Boulder Canyon Project-Post-2017 Resource Pool, 79436-79444 [2013-31214]
Download as PDF
79436
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 250 / Monday, December 30, 2013 / Notices
Dated: December 20, 2013.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
be accessed and/or submitted online at
https://www.wapa.gov/dsw/pwrmkt/
BCP_Remarketing/
BCP_Remarketing.htm. Applicants are
encouraged to use the application form
provided at the above Web site.
[FR Doc. 2013–31085 Filed 12–27–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717–01–P
Western Area Power Administration
Boulder Canyon Project—Post-2017
Resource Pool
Western Area Power
Administration, DOE.
ACTION: Notice of final marketing criteria
and call for applications.
AGENCY:
The Western Area Power
Administration (Western), a Federal
power marketing agency of the
Department of Energy (DOE), announces
the Boulder Canyon Project (BCP) post2017 resource pool marketing criteria
and is calling for applications from
entities interested in an allocation of
Federal power from the BCP. The
Conformed Power Marketing Criteria or
Regulations for the Boulder Canyon
Project (2012 Conformed Criteria)
published in the Federal Register on
June 14, 2012, as required by the Hoover
Power Allocation Act of 2011,
established general eligibility criteria
and a resource pool (Post-2017 Resource
Pool) to be allocated to new allottees.
Western has finalized marketing criteria,
developed through a public process, to
be used to allocate the Post-2017
Resource Pool, which will become
available October 1, 2017. These
marketing criteria, in conjunction with
the 2012 Conformed Criteria, establish
the framework for allocating power from
the Post-2017 Resource Pool. Entities
applying for an allocation of power from
the Post-2017 Resource Pool must
submit formal applications as described
within this notice.
DATES: Entities applying for an
allocation of Federal power from
Western must submit an application
(see Applicant Profile Data (APD) in
Section II) through one of the methods
described below. Western will accept
applications received on or before
March 31, 2014. Western reserves the
right to not consider any applications
received after this date.
ADDRESSES: Applications must be
submitted to Mr. Darrick Moe, Desert
Southwest Regional Manager, Western
Area Power Administration, P.O. Box
6457, Phoenix, AZ 85005–6457.
Applications may also be faxed to (602)
605–2490 or emailed to
Post2017BCP@wapa.gov. Application
forms are available upon request or may
maindgalligan on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:15 Dec 27, 2013
Mr.
Mike Simonton, Public Utilities
Specialist, Desert Southwest Region,
Western Area Power Administration,
P.O. Box 6457, Phoenix, AZ 85005–
6457, telephone number (602) 605–
2675, email Post2017BCP@wapa.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Jkt 232001
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
The BCP was authorized by the
Boulder Canyon Project Act of 1928 (43
U.S.C. § 617) (BCPA). Under Section 5
of the BCPA, the Secretary of the
Interior marketed the capacity and
energy from the BCP under electric
service contracts effective through May
31, 1987. In 1977, the power marketing
functions of the Secretary of Interior
were transferred to Western by Section
302 of the Department of Energy
Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7152) (DOE
Act). On December 28, 1984, Western
published the Conformed General
Consolidated Criteria or Regulations for
Boulder City Area Projects (1984
Conformed Criteria) (49 FR 50582) to
implement applicable provisions of the
Hoover Power Plant Act of 1984 (43
U.S.C. 619) for the marketing of BCP
power through September 30, 2017.
On December 20, 2011, Congress
enacted the Hoover Power Allocation
Act of 2011 (Pub. L. 112–72) (HPAA),
which provides direction and guidance
in marketing BCP power after the
existing contracts expire on September
30, 2017. On June 14, 2012, Western
published the 2012 Conformed Criteria
(77 FR 35671) to implement applicable
provisions of the HPAA for the
marketing of BCP power from October 1,
2017, through September 30, 2067. The
2012 Conformed Criteria formally
established a resource pool defined as
‘‘Schedule D’’ to be allocated to new
allottees. In accordance with the HPAA,
Western allocated portions of Schedule
D to the Arizona Power Authority (APA)
and the Colorado River Commission of
Nevada (CRC), respectively, as
described in the June 14, 2012 Federal
Register notice. Of the remaining
portions of Schedule D, Western is to
allocate 11,510 kilowatts (kW) of
contingent capacity and associated firm
energy to new allottees within the State
of California, and 69,170 kW of
contingent capacity and associated firm
energy to new allottees within the
Boulder City Area (BCA) marketing area
as defined in the 2012 Conformed
Criteria.
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
On October 30, 2012, Western
published proposed marketing criteria
to be used in the allocation of the Post2017 Resource Pool. Public information
and comment forums were held in Las
Vegas, Nevada; Tempe, Arizona; and
Ontario, California. Western received
comments from existing power
contractors, Native American tribes,
cooperatives, municipalities, and other
potential contractors. Transcripts of the
public comment forums, as well as
comments received, may be viewed on
Western’s Web site at https://
www.wapa.gov/dsw/pwrmkt.
Response to Comments on the Post-2017
Resource Pool Marketing Criteria
Western received numerous
comments on its proposed Post-2017
marketing criteria during the comment
period. Western reviewed and
considered all comments received. This
section summarizes and responds to the
comments received on the proposed
Post-2017 Resource Pool marketing
criteria.
Ready, Willing, and Able
Comment: Western should provide
time flexibility for those seeking
transmission arrangements to meet
potential ready, willing, and able
provisions.
Response: Western intends to work
with potential allottees to the extent
feasible to ensure sufficient
transmission arrangements are in place
by October 1, 2016. However, it is the
allottees’ ultimate responsibility to meet
the ready, willing, and able provisions.
Comment: Western should accept a
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) or
similar documentation between an
applicant and a transmission
distribution provider as evidence the
applicant has met the ready, willing,
and able requirements. Requiring
applicants to develop and execute
contractual agreements prior to
notification of an allocation could create
an unnecessary political and procedural
hardship for some applicants.
Response: Applicants will need to
demonstrate satisfactory arrangements
to meet ready, willing, and able
requirements by October 1, 2016. Final
allocation determinations are
anticipated to be established well in
advance of this date. Therefore,
applicants should have adequate time to
develop and execute any necessary
contractual arrangements. Western may
accept an MOA or similar
documentation between an applicant
and a transmission and/or distribution
provider if it establishes a legallybinding right of the applicant to receive
the required services.
E:\FR\FM\30DEN1.SGM
30DEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 250 / Monday, December 30, 2013 / Notices
maindgalligan on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Comment: Request all applicants,
including Native American tribes, be
required to meet the same criteria such
as the ready, willing, and able
requirement.
Response: Western finds that certain
exceptions for Native American tribes,
such as the ready, willing, and able
requirement, are consistent with DOE’s
American Indian and Alaska Native
Tribal Government Policy (Tribal
Policy), available at https://energy.gov/
em/downloads/doe-american-indianand-alaska-natives-tribal-governmentpolicy, and recognizes the special and
unique relationship between the United
States and tribal governments. Western
will work cooperatively with all
applicants, but has found that
additional flexibility in interacting with
tribal applicants is important to ensure
the successful implementation of tribal
allocations.
Priority Consideration
Comment: The HPAA identifies
certain classes of applicants that may
ultimately qualify for allocations; it does
not identify any mandatory criteria for
Western to utilize in prioritizing those
allocations. At some point, Western
must make such decisions. Western’s
proposed prioritization is reasonable to
determine fair and equitable allocations.
Response: Western agrees with this
comment. Western has the need and the
authority to prescribe marketing criteria
consistent with historical BCP
legislation in order to evaluate
applications in the allocation of the
Post-2017 Resource Pool.
Comment: Western proposes a
prioritization of preference-eligible
entities in making new allocations.
What is Western’s statutory authority for
making this prioritization? How did
Western determine the ranking among
preference-eligible entities as proposed?
Response: Section 5 of the BCPA and
Section 302 of the DOE Act as well as
HPAA authorize Western to establish
and apply regulations governing BCP
allocations, including the formation of
project-specific marketing criteria as
proposed. Western’s proposed
marketing criteria were established to
promote widespread use, be consistent
with DOE’s Tribal Policy, and respond
to the public interest in a finite
resource. Western concludes that
providing an initial consideration for
Native American tribes is appropriate
based on comments received, and
because tribes are specifically identified
by the HPAA as eligible allottees and
have not previously received allocations
of Hoover power. The remaining eligible
entities were prioritized to promote
widespread use principles in a manner
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:15 Dec 27, 2013
Jkt 232001
that supports the public interest.
However, after considering comments
received, Western has decided not to
differentiate among the non-tribal, nonprofit eligible entities in the final
marketing criteria.
Comment: Reclamation Law and its
particular priorities do not apply to the
Hoover power allocation process. The
BCPA establishes specific power
allocation and customer priorities, and
these statutory requirements govern the
Hoover allocation process.
Response: Neither the HPAA nor the
BCPA provide for a specific method for
determining allocations of BCP power to
new entities described in Section 5.
Section 5 of the BCPA specifically
authorizes the Secretary ‘‘under such
general regulations as he may prescribe’’
to contract for the sale of Hoover power
and to resolve conflicting applications
for the power ‘‘with due regard to the
public interest.’’ Western’s public
process provides a transparent means of
exercising this authority in making final
allocations when potential demand is
very likely to exceed the available
resource to be marketed.
Comment: Section 5 of the BCPA
governs the allocation of power from
Hoover Dam. Section 5(c) of the BCPA
gave the three States of Arizona,
California, and Nevada the first right, or
a super-preference over all other Section
5 applicants, to apply for, obtain and
share among themselves in the power
generated at the dam. The states’
application takes precedence over any
other applicant.
Response: Section 5 of the BCPA
cannot be applied in isolation in
allocating Schedule D power. Under the
HPAA substantial portions of BCP
power, including portions of Schedule
D, have been allocated to entities in
Arizona, California, and Nevada,
including the Arizona Power Authority
and the Colorado River Commission of
Nevada as the agencies specified by
State law as the agents for their
respective states to purchase power
from the Boulder Canyon Project.
Section 2(d) of the HPAA provides that
the remaining Schedule D power must
be allocated by Western to entities not
receiving Hoover power under
Schedules A and B (‘‘new allottees’’).
Western concludes that allocating
additional Schedule D power to the
states would not be consistent with this
provision of the HPAA. Furthermore,
HPAA’s direction to Western to allocate
33 percent of Schedule D equally to the
States of Arizona, California, and
Nevada with the remainder to be
allocated within the marketing area to
new allottees indicates a congressional
intent for Western to adhere to its
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
79437
historical practice of allocating the
remaining portions of Schedule D based
on the load or need of the applicants.
The House Report for the HPAA (H.R.
Rep. No. 112–159) also states that
Western is expected to determine
allocations by an assessment of the
applicants power needs and act in
objective manner consistent with
Federal preference standards.
Comment: Absent direction from
Congress, Western may not selectively
implement elements of the BCPA
Section 5 to the disadvantage of the
‘‘States,’’ i.e., Arizona, California, and
Nevada.
Response: Western is not selectively
implementing Section 5 of the BCPA to
the disadvantage of the states. Section 5
grants the Secretary broad discretion to
allocate power in accordance with the
public interest and does not require that
all BCP power be allocated to the states.
Comment: The HPAA did not
authorize Western to take actions that
would result in the State of Nevada
receiving less resource from the pool
than it contributed to the pool.
Western’s allocation of the 69,170 kW of
Schedule D to be marketed within the
prescribed marketing area should be
made in the same proportion as the
states’ respective contributions to the
resource pool.
Response: The HPAA does not require
Western to allocate the remaining
portions of Schedule D on a state-bystate basis, and instead requires Western
to allocate Schedule D to new allottees
within the entire marketing area.
Section 5 of the BCPA specifically
grants the Secretary broad discretion to
allocate power in accordance with the
public interest. Western concludes that
allocating Schedule D among eligible
applicants based on their proportionate
peak load serves the public interest
while allocating based on the states’
proportionate contributions to the
resource pool does not.
Comment: Western’s allocations of
Hoover resources are governed by the
HPAA and the BCPA and are not subject
to the Preference Law concept in the
1939 Reclamation Act, so Western may
not lawfully designate Rural Electric
Cooperatives (Cooperatives) as potential
new allottees in its allocation process;
particularly when Congress was asked
to include Cooperatives in Western’s
69,170 kW allocation process under the
HPAA, and declined to do so.
Response: Western’s inclusion of
Cooperatives among eligible entities is
not based on the Reclamation Project
Act of 1939, but rather on the language
of the BCPA and the HPAA. In Section
5 of the BCPA, Congress identified
‘‘private corporations’’ as eligible
E:\FR\FM\30DEN1.SGM
30DEN1
maindgalligan on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
79438
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 250 / Monday, December 30, 2013 / Notices
entities, together with states, municipal
corporations, and political subdivisions
(43 U.S.C. 617d). Further, Section
2(d)(2)(C)(i)(I) of the HPAA expressly
provides (in relevant part) that Schedule
D may be allocated to entities ‘‘eligible
to enter into contracts under Section 5
of the Boulder Canyon Project
Act. . . .’’ Therefore, under both
statutes, Cooperatives as private
corporations are eligible to receive
allocations under Schedule D.
