwest-Pacific Southwest Intertie Project, and the Central Arizona Project-Rate Order No. WAPA-114, 71279-71280 [E5-6572]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 227 / Monday, November 28, 2005 / Notices
Applicable
To the wholesale power customers for
firm power service supplied through
one meter at one point of delivery, or as
otherwise established by contract.
Character
Alternating current, 60 hertz, three
phase, delivered and metered at the
voltages and points established by
contract.
Monthly Rates
First Step:
Demand Charge: $3.43 per kilowatt
(kW) of billing demand.
Energy Charge: 13.06 mills per
kilowatthour (kWh) of use.
Billing Demand: Unless otherwise
specified by contract, the billing
demand will be the seasonal contract
rate of delivery.
Second Step:
Demand Charge: $3.59 per kW of
billing demand.
Energy Charge: 13.68 mills per kWh of
use.
Billing Demand: Unless otherwise
specified by contract, the billing
demand will be the seasonal contract
rate of delivery.
Adjustments
For Transformer Losses: If delivery is
made at transmission voltage but
metered on the low-voltage side of the
substation, the meter readings will be
increased to compensate for transformer
losses as provided for in the contract.
For Power Factor: None. The customer
will be required to maintain a power
factor at all points of measurement
between 95-percent lagging and 95percent leading.
[FR Doc. E5–6575 Filed 11–25–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Western Area Power Administration
Parker-Davis Project, Pacific
Northwest-Pacific Southwest Intertie
Project, and the Central Arizona
Project—Rate Order No. WAPA–114
Western Area Power
Administration, DOE.
ACTION: Notice of withdrawal of multisystem transmission rate proposal.
SUMMARY: The Western Area Power
Administration (Western) initiated a
formal rate process for the purpose of
implementing a multi-system
transmission rate (MSTR) by a Federal
Register notice published on June 22,
15:28 Nov 25, 2005
Jkt 208001
During the
consultation and comment period for
the rate process, Western received
comments voicing strong opposition to
the proposed methodology. No
comments were received in support of
the customer choice methodology.
The consultation and comment period
ended June 1, 2005. All formally
submitted comments, both written and
oral, were considered in preparing this
notice.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments
AGENCY:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
2004. The process was extended by a
Federal Register notice on March 3,
2005. The purpose of the extension was
to allow Western time to respond to
customer requests to develop a customer
choice model. Western developed and
presented a customer choice
methodology in public information and
public comment forums held March 29,
2005, and April 6, 2005, respectively.
Effective November 28, 2005, Western is
withdrawing the MSTR proposal for
long-term firm transmission service on
the Parker-Davis Project (P–DP), the
Pacific Northwest-Pacific Southwest
Intertie Project (Intertie), and the Central
Arizona Project (CAP). Western has
considered all comments in its decision
to withdraw its proposal for the MSTR
for long-term firm transmission service.
Western is, however, studying the
conversion of non-firm and short-term
firm transmission service on the ParkerDavis, Intertie and Central Arizona
projects to a multi-system service.
Customer notification will be provided
and feedback sought in a separate
informal process.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
J. Tyler Carlson, Regional Manager,
Desert Southwest Customer Service
Region, Western Area Power
Administration, P.O. Box 6457,
Phoenix, AZ 85005–6457, telephone
(602) 605–2453, e-mail
carlson@wapa.gov, or Mr. Jack Murray,
Rates Team Lead, Desert Southwest
Customer Service Region, Western Area
Power Administration, P.O. Box 6457,
Phoenix, AZ 85005–6457, telephone
(602) 605–2442, e-mail
jmurray@wapa.gov.
Written comments were received from
the following organizations: Arizona
Power Authority, Arizona Public
Service Company, K. R. Saline &
Associates, Robert S. Lynch and
Associates, Salt River Project.
Representatives of the following
organizations made oral comments:
Irrigation & Electrical Districts
Association of Arizona, R. W. Beck, Salt
River Project.
