Boulder Canyon Project-Post-2017 Resource Pool, 75544-75550 [2014-29638]

Download as PDF mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 75544 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 243 / Thursday, December 18, 2014 / Notices Filing and Service of Responsive Documents: All filings must (1) bear in all capital letters the ‘‘COMMENTS CONTESTING QUALIFICATION FOR A CONDUIT HYDROPOWER FACILITY’’ or ‘‘MOTION TO INTERVENE,’’ as applicable; (2) state in the heading the name of the applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing responds; (3) state the name, address, and telephone number of the person filing; and (4) otherwise comply with the requirements of sections 385.2001 through 385.2005 of the Commission’s regulations.1 All comments contesting Commission staff’s preliminary determination that the facility meets the qualifying criteria must set forth their evidentiary basis. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file motions to intervene and comments using the Commission’s eFiling system at http:// www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov, (866) 208–3676 (toll free), or (202) 502–8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. A copy of all other filings in reference to this application must be accompanied by proof of service on all persons listed in the service list prepared by the Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b) and 385.2010. Locations of Notice of Intent: Copies of the notice of intent can be obtained directly from the applicant or such copies can be viewed and reproduced at the Commission in its Public Reference Room, Room 2A, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. The filing may also be viewed on the Web at http:// www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp using the ‘‘eLibrary’’ link. Enter the docket number (e.g., CD15–5–000) in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, call toll-free 1–866–208–3676 or email FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov. For TTY, call (202) 502–8659. Dated: December 10, 2014. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. 2014–29626 Filed 12–17–14; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717–01–P 1 18 CFR 385.2001–2005 (2014). VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:23 Dec 17, 2014 Jkt 235001 DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Western Area Power Administration Boulder Canyon Project—Post-2017 Resource Pool Western Area Power Administration, DOE. ACTION: Notice of final power allocation. 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 Final Allocation of Power (BCP Final Allocation). The BCP Final Allocation was developed pursuant to 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, and Western’s final BCP post-2017 marketing criteria and call for applications published in the Federal Register on December 30, 2013. This notice also includes Western’s responses to comments on proposed allocations published on August 8, 2014. The BCP Final Allocation documents Western’s decisions prior to beginning the contractual phase of the process. Electric service contracts will provide for delivery from October 1, 2017 to September 30, 2067. DATES: The BCP Final Allocation will become effective December 19, 2014. ADDRESSES: Information regarding the BCP Final Allocation including comments, letters, and other supporting documents is available for public inspection and copying at the Desert Southwest Customer Service Region, Western Area Power Administration, 615 South 43rd Avenue, Phoenix, AZ 85009. Public comments and related information may be accessed at http:// www.wapa.gov/dsw/pwrmkt/BCP_ Remarketing/BCP_Remarketing.htm. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Mike Simonton, Public Utilities Specialist, Desert Southwest Customer Service 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. 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 SUMMARY: PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 power marketing functions of the Secretary of the 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 (43 U.S.C. 619a) (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 power to the Arizona Power Authority (APA) and the Colorado River Commission of Nevada (CRC), as described in the June 14, 2012 Federal Register notice. Of the remaining Schedule D power, 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. After conducting a public process and in consideration of comments received, Western published Final BCP Post-2017 Marketing Criteria (Marketing Criteria) and Call for Applications on December 30, 2013 (78 FR 79436). Applications from those seeking an allocation of Schedule D power from Western were due on March 31, 2014. Western published the BCP Post-2017 Resource Pool Proposed Allocation of Power (BCP Proposed Allocation) in the Federal Register on August 8, 2014 (79 FR 46432). Public information and comment forums were held in Las Vegas, Nevada; Ontario, California; and Tempe, Arizona. Western received comments from existing power contractors, Native American tribes, cooperatives, municipals, and other potential contractors. Transcripts of the public forums, as well as comments received, may be viewed on Western’s E:\FR\FM\18DEN1.SGM 18DEN1 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 243 / Thursday, December 18, 2014 / Notices mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Web site at http://www.wapa.gov/dsw/ pwrmkt. The BCP Final Allocation was determined from the applications received during the call for applications in accordance with the guidelines of the 2012 Conformed Criteria and the Marketing Criteria. Response to Comments on the BCP Proposed Allocation Western received numerous comments on its BCP Proposed Allocation during the comment period. Western reviewed and considered all comments received. This section summarizes and responds to the comments received on the BCP Proposed Allocation. The public comments below are paraphrased for brevity when not affecting the meaning of the statement(s). Comment: Several comments noted that Western’s proposed allocations are consistent with the HPAA and the Marketing Criteria, which result in a reasonable distribution. Response: Western appreciates the support for its application of the Marketing Criteria resulting in reasonable allocation distributions that are consistent with the provisions of the HPAA. Comment: Several comments expressed appreciation and support for the proposed allocations. Western is acknowledged for administering a fair, expedient, and consistent process in the development of the proposed allocations. Final approval of the proposed allocations will enable allottees to achieve significant cost savings that will greatly benefit their communities, provide a widespread benefit of the BCP resource to new entities, and ensure allottees a stable, renewable, and environmentally friendly resource for the next 50 years. Response: Western appreciates the support and recognition of a fair, expedient, and consistent process administration. Western finds the BCP Final Allocation promotes widespread use principles that are in the public interest while navigating a multitude of competing interests. Comment: For Native American communities, access to low-cost power, such as BCP power, is a critical component to economic development and self-sufficiency programs. Western’s ongoing recognition of tribal preference power status is therefore an extremely important contributor. Response: Western appreciates the support for its efforts related to tribes. Comment: Specific applicants requested a review of how their application was considered and VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:23 Dec 17, 2014 Jkt 235001 potential allocation calculated. Corrections should be made in the event assumptions required adjustment. Response: Western provided descriptions and explanations of calculation methodologies at three public information forums and provided further detail in written responses to questions posed. For those that sought additional information, Western provided a more detailed summary of the calculations applicable to their application. In the process of reviewing Western’s calculations and considerations, two corrections were made. In considering the Gila River Indian Community’s (GRIC’s) application, Western accounted for the direct allocation of Colorado River Storage Project (CRSP) power to GRIC and also erroneously included the same CRSP allocation as an indirect resource supplied by one of GRIC’s host utilities, the Gila River Indian Community Utility Authority (GRICUA). When considering the application of the Metropolitan Domestic Water Improvement District (MDWID), the load distribution across MDWID’s host utilities was incorrectly recorded, having an impact on the calculation of indirect benefits of Federal power. In the calculation of the final allocations, Western has removed the indirect benefits of GRIC’s CRSP resource through the GRICUA host utility and corrected the load distribution of MDWID across its host utilities. These corrections altered not only the allocations of GRIC and MDWID, but other allottees as well. Comment: As private corporations, electric cooperatives fall within the defined class of beneficiaries set forth in Section 5 of the BCPA. The proposed allocations are within this legal predicate. As a consequence, Western should refrain from considering any comments that encourage revisiting the eligibility of cooperatives to receive power under Schedule D of the HPAA. The class of eligible entities as defined by the 2012 Conformed Criteria should remain consistent as Western develops the final allocations. Response: Comments concerning matters other than the BCP Proposed Allocation are outside the scope of this process. However, for clarity, Western agrees with the eligibility of cooperatives as determined in the development of the Marketing Criteria. Comment: At times, Western reduced the peak load of an applicant who is a host utility upon receiving an application from potential recipients within that host utility’s service territory. Some applicants within these PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 75545 host utility service areas were not selected for a proposed allocation. For the sake of developing a fair and equitable calculation that relies on an accurate depiction of peak load, Western should recalculate the host utility’s peak load used for calculating their proposed allocation by adding back those loads of unsuccessful applicants that Western subtracted from the host utility’s peak load calculations. Failure to do so will result in a discriminatory allocation process that denies electric ratepayers’ access to the Hoover resources that they are otherwise eligible to receive. Allocations should be re-calculated after these peak load adjustments have been made. These adjustments are particularly important in instances where the applicant within the host utility’s service area was not eligible under the 2012 Conformed Criteria. In those circumstances, Western has decreased the host utility’s load profile without justification that can be sustained. If Western is unable to adjust peak load in this manner, the commenter suggested that Western should give first priority to the power that a proposed allottee relinquishes due to load substantiation deficiencies, lack of viable transmission access, or other such reasons, and allocate to those entities that should have received a higher allocation if Western had not reduced the peak load submission. Response: Western finds merit in this comment and has accepted it. In the development of the BCP Final Allocation, Western re-instated loads from unsuccessful applicants back to their host utility that maintains load serving responsibility for these loads and recalculated the host utility’s final allocation. In the event an applicant was successful in being awarded an allocation, Western retained the reduction to their host utility’s application in order to refrain from considering the same load in the calculation of two separate allocations. In accepting this final allocation method, Western will not be providing a priority to the power that a proposed allottee relinquished because of load substantiation deficiencies, viable transmission access, or other such reasons. Comment: In substantiating load data, Western should rely on proven data sources such as Balancing Authority metered data, metered data from a Generation and Transmission Provider, and Transmission Provider meter data. Western should inform proposed allottees of data sources that would be insufficient or incomplete to E:\FR\FM\18DEN1.SGM 18DEN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 75546 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 243 / Thursday, December 18, 2014 / Notices substantiate loads prior to the October 3, 2014 deadline. If any inconsistencies arise after load substantiation submissions on October 3, 2014, proposed allottees should be provided an opportunity to correct any submissions so that the load data Western will use is completely accurate. Response: On August 21, 2014, Western sent a letter to all proposed allottees requiring them to substantiate their actual loads as supplied in the applications. Load substantiation materials could include, among other things, meter verification reports, historical billing records, annual reports, and host utility reports. Tribes were able to use estimated historical load values, subject to Western’s review and adjustment, if actual load data was not available. Western received load substantiation materials from all final allottees and worked collaboratively to ensure actual loads were accurately depicted based on reliable materials including verified metering and/or billing data. Western informed those with insufficient or incomplete data submittals in a timely fashion and provided an opportunity to revise, correct, or confirm any inconsistencies identified. All final allocations are based on substantiated historical loads. Comment: Western is encouraged to develop operational protocols as soon as possible to facilitate planning of necessary transmission arrangements. Response: Western intends to establish operational protocols within the contract negotiation process. This is anticipated to occur in calendar year 2015. Comment: The City of Maricopa (Maricopa) is served by Electrical District No. 3 (ED3). Western’s allocation methodology assumed that existing Federal power enjoyed by ED3 is shared indirectly with Maricopa. This resulted in Maricopa not receiving a proposed allocation because ED3’s existing Federal power exceeds the targets that Western was able to establish in the allocation of BCP. While Maricopa is served by ED3, Maricopa does not benefit from ED3’s historic allocation of Federal power. ED3’s Federal power allocations are used exclusively for agriculture. This is evidenced by review of ED3’s published rate structures that differentiate rates for agricultural irrigation loads and other uses. These rates clearly define how ED3 sequesters its Federal hydro allocation from benefiting nonagricultural customers such as the Maricopa. Based on the fact that Maricopa does not benefit from ED3’s Federal allocation, Western should treat VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:23 Dec 17, 2014 Jkt 235001 Maricopa as a separate island from ED3 in the calculation of BCP allocations. Response: In reviewing the comment, Western initially evaluated Maricopa’s application without considering ED3’s Federal power allocations as suggested by Maricopa. However, even under this scenario, Maricopa would still be ineligible to receive an allocation due to not meeting the minimum allocation threshold. Comment: The City of Sierra Vista (CSV) is served by Sulphur Springs Valley Electric Cooperative Inc. (SSVEC). Western’s allocation methodology assumed that existing Federal power enjoyed by SSVEC is shared indirectly with CSV. This resulted in CSV not receiving a proposed allocation because its indirect share of SSVEC’s existing Federal power causes CSV’s target percentage peak load to fall below the 100 kW minimum threshold. This logic unfairly punishes an entity whose energy goals are to minimize consumption as a buyer, while it favors an entity that encourages consumption as a seller. Western’s proposed allocation between SSVEC and CSV proves this with the later receiving zero and the former receiving the maximum allowed in this program (3,000 kW). SSVEC has various retail rates differentiating classes of customers, namely irrigation versus commercial classes. The average price paid by CSV to SSVEC is comparable to rates charged by Arizona Public Service and Tucson Electric Power, disproving any existing indirect benefit from existing Federal power finding its way to the CSV. It is proposed that a carveout of 150 kW be taken from the proposed allocation to SSVEC and reallocated to the CSV. Response: The Marketing Criteria calls for allocation distributions based on historical loads with minimum and maximum allocation thresholds. Western finds distribution based on load is a reasonable means of promoting widespread use of Federal power to a diverse base of customers. Based on the comments provided, Western is not convinced that Federal power provided to SSVEC does not benefit CSV. There are many circumstances and variables contributing to the rates that CSV pays SSVEC. Comparing the rates CSV pays to the rates of neighboring investor owned utilities is not an indication of a lack of indirect Federal power benefit CSV might enjoy via SSVEC. In the calculation of the BCP Final Allocation, Western accounted for these indirect Federal power benefits when considering CSV’s application. Comment: Several proposed allottees are served by Salt River Project (SRP). PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 In the development of the proposed allocations, Western considered the indirect benefits of SRP’s Federal power allocations associated to BCP, CRSP, and Parker Davis Project. These resources are supplemented by 450,000 kW from the Navajo Generating Station (NGS) in Page, Arizona, which was funded and developed as a Federal project. The ‘‘Exchange Agreement’’ (Contract No. 14–06–400–2468) (Exchange Agreement) with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) gives 533,000 kW of CRSP Glen Canyon dam capacity to SRP. The origins of SRP are rooted in Federal funding used to construct a series of dams on the Salt River with a capacity of 270,000 kW. Western should include these indirect benefits of existing Federal power when determining the allocations within SRP territory if it uses such logic for other applicants with indirect benefits of Federal power. Response: Reclamation has a 24.3 percent participating interest in the NGS, which is used to provide power for the Central Arizona Project (CAP), the Federal water project designed and constructed between the 1970s and early 1990s to deliver Colorado River water to agricultural water users in central Arizona and many of the state’s largest municipal water users. SRP does not have an allocation of the Federal interest in the NGS. Power that is not reserved for CAP use is made available to the