Beyond the language of the statutes,
Western finds additional support for its
interpretation in House Report 112–159,
which specifically lists Cooperatives
among entities eligible to receive
allocations from the new proposed
Schedule D.
Comment: The legislative history
supporting the HPAA reflects the intent
of Congress to ensure that Cooperatives
are provided access to the power made
available under Schedule D. However,
that intent is not brought forth in the
proposed marketing criteria, which state
that Western will consider an allocation
for a Cooperative after considering an
allocation for federally recognized
Native American tribes, municipal
corporations, political subdivisions,
irrigation or other districts, and other
governmental organizations that have
electric utility status. Western should
ensure fair and equitable access to
Cooperatives of Schedule D power.
Response: After considering
comments and analyzing various
options, Western has established
marketing criteria that provide a first
consideration to tribes and then treats
all Section 5 non-profit entities equally.
This results in an aggregation of all
Section 5 eligible entities that are nonprofit in nature, including Cooperatives.
The first consideration to tribes is not
intended to establish a tribal-only pool
or to meet all tribal needs prior to other
eligible applicants. Therefore, Western
anticipates the criteria will provide
opportunities to Cooperatives seeking
Schedule D power.
Comment: Providing priority to
Native American tribes, municipal
corporations, and political subdivisions
ahead of Cooperatives is an
unprecedented departure in the
treatment of traditional preference
entities and is not consistent with the
Congressional intent of HPAA. Western
should consider applications of tribes
on par with the applications of
traditional preference entities such as
Cooperatives and municipally-owned
utilities.
Response: Western’s marketing
criteria are intended to promote
widespread use, be consistent with DOE
Tribal Policy, and respond to the public
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:15 Dec 27, 2013
Jkt 232001
interest in a finite resource. Western has
determined that providing an initial
priority consideration for Native
American tribes is appropriate based on
comments received, and because tribes
are specifically identified by the HPAA
as eligible allottees and have not
previously received an allocation of
Hoover power. This first consideration
for tribes is not intended to establish a
tribal-only pool or to meet all tribal
needs prior to other eligible applicants.
Western anticipates the criteria will
provide opportunity to Cooperatives,
municipally-owned utilities, and
political subdivisions seeking Schedule
D power.
Comment: Clarity should be made in
priority number 2 such that a municipal
corporation or political subdivision that
receives power and/or support from a
Cooperative should retain a second
priority and not be demoted to a third
priority.
Response: Based upon comments
received, the proposed priority criteria
were modified to consider Cooperatives
equally with other non-profit Section 5
entities. The final criteria do not
distinguish between a municipal
corporation or political subdivision that
receives services from a Cooperative and
the Cooperative itself.
Comment: The 2011 amendments to
Section 5 of the BCPA gave federally
recognized Indian tribes a preference on
an equal basis with other Section 5
applicants.
Response: The HPAA establishes
Native American tribes as eligible
entities to receive power from the BCP.
The HPAA does not prescribe a priority,
preference, or direction related to
Western’s consideration of eligible
applicants.
Comment: Comments were received
that support a first priority to tribes.
Priority to tribes will help redress the
historic lack of tribal access to project
benefits and is consistent with the
HPAA, Western’s trust responsibility to
tribes, Western’s precedent in other
marketing efforts, Western’s
administrative discretion as provided in
Reclamation Law, underlying
Congressional intent, and HPAA’s
directive that Western fairly and
equitably determines allocations from
the new power pool.
Response: Western finds merit in the
retention of a tribal priority. Western
has consistently provided increased
opportunities for Native American
tribes. Such consideration has been
extended to tribes as Western seeks to
promote Federal tribal initiatives as
described in Title 5 of the Energy Policy
Act of 2005 and DOE’s Tribal Policy.
The first consideration for tribes does
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
not constitute a tribal-only pool or mean
that all tribal needs will be met prior to
other eligible applicants.
Comment: Allocations should meet
the peak tribal demand requirement
before allocations are made to the next
priority.
Response: Western finds merit in the
retention of a first consideration for
tribes. However, it is anticipated that
the demand for Schedule D power will
far exceed what is available, and
Western is not prescribing a tribal-only
pool. Allocating the Post-2017 Resource
Pool to fully meet peak tribal demands
prior to making allocations to Section 5
entities would likely hinder Western’s
ability to allocate Schedule D power to
non-tribal entities and would restrict the
promotion of widespread use to a
diverse base of customers.
Comment: Priority for Native
American tribes should be capped at a
maximum of 50 percent of new power
allocations available to all states
combined to all or any Native American
tribes.
Response: After considering
comments and analyzing various
options, Western has established
marketing criteria providing tribes first
consideration for an allocation of up to
25 percent of their peak load,
considering all Federal power
allocations and a 3,000 kW maximum
allocation for any applicant. These
criteria seek to establish meaningful
tribal allocations while also preserving
a reasonable portion of Schedule D for
new entities eligible under Section 5 to
promote widespread use to a diverse
base of customers.
Comment: Congress did not intend for
the federally recognized tribes to have
exclusive rights to the Schedule D
power, and the priority criteria will
operate as such if there are sufficient
applications for allocations.
Response: Western’s marketing
criteria does not establish a tribal-only
pool; the first consideration given to
tribes will extend up to 25 percent of
their peak loads, considering all Federal
power allocations and the 3,000 kW
maximum allocation for any applicant.
These criteria seek to establish
meaningful tribal allocations while also
preserving a reasonable portion of
Schedule D power for new entities
eligible under Section 5 to promote
widespread use to a diverse base of
customers.
Comment: There should be no priority
among all BCPA Section 5 entities and
federally recognized Native American
tribes. Allocations should be based on
other marketing criteria elements, such
as the actual load or energy demand of
each applicant, whether the applicant
E:\FR\FM\30DEN1.SGM
30DEN1
maindgalligan on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 250 / Monday, December 30, 2013 / Notices
already receives the benefits of a Federal
power resource, and the applicant’s
ability to take delivery of the energy to
meet their load.
Response: After considering
comments and analyzing various
options, Western has retained a first
consideration for tribes, but modified
the marketing criteria to aggregate all
Section 5 eligible entities that are nonprofit in nature for allocations after
meeting up to 25 percent of tribal peak
load when considering all Federal
allocations.
Comment: Public water agencies
should have an equal opportunity to
obtain Federal energy resources that are
reserved for the public benefit. The
provision of public utility service is of
equal benefit to the public, whether the
utility is water or electric service.
Response: After considering
comments and analyzing various
options, Western has established
marketing criteria that aggregates all
Section 5 eligible entities that are nonprofit in nature. Therefore, water and
electric utilities will be treated equally.
Comment: Absent direction from
Congress, Western may not impose an
‘‘electric utility status’’ priority or
requirement on potential allottees,
particularly when Congress declined to
adopt a proposed amendment to the
HPAA seeking preference for fullservice public power providers. Giving
priority to entities having electric utility
status would eliminate or at least
prejudice the status of all otherwise
eligible applicants who are customers of
electric utilities. The marketing criteria
should include municipal corporations
and political subdivisions including
irrigation or other districts,
municipalities and other governmental
organization without electric utility
status. Western should eliminate the
priority for having electric utility status.
Response: After considering
comments and analyzing various
options, Western has determined there
is no need to retain the provisions
regarding electrical utility status for
establishing allocations.
Comment: Comments were received
that support Western’s continued
adherence to its historic policy of
allocating Hoover power to new tribal
customers without regard to their
‘‘electric utility status.’’ This supports
broad inclusion of new tribal customers,
and nothing in the legislation or
legislative record contradicts Western’s
adherence to this practice with respect
to the Hoover allocation.
Response: After considering
comments and analyzing various
priority options, Western has not
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:15 Dec 27, 2013
Jkt 232001
retained an electrical utility status
priority or requirement for applicants.
Comment: There is no statutory
requirement linking eligibility to an
entity having electric utility
responsibility, nor ownership of electric
distribution facilities. Support the
inclusion of public utilities other than
electric utilities as it is essential to meet
the ‘‘widest use’’ statutory requirements
and public policy objectives.
Response: After considering
comments and analyzing various
priority options, Western has not
retained an electrical utility status
priority or requirement for applicants.
Comment: The proposed criteria
properly give priority to municipal
utilities and irrigation districts. Such
entities should receive priority in the
Post-2017 remarketing.
Response: After considering
comments and analyzing various
options, Western has established
marketing criteria that aggregates all
Section 5 eligible entities that are nonprofit in nature for allocations after
meeting 25 percent of tribal peak load
when considering all Federal
allocations.
Comment: The HPAA provides for
Schedule D for ‘‘entities not receiving
contingent capacity and firm energy
under subparagraphs (A) and (B). . . .’’
Western’s proposed marketing criteria
do not include that criterion. The
marketing criteria must adhere to
statutory directives in the allocation of
the Post 2017 Resource Pool.
Response: Part VI Section D of the
2012 Conformed Criteria states in part
that ‘‘Western shall offer Schedule D
contingent capacity and firm energy to
entities not receiving contingent
capacity and firm energy under Section
A (Schedule A) or Section B (Section B)
(referred to herein as ‘‘New Allottees’’)
for delivery commencing October 1,
2017.’’ Therefore Western’s marketing
criteria does adhere to applicable
statutory directives. Based on comments
received, Western has further clarified
in the final marketing criteria that
entities receiving Schedule A or
Schedule B contingent capacity and
firm energy from APA or CRC will not
be eligible for an allocation as a new
allottee.
Comment: If there is insufficient
power available for interested and
eligible entities within a subgroup,
Western should give priority to
applicants within each tier that would
use the resource to advance
environmental objectives.
Response: After considering this
comment, Western has determined not
to adopt the suggested priority for
applicants that would advance
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
79439
environmental objectives. Such a
priority is not addressed in either the
BCPA or HPAA, and Western is not
aware of applicable criteria to determine
which uses would advance
environmental objectives.
Comment: Western should avoid
allocation to only the first priority tier
in order to promote widespread use to
a diverse base of customers. Western
should reserve portions of power for
subsequent tiers to meet demands of
more than just the first priority tier.
Response: Western agrees with this
comment. Although final allocations are
dependent upon the applications
received, Western does not anticipate
allocating the entire Schedule D
resource pool to a single category. In
response to comments of this nature,
Western has established a 3,000 kW
maximum allocation. The 3,000 kW
maximum allocation will be applied to
all entities receiving an allocation of
Schedule D. The final marketing criteria
seek to establish meaningful tribal
allocations and preserve a reasonable
portion of Schedule D power for new
entities eligible under Section 5 to
promote widespread use to a diverse
base of customers.
Comment: Would there be any power
reserved for each priority group?
Response: Final allocations are
dependent upon the applications
received. However, Western anticipates
allocating power to both tribal entities
and entities eligible under Section 5 of
the BCPA. In response to comments of
this nature, Western has established a
3,000 kW maximum allocation. The
maximum allocation criterion will help
promote widespread use to a diverse
base of customers.
Comment: With regard to municipal
water utilities, what is meant by the
independently governed standard?
Response: After considering
comments, Western has eliminated this
requirement.
Comment: If allocating to an
aggregated entity, is its priority
established by the nature of its
members, or its own nature?
Response: Eligibility and priority will
be determined based upon the nature of
the applying entity. All members of an
aggregated entity must be themselves
defined as an eligible entity.
Consideration of Existing Federal Power
Resource Allocations:
Comment: In this Hoover allocation
effort, Western should impose a
maximum of five percent reduction on
new tribal customers receiving the
benefit of other Federal hydropower
resources.
E:\FR\FM\30DEN1.SGM
30DEN1
maindgalligan on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
79440
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 250 / Monday, December 30, 2013 / Notices
Response: Under Western’s marketing
criteria, first consideration will be given
to tribes for up to 25 percent of their
peak loads considering all Federal
power allocations. Western finds merit
in considering the direct or indirect
benefits of all Federal power allocations
of all applicants, without limitation, to
ensure Federal power is spread widely
and equitably among eligible entities.
Comment: In order to advance the
‘‘widest use’’ public policy objective,
Western should deem entities currently
receiving any Western allocation, not
just BCP resources, to be ineligible for
Schedule D resources.
Response: Western will not deem
entities to be ineligible based solely
upon existing Western allocations from
other projects; however, all existing
Western allocations will be considered
in the allocation process to advance
widespread use principles.
Comment: While it is understood that
Western has not proposed to exclude or
reprioritize tribes that currently have an
allocation of Federal power, tribes
should not be blocked from receiving an
allocation, by disqualification or
reprioritization, on the basis of a prior
Federal resource allocation.
Response: Western will not prevent a
tribe from receiving an allocation solely
because it currently receives an
allocation from another Western project.
First consideration will be given to
tribes to receive up to 25 percent of their
peak loads considering all Federal
power allocations.