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
71279
Western responded to an oral
comment received during the Public
Information Forum in a letter dated May
17, 2005. The letter is posted on
Western’s Web site at https://
www.wapa.gov/dsw/pwrmkt/MSTRP/
MSTRP.htm. Responses in this notice
focus on written comments received
during the consultation and comment
period pertinent to a revised customer
choice model and Western’s authority to
develop an MSTR.
Comment: Western received a
comment suggesting it has no legal
authority to implement an MSTR of any
sort if the revenue requirements of
multiple projects will be combined.
Comments also questioned whether an
MSTR is allowed by DOE Order
RA6120.2.
Response: Under all MSTR
approaches presented by Western, each
power system would remain financially
independent for accounting and
repayment purposes. Each power
system would maintain a separate
Power Repayment Study (PRS) and
financial reports. The total MSTR
revenue collected would be allocated to
each power system based on the
individual power system’s percentage of
the total MSTR revenue requirement.
Western is not prohibited from
implementing such a blended rate by
either DOE Order RA 6120.2 or projectspecific legislation. Western has
combined the revenue requirements of
multiple projects for ratesetting
purposes in its other regional offices
and continues to set rates in this
manner.
Comment: A commenter who had
asked Western to provide general
information on the MSTR more than one
year ago believes Western has not
provided this information.
Response: The specific request had to
do with Western’s initial presentation of
a customer choice methodology. The
presentation consisted mainly of tables
and mathematical formulas to explain
the circular problem with the method.
At the commenter’s request an
explanation in words was posted on the
Web site in June, 2003 under the
heading ‘‘Informal Customer Meeting
May 23, 2003’’ linked with the phrase
‘‘Customer Choice Discussion.’’
Comment: A customer commented
that the ‘‘customer choice’’ model is an
attempt to lower rates for a small group
of ‘‘pancaked’’ customers at the expense
of the majority of Western’s firm
transmission customers.
Response: Western undertook the
design of the proposed ‘‘customer
choice model’’ to address several
customers’ comments received during
the initial MSTR consultation and
E:\FR\FM\28NON1.SGM
28NON1
71280
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 227 / Monday, November 28, 2005 / Notices
comment period. One of the earliest
principles stated by Western in the
initial MSTR development was to
eliminate the pancaking of firm
transmission rates. It was known that
any elimination of pancaking of rates
will result in a revenue loss to a single
power system by virtue of the pancaked
customer no longer having to pay two
systems’ rates for the same reservation.
Western’s customer choice model took
this into account and chose a rate which
would begin to eliminate pancaking
while balancing the risk to the other
power systems. Western projected
additional other revenues would be
realized in sufficient amounts to make
up for any losses resulting from MSTR
implementation.
Comment: A comment suggested
Western re-open the public process to
develop a customer choice model that
would be supported by a majority of
customers.
Response: Over a 2-year period,
Western has explored numerous options
for a multi-system transmission rate.
Four options were customer choice
models using various approaches. In all
cases, for Western to be able to collect
the full revenue requirement, some
customers will incur increased costs as
a result of a firm MSTR implementation.
In other customer choice models
explored by Western, varying levels of
support were noted. However in no case
did a majority of customers support the
methodologies. Support was dependent
upon the timing and the extent of
potential cost increases.
Comment: A comment requested
Western calculate the magnitude of rate
decreases if revenue projections
materialize without implementation of
an MSTR.
Response: During the public process
for the customer choice MSTR, Western
presented a table showing some loss of
firm revenues to the single system
projects due to partial un-pancaking.
Western projected mitigating this loss of
revenues in order to provide for stable
single system rates. Western’s
commitment to its customers is to keep
rates as stable as possible for the
foreseeable future. It is not appropriate
to project a rate decrease given the many
variables which may impact the rate
calculation.
Comment: A comment suggested that
if the MSTR is implemented, the return
of funds to each single system should be
based on the amount of transmission
revenue lost due to MSTR
implementation instead of based on the
percentage share of total revenue
requirement, as proposed by Western.