wholesale market where it may be purchased by other utilities, including SRP. This does not convey an allocation or entitlement to portions of Reclamation’s participating interest in the NGS; this surplus power is not sold at-cost, and therefore is not considered equivalent with the benefits of Federal power allocations. The Exchange Agreement does not convey Glen Canyon generating capacity to SRP for its use. The Exchange Agreement provides for up to 500 megawatts (MW) of Glen Canyon generation delivered to SRP in exchange for receiving like amounts of thermal generation from SRP at alternate delivery points. This arrangement was established to reduce the amount of transmission constructed by both parties. This does not convey to SRP an allocation or entitlement to Glen Canyon generation and therefore is not considered on par with the benefits of Federal power allocations. Western acknowledges that the origins of SRP are rooted in Federal projects consisting of a series of dams on the Salt River, however a multitude of examples demonstrating widespread and diverse benefits of Federal funding must be considered if one includes E:\FR\FM\18DEN1.SGM 18DEN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 243 / Thursday, December 18, 2014 / Notices SRP’s origins. For example, CAP water users also enjoy an economical electric supply of NGS and BCP power. Many customers benefit from the capabilities of the Federal transmission system. For the purposes of this effort, Western focused on the quantifiable direct and indirect benefits of Federal power allocations in promotion of widespread use of Federal power consistent with Western’s statutory mission to market and deliver Federal hydropower. Western does not find it appropriate or quantifiable to consider Federal participation in the origins of an applicant or the applicant’s host utility in these proceedings. Comment: When speaking of ‘‘direct and indirect benefits,’’ Western has not defined what the term ‘‘benefits’’ means. The relative magnitude of an applicant’s electrical consumption was not a basis when considering the ‘‘benefits’’ of Federal power. An allocation of 1 MW to a small utility is a significant resource that will greatly ‘‘benefit’’ the applicant. The allocation of 3 MW to a large utility with almost a 1,000 MW load doesn’t derive the same ‘‘benefit.’’ Western has not stated the basis for having a ceiling of 3 MW. Why couldn’t the ceiling have been 2 MW and allocate more capacity to smaller utilities that can ‘‘benefit’’ from an allocation of between 100 kW and 1 MW? A small customer is discriminated against simply because it has a small peak load that is met by a Federal resource that is greater than the peak load targets Western established and not whether the Hoover Schedule D would greatly ‘‘benefit’’ these small applicants. It is doubtful that the receipt of Hoover Schedule D power will have little if any impact on a large allottee’s overall cost of power, while any allocation will substantially ‘‘benefit’’ a small allottee’s cost of power. A 2 MW ceiling is just as meaningful as a 3 MW ceiling and would result in power being allocated to small entities that can ‘‘benefit’’ the most from an allocation of Hoover D power. Response: Western has historically used the term ‘‘benefits’’ of Federal hydropower to refer to the economic cost displacement of avoiding more costly power supply purchases or investments. This economic cost displacement is assumed to be universal regardless of the relative size of the allottee. Western considered a substantial body of comments when establishing the Marketing Criteria and found a 3 MW maximum allocation would provide a balance between meaningful allocations and promoting widespread use to a diverse base of customers. At this time, Western is only considering VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:23 Dec 17, 2014 Jkt 235001 comments on the BCP Proposed Allocation and not the Marketing Criteria, including the 3 MW maximum allocation provision. Comment: The Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians (ACBCI) urges Western to reconsider its allocation of just 1,449 kW to ACBCI and increase such allocation to at least 2,500 kW to 3,000 kW. This increase of allocation should be granted since (1) Western should have accommodated ACBCI’s future load needs and not only consider historical loads; (2) ACBCI’s current Parker-Davis allocation is not relevant to this process and should have been disregarded; and (3) the ‘‘contingent’’ nature of the BCP allocation further reduces what actual capacity ACBCI might receive from the BCP, placing ACBCI in a position of uncertainty in regard to its expansion plans. Response: These comments substantially concern matters other than the BCP Proposed Allocation and are outside the scope of this process. However, for clarity, Western considered and replied to comments related to the load basis to be used in the determination of allocations and the consideration of existing Federal power allocations when establishing the Marketing Criteria. Western determined that consideration of future loads would introduce speculation and unquantifiable collective risk across all applicants and will not be the foundation of establishing allocations. Western also determined that it would consider the benefits of existing Federal power allocations for all applicants. The ‘‘contingent’’ nature of the BCP allocation will result, at times, in all BCP customers receiving less resource than what was marketed. This has been the case for the vast majority of the current contract term of 30 years and is projected for the foreseeable future. A pro-rata reduction will be applied universally to all BCP customers. Comment: Several commenters indicated support for tribal allocations as proposed and a final allocation scheme that vests allocations of at least some quantity over the 100 kW minimum to every tribal applicant. Several tribal applicants received no proposed allocation and some comments expressed support for any reallocation scheme that favors tribes including those not already considered qualified. Response: Western appreciates the support for tribal allocations as proposed. In establishing the BCP Final Allocation, there were some tribal applicants excluded due to the application of the Marketing Criteria to the applications received. PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 75547 Comment: Western’s