Comment: Preference should be given
first to tribes, regardless of receiving any
other Federal hydropower allocation,
and then to non-tribal entities, if there
is any Hoover power left.
Response: Western’s marketing
criteria does provide first consideration
to tribes for up to 25 percent of their
peak loads considering all Federal
power allocations. Western finds merit
in providing opportunity for non-tribal
applicants and that it is consistent with
the intent of the HPAA. Western
anticipates the marketing criteria will
promote Federal tribal initiatives and
provide opportunity for non-tribal
applicants.
Comment: Western should consider
other Federal power allocations as well
as the availability of other lower cost
power to the applicants. Greater
consideration should be given in
instances where Hoover power is the
only lower cost power available to the
applicant. First priority should be
provided to eligible entities that
currently do not have a contract with
Western for Federal power resources or
are not a member of a parent entity that
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:15 Dec 27, 2013
Jkt 232001
has a contract with Western for Federal
power.
Response: Western will consider any
other Federal power allocations the
applicants receive, either directly from
Western or indirectly through a parent
or host entity, when making allocation
determinations, but will not consider
the price of power as prices change over
time and there are a number of variables
that may be influencing such prices.
Load Data and Application Assistance
Comment: Technical assistance
provided by Western in the preparation
of an application for Hoover power
should be made available equally to any
eligible applicant.
Response: Western agrees with this
comment and will endeavor to assist all
those in need of technical assistance.
Comment: Western should seek
representative load data from applicants
when available and allow applicants to
supplement such load data with other
information, including aggregated load
data, to support any request for an
allocation as well as estimating loads
where historical information is not
available. Recommend Western consider
new or future loads in establishing
allocations.
Response: Western will base
allocations to eligible applicants on
actual loads experienced in one of the
last three calendar years, i.e., calendar
years 2011, 2012, or 2013, as designated
by the applicant. For Native American
tribes, Western may use estimated load
values if actual load data is not
available. An applicant will be able to
submit other information it deems
pertinent to receiving an allocation.
Such information will be considered at
Western’s discretion. Consideration of
future loads would introduce
speculation and unquantifiable
collective risk across all applicants and
will not be the foundation of
establishing allocations.
Comment: Suggest Western consider
allowing applicants to provide a broader
range of load history than just one year
at their election. Western should allow
consideration of the historical load
experienced by an eligible applicant
over the previous three year period if an
applicant can demonstrate significant
load/demand variance and can explain
the basis for the variance.
Response: Western will base
allocations to eligible applicants on
actual loads experienced in one of the
last three calendar years, i.e., calendar
years 2011, 2012, or 2013, as designated
by the applicant. For Native American
tribes, Western may use estimated load
values if actual load data is not
available. Western anticipates that this
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
will provide additional flexibility than
the proposed most recent calendar year
and will maintain a comparable and
manageable basis for allocations.
Minimum Allocation and Aggregation
Comment: Western should not
allocate Hoover power that has access to
the dynamic signal in such small
increments as to be non-cost-effective.
Response: Under the HPAA and the
2012 Conformed Criteria, all BCP
Contractors are entitled access to the
dynamic signal regardless of the size of
their allocation. While allocations may
be made as small as 100 kW, Western’s
anticipates the establishment of
operational protocols to enable Western
and the contractors to meet industry
scheduling parameters such as
scheduling in whole megawatt (MW)
values. These operational protocols may
assist in the cost effectiveness of
managing small allocations.
Comment: Western has stated that the
administrative costs associated with
dealing with small allocations will be
subsumed into general administrative
costs and spread over the entire
allocation base. Why would other
allottees be required to subsidize a cost
that can be allocated directly to a
particular allottee? Is this subsidy going
to reach across all Hoover contractors?
Response: Western’s costs for the
administration of power allocations are
tracked and accounted for each Federal
project at the functional activity level
(scheduling, dispatching, marketing,
etc.,) rather than for each contractor.
This is true of all Federal projects
administered by Western, including the
BCP. These costs are aggregated and
included in the Federal project’s
revenue requirement. Each contractor
pays its proportionate share of the
revenue requirement on a per unit cost
basis. This accounting treatment
conforms to generally accepted
accounting principles and is consistent
with Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (FERC) regulations, FERC’s
prescribed uniform system of accounts
for electric utilities, and DOE’s
accounting practices. Western
concludes this is an acceptable means of
cost recovery across customers of
variable allocations sizes.
Comment: Western can appropriately
address its allocation rounding concerns
solely through operational protocols.
Response: Western agrees with this
comment and, therefore, has lowered
the minimum allocation threshold for
the BCP from 1,000 kW to 100 kW.
Western anticipates establishing
operational protocols in the contracting
process to minimize rounding and other
E:\FR\FM\30DEN1.SGM
30DEN1
maindgalligan on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 250 / Monday, December 30, 2013 / Notices
issues associated with the delivery of
small allocations.
Comment: The commenter supported
the ability of applicants to aggregate
loads to meet minimum allocation
requirements.
Response: Western’s proposed
marketing criteria included minimum
allocations of 1,000 kW; Western also
proposed allowing applicants to
aggregate their loads to meet this
requirement. After considering
comments, Western is adopting a
minimum allocation of 100 kW for each
applicant, which may include an
aggregated entity. However, note that
scheduling protocols require a 1
megawatt (MW) minimum; therefore,
smaller entities will likely need to
formulate aggregation arrangements to
facilitate deliveries. The adoption of a
much lower minimum allocation is
anticipated to eliminate the need for
aggregation for allocation purposes.
Comment: Support for the
establishment of allocation criteria that
provides tribes with maximum
flexibility to access Schedule D power.
Western should ensure that the
implementation of an aggregation
mechanism does not result in a loss of
Schedule D power to new entities due
to a given allottee’s inability to meet
Western’s aggregation standards.
Western must implement the tribal
priority to ensure that allocations to
willing and eligible Schedule D allottees
are satisfied to the maximum extent
feasible prior to the returning any
Schedule D power to Schedule A and B
contractors.
Response: After considering
comments, Western is adopting a
minimum allocation of 100 kW for each
applicant, which may include an
aggregated entity. Therefore, perceived
risk associated with aggregation to
receive an allocation has been
minimized. Western agrees that efforts
should be made to distribute Schedule
D power to new allottees. Therefore,
Western has established marketing
criteria element ‘‘M’’, which results in
allocated Schedule D resource that is
not put under contract by October 1,
2016, to be redistributed to other new
allottees that have been allocated and
contracted for Schedule D with Western.
This criterion is anticipated to ensure
all of the Schedule D resource that
Western allocates will be retained by
new allottees.
Comment: Comments were received
that oppose any minimum allocation.
Western has not demonstrated sufficient
justification to require the proposed
minimum 1,000 kW allocation criteria
or to require new customers to enter
into an ‘‘aggregation arrangement’’ in
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:15 Dec 27, 2013
Jkt 232001
order to satisfy the requirement.
Western has offered no justification for
the minimum allocation criteria other
than for its own convenience, which, by
itself, is not a justification. This
requirement penalizes the smallest scale
new customers, a group consisting
overwhelmingly of small tribes in the
service area. Western should proceed
without of a minimum allocation
requirement.
Response: After considering
comments, Western is adopting a
minimum allocation of 100 kW for each
applicant, which may include an
aggregated entity. The 100 kW
minimum has been established to assist
Western in adhering to sound business
principles when establishing
allocations. An allocation of less than
100 kW is of such a small magnitude it
has historically not yielded meaningful
value to the allottee. In times in which
a benefit or bill crediting arrangement
has been sought, allocations of less than
100 kW have experienced significant
difficulty in acquiring a benefit or bill
crediting partner willing to engage in
transactions for this quantity of power.
This 100 kW minimum allocation
threshold has been successfully applied
in other Western marketing efforts and
Western finds merit in establishing it for
this allocation process.
Comment: Linking individual
allocations with some type of allocation
share penalty due to scale is
unprecedented and without
justification. Western regularly manages
the Hoover and other hydropower
resources in less than full megawatt
quantities. Therefore, given the total
number of potential new tribal Hoover
customers, Western’s approach of only
whole megawatt allocations would be
prejudicial and would only penalize
tribes.
Response: Western has historically
established minimum allocation and/or
load thresholds to maintain sound
business principles. After considering
comments, Western has eliminated a
1,000 kW minimum allocation and is
instead adopting a minimum allocation
of 100 kW. This significant reduction in
the minimum allocation provides
opportunity for small applicants while
also establishing a practical threshold to
ensure the allocation has sufficient
value to warrant its implementation.
However, note that scheduling protocols
require a 1 MW minimum; therefore,
smaller entities will likely need to
formulate aggregation arrangements to
facilitate deliveries.
Comment: Further clarification is
needed for an applicant seeking an
allocation of less than 1,000 kW. When
would communication of how
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
79441
scheduling arrangements will work be
expected? Since all non-tribal Arizona
allocations will be going through the
APA, would those arrangements be
sufficient to meet any load aggregation
requirements?
Response: After considering
comments, Western has eliminated a
1,000 kW minimum allocation and is
instead adopting a minimum allocation
of 100 kW for each applicant, which
may include an aggregated entity.
Communications concerning scheduling
arrangements and other operational
related issues will occur during the
contracting process. Allocations to nontribal Arizona applicants offered
through the APA will not be considered
an aggregation arrangement. Applicants
seeking less than 100 kW must meet the
load aggregation requirements in some
other manner.
Comment: The aggregation concept is
vague as defined. Western should utilize
the aggregation concept consistent with
its historic allowance for aggregation on
a voluntary basis in arranging for
allocation scheduling and/or delivery.
Allocating less than whole megawatts to
tribes will not end up creating
scheduling and operational problems for
Western. Due to the limited number of
tribal utilities, the vast majority of tribes
would need to enter into some type of
benefit crediting arrangement. This
would achieve Western’s expressed goal
of aggregating the less than whole
megawatt allocations.
Response: Western’s proposed
marketing criteria included minimum
allocations of 1,000 kW and allowed
applicants to aggregate their loads to
meet this requirement. After considering
comments, Western is instead adopting
a minimum allocation of 100 kW for
each applicant, which may include an
aggregated entity. Western anticipates
establishing operational protocols in the
contracting process to minimize issues
associated with the delivery of small
allocations.
Comment: Western should accept a
MOA or similar document between
members of an aggregated group as
demonstration of the group’s intention
and ability to apply for an aggregate
load.
Response: To be considered for an
allocation, the aggregated group, as the
applicant, must be an eligible entity as
defined by the HPAA and the 2012
Conformed Criteria, and must provide
sufficient documentation demonstrating
this eligibility. All members of an
aggregated entity must be themselves
defined as an eligible entity. Western
may accept the use of a MOA or similar
documentation between members of an
aggregated group as demonstration of
E:\FR\FM\30DEN1.SGM
30DEN1
79442
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 250 / Monday, December 30, 2013 / Notices
maindgalligan on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
the group’s intention and ability to
apply for an aggregate load if it
establishes a legitimate, legally-binding
aggregation of the members as
determined by Western.
Comment: Western should address
the authority for allottees to join
together and the nature of their ability
to do so in terms of the type of entity
that would have to be utilized. Where
do these envisioned entities classify
under Section 5 of the BCPA eligibility
definition?
Response: In order to be eligible for an
allocation, the entity submitting the
application must either be a Native
American tribe or a Section 5 entity.
The determination of whether the
applicant meets these requirements will
be made on a case-by-case basis.
Economic Benefit to Tribes
Comment: The HPAA makes specific
reference to the Secretary of Energy
obligation to offer capacity and energy
under Schedule D. While Western may
desire flexibility to provide an
equivalent benefit as set forth in
subsection L, the statutory language of
the HPAA limits the Secretary to
providing contingent capacity and firm
energy.
Response: The HPAA requires that
Western allocate the contingent capacity
and firm energy to eligible entities by
December 2014, and place it under
contract by October 1, 2017. It does not
prohibit Western from including
provisions in the contracts to provide
the economic benefits to allottees
should issues with the delivery of the
service occur. It is anticipated that
economic benefits would be achieved
through arrangements with third-party
benefit-crediting or bill-crediting
partners.
Comment: Western should clarify
what is meant by ‘‘unanticipated
obstacles’’ and ‘‘economic benefit’’ as
these terms are used in these proposed
criterion. This criterion should either be
eliminated or applied to all eligible
applicants equally.
Response: The phrase ‘‘unanticipated
obstacles’’ refers to unexpected barriers
to delivery of the electric service. In
such instance, Western will follow its
historic practice of allowing tribes to
contract with a third-party for benefit or
bill-crediting arrangements yielding the
economic value (economic benefit) of
the delivered power directly to the tribe.
This will only be available to tribes.
Additional Marketing Criteria
Comments
Comment: Requirements to execute a
contract within six months of receiving
a contract offer from Western and
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:15 Dec 27, 2013
Jkt 232001
requirements related to transmission or
distribution service in place by October
1, 2016 are acceptable.
Response: Western agrees with these
comments and has retained this
requirement.