Response: The method the comment
suggested is the methodology Western
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:28 Nov 25, 2005
Jkt 208001
proposed in the initial MSTR
presentation which would have had all
customers converging to an MSTR in the
fifth year.
This methodology resulted in a risk of
increased costs to some customers. The
comments received at that time
correctly noted that any MSTR method
that eliminates pancaking presents a
risk of cost increases. However, MSTR
could help mitigate this risk by freeing
up additional capacity for sale.
Comment: Several comments
suggested that Western abandon this
proposal because the risks outweigh the
benefits.
Response: After careful consideration
of all comments, Western is
withdrawing the proposal for a firm
point-to-point MSTR rate at this time.
Availability of Information
All brochures, studies, comments,
letters, memorandums, or other
documents that Western initiates or uses
to develop the proposed rates are
available for inspection and copying at
the Desert Southwest Customer Service
Regional Office, Western Area Power
Administration, located at 615 South
43rd Avenue, Phoenix, Arizona. Many
of these documents and supporting
information are also available on
Western’s Web site at https://
www.wapa.gov/dsw/pwrmkt/MSTRP/
MSTRP.htm.
Regulatory Procedure Requirements
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980
(5 U.S.C. 601, et seq.) requires Federal
agencies to perform a regulatory
flexibility analysis if a final rule is likely
to have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities
and there is a legal requirement to issue
a general notice of proposed
rulemaking. This action does not require
a regulatory flexibility analysis since it
is a rulemaking of particular
applicability involving rates or services
applicable to public property.
Environmental Compliance
In compliance with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321, et seq.);
Council on Environmental Quality
Regulations (40 CFR parts 1500–1508);
and DOE NEPA Regulations (10 CFR
part 1021), Western has determined this
action is categorically excluded from
preparing an environmental assessment
or an environmental impact statement.
Determination Under Executive Order
12866
Western has an exemption from
centralized regulatory review under
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Executive Order 12866; accordingly, no
clearance of this notice by the Office of
Management and Budget is required.
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act
Western has determined that this rule
is exempt from congressional
notification requirements under 5 U.S.C.
801 because the action is a rulemaking
of particular applicability relating to
rates or services and involves matters of
procedure.
Dated: November 9, 2005.
Michael S. Hacskaylo,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. E5–6572 Filed 11–25–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Western Area Power Administration
Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program—
Eastern Division—Rate Order No.
WAPA–126
Western Area Power
Administration, DOE.
ACTION: Notice of order concerning
power rates.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The Deputy Secretary of
Energy confirmed and approved Rate
Order No. WAPA–126 and Rate
Schedules P–SED–F8 and P–SED–FP8,
placing firm power and firm peaking
power rates from the Pick-Sloan
Missouri Basin Program—Eastern
Division (P–SMBP—ED) of the Western
Area Power Administration (Western)
into effect on an interim basis. The
provisional rates will be in effect until
the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (Commission) confirms,
approves, and places them into effect on
a final basis or until they are replaced
by other rates. The provisional rates will
provide sufficient revenue to pay all
annual costs, including interest
expense, and repay power investment
and irrigation aid, within the allowable
periods.
DATES: Rate Schedules P–SED–F8 and
P–SED–FP8 will be placed into effect on
an interim basis on the first day of the
first full billing period beginning on or
after January 1, 2006, and will be in
effect until the Commission confirms,
approves, and places the rate schedules
in effect on a final basis ending
December 31, 2010, or until the rate
schedules are superseded.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
Robert J. Harris, Regional Manager,
Upper Great Plains Region, Western
Area Power Administration, 2900 4th
Avenue North, Billings, MT 59101–
E:\FR\FM\28NON1.SGM
28NON1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 227 (Monday, November 28, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 71279-71280]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E5-6572]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Western Area Power Administration
Parker-Davis Project, Pacific Northwest-Pacific Southwest
Intertie Project, and the Central Arizona Project--Rate Order No. WAPA-
114
AGENCY: Western Area Power Administration, DOE.