application of its published allocation criteria in this process need not penalize any tribes and should not preclude allocations to specific tribal applicants. The wording of the criteria as written allows for tribes to now receive BCP power without a total preclusion based on the receipt of other Federal resources if the 25 percent cap is applied differently. Such revisions to what is now proposed would be consistent with Western’s obligations as resource administrator and Federal trustee to tribal interests, while also avoiding an overall process delay or disparate burden on non-tribal customers, as California recipients are proposed to receive an almost proximate share of the resource (20.8 percent) despite the absence of historical or trust considerations. Response: The BCP Final Allocation was established by applying the Marketing Criteria to the applications received and comments concerning the Marketing Criteria are outside the scope of this process. Western is not convinced that circumventing the Marketing Criteria, which already provides a first consideration for Native American tribes, would be fair, equitable, or in the public interest. Comment: Investor owned utilities are not preference power entities and a phase-out program diminishing their allocation over time would be appropriate. This should be considered when the next power marketing plan is developed. Response: Western is not allocating any Schedule D power to an investor owned utility. Therefore, this comment is outside of the scope of the proposed allocations under consideration. Comment: The HPAA states in part that ‘‘[i]n the case of Arizona and Nevada, Schedule D contingent capacity and firm energy for new allottees other than federally recognized Indian tribes shall be offered through the Arizona Power Authority and the Colorado River Commission of Nevada, respectively.’’ 43 U.S.C. 619a(a)(2)(C)(ii). To appropriately apply these ‘‘through’’ provisions in Arizona, Western should forward a list of the successful nontribal applicants located in Arizona to APA. The APA would then enter into a standard power sales contract utilized by the APA for its customers for the specific federally-allocated amount of Schedule D power with the successful Arizona applicant. The power sales contract would include the relevant contract terms mandated by HPAA for Schedule D power. Response: Western considers this a contracting issue outside the scope of this process. However, for transparency, E:\FR\FM\18DEN1.SGM 18DEN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 75548 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 243 / Thursday, December 18, 2014 / Notices Western has adopted the ‘‘through’’ provisions described in HPAA in the 2012 Conformed Criteria (77 FR 35676). Western intends to contract with APA and CRC for the capacity and energy allocated to non-tribal entities in the States of Arizona and Nevada respectively. These contracts will require APA and CRC to contract with the new allottees for the amount of power allocated to them by Western and 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: The CRC presented a series of concerns with how Western has conducted this process which include: (1) Western has refused to provide public access to its calculations and work papers, which denies participants the opportunity to participate effectively in this proceeding. (2) Western has denied allocations to eligible Nevada applicants by incorrectly calculating the current Hoover power benefit to Nevada Power Company’s (NPC’s) non-residential customers. (3) Western has issued proposed allocations without verifying applicant loads, which must lead to significant questions regarding whether the allocations are valid. (4) Western has denied allocations to eligible Nevada applicants by applying an extreme version of super-priorities for tribes, which is not authorized by the HPAA. (5) Western has denied allocations to eligible Nevada applicants by giving preference to cooperatives, which is not authorized by the HPAA. There is no legislative authority for Western to allocate Schedule D power to electric cooperatives. (6) Western should apply its criteria in a manner which ensures that Nevada’s share of Hoover power is closer to the 1⁄3 authorized by the 1928 Act, not in a matter that exacerbates the disparity. (7) Western has not yet taken the necessary steps to ensure that Nevada non-tribal applicants receiving allocations through its process will contract for Schedule D power through the CRC. (8) Western has not yet ensured that entities crossing state boundaries will pay their proportionate share of Hooverrelated costs. (9) Western has not yet re-issued its Hoover Conformed Criteria in a single integrated document, making it extremely difficult for applicants to understand the process. VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:23 Dec 17, 2014 Jkt 235001 Response: Western’s responses in turn to CRC’s comments are as follows: (1) Western responded to all questions presented at the public information forums prior to the close of the comment period, including how the Marketing Criteria were applied to the applications received. The CRC request included access to all materials contained in all applications, in particular applicant peak load and resource portfolio information. This information has historically been treated as confidential and proprietary information in the electric industry. Furthermore, Western has previously received numerous comments from applicants explicitly stating that application data is confidential, proprietary, and disclosure by Western of this information would be inappropriate. All applicants that requested further detail regarding the consideration of its application were provided a detailed summary of how the application was considered. Western finds that sufficient information has been provided for all parties to understand how the Marketing Criteria were applied to the applications received in order to calculate the BCP Final Allocation. (2) Western has reviewed CRC’s comment regarding the calculation of indirect benefits of Federal power for those applicants with load served by the NPC and finds merit in accepting the comment as suggested. In the calculation of the proposed allocations, Western assumed the CRC suballocation of BCP power to NPC of 235,232 kW benefited all NPC’s customers totaling a peak load of 5,761,000 kW as reported by the