Comment: Western’s marketing effort
schedule should be compressed to
establish final allocations sooner than
the summer of 2014 in order to provide
tribes more time to reach contractual
arrangement for the beneficial delivery
of Hoover power to their communities.
Response: Western intends to
complete the marketing effort through a
public process as soon as possible, but
anticipates that this will occur in the
summer of 2014.
Comment: Western should adopt the
plain language of the HPAA defining
‘‘new allottees’’ as ‘‘entities not
receiving contingent capacity and firm
energy’’ under Schedules A and B, and
the clear intent of Congress to ‘‘further
allocate and expand the availability of
hydroelectric power generated at
Hoover Dam.’’ Existing customers of
APA and CRC who have a suballocation for Schedules A and B
through APA or CRC should not be
eligible applicants for Schedule D from
Western. All applicants should only be
eligible to receive only one allocation of
power among all the available Schedule
D established via the HPAA.
Response: The HPAA defines ‘‘new
allottees’’ as entities not receiving
contingent capacity and firm energy
under Schedule A and Schedule B. This
definition excludes not only the
contractors named in those schedules,
but also entities receiving suballocations of the capacity and energy.
Therefore, neither the listed contractors
nor their sub-allottees will be eligible
for an allocation from the Post-2017
Resource Pool. Post-2017 suballocations of BCP power made by APA
or CRC subsequent to Western’s
allocation process are to be established
through the respective APA or CRC
allocation process.
Comment: The HPAA indicates that
Schedule D is intended to go to new
allottees, which are entities that are not
named in the legislation. APA
customers are not named in the
legislation. APA customers have no
assurances that anything allocated to
APA will come their way. APA
customers should be treated as potential
new allottees to avoid potential
exclusion. Request further explanation
on how Western intends to proceed.
Response: The HPAA defines ‘‘new
allottees’’ as entities not receiving
contingent capacity and firm energy
under Schedule A and Schedule B, and
not as entities that are not named in the
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
legislation. Therefore, Western will not
provide an allocation to any entity
currently receiving Schedule A or
Schedule B power.
Comment: Western should consider
allocation to existing APA customers
with withdrawal provisions in the event
that allottee was to be allocated further
BCP resource from APA.
Response: Western has not adopted
this proposal. The HPAA requires
Western to allocate Schedule D power
by December 2014 for delivery
commencing on October 1, 2017. It is
currently unclear when APA allocations
will be made. Western cannot ensure
there would be sufficient time to make
subsequent allocations and contracts for
any Schedule D power made available
after conclusion of the APA process.
Western concludes that implementation
of its allocation process contingent upon
such external factors is not practical.
Comment: Western may not, through
its administrative processes, impose
standards, requirements or limitations
on potential new allottees, that are
inconsistent with or not authorized by
Federal law specific to the BCP.
Response: Western’s marketing
criteria are in compliance with Federal
law specific to the BCP.
Comment: Western must contract
directly with each tribe receiving
Hoover power. Western has identified
no precedent for deviation from such a
practice and, in fact, Western has never
contracted in any manner other than
directly with its allocation recipients.
Response: Western intends to contract
directly with each tribe receiving an
allocation.
Comment: Western should clarify
how it will treat customers eligible for/
receiving Hoover allocations through
the States of Nevada or Arizona.
Response: The HPAA states that the
Western Schedule D allocations in
Arizona and Nevada to other than
Native American tribes are to be offered
through APA and CRC, respectively.
Therefore, after making any allocations
to non-tribal entities in those states,
Western will contractually provide the
capacity and energy to APA and/or CRC,
which will contract directly with the
allottee. The contracts between APA
and/or CRC and the allottee must
contain all contract terms required by
the HPAA, the 2012 Conformed Criteria,
and any necessary provisions prescribed
in Western’s contracts with APA and/or
CRC.
Comment: Western should publish in
a single document all of its criteria and
regulations regarding or impacting BCP,
including the relevant portions of the
1984 marketing criteria as well as the
material resulting from its actions on the
E:\FR\FM\30DEN1.SGM
30DEN1
maindgalligan on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 250 / Monday, December 30, 2013 / Notices
June 14, 2012, and October 30, 2012
Federal Register notices.
Response: Although Western will not
combine all that information into one
hard copy document, those materials are
all available for review at Western’s BCP
Web site located at https://
www.wapa.gov/dsw/pwrmkt/BCP_
Remarketing/BCP_Remarketing.htm.
Comment: Western’s identified
procedure to address the allocation of
Schedule D is vague. Matters not
clarified by Western’s proposed criteria
may constitute a new agency action.
Western must provide a supplemental
opportunity to address any new criteria
created as part of this public comment
process prior to making any allocations.
Response: There are no new criteria
contained in this notice. The final
criteria are all refinements of the
proposed criteria developed in
consideration of the comments Western
has received. Therefore, Western
concludes that it is not necessary to
conduct further public processes to
establish these marketing criteria.
Comment: Western should explain the
formula for determining and allocating
excess energy in written procedures
during the allocation process.
Response: This process concerns only
the allocation of Schedule D power and
not the allocation of Schedule C excess
energy under the HPAA. Therefore, no
explanation or procedures concerning
excess energy are being provided in this
notice.
Comment: All applicants should only
be eligible to receive one allocation of
BCP power from Western or APA and/
or CRC.
Response: After considering this
comment, Western is not promulgating
additional requirements or regulations
to be imposed within the APA and/or
CRC BCP allocation efforts. Western
does not have the authority to prescribe
requirements upon APA and CRC in
their processes for marketing BCP power
within their respective states. These
provisions are also not provided for in
either the BCPA or the HPAA.
Comment: Western should clarify in
the final marketing criteria that the
revised marketing criteria for Post-2017
apply solely to the allocation of
Schedule D resources made available by
the HPAA. Support a fair, transparent,
detailed, and documented written
process via the public record for the
allocation of BCP resources.
Response: Western agrees with this
comment and believes that it has
appropriately done so. Western is
adopting the final marketing criteria
after considering comments received
through its public process.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:15 Dec 27, 2013
Jkt 232001
Comment: Questions were submitted
concerning a potential applicant’s load
location relative to the BCA marketing
area and the contract terms that will be
applicable to the sale of BCP power,
such as if Hoover power is considered
green/renewable, if any purchased
firming power would be green/
renewable, treatment of transactions
with an Independent System Operator
(ISO), ISO scheduling points, and
provision of referenced documents and
related contracts.
Response: Questions of this nature are
outside the scope of the marketing
criteria proposals. Questions concerning
contract terms and individual
applicants will be addressed later in the
marketing process, as appropriate.
I. Final Post-2017 Resource Pool
Marketing Criteria
The following general marketing
criteria shall be applied to applicants
seeking an allocation of power from the
Post-2017 Resource Pool. This includes
the 69.17 MW of Schedule D to be
allocated within the entire marketing
area and the additional 11.51 MW of
Schedule D to be allocated within the
State of California.
A. Allocations of power will be made
in amounts determined solely by
Western in the exercise of its discretion
under Reclamation Law, including the
HPAA.
B. Allocations will be made only to
new allottees, defined in the HPAA as
entities not receiving Schedule A and
Schedule B contingent capacity and
firm energy. An entity receiving
Schedule A or Schedule B contingent
capacity and firm energy from APA or
CRC will not be eligible for an allocation
as a new allottee.
C. An allottee may purchase power
only upon the execution of an electric
service contract and satisfaction of all
conditions stated within that contract.
D. Eligible applicants, except Native
American tribes, must be ready, willing,
and able to receive and distribute or use
power from Western. Ready, willing,
and able means the eligible applicant
has the facilities needed for the receipt
of power or has made the necessary
arrangements for transmission and/or
distribution service, and its power
supply contracts with third parties
permit the delivery of Western’s power.
Eligible applicants must have the
necessary arrangements for transmission
and/or distribution service in place by
October 1, 2016.
E. An eligible Native American
applicant must be an Indian tribe as
defined in the Indian Self Determination
Act of 1975, 25 U.S.C. § 450b, as
amended.
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
79443
F. Eligible Native American tribes will
receive first consideration for an
allocation of BCP sufficient to provide
Federal hydropower up to 25 percent of
their peak load in consideration of
criterion element G.
G. In making allocations, Western will
consider the amount of the applicant’s
load already served by existing Federal
power resource allocations.
H. Remaining Schedule D shall be
allocated to non-profit applicants
eligible under Section 5 of the BCPA in
proportion to their peak loads.
I. Western will base allocations to all
eligible applicants on actual loads
experienced in one of the last three
calendar years including calendar years
2011, 2012, or 2013, as designated by
the applicant. For Native American
tribes, Western may use estimated load
values if actual load data is not
available. Western will evaluate and
may adjust inconsistent estimates
during the allocation process. Western
is available to assist tribes in developing
load estimates if necessary.
J. The minimum allocation shall be
100 kW.
K. The maximum allocation shall be
3,000 kW.
L. Contractors must execute electric
service contracts within six months of
receiving a contract offer from Western,
unless Western agrees otherwise in
writing.
M. Any allocated Post-2017 Resource
Pool power not under contract by
October 1, 2016, shall be redistributed
on a pro-rata basis to the remaining
Post-2017 Resource Pool new allottees.
In the execution of this redistribution,
criteria elements F and K may be
waived at Western’s discretion. Any
Post-2017 Resource Pool power not
allocated and under contract by October
1, 2017, shall be distributed in
accordance with the 2012 Conformed
Criteria.
N. If unanticipated obstacles to the
delivery of electric service to a Native
American tribe arise, Western will allow
the economic benefit of the resource to
be provided to the tribe through benefitcrediting or bill-crediting arrangements.
II. Applications for Power
This notice formally requests
applications from qualified entities
seeking to purchase Federal power from
the Post-2017 Resource Pool. Western is
requesting the APD to provide a uniform
basis for evaluating applications. To be
considered, qualified entities must
submit an application to the Western
Area Power Administration Desert
Southwest Region as requested below.
To ensure full consideration for all
applicants, Western reserves the right to
E:\FR\FM\30DEN1.SGM
30DEN1
79444
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 250 / Monday, December 30, 2013 / Notices
maindgalligan on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
not consider applications submitted
before publication of this notice or after
the deadline specified in the DATES
section. Application forms are available
upon request or may be accessed and/
or submitted online at https://
www.wapa.gov/dsw/pwrmkt/BCP_
Remarketing/BCP_Remarketing.htm.
Applicant Profile Data Application
The content and format of the APD
are outlined below. Applicants must
provide all requested information, or the
most reasonable available estimate, or
should indicate ‘‘not applicable’’ if they
have no information to be considered
for a requested item. Western is not
responsible for errors in data or missing
pages. All items of information in the
APD should be answered as if prepared
by the entity seeking the allocation. The
APD includes the following:
1. Applicant:
a. Applicant’s (entity requesting a
new allocation) name and address.
b. Person(s) representing applicant:
Please provide the name, title, address,
telephone and fax number, and email
address of such person(s).
c. Type of organization: For example,
Federal or state agency, irrigation
district, municipal, rural, industrial
user, municipality, Native American
tribe, public utility district, or rural
electric cooperative.
d. Parent organization of applicant, if
any.
e. Name of members or suballottees, if
any.
f. Applicable law under which the
organization was established.
g. Applicant’s geographic service area:
If available, submit a map of the service
area, and indicate the date prepared.
h. Describe the entity/organization
that will interact with Western on
contract and billing matters.
i. The amount of power the applicant
is requesting to be provided by Western.
2. Loads:
a. All Applicants:
i. If applicable, number and type of
customers served in one of the last three
calendar years including calendar years
2011, 2012, or 2013; e.g., residential,
commercial, industrial, military base,
agricultural.
ii. The actual monthly maximum
demand (in kilowatts) and energy use
(in kilowatt hours) experienced in one
of the last three calendar years
including calendar years 2011, 2012, or
2013.
iii. For Native American tribe
applicants, if actual demand and energy
data is not available, provide estimated
monthly demand (in kilowatts) with a
description of the method and basis for
this estimated demand.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:15 Dec 27, 2013
Jkt 232001
3. Resources:
a. A list of current power supplies,
including the applicant’s own
generation and purchases from others.
For each supply, provide the amount of
capacity received from that power
supply and its location.
b. Status of power supply contract(s),
including a contract termination date.
Indicate whether power supply is on a
firm basis or some other type of
arrangement.
4. Transmission:
a. Point(s) of delivery: BCP will be
delivered at Mead Substation.
Applicants may provide preferred
point(s) of delivery on Western’s
transmission system or a third party’s
system and the required service voltage.
The applicant will ultimately be
responsible for acquiring transmission
to alternate delivery points.
b. Transmission arrangement:
Describe the applicant’s transmission
arrangements necessary to deliver
power to the requested points of
delivery beyond Western’s transmission
system. Provide a single-line drawing of
applicant’s system, if available.
c. Provide a brief explanation of the
applicant’s ability to receive and use, or
receive and distribute Federal power as
of October 1, 2017.
5. Other Information: The applicant
may provide any other information
pertinent to receiving an allocation.