ACTION: Notice of withdrawal of multi-system transmission rate
proposal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Western Area Power Administration (Western) initiated a
formal rate process for the purpose of implementing a multi-system
transmission rate (MSTR) by a Federal Register notice published on June
22, 2004. The process was extended by a Federal Register notice on
March 3, 2005. The purpose of the extension was to allow Western time
to respond to customer requests to develop a customer choice model.
Western developed and presented a customer choice methodology in public
information and public comment forums held March 29, 2005, and April 6,
2005, respectively. Effective November 28, 2005, Western is withdrawing
the MSTR proposal for long-term firm transmission service on the
Parker-Davis Project (P-DP), the Pacific Northwest-Pacific Southwest
Intertie Project (Intertie), and the Central Arizona Project (CAP).
Western has considered all comments in its decision to withdraw its
proposal for the MSTR for long-term firm transmission service. Western
is, however, studying the conversion of non-firm and short-term firm
transmission service on the Parker-Davis, Intertie and Central Arizona
projects to a multi-system service. Customer notification will be
provided and feedback sought in a separate informal process.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. J. Tyler Carlson, Regional
Manager, Desert Southwest Customer Service Region, Western Area Power
Administration, P.O. Box 6457, Phoenix, AZ 85005-6457, telephone (602)
605-2453, e-mail carlson@wapa.gov, or Mr. Jack Murray, Rates Team Lead,
Desert Southwest Customer Service Region, Western Area Power
Administration, P.O. Box 6457, Phoenix, AZ 85005-6457, telephone (602)
605-2442, e-mail jmurray@wapa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: During the consultation and comment period
for the rate process, Western received comments voicing strong
opposition to the proposed methodology. No comments were received in
support of the customer choice methodology.
The consultation and comment period ended June 1, 2005. All
formally submitted comments, both written and oral, were considered in
preparing this notice.
Comments
Written comments were received from the following organizations:
Arizona Power Authority, Arizona Public Service Company, K. R. Saline &
Associates, Robert S. Lynch and Associates, Salt River Project.
Representatives of the following organizations made oral comments:
Irrigation & Electrical Districts Association of Arizona, R. W. Beck,
Salt River Project.
Western responded to an oral comment received during the Public
Information Forum in a letter dated May 17, 2005. The letter is posted
on Western's Web site at https://www.wapa.gov/dsw/pwrmkt/MSTRP/
MSTRP.htm. Responses in this notice focus on written comments received
during the consultation and comment period pertinent to a revised
customer choice model and Western's authority to develop an MSTR.
Comment: Western received a comment suggesting it has no legal
authority to implement an MSTR of any sort if the revenue requirements
of multiple projects will be combined. Comments also questioned whether
an MSTR is allowed by DOE Order RA6120.2.
Response: Under all MSTR approaches presented by Western, each
power system would remain financially independent for accounting and
repayment purposes. Each power system would maintain a separate Power
Repayment Study (PRS) and financial reports. The total MSTR revenue
collected would be allocated to each power system based on the
individual power system's percentage of the total MSTR revenue
requirement.
Western is not prohibited from implementing such a blended rate by
either DOE Order RA 6120.2 or project-specific legislation. Western has
combined the revenue requirements of multiple projects for ratesetting
purposes in its other regional offices and continues to set rates in
this manner.
Comment: A commenter who had asked Western to provide general
information on the MSTR more than one year ago believes Western has not
provided this information.
Response: The specific request had to do with Western's initial
presentation of a customer choice methodology. The presentation
consisted mainly of tables and mathematical formulas to explain the
circular problem with the method. At the commenter's request an
explanation in words was posted on the Web site in June, 2003 under the
heading ``Informal Customer Meeting May 23, 2003'' linked with the
phrase ``Customer Choice Discussion.''
Comment: A customer commented that the ``customer choice'' model is
an attempt to lower rates for a small group of ``pancaked'' customers
at the expense of the majority of Western's firm transmission
customers.