Energy Information Administration (EIA) for calendar year 2012. This resulted in Western’s assumption of approximately 4.1 percent of peak load being served by Federal power for all applicants’ load served by NPC. In researching CRC’s comments, Western confirmed that Schedule B (135,000 kW) is limited to NPC residential customers only. This leaves Schedule A (100,232 kW) left to serve NPC load. As reported by NPC and cross-referenced with EIA 2012 data, NPC load is composed of approximately 42.7 percent residential and 57.3 percent non-residential. This warrants the consideration of 57.3 percent of NPC’s Schedule A, or 57,461 kW, benefiting non-residential customers served by NPC (3,302,675 kW) equating to a NPC indirect Federal power benefit to non-residential applicants of approximately 1.74 percent. Western finds that no residential load is represented in those applicants with load served by NPC. Western PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 recalculated the final post-2017 allocations assuming approximately 1.74 percent of NPC non-residential customers’ peak load is being served by Federal power. (3) Western did not find it appropriate to verify loads in developing proposed allocations as they are subject to change. Western has since required all allottees to substantiate their actual loads as supplied in the applications. Western received load substantiation materials from all final allottees and worked collaboratively to ensure actual loads were accurately depicted based on reliable materials, including verified metering and/or billing data. (4) Western considered and replied to comments related to a first consideration for Native American tribes when establishing the Marketing Criteria. At this time, Western is only considering comments on the BCP Proposed Allocation and not the Marketing Criteria, which includes a first consideration for Native American tribes. (5) Western considered and replied to comments related to the preference and eligibility of cooperatives when establishing the Marketing Criteria. At this time, Western is only considering comments on the BCP Proposed Allocation and not the Marketing Criteria, which includes the preference and eligibility of cooperatives. (6) Western considered and replied to comments related to a 1⁄3 distribution of the 69,170 kW to the States of Arizona, California, and Nevada when establishing the Marketing Criteria. At this time Western is only considering comments on the BCP Proposed Allocations and not the Marketing Criteria, including a 1⁄3 each distribution among these States. (7) Western considers this a contracting issue outside the scope of this process. However, for transparency, Western has adopted the ‘‘through’’ provisions described in the HPAA in the 2012 Conformed Criteria (77 FR 35676). Western intends to contract with APA and CRC for the capacity and energy allocated to non-tribal entities in the States of Arizona and Nevada respectively. These contracts will require APA and CRC to contract with the new allottees for the amount of power allocated to them by Western and 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. (8) This comment also pertains to a contract issue outside the scope of this process. However, Western stated in the 2012 Conformed Criteria that contract E:\FR\FM\18DEN1.SGM 18DEN1 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 243 / Thursday, December 18, 2014 / Notices offers shall contain a provision requiring a new allottee to pay a proportionate share of its State’s respective contribution (determined in accordance with each State’s applicable funding agreement) to the cost of the Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation Program (as defined in Section 9401 of the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 (Pub. L. 111–11; 123 Stat. 1327)). Western will work with stakeholders to ensure the provisions of the HPAA and the 2012 Conformed Criteria are met in this regard during the contracting process in calendar year 2015. (9) While establishing the Marketing Criteria, Western stated that it will not combine all this information into one integrated document. Material is available for review at Western’s BCP Web site located at http://www.wapa. gov/dsw/pwrmkt/BCP_Remarketing/ BCP_Remarketing.htm. Final Power Allocation The BCP Final Allocation is made in accordance with the 2012 Conformed Criteria, the HPAA, and Western’s Marketing Criteria. All allocations are subject to the execution of a contract in accordance with the 2012 Conformed Boulder Canyon Project Contingent capacity (kW) mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians ......................................................... Anza Electric Cooperative, Inc ........................................................................ Augustine Band of Cahuilla Indians ................................................................ Bishop Paiute Tribe ......................................................................................... Cabazon Band of Mission Indians ................................................................... California Department of Water Resources ..................................................... Chemehuevi Indian Tribe ................................................................................ City of Cerritos, California ................................................................................ City of Chandler, AZ Municipal Utilities Department ....................................... City of Corona, California ................................................................................ City of Flagstaff, Arizona ................................................................................. City of Glendale, Arizona ................................................................................. City of Globe, Arizona ..................................................................................... City of Henderson, Nevada ............................................................................. City of Las Vegas, Nevada .............................................................................. City of North Las Vegas, Nevada .................................................................... City of Payson, Arizona ................................................................................... City of Peoria, Arizona ..................................................................................... City of Phoenix, Arizona .................................................................................. City of Rancho Cucamonga, CA Municipal Utility ........................................... City of Scottsdale, Arizona .............................................................................. City of Tempe, AZ Public Works Department ................................................. City of Tucson, Arizona Water Department ..................................................... City of Victorville, California ............................................................................. Clark County School District ............................................................................ Clark County Water Reclamation District ........................................................ College of Southern Nevada ........................................................................... Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation ........................................................................ Gila River Indian Community ........................................................................... Graham County Electric Cooperative, Inc ....................................................... Hualapai Indian Tribe ...................................................................................... Imperial Irrigation District ................................................................................. Kaibab Band of Paiute Indians ........................................................................ Las Vegas Paiute Tribe ................................................................................... Las Vegas Valley Water District ...................................................................... Metropolitan Domestic Water Improvement District ........................................ Mohave Electric Cooperative, Inc .................................................................... Morongo Band of Mission Indians ................................................................... Navajo Tribal Utility Authority .......................................................................... Navopache Electric Cooperative, Inc .............................................................. Northern Arizona Irrigation District Power Pool ............................................... Pascua Yaqui Tribe ......................................................................................... Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians ................................................... Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community .................................................. San Diego County Water Authority ................................................................. San Luis Rey River Indian Water Authority ..................................................... San Manuel Band of Mission Indians .............................................................. State of Nevada Department of Administration ............................................... State of Nevada Department of Corrections ................................................... State of Nevada Department of Transportation .............................................. Sulphur Springs Valley Electric Cooperative, Inc ............................................ Timbisha Shoshone Tribe ................................................................................ 19:23 Dec 17, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Criteria. After substantiation of applicant loads, corrections as described within, and consideration of comments; two allottees were added and one removed from the list of allottees contained in the BCP Proposed Allocation. The State of Nevada Department of Administration and the State of Nevada Department of Transportation were added as final allottees. The Duncan Valley Electric Cooperative Inc. was excluded due to the potential allocation falling below the 100 kW minimum allocation threshold. The BCP Final Allocation is shown in the table below: Final post-2017 power allocations Allottee VerDate Sep<11>2014 75549 Frm 00019 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 1,449 1,596 479 380 1,003 3,000 1,397 3,000 676 2,988 201 426 115 906 1,054 763 119 691 3,000 3,000 2,366 241 1,248 2,625 3,000 680 281 338 3,000 312 381 3,000 124 688 3,000 179 1,145 1,098 3,000 888 246 437 2,000 3,000 1,619 3,000 2,554 109 281 116 2,731 119 Firm energy (kWh) Summer 2,212,925 2,437,679 731,533 580,339 1,531,790 4,581,625 2,133,510 4,581,943 1,032,393 4,563,774 306,969 650,591 175,629 1,383,651 1,609,678 1,165,260 181,738 1,055,301 4,581,625 4,581,945 3,613,375 368,057 1,905,956 4,009,209 4,581,625 1,038,501 429,145 516,197 4,581,625 476,489 581,866 4,581,625 189,374 1,050,719 4,581,625 273,371 1,748,653 1,676,874 4,581,625 1,356,161 375,693 667,390 3,054,417 4,581,625 2,472,728 4,581,625 3,900,490 166,465 429,145 177,156 4,170,806 181,738 E:\FR\FM\18DEN1.SGM 18DEN1 Winter Total 950,554 1,044,541 314,227 249,283 657,975 1,968,021 916,442 1,964,953 443,461 1,955,570 131,857 279,459 75,441 594,342 691,431 500,533 78,065 453,301 1,968,021 1,964,940 1,552,112 158,098 818,697 1,719,255 1,968,020 446,085 184,338 221,730 1,968,020 204,674 249,939 1,968,021 81,345 451,333 1,968,021 117,425 751,128 720,296 1,968,021 582,534 161,378 286,675 1,312,014 1,968,021 1,060,370 1,968,021 1,675,442 71,505 184,338 76,097 1,791,555 78,065 3,163,479 3,482,220 1,045,760 829,622 2,189,765 6,549,646 3,049,952 6,546,896 1,475,854 6,519,344 438,826 930,050 251,070 1,977,993 2,301,109 1,665,793 259,803 1,508,602 6,549,646 6,546,885 5,165,487 526,155 2,724,653 5,728,464 6,549,645 1,484,586 613,483 737,927 6,549,645 681,163 831,805 6,549,646 270,719 1,502,052 6,549,646 390,796 2,499,781 2,397,170 6,549,646 1,938,695 537,071 954,065 4,366,431 6,549,646 3,533,098 6,549,646 5,575,932 237,970 613,483 253,253 5,962,361 259,803 75550 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 243 / Thursday, December 18, 2014 / Notices Boulder Canyon Project Final post-2017 power allocations Contingent capacity (kW) Allottee Firm energy (kWh) Summer Winter Total Tohono O’odham Nation ................................................................................. Tonto Apache Tribe ......................................................................................... Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians ......................................................... Trico Electric Cooperative, Inc ......................................................................... Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians .................................................. University of Nevada, Las Vegas .................................................................... Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians .................................................................. 2,709 250 1,659 3,000 1,320 305 1,388 4,137,207 381,802 2,533,639 4,581,625 2,015,915 465,799 2,119,765 1,777,123 164,002 1,088,315 1,968,021 865,929 200,082 910,538 5,914,330 545,804 3,621,954 6,549,646 2,881,844 665,881 3,030,303 Total .......................................................................................................... 80,680 123,217,000 52,909,000 176,126,000 The BCP Final Allocation listed above is based on the quantities of contingent capacity and firm energy to be marketed as defined by the HPAA and the 2012 Conformed Criteria. In accordance with the provisions of the HPAA and the 2012 Conformed Criteria, non-tribal allottees in the states of Arizona and Nevada will need to contract for electric service with the APA and CRC. Western will offer electric service contracts to all Native American tribes and California customers. Redistributions of allocated power that is not put under contract by specified dates are prescribed under the provisions of the HPAA, the 2012 Conformed Criteria, and the Marketing Criteria. 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 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 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 12, 2014. Mark A. Gabriel, Administrator. [FR Doc. 2014–29638 Filed 12–17–14; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450–01–P VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:23 Dec 17, 2014 Jkt 235001 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL–9920–65–OA] Notification of a Closed Teleconference of the Chartered Science Advisory Board Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice. AGENCY: The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA), Science Advisory Board (SAB) Staff Office is announcing a teleconference of the Chartered SAB to conduct a review of two draft reports of recommendations regarding the agency’s 2013 and 2014 Scientific and Technological Achievement Awards (STAA). The Chartered SAB teleconference will be closed to the public. DATES: The Chartered SAB teleconference date is Monday, January 26, 2015, from 2:00 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. (Eastern Time). ADDRESSES: The Chartered SAB closed teleconference will take place via telephone only. General information about the SAB may be found on the SAB Web site at http://www.epa.gov/sab. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Members of the public who wish to obtain further information regarding this announcement may contact Angela Nugent, Designated Federal Officer, by telephone: (202) 564–2218 or email at nugent.angela@epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C. App. 2, and section (c)(6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(6), the EPA has determined that the chartered SAB quality review teleconference will be closed to the public. The purpose of the teleconference is for the chartered SAB to conduct a review of two draft reports of recommendations regarding the agency’s 2013 and 2014 STAA. The SUMMARY: PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Chartered SAB teleconference will be closed to the public. Quality review is a key function of the chartered SAB. Draft reports prepared by SAB committees, panels, or work groups must be reviewed and approved by the chartered SAB before transmittal to the EPA Administrator. The chartered SAB makes a determination in a meeting consistent with FACA about all draft reports and determines whether the report is ready to be transmitted to the EPA Administrator. At the teleconference, the chartered SAB will conduct reviews for two draft reports developed by an SAB committee charged with developing recommendations regarding the agency’s STAA. The first draft report focuses on review of additional agency recommendations for the 2013 awards. Although the chartered SAB reviewed the agency’s 2013 STAA nominations and provided advice regarding those nominations in January 2014 (for more information, see http://yosemite.epa. gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/fedrgstr_ activites/2013%20STAA%20Review ?OpenDocument), the agency later identified additional nominations for SAB review. The second draft report focuses on the agency’s 2014 STAA nominations (for more information, see http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct. nsf/fedrgstr_activites/2014%20STAA %20Review?OpenDocument). The STAA awards are established to honor and recognize EPA employees who have made outstanding contributions in the advancement of science and technology through their research and development activities, as exhibited in publication of their results in peer reviewed journals. I have determined that the Chartered SAB quality review teleconference will be closed to the public because it is concerned with recommending employees deserving of awards. In making these draft recommendations, the EPA requires full and frank advice from the SAB. This advice will involve professional judgments on the relative E:\FR\FM\18DEN1.SGM 18DEN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 243 (Thursday, December 18, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 75544-75550]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-29638]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Western Area Power Administration


Boulder Canyon Project--Post-2017 Resource Pool

AGENCY: Western Area Power Administration, DOE.

ACTION: Notice of final power allocation.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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 Final Allocation 
of Power (BCP Final Allocation). The BCP Final Allocation was developed 
pursuant to 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, and Western's final BCP post-2017 marketing 
criteria and call for applications published in the Federal Register on 
December 30, 2013. This notice also includes Western's responses to 
comments on proposed allocations