6. Signature: The signature and title of
an appropriate official who is able to
attest to the validity of the APD and
who is authorized to submit the request
for an allocation is required.
Western’s Consideration of Applications
Upon receiving the APD, Western will
verify that the applicant meets the
eligibility criteria contained in the 2012
Conformed Criteria and that the
application contains all information
requested in the APD.
a. Western may request, in writing,
additional information from any
applicant whose APD is determined to
be deficient. The applicant will have 15
calendar days from the date on
Western’s letter of request to provide the
information.
b. If Western determines the applicant
does not meet the eligibility criteria,
Western will send a letter explaining
why the applicant did not qualify.
c. If the applicant has met the
eligibility criteria, Western, through the
public process, will determine the
amount of power, if any, to allocate in
accordance with the marketing criteria.
Western will send a draft contract to the
applicant that identifies the terms and
conditions of the offer and the amount
of power allocated to the applicant.
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Regulatory Procedure Requirements
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.
Environmental Compliance
In accordance with the DOE National
Environmental Policy Act Implementing
Procedures (10 CFR 1021), Western has
determined that these actions fit within
a class of action B4.1 Contracts, policies,
and marketing and allocation plans for
electric power, in Appendix B to
Subpart D to Part 1021—Categorical
Exclusions Applicable to Specific
Agency Actions.
Dated: December 17, 2013
Mark A. Gabriel,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2013–31214 Filed 12–27–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Western Area Power Administration
Loveland Area Projects—2025 Power
Marketing Initiative
Western Area Power
Administration, DOE.
ACTION: Notice of Final 2025 Power
Marketing Initiative.
AGENCY:
Western Area Power
Administration (Western), Rocky
Mountain Region, a Federal power
marketing agency of the Department of
Energy (DOE), announces the 2025
Power Marketing Initiative (2025 PMI).
The 2025 PMI provides the basis for
marketing the long-term firm
hydroelectric resources of the Loveland
Area Projects (LAP) beginning with the
Federal fiscal year 2025. Western’s Firm
Electric Service (FES) contracts
associated with the current marketing
plan expire September 30, 2024. The
2025 PMI extends the current marketing
plan, with amendments to key
marketing plan principles.
Western’s proposed 2025 PMI was
published in the Federal Register on
October 17, 2011. Responses to public
comments are included in this notice.
This Federal Register notice is
published to announce Western’s
decisions for the 2025 PMI.
DATES: The 2025 PMI will become
effective January 29, 2014.
ADDRESSES: Information regarding the
2025 PMI, including comments, letters,
and other supporting documents made
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\30DEN1.SGM
30DEN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 250 (Monday, December 30, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 79436-79444]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-31214]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Western Area Power Administration
Boulder Canyon Project--Post-2017 Resource Pool
AGENCY: Western Area Power Administration, DOE.
ACTION: Notice of final marketing criteria and call for applications.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Western Area Power Administration (Western), a Federal
power marketing agency of the Department of Energy (DOE), announces the
Boulder Canyon Project (BCP) post-2017 resource pool marketing criteria
and is calling for applications from entities interested in an
allocation of Federal power from the BCP. The Conformed Power Marketing
Criteria or Regulations for the Boulder Canyon Project (2012 Conformed
Criteria) published in the Federal Register on June 14, 2012, as
required by the Hoover Power Allocation Act of 2011, established
general eligibility criteria and a resource pool (Post-2017 Resource
Pool) to be allocated to new allottees. Western has finalized marketing
criteria, developed through a public process, to be used to allocate
the Post-2017 Resource Pool, which will become available October 1,
2017. These marketing criteria, in conjunction with the 2012 Conformed
Criteria, establish the framework for allocating power from the Post-
2017 Resource Pool. Entities applying for an allocation of power from
the Post-2017 Resource Pool must submit formal applications as
described within this notice.
DATES: Entities applying for an allocation of Federal power from
Western must submit an application (see Applicant Profile Data (APD) in
Section II) through one of the methods described below. Western will
accept applications received on or before March 31, 2014. Western
reserves the right to not consider any applications received after this
date.
ADDRESSES: Applications must be submitted to Mr. Darrick Moe, Desert
Southwest Regional Manager, Western Area Power Administration, P.O. Box
6457, Phoenix, AZ 85005-6457. Applications may also be faxed to (602)
605-2490 or emailed to Post2017BCP@wapa.gov. Application forms are
available upon request or may be accessed and/or submitted online at
https://www.wapa.gov/dsw/pwrmkt/BCP_Remarketing/BCP_Remarketing.htm.
Applicants are encouraged to use the application form provided at the
above Web site.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Mike Simonton, Public Utilities
Specialist, Desert Southwest Region, Western Area Power Administration,
P.O. Box 6457, Phoenix, AZ 85005-6457, telephone number (602) 605-2675,
email Post2017BCP@wapa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
The BCP was authorized by the Boulder Canyon Project Act of 1928
(43 U.S.C. Sec. 617) (BCPA). Under Section 5 of the BCPA, the
Secretary of the Interior marketed the capacity and energy from the BCP
under electric service contracts effective through May 31, 1987. In
1977, the power marketing functions of the Secretary of Interior were
transferred to Western by Section 302 of the Department of Energy
Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7152) (DOE Act). On December 28, 1984,
Western published the Conformed General Consolidated Criteria or
Regulations for Boulder City Area Projects (1984 Conformed Criteria)
(49 FR 50582) to implement applicable provisions of the Hoover Power
Plant Act of 1984 (43 U.S.C. 619) for the marketing of BCP power
through September 30, 2017.
On December 20, 2011, Congress enacted the Hoover Power Allocation
Act of 2011 (Pub. L. 112-72) (HPAA), which provides direction and
guidance in marketing BCP power after the existing contracts expire on
September 30, 2017. On June 14, 2012, Western published the 2012
Conformed Criteria (77 FR 35671) to implement applicable provisions of
the HPAA for the marketing of BCP power from October 1, 2017, through
September 30, 2067. The 2012 Conformed Criteria formally established a
resource pool defined as ``Schedule D'' to be allocated to new
allottees. In accordance with the HPAA, Western allocated portions of
Schedule D to the Arizona Power Authority (APA) and the Colorado River
Commission of Nevada (CRC), respectively, as described in the June 14,
2012 Federal Register notice. Of the remaining portions of Schedule D,
Western is to allocate 11,510 kilowatts (kW) of contingent capacity and
associated firm energy to new allottees within the State of California,
and 69,170 kW of contingent capacity and associated firm energy to new
allottees within the Boulder City Area (BCA) marketing area as defined
in the 2012 Conformed Criteria.
On October 30, 2012, Western published proposed marketing criteria
to be used in the allocation of the Post-2017 Resource Pool. Public
information and comment forums were held in Las Vegas, Nevada; Tempe,
Arizona; and Ontario, California. Western received comments from
existing power contractors, Native American tribes, cooperatives,
municipalities, and other potential contractors. Transcripts of the
public comment forums, as well as comments received, may be viewed on
Western's Web site at https://www.wapa.gov/dsw/pwrmkt.
Response to Comments on the Post-2017 Resource Pool Marketing Criteria
Western received numerous comments on its proposed Post-2017
marketing criteria during the comment period. Western reviewed and
considered all comments received. This section summarizes and responds
to the comments received on the proposed Post-2017 Resource Pool
marketing criteria.
Ready, Willing, and Able
Comment: Western should provide time flexibility for those seeking
transmission arrangements to meet potential ready, willing, and able
provisions.
Response: Western intends to work with potential allottees to the
extent feasible to ensure sufficient transmission arrangements are in
place by October 1, 2016. However, it is the allottees' ultimate
responsibility to meet the ready, willing, and able provisions.
Comment: Western should accept a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) or
similar documentation between an applicant and a transmission
distribution provider as evidence the applicant has met the ready,
willing, and able requirements. Requiring applicants to develop and
execute contractual agreements prior to notification of an allocation
could create an unnecessary political and procedural hardship for some
applicants.
Response: Applicants will need to demonstrate satisfactory
arrangements to meet ready, willing, and able requirements by October
1, 2016. Final allocation determinations are anticipated to be
established well in advance of this date. Therefore, applicants should
have adequate time to develop and execute any necessary contractual
arrangements. Western may accept an MOA or similar documentation
between an applicant and a transmission and/or distribution provider if
it establishes a legally-binding right of the applicant to receive the
required services.
[[Page 79437]]
Comment: Request all applicants, including Native American tribes,
be required to meet the same criteria such as the ready, willing, and
able requirement.
Response: Western finds that certain exceptions for Native American
tribes, such as the ready, willing, and able requirement, are
consistent with DOE's American Indian and Alaska Native Tribal
Government Policy (Tribal Policy), available at https://energy.gov/em/downloads/doe-american-indian-and-alaska-natives-tribal-government-policy, and recognizes the special and unique relationship between the
United States and tribal governments. Western will work cooperatively
with all applicants, but has found that additional flexibility in
interacting with tribal applicants is important to ensure the
successful implementation of tribal allocations.
Priority Consideration
Comment: The HPAA identifies certain classes of applicants that may
ultimately qualify for allocations; it does not identify any mandatory
criteria for Western to utilize in prioritizing those allocations. At
some point, Western must make such decisions. Western's proposed
prioritization is reasonable to determine fair and equitable
allocations.
Response: Western agrees with this comment. Western has the need
and the authority to prescribe marketing criteria consistent with
historical BCP legislation in order to evaluate applications in the
allocation of the Post-2017 Resource Pool.
Comment: Western proposes a prioritization of preference-eligible
entities in making new allocations. What is Western's statutory
authority for making this prioritization? How did Western determine the
ranking among preference-eligible entities as proposed?
Response: Section 5 of the BCPA and Section 302 of the DOE Act as
well as HPAA authorize Western to establish and apply regulations
governing BCP allocations, including the formation of project-specific
marketing criteria as proposed. Western's proposed marketing criteria
were established to promote widespread use, be consistent with DOE's
Tribal Policy, and respond to the public interest in a finite resource.
Western concludes that providing an initial consideration for Native
American tribes is appropriate based on comments received, and because
tribes are specifically identified by the HPAA as eligible allottees
and have not previously received allocations of Hoover power. The
remaining eligible entities were prioritized to promote widespread use
principles in a manner that supports the public interest. However,
after considering comments received, Western has decided not to
differentiate among the non-tribal, non-profit eligible entities in the
final marketing criteria.
Comment: Reclamation Law and its particular priorities do not apply
to the Hoover power allocation process. The BCPA establishes specific
power allocation and customer priorities, and these statutory
requirements govern the Hoover allocation process.
Response: Neither the HPAA nor the BCPA provide for a specific
method for determining allocations of BCP power to new entities
described in Section 5. Section 5 of the BCPA specifically authorizes
the Secretary ``under such general regulations as he may prescribe'' to
contract for the sale of Hoover power and to resolve conflicting
applications for the power ``with due regard to the public interest.''
Western's public process provides a transparent means of exercising
this authority in making final allocations when potential demand is
very likely to exceed the available resource to be marketed.
Comment: Section 5 of the BCPA governs the allocation of power from
Hoover Dam. Section 5(c) of the BCPA gave the three States of Arizona,
California, and Nevada the first right, or a super-preference over all
other Section 5 applicants, to apply for, obtain and share among
themselves in the power generated at the dam. The states' application
takes precedence over any other applicant.
Response: Section 5 of the BCPA cannot be applied in isolation in
allocating Schedule D power. Under the HPAA substantial portions of BCP
power, including portions of Schedule D, have been allocated to
entities in Arizona, California, and Nevada, including the Arizona
Power Authority and the Colorado River Commission of Nevada as the
agencies specified by State law as the agents for their respective
states to purchase power from the Boulder Canyon Project. Section 2(d)
of the HPAA provides that the remaining Schedule D power must be
allocated by Western to entities not receiving Hoover power under
Schedules A and B (``new allottees''). Western concludes that
allocating additional Schedule D power to the states would not be
consistent with this provision of the HPAA. Furthermore, HPAA's
direction to Western to allocate 33 percent of Schedule D equally to
the States of Arizona, California, and Nevada with the remainder to be
allocated within the marketing area to new allottees indicates a
congressional intent for Western to adhere to its historical practice
of allocating the remaining portions of Schedule D based on the load or
need of the applicants. The House Report for the HPAA (H.R. Rep. No.
112-159) also states that Western is expected to determine allocations
by an assessment of the applicants power needs and act in objective
manner consistent with Federal preference standards.
Comment: Absent direction from Congress, Western may not
selectively implement elements of the BCPA Section 5 to the
disadvantage of the ``States,'' i.e., Arizona, California, and Nevada.
Response: Western is not selectively implementing Section 5 of the
BCPA to the disadvantage of the states. Section 5 grants the Secretary
broad discretion to allocate power in accordance with the public
interest and does not require that all BCP power be allocated to the
states.
Comment: The HPAA did not authorize Western to take actions that
would result in the State of Nevada receiving less resource from the
pool than it contributed to the pool. Western's allocation of the
69,170 kW of Schedule D to be marketed within the prescribed marketing
area should be made in the same proportion as the states' respective
contributions to the resource pool.