Response: Western undertook the design of the proposed ``customer
choice model'' to address several customers' comments received during
the initial MSTR consultation and
[[Page 71280]]
comment period. One of the earliest principles stated by Western in the
initial MSTR development was to eliminate the pancaking of firm
transmission rates. It was known that any elimination of pancaking of
rates will result in a revenue loss to a single power system by virtue
of the pancaked customer no longer having to pay two systems' rates for
the same reservation. Western's customer choice model took this into
account and chose a rate which would begin to eliminate pancaking while
balancing the risk to the other power systems. Western projected
additional other revenues would be realized in sufficient amounts to
make up for any losses resulting from MSTR implementation.
Comment: A comment suggested Western re-open the public process to
develop a customer choice model that would be supported by a majority
of customers.
Response: Over a 2-year period, Western has explored numerous
options for a multi-system transmission rate. Four options were
customer choice models using various approaches. In all cases, for
Western to be able to collect the full revenue requirement, some
customers will incur increased costs as a result of a firm MSTR
implementation. In other customer choice models explored by Western,
varying levels of support were noted. However in no case did a majority
of customers support the methodologies. Support was dependent upon the
timing and the extent of potential cost increases.
Comment: A comment requested Western calculate the magnitude of
rate decreases if revenue projections materialize without
implementation of an MSTR.
Response: During the public process for the customer choice MSTR,
Western presented a table showing some loss of firm revenues to the
single system projects due to partial un-pancaking. Western projected
mitigating this loss of revenues in order to provide for stable single
system rates. Western's commitment to its customers is to keep rates as
stable as possible for the foreseeable future. It is not appropriate to
project a rate decrease given the many variables which may impact the
rate calculation.
Comment: A comment suggested that if the MSTR is implemented, the
return of funds to each single system should be based on the amount of
transmission revenue lost due to MSTR implementation instead of based
on the percentage share of total revenue requirement, as proposed by
Western.
Response: The method the comment suggested is the methodology
Western proposed in the initial MSTR presentation which would have had
all customers converging to an MSTR in the fifth year.
This methodology resulted in a risk of increased costs to some
customers. The comments received at that time correctly noted that any
MSTR method that eliminates pancaking presents a risk of cost
increases. However, MSTR could help mitigate this risk by freeing up
additional capacity for sale.
Comment: Several comments suggested that Western abandon this
proposal because the risks outweigh the benefits.
Response: After careful consideration of all comments, Western is
withdrawing the proposal for a firm point-to-point MSTR rate at this
time.
Availability of Information
All brochures, studies, comments, letters, memorandums, or other
documents that Western initiates or uses to develop the proposed rates
are available for inspection and copying at the Desert Southwest
Customer Service Regional Office, Western Area Power Administration,
located at 615 South 43rd Avenue, Phoenix, Arizona. Many of these
documents and supporting information are also available on Western's
Web site at https://www.wapa.gov/dsw/pwrmkt/MSTRP/MSTRP.htm.
Regulatory Procedure Requirements
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601, et seq.)
requires Federal agencies to perform a regulatory flexibility analysis
if a final rule is likely to have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities and there is a legal requirement
to issue a general notice of proposed rulemaking. This action does not
require a regulatory flexibility analysis since it is a rulemaking of
particular applicability involving rates or services applicable to
public property.
Environmental Compliance
In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321, et seq.); Council on Environmental Quality
Regulations (40 CFR parts 1500-1508); and DOE NEPA Regulations (10 CFR
part 1021), Western has determined this action is categorically
excluded from preparing an environmental assessment or an environmental
impact statement.
Determination Under Executive Order 12866
Western has an exemption from centralized regulatory review under
Executive Order 12866; accordingly, no clearance of this notice by the
Office of Management and Budget is required.
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
Western has determined that this rule is exempt from congressional
notification requirements under 5 U.S.C. 801 because the action is a
rulemaking of particular applicability relating to rates or services
and involves matters of procedure.
Dated: November 9, 2005.
Michael S. Hacskaylo,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. E5-6572 Filed 11-25-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