Response: The HPAA does not require Western to allocate the
remaining portions of Schedule D on a state-by-state basis, and instead
requires Western to allocate Schedule D to new allottees within the
entire marketing area. Section 5 of the BCPA specifically grants the
Secretary broad discretion to allocate power in accordance with the
public interest. Western concludes that allocating Schedule D among
eligible applicants based on their proportionate peak load serves the
public interest while allocating based on the states' proportionate
contributions to the resource pool does not.
Comment: Western's allocations of Hoover resources are governed by
the HPAA and the BCPA and are not subject to the Preference Law concept
in the 1939 Reclamation Act, so Western may not lawfully designate
Rural Electric Cooperatives (Cooperatives) as potential new allottees
in its allocation process; particularly when Congress was asked to
include Cooperatives in Western's 69,170 kW allocation process under
the HPAA, and declined to do so.
Response: Western's inclusion of Cooperatives among eligible
entities is not based on the Reclamation Project Act of 1939, but
rather on the language of the BCPA and the HPAA. In Section 5 of the
BCPA, Congress identified ``private corporations'' as eligible
[[Page 79438]]
entities, together with states, municipal corporations, and political
subdivisions (43 U.S.C. 617d). Further, Section 2(d)(2)(C)(i)(I) of the
HPAA expressly provides (in relevant part) that Schedule D may be
allocated to entities ``eligible to enter into contracts under Section
5 of the Boulder Canyon Project Act. . . .'' Therefore, under both
statutes, Cooperatives as private corporations are eligible to receive
allocations under Schedule D.
Beyond the language of the statutes, Western finds additional
support for its interpretation in House Report 112-159, which
specifically lists Cooperatives among entities eligible to receive
allocations from the new proposed Schedule D.
Comment: The legislative history supporting the HPAA reflects the
intent of Congress to ensure that Cooperatives are provided access to
the power made available under Schedule D. However, that intent is not
brought forth in the proposed marketing criteria, which state that
Western will consider an allocation for a Cooperative after considering
an allocation for federally recognized Native American tribes,
municipal corporations, political subdivisions, irrigation or other
districts, and other governmental organizations that have electric
utility status. Western should ensure fair and equitable access to
Cooperatives of Schedule D power.
Response: After considering comments and analyzing various options,
Western has established marketing criteria that provide a first
consideration to tribes and then treats all Section 5 non-profit
entities equally. This results in an aggregation of all Section 5
eligible entities that are non-profit in nature, including
Cooperatives. The first consideration to tribes is not intended to
establish a tribal-only pool or to meet all tribal needs prior to other
eligible applicants. Therefore, Western anticipates the criteria will
provide opportunities to Cooperatives seeking Schedule D power.
Comment: Providing priority to Native American tribes, municipal
corporations, and political subdivisions ahead of Cooperatives is an
unprecedented departure in the treatment of traditional preference
entities and is not consistent with the Congressional intent of HPAA.
Western should consider applications of tribes on par with the
applications of traditional preference entities such as Cooperatives
and municipally-owned utilities.
Response: Western's marketing criteria are intended to promote
widespread use, be consistent with DOE Tribal Policy, and respond to
the public interest in a finite resource. Western has determined that
providing an initial priority consideration for Native American tribes
is appropriate based on comments received, and because tribes are
specifically identified by the HPAA as eligible allottees and have not
previously received an allocation of Hoover power. This first
consideration for tribes is not intended to establish a tribal-only
pool or to meet all tribal needs prior to other eligible applicants.
Western anticipates the criteria will provide opportunity to
Cooperatives, municipally-owned utilities, and political subdivisions
seeking Schedule D power.
Comment: Clarity should be made in priority number 2 such that a
municipal corporation or political subdivision that receives power and/
or support from a Cooperative should retain a second priority and not
be demoted to a third priority.
Response: Based upon comments received, the proposed priority
criteria were modified to consider Cooperatives equally with other non-
profit Section 5 entities. The final criteria do not distinguish
between a municipal corporation or political subdivision that receives
services from a Cooperative and the Cooperative itself.
Comment: The 2011 amendments to Section 5 of the BCPA gave
federally recognized Indian tribes a preference on an equal basis with
other Section 5 applicants.
Response: The HPAA establishes Native American tribes as eligible
entities to receive power from the BCP. The HPAA does not prescribe a
priority, preference, or direction related to Western's consideration
of eligible applicants.
Comment: Comments were received that support a first priority to
tribes. Priority to tribes will help redress the historic lack of
tribal access to project benefits and is consistent with the HPAA,
Western's trust responsibility to tribes, Western's precedent in other
marketing efforts, Western's administrative discretion as provided in
Reclamation Law, underlying Congressional intent, and HPAA's directive
that Western fairly and equitably determines allocations from the new
power pool.
Response: Western finds merit in the retention of a tribal
priority. Western has consistently provided increased opportunities for
Native American tribes. Such consideration has been extended to tribes
as Western seeks to promote Federal tribal initiatives as described in
Title 5 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and DOE's Tribal Policy. The
first consideration for tribes does not constitute a tribal-only pool
or mean that all tribal needs will be met prior to other eligible
applicants.
Comment: Allocations should meet the peak tribal demand requirement
before allocations are made to the next priority.
Response: Western finds merit in the retention of a first
consideration for tribes. However, it is anticipated that the demand
for Schedule D power will far exceed what is available, and Western is
not prescribing a tribal-only pool. Allocating the Post-2017 Resource
Pool to fully meet peak tribal demands prior to making allocations to
Section 5 entities would likely hinder Western's ability to allocate
Schedule D power to non-tribal entities and would restrict the
promotion of widespread use to a diverse base of customers.
Comment: Priority for Native American tribes should be capped at a
maximum of 50 percent of new power allocations available to all states
combined to all or any Native American tribes.
Response: After considering comments and analyzing various options,
Western has established marketing criteria providing tribes first
consideration for an allocation of up to 25 percent of their peak load,
considering all Federal power allocations and a 3,000 kW maximum
allocation for any applicant. These criteria seek to establish
meaningful tribal allocations while also preserving a reasonable
portion of Schedule D for new entities eligible under Section 5 to
promote widespread use to a diverse base of customers.
Comment: Congress did not intend for the federally recognized
tribes to have exclusive rights to the Schedule D power, and the
priority criteria will operate as such if there are sufficient
applications for allocations.
Response: Western's marketing criteria does not establish a tribal-
only pool; the first consideration given to tribes will extend up to 25
percent of their peak loads, considering all Federal power allocations
and the 3,000 kW maximum allocation for any applicant. These criteria
seek to establish meaningful tribal allocations while also preserving a
reasonable portion of Schedule D power for new entities eligible under
Section 5 to promote widespread use to a diverse base of customers.
Comment: There should be no priority among all BCPA Section 5
entities and federally recognized Native American tribes. Allocations
should be based on other marketing criteria elements, such as the
actual load or energy demand of each applicant, whether the applicant
[[Page 79439]]
already receives the benefits of a Federal power resource, and the
applicant's ability to take delivery of the energy to meet their load.
Response: After considering comments and analyzing various options,
Western has retained a first consideration for tribes, but modified the
marketing criteria to aggregate all Section 5 eligible entities that
are non-profit in nature for allocations after meeting up to 25 percent
of tribal peak load when considering all Federal allocations.
Comment: Public water agencies should have an equal opportunity to
obtain Federal energy resources that are reserved for the public
benefit. The provision of public utility service is of equal benefit to
the public, whether the utility is water or electric service.
Response: After considering comments and analyzing various options,
Western has established marketing criteria that aggregates all Section
5 eligible entities that are non-profit in nature. Therefore, water and
electric utilities will be treated equally.
Comment: Absent direction from Congress, Western may not impose an
``electric utility status'' priority or requirement on potential
allottees, particularly when Congress declined to adopt a proposed
amendment to the HPAA seeking preference for full-service public power
providers. Giving priority to entities having electric utility status
would eliminate or at least prejudice the status of all otherwise
eligible applicants who are customers of electric utilities. The
marketing criteria should include municipal corporations and political
subdivisions including irrigation or other districts, municipalities
and other governmental organization without electric utility status.
Western should eliminate the priority for having electric utility
status.
Response: After considering comments and analyzing various options,
Western has determined there is no need to retain the provisions
regarding electrical utility status for establishing allocations.
Comment: Comments were received that support Western's continued
adherence to its historic policy of allocating Hoover power to new
tribal customers without regard to their ``electric utility status.''
This supports broad inclusion of new tribal customers, and nothing in
the legislation or legislative record contradicts Western's adherence
to this practice with respect to the Hoover allocation.
Response: After considering comments and analyzing various priority
options, Western has not retained an electrical utility status priority
or requirement for applicants.
Comment: There is no statutory requirement linking eligibility to
an entity having electric utility responsibility, nor ownership of
electric distribution facilities. Support the inclusion of public
utilities other than electric utilities as it is essential to meet the
``widest use'' statutory requirements and public policy objectives.
Response: After considering comments and analyzing various priority
options, Western has not retained an electrical utility status priority
or requirement for applicants.
Comment: The proposed criteria properly give priority to municipal
utilities and irrigation districts. Such entities should receive
priority in the Post-2017 remarketing.
Response: After considering comments and analyzing various options,
Western has established marketing criteria that aggregates all Section
5 eligible entities that are non-profit in nature for allocations after
meeting 25 percent of tribal peak load when considering all Federal
allocations.
Comment: The HPAA provides for Schedule D for ``entities not
receiving contingent capacity and firm energy under subparagraphs (A)
and (B). . . .'' Western's proposed marketing criteria do not include
that criterion. The marketing criteria must adhere to statutory
directives in the allocation of the Post 2017 Resource Pool.
Response: Part VI Section D of the 2012 Conformed Criteria states
in part that ``Western shall offer Schedule D contingent capacity and
firm energy to entities not receiving contingent capacity and firm
energy under Section A (Schedule A) or Section B (Section B) (referred
to herein as ``New Allottees'') for delivery commencing October 1,
2017.'' Therefore Western's marketing criteria does adhere to
applicable statutory directives. Based on comments received, Western
has further clarified in the final marketing criteria that entities
receiving Schedule A or Schedule B contingent capacity and firm energy
from APA or CRC will not be eligible for an allocation as a new
allottee.
Comment: If there is insufficient power available for interested
and eligible entities within a subgroup, Western should give priority
to applicants within each tier that would use the resource to advance
environmental objectives.
Response: After considering this comment, Western has determined
not to adopt the suggested priority for applicants that would advance
environmental objectives. Such a priority is not addressed in either
the BCPA or HPAA, and Western is not aware of applicable criteria to
determine which uses would advance environmental objectives.
Comment: Western should avoid allocation to only the first priority
tier in order to promote widespread use to a diverse base of customers.
Western should reserve portions of power for subsequent tiers to meet
demands of more than just the first priority tier.
Response: Western agrees with this comment. Although final
allocations are dependent upon the applications received, Western does
not anticipate allocating the entire Schedule D resource pool to a
single category. In response to comments of this nature, Western has
established a 3,000 kW maximum allocation. The 3,000 kW maximum
allocation will be applied to all entities receiving an allocation of
Schedule D. The final marketing criteria seek to establish meaningful
tribal allocations and preserve a reasonable portion of Schedule D
power for new entities eligible under Section 5 to promote widespread
use to a diverse base of customers.
Comment: Would there be any power reserved for each priority group?
Response: Final allocations are dependent upon the applications
received. However, Western anticipates allocating power to both tribal
entities and entities eligible under Section 5 of the BCPA. In response
to comments of this nature, Western has established a 3,000 kW maximum
allocation. The maximum allocation criterion will help promote
widespread use to a diverse base of customers.
Comment: With regard to municipal water utilities, what is meant by
the independently governed standard?
Response: After considering comments, Western has eliminated this
requirement.
Comment: If allocating to an aggregated entity, is its priority
established by the nature of its members, or its own nature?
Response: Eligibility and priority will be determined based upon
the nature of the applying entity. All members of an aggregated entity
must be themselves defined as an eligible entity.
Consideration of Existing Federal Power Resource Allocations:
Comment: In this Hoover allocation effort, Western should impose a
maximum of five percent reduction on new tribal customers receiving the
benefit of other Federal hydropower resources.
[[Page 79440]]
Response: Under Western's marketing criteria, first consideration
will be given to tribes for up to 25 percent of their peak loads
considering all Federal power allocations. Western finds merit in
considering the direct or indirect benefits of all Federal power
allocations of all applicants, without limitation, to ensure Federal
power is spread widely and equitably among eligible entities.
Comment: In order to advance the ``widest use'' public policy
objective, Western should deem entities currently receiving any Western
allocation, not just BCP resources, to be ineligible for Schedule D
resources.
Response: Western will not deem entities to be ineligible based
solely upon existing Western allocations from other projects; however,
all existing Western allocations will be considered in the allocation
process to advance widespread use principles.
Comment: While it is understood that Western has not proposed to
exclude or reprioritize tribes that currently have an allocation of
Federal power, tribes should not be blocked from receiving an
allocation, by disqualification or reprioritization, on the basis of a
prior Federal resource allocation.
Response: Western will not prevent a tribe from receiving an
allocation solely because it currently receives an allocation from
another Western project. First consideration will be given to tribes to
receive up to 25 percent of their peak loads considering all Federal
power allocations.
Comment: Preference should be given first to tribes, regardless of
receiving any other Federal hydropower allocation, and then to non-
tribal entities, if there is any Hoover power left.
Response: Western's marketing criteria does provide first
consideration to tribes for up to 25 percent of their peak loads
considering all Federal power allocations. Western finds merit in
providing opportunity for non-tribal applicants and that it is
consistent with the intent of the HPAA. Western anticipates the
marketing criteria will promote Federal tribal initiatives and provide
opportunity for non-tribal applicants.
Comment: Western should consider other Federal power allocations as
well as the availability of other lower cost power to the applicants.
Greater consideration should be given in instances where Hoover power
is the only lower cost power available to the applicant. First priority
should be provided to eligible entities that currently do not have a
contract with Western for Federal power resources or are not a member
of a parent entity that has a contract with Western for Federal power.
Response: Western will consider any other Federal power allocations
the applicants receive, either directly from Western or indirectly
through a parent or host entity, when making allocation determinations,
but will not consider the price of power as prices change over time and
there are a number of variables that may be influencing such prices.
Load Data and Application Assistance
Comment: Technical assistance provided by Western in the
preparation of an application for Hoover power should be made available
equally to any eligible applicant.
Response: Western agrees with this comment and will endeavor to
assist all those in need of technical assistance.
Comment: Western should seek representative load data from
applicants when available and allow applicants to supplement such load
data with other information, including aggregated load data, to support
any request for an allocation as well as estimating loads where
historical information is not available. Recommend Western consider new
or future loads in establishing allocations.
Response: Western will base allocations to eligible applicants on
actual loads experienced in one of the last three calendar years, i.e.,
calendar years 2011, 2012, or 2013, as designated by the applicant. For
Native American tribes, Western may use estimated load values if actual
load data is not available. An applicant will be able to submit other
information it deems pertinent to receiving an allocation. Such
information will be considered at Western's discretion. Consideration
of future loads would introduce speculation and unquantifiable
collective risk across all applicants and will not be the foundation of
establishing allocations.
Comment: Suggest Western consider allowing applicants to provide a
broader range of load history than just one year at their election.
Western should allow consideration of the historical load experienced
by an eligible applicant over the previous three year period if an
applicant can demonstrate significant load/demand variance and can
explain the basis for the variance.
Response: Western will base allocations to eligible applicants on
actual loads experienced in one of the last three calendar years, i.e.,
calendar years 2011, 2012, or 2013, as designated by the applicant. For
Native American tribes, Western may use estimated load values if actual
load data is not available. Western anticipates that this will provide
additional flexibility than the proposed most recent calendar year and
will maintain a comparable and manageable basis for allocations.
Minimum Allocation and Aggregation
Comment: Western should not allocate Hoover power that has access
to the dynamic signal in such small increments as to be non-cost-
effective.
Response: Under the HPAA and the 2012 Conformed Criteria, all BCP
Contractors are entitled access to the dynamic signal regardless of the
size of their allocation. While allocations may be made as small as 100
kW, Western's anticipates the establishment of operational protocols to
enable Western and the contractors to meet industry scheduling
parameters such as scheduling in whole megawatt (MW) values. These
operational protocols may assist in the cost effectiveness of managing
small allocations.
Comment: Western has stated that the administrative costs
associated with dealing with small allocations will be subsumed into
general administrative costs and spread over the entire allocation
base. Why would other allottees be required to subsidize a cost that
can be allocated directly to a particular allottee? Is this subsidy
going to reach across all Hoover contractors?
Response: Western's costs for the administration of power
allocations are tracked and accounted for each Federal project at the
functional activity level (scheduling, dispatching, marketing, etc.,)
rather than for each contractor. This is true of all Federal projects
administered by Western, including the BCP. These costs are aggregated
and included in the Federal project's revenue requirement. Each
contractor pays its proportionate share of the revenue requirement on a
per unit cost basis. This accounting treatment conforms to generally
accepted accounting principles and is consistent with Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (FERC) regulations, FERC's prescribed uniform
system of accounts for electric utilities, and DOE's accounting
practices. Western concludes this is an acceptable means of cost
recovery across customers of variable allocations sizes.
Comment: Western can appropriately address its allocation rounding
concerns solely through operational protocols.
Response: Western agrees with this comment and, therefore, has
lowered the minimum allocation threshold for the BCP from 1,000 kW to
100 kW. Western anticipates establishing operational protocols in the
contracting process to minimize rounding and other
[[Page 79441]]
issues associated with the delivery of small allocations.
Comment: The commenter supported the ability of applicants to
aggregate loads to meet minimum allocation requirements.
Response: Western's proposed marketing criteria included minimum
allocations of 1,000 kW; Western also proposed allowing applicants to
aggregate their loads to meet this requirement. After considering
comments, Western is adopting a minimum allocation of 100 kW for each
applicant, which may include an aggregated entity. However, note that
scheduling protocols require a 1 megawatt (MW) minimum; therefore,
smaller entities will likely need to formulate aggregation arrangements
to facilitate deliveries. The adoption of a much lower minimum
allocation is anticipated to eliminate the need for aggregation for
allocation purposes.
Comment: Support for the establishment of allocation criteria that
provides tribes with maximum flexibility to access Schedule D power.
Western should ensure that the implementation of an aggregation
mechanism does not result in a loss of Schedule D power to new entities
due to a given allottee's inability to meet Western's aggregation
standards. Western must implement the tribal priority to ensure that
allocations to willing and eligible Schedule D allottees are satisfied
to the maximum extent feasible prior to the returning any Schedule D
power to Schedule A and B contractors.
Response: After considering comments, Western is adopting a minimum
allocation of 100 kW for each applicant, which may include an
aggregated entity. Therefore, perceived risk associated with
aggregation to receive an allocation has been minimized. Western agrees
that efforts should be made to distribute Schedule D power to new
allottees. Therefore, Western has established marketing criteria
element ``M'', which results in allocated Schedule D resource that is
not put under contract by October 1, 2016, to be redistributed to other
new allottees that have been allocated and contracted for Schedule D
with Western. This criterion is anticipated to ensure all of the
Schedule D resource that Western allocates will be retained by new
allottees.
Comment: Comments were received that oppose any minimum allocation.
Western has not demonstrated sufficient justification to require the
proposed minimum 1,000 kW allocation criteria or to require new
customers to enter into an ``aggregation arrangement'' in order to
satisfy the requirement. Western has offered no justification for the
minimum allocation criteria other than for its own convenience, which,
by itself, is not a justification. This requirement penalizes the
smallest scale new customers, a group consisting overwhelmingly of
small tribes in the service area. Western should proceed without of a
minimum allocation requirement.
Response: After considering comments, Western is adopting a minimum
allocation of 100 kW for each applicant, which may include an
aggregated entity. The 100 kW minimum has been established to assist
Western in adhering to sound business principles when establishing
allocations. An allocation of less than 100 kW is of such a small
magnitude it has historically not yielded meaningful value to the
allottee. In times in which a benefit or bill crediting arrangement has
been sought, allocations of less than 100 kW have experienced
significant difficulty in acquiring a benefit or bill crediting partner
willing to engage in transactions for this quantity of power. This 100
kW minimum allocation threshold has been successfully applied in other
Western marketing efforts and Western finds merit in establishing it
for this allocation process.
Comment: Linking individual allocations with some type of
allocation share penalty due to scale is unprecedented and without
justification. Western regularly manages the Hoover and other
hydropower resources in less than full megawatt quantities. Therefore,
given the total number of potential new tribal Hoover customers,
Western's approach of only whole megawatt allocations would be
prejudicial and would only penalize tribes.
Response: Western has historically established minimum allocation
and/or load thresholds to maintain sound business principles. After
considering comments, Western has eliminated a 1,000 kW minimum
allocation and is instead adopting a minimum allocation of 100 kW. This
significant reduction in the minimum allocation provides opportunity
for small applicants while also establishing a practical threshold to
ensure the allocation has sufficient value to warrant its
implementation. However, note that scheduling protocols require a 1 MW
minimum; therefore, smaller entities will likely need to formulate
aggregation arrangements to facilitate deliveries.
Comment: Further clarification is needed for an applicant seeking
an allocation of less than 1,000 kW. When would communication of how
scheduling arrangements will work be expected? Since all non-tribal
Arizona allocations will be going through the APA, would those
arrangements be sufficient to meet any load aggregation requirements?
Response: After considering comments, Western has eliminated a
1,000 kW minimum allocation and is instead adopting a minimum
allocation of 100 kW for each applicant, which may include an
aggregated entity. Communications concerning scheduling arrangements
and other operational related issues will occur during the contracting
process. Allocations to non-tribal Arizona applicants offered through
the APA will not be considered an aggregation arrangement. Applicants
seeking less than 100 kW must meet the load aggregation requirements in
some other manner.
Comment: The aggregation concept is vague as defined. Western
should utilize the aggregation concept consistent with its historic
allowance for aggregation on a voluntary basis in arranging for
allocation scheduling and/or delivery. Allocating less than whole
megawatts to tribes will not end up creating scheduling and operational
problems for Western. Due to the limited number of tribal utilities,
the vast majority of tribes would need to enter into some type of
benefit crediting arrangement. This would achieve Western's expressed
goal of aggregating the less than whole megawatt allocations.
Response: Western's proposed marketing criteria included minimum
allocations of 1,000 kW and allowed applicants to aggregate their loads
to meet this requirement. After considering comments, Western is
instead adopting a minimum allocation of 100 kW for each applicant,
which may include an aggregated entity. Western anticipates
establishing operational protocols in the contracting process to
minimize issues associated with the delivery of small allocations.
Comment: Western should accept a MOA or similar document between
members of an aggregated group as demonstration of the group's
intention and ability to apply for an aggregate load.
Response: To be considered for an allocation, the aggregated group,
as the applicant, must be an eligible entity as defined by the HPAA and
the 2012 Conformed Criteria, and must provide sufficient documentation
demonstrating this eligibility. All members of an aggregated entity
must be themselves defined as an eligible entity. Western may accept
the use of a MOA or similar documentation between members of an
aggregated group as demonstration of
[[Page 79442]]
the group's intention and ability to apply for an aggregate load if it
establishes a legitimate, legally-binding aggregation of the members as
determined by Western.
Comment: Western should address the authority for allottees to join
together and the nature of their ability to do so in terms of the type
of entity that would have to be utilized. Where do these envisioned
entities classify under Section 5 of the BCPA eligibility definition?
Response: In order to be eligible for an allocation, the entity
submitting the application must either be a Native American tribe or a
Section 5 entity. The determination of whether the applicant meets
these requirements will be made on a case-by-case basis.
Economic Benefit to Tribes
Comment: The HPAA makes specific reference to the Secretary of
Energy obligation to offer capacity and energy under Schedule D. While
Western may desire flexibility to provide an equivalent benefit as set
forth in subsection L, the statutory language of the HPAA limits the
Secretary to providing contingent capacity and firm energy.
Response: The HPAA requires that Western allocate the contingent
capacity and firm energy to eligible entities by December 2014, and
place it under contract by October 1, 2017. It does not prohibit
Western from including provisions in the contracts to provide the
economic benefits to allottees should issues with the delivery of the
service occur. It is anticipated that economic benefits would be
achieved through arrangements with third-party benefit-crediting or
bill-crediting partners.
Comment: Western should clarify what is meant by ``unanticipated
obstacles'' and ``economic benefit'' as these terms are used in these
proposed criterion. This criterion should either be eliminated or
applied to all eligible applicants equally.
Response: The phrase ``unanticipated obstacles'' refers to
unexpected barriers to delivery of the electric service. In such
instance, Western will follow its historic practice of allowing tribes
to contract with a third-party for benefit or bill-crediting
arrangements yielding the economic value (economic benefit) of the
delivered power directly to the tribe. This will only be available to
tribes.
Additional Marketing Criteria Comments
Comment: Requirements to execute a contract within six months of
receiving a contract offer from Western and requirements related to
transmission or distribution service in place by October 1, 2016 are
acceptable.
Response: Western agrees with these comments and has retained this
requirement.
Comment: Western's marketing effort schedule should be compressed
to establish final allocations sooner than the summer of 2014 in order
to provide tribes more time to reach contractual arrangement for the
beneficial delivery of Hoover power to their communities.
Response: Western intends to complete the marketing effort through
a public process as soon as possible, but anticipates that this will
occur in the summer of 2014.
Comment: Western should adopt the plain language of the HPAA
defining ``new allottees'' as ``entities not receiving contingent
capacity and firm energy'' under Schedules A and B, and the clear
intent of Congress to ``further allocate and expand the availability of
hydroelectric power generated at Hoover Dam.'' Existing customers of
APA and CRC who have a sub-allocation for Schedules A and B through APA
or CRC should not be eligible applicants for Schedule D from Western.
All applicants should only be eligible to receive only one allocation
of power among all the available Schedule D established via the HPAA.
Response: The HPAA defines ``new allottees'' as entities not
receiving contingent capacity and firm energy under Schedule A and
Schedule B. This definition excludes not only the contractors named in
those schedules, but also entities receiving sub-allocations of the
capacity and energy. Therefore, neither the listed contractors nor
their sub-allottees will be eligible for an allocation from the Post-
2017 Resource Pool. Post-2017 sub-allocations of BCP power made by APA
or CRC subsequent to Western's allocation process are to be established
through the respective APA or CRC allocation process.
Comment: The HPAA indicates that Schedule D is intended to go to
new allottees, which are entities that are not named in the
legislation. APA customers are not named in the legislation. APA
customers have no assurances that anything allocated to APA will come
their way. APA customers should be treated as potential new allottees
to avoid potential exclusion. Request further explanation on how
Western intends to proceed.
Response: The HPAA defines ``new allottees'' as entities not
receiving contingent capacity and firm energy under Schedule A and
Schedule B, and not as entities that are not named in the legislation.
Therefore, Western will not provide an allocation to any entity
currently receiving Schedule A or Schedule B power.
Comment: Western should consider allocation to existing APA
customers with withdrawal provisions in the event that allottee was to
be allocated further BCP resource from APA.
Response: Western has not adopted this proposal. The HPAA requires
Western to allocate Schedule D power by December 2014 for delivery
commencing on October 1, 2017. It is currently unclear when APA
allocations will be made. Western cannot ensure there would be
sufficient time to make subsequent allocations and contracts for any
Schedule D power made available after conclusion of the APA process.
Western concludes that implementation of its allocation process
contingent upon such external factors is not practical.
Comment: Western may not, through its administrative processes,
impose standards, requirements or limitations on potential new
allottees, that are inconsistent with or not authorized by Federal law
specific to the BCP.
Response: Western's marketing criteria are in compliance with
Federal law specific to the BCP.
Comment: Western must contract directly with each tribe receiving
Hoover power. Western has identified no precedent for deviation from
such a practice and, in fact, Western has never contracted in any
manner other than directly with its allocation recipients.
Response: Western intends to contract directly with each tribe
receiving an allocation.
Comment: Western should clarify how it will treat customers
eligible for/receiving Hoover allocations through the States of Nevada
or Arizona.
Response: The HPAA states that the Western Schedule D allocations
in Arizona and Nevada to other than Native American tribes are to be
offered through APA and CRC, respectively. Therefore, after making any
allocations to non-tribal entities in those states, Western will
contractually provide the capacity and energy to APA and/or CRC, which
will contract directly with the allottee. The contracts between APA
and/or CRC and the allottee must contain all contract terms required by
the HPAA, the 2012 Conformed Criteria, and any necessary provisions
prescribed in Western's contracts with APA and/or CRC.
Comment: Western should publish in a single document all of its
criteria and regulations regarding or impacting BCP, including the
relevant portions of the 1984 marketing criteria as well as the
material resulting from its actions on the
[[Page 79443]]
June 14, 2012, and October 30, 2012 Federal Register notices.
Response: Although Western will not combine all that information
into one hard copy document, those materials are all available for
review at Western's BCP Web site located at https://www.wapa.gov/dsw/pwrmkt/BCP_Remarketing/BCP_Remarketing.htm.
Comment: Western's identified procedure to address the allocation
of Schedule D is vague. Matters not clarified by Western's proposed
criteria may constitute a new agency action. Western must provide a
supplemental opportunity to address any new criteria created as part of
this public comment process prior to making any allocations.
Response: There are no new criteria contained in this notice. The
final criteria are all refinements of the proposed criteria developed
in consideration of the comments Western has received. Therefore,
Western concludes that it is not necessary to conduct further public
processes to establish these marketing criteria.
Comment: Western should explain the formula for determining and
allocating excess energy in written procedures during the allocation
process.
Response: This process concerns only the allocation of Schedule D
power and not the allocation of Schedule C excess energy under the
HPAA. Therefore, no explanation or procedures concerning excess energy
are being provided in this notice.
Comment: All applicants should only be eligible to receive one
allocation of BCP power from Western or APA and/or CRC.
Response: After considering this comment, Western is not
promulgating additional requirements or regulations to be imposed
within the APA and/or CRC BCP allocation efforts. Western does not have
the authority to prescribe requirements upon APA and CRC in their
processes for marketing BCP power within their respective states. These
provisions are also not provided for in either the BCPA or the HPAA.
Comment: Western should clarify in the final marketing criteria
that the revised marketing criteria for Post-2017 apply solely to the
allocation of Schedule D resources made available by the HPAA. Support
a fair, transparent, detailed, and documented written process via the
public record for the allocation of BCP resources.
Response: Western agrees with this comment and believes that it has
appropriately done so. Western is adopting the final marketing criteria
after considering comments received through its public process.
Comment: Questions were submitted concerning a potential
applicant's load location relative to the BCA marketing area and the
contract terms that will be applicable to the sale of BCP power, such
as if Hoover power is considered green/renewable, if any purchased
firming power would be green/renewable, treatment of transactions with
an Independent System Operator (ISO), ISO scheduling points, and
provision of referenced documents and related contracts.
Response: Questions of this nature are outside the scope of the
marketing criteria proposals. Questions concerning contract terms and
individual applicants will be addressed later in the marketing process,
as appropriate.
I. Final Post-2017 Resource Pool Marketing Criteria
The following general marketing criteria shall be applied to
applicants seeking an allocation of power from the Post-2017 Resource
Pool. This includes the 69.17 MW of Schedule D to be allocated within
the entire marketing area and the additional 11.51 MW of Schedule D to
be allocated within the State of California.
A. Allocations of power will be made in amounts determined solely
by Western in the exercise of its discretion under Reclamation Law,
including the HPAA.
B. Allocations will be made only to new allottees, defined in the
HPAA as entities not receiving Schedule A and Schedule B contingent
capacity and firm energy. An entity receiving Schedule A or Schedule B
contingent capacity and firm energy from APA or CRC will not be
eligible for an allocation as a new allottee.
C. An allottee may purchase power only upon the execution of an
electric service contract and satisfaction of all conditions stated
within that contract.
D. Eligible applicants, except Native American tribes, must be
ready, willing, and able to receive and distribute or use power from
Western. Ready, willing, and able means the eligible applicant has the
facilities needed for the receipt of power or has made the necessary
arrangements for transmission and/or distribution service, and its
power supply contracts with third parties permit the delivery of
Western's power. Eligible applicants must have the necessary
arrangements for transmission and/or distribution service in place by
October 1, 2016.
E. An eligible Native American applicant must be an Indian tribe as
defined in the Indian Self Determination Act of 1975, 25 U.S.C. Sec.
450b, as amended.
F. Eligible Native American tribes will receive first consideration
for an allocation of BCP sufficient to provide Federal hydropower up to
25 percent of their peak load in consideration of criterion element G.
G. In making allocations, Western will consider the amount of the
applicant's load already served by existing Federal power resource
allocations.
H. Remaining Schedule D shall be allocated to non-profit applicants
eligible under Section 5 of the BCPA in proportion to their peak loads.
I. Western will base allocations to all eligible applicants on
actual loads experienced in one of the last three calendar years
including calendar years 2011, 2012, or 2013, as designated by the
applicant. For Native American tribes, Western may use estimated load
values if actual load data is not available. Western will evaluate and
may adjust inconsistent estimates during the allocation process.
Western is available to assist tribes in developing load estimates if
necessary.
J. The minimum allocation shall be 100 kW.
K. The maximum allocation shall be 3,000 kW.
L. Contractors must execute electric service contracts within six
months of receiving a contract offer from Western, unless Western
agrees otherwise in writing.
M. Any allocated Post-2017 Resource Pool power not under contract
by October 1, 2016, shall be redistributed on a pro-rata basis to the
remaining Post-2017 Resource Pool new allottees. In the execution of
this redistribution, criteria elements F and K may be waived at
Western's discretion. Any Post-2017 Resource Pool power not allocated
and under contract by October 1, 2017, shall be distributed in
accordance with the 2012 Conformed Criteria.
N. If unanticipated obstacles to the delivery of electric service
to a Native American tribe arise, Western will allow the economic
benefit of the resource to be provided to the tribe through benefit-
crediting or bill-crediting arrangements.
II. Applications for Power
This notice formally requests applications from qualified entities
seeking to purchase Federal power from the Post-2017 Resource Pool.
Western is requesting the APD to provide a uniform basis for evaluating
applications. To be considered, qualified entities must submit an
application to the Western Area Power Administration Desert Southwest
Region as requested below. To ensure full consideration for all
applicants, Western reserves the right to
[[Page 79444]]
not consider applications submitted before publication of this notice
or after the deadline specified in the DATES section. Application forms
are available upon request or may be accessed and/or submitted online
at https://www.wapa.gov/dsw/pwrmkt/BCP_Remarketing/BCP_Remarketing.htm.
Applicant Profile Data Application
The content and format of the APD are outlined below. Applicants
must provide all requested information, or the most reasonable
available estimate, or should indicate ``not applicable'' if they have
no information to be considered for a requested item. Western is not
responsible for errors in data or missing pages. All items of
information in the APD should be answered as if prepared by the entity
seeking the allocation. The APD includes the following:
1. Applicant:
a. Applicant's (entity requesting a new allocation) name and
address.
b. Person(s) representing applicant: Please provide the name,
title, address, telephone and fax number, and email address of such
person(s).
c. Type of organization: For example, Federal or state agency,
irrigation district, municipal, rural, industrial user, municipality,
Native American tribe, public utility district, or rural electric
cooperative.
d. Parent organization of applicant, if any.
e. Name of members or suballottees, if any.
f. Applicable law under which the organization was established.
g. Applicant's geographic service area: If available, submit a map
of the service area, and indicate the date prepared.
h. Describe the entity/organization that will interact with Western
on contract and billing matters.
i. The amount of power the applicant is requesting to be provided
by Western.
2. Loads:
a. All Applicants:
i. If applicable, number and type of customers served in one of the
last three calendar years including calendar years 2011, 2012, or 2013;
e.g., residential, commercial, industrial, military base, agricultural.
ii. The actual monthly maximum demand (in kilowatts) and energy use
(in kilowatt hours) experienced in one of the last three calendar years
including calendar years 2011, 2012, or 2013.
iii. For Native American tribe applicants, if actual demand and
energy data is not available, provide estimated monthly demand (in
kilowatts) with a description of the method and basis for this
estimated demand.
3. Resources:
a. A list of current power supplies, including the applicant's own
generation and purchases from others. For each supply, provide the
amount of capacity received from that power supply and its location.
b. Status of power supply contract(s), including a contract
termination date. Indicate whether power supply is on a firm basis or
some other type of arrangement.
4. Transmission:
a. Point(s) of delivery: BCP will be delivered at Mead Substation.
Applicants may provide preferred point(s) of delivery on Western's
transmission system or a third party's system and the required service
voltage. The applicant will ultimately be responsible for acquiring
transmission to alternate delivery points.
b. Transmission arrangement: Describe the applicant's transmission
arrangements necessary to deliver power to the requested points of
delivery beyond Western's transmission system. Provide a single-line
drawing of applicant's system, if available.
c. Provide a brief explanation of the applicant's ability to
receive and use, or receive and distribute Federal power as of October
1, 2017.
5. Other Information: The applicant may provide any other
information pertinent to receiving an allocation.
6. Signature: The signature and title of an appropriate official
who is able to attest to the validity of the APD and who is authorized
to submit the request for an allocation is required.
Western's Consideration of Applications
Upon receiving the APD, Western will verify that the applicant
meets the eligibility criteria contained in the 2012 Conformed Criteria
and that the application contains all information requested in the APD.
a. Western may request, in writing, additional information from any
applicant whose APD is determined to be deficient. The applicant will
have 15 calendar days from the date on Western's letter of request to
provide the information.
b. If Western determines the applicant does not meet the
eligibility criteria, Western will send a letter explaining why the
applicant did not qualify.
c. If the applicant has met the eligibility criteria, Western,
through the public process, will determine the amount of power, if any,
to allocate in accordance with the marketing criteria. Western will
send a draft contract to the applicant that identifies the terms and
conditions of the offer and the amount of power allocated to the
applicant.
Regulatory Procedure Requirements
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.
Environmental Compliance
In accordance with the DOE National Environmental Policy Act
Implementing Procedures (10 CFR 1021), Western has determined that
these actions fit within a class of action B4.1 Contracts, policies,
and marketing and allocation plans for electric power, in Appendix B to
Subpart D to Part 1021--Categorical Exclusions Applicable to Specific
Agency Actions.
Dated: December 17, 2013
Mark A. Gabriel,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2013-31214 Filed 12-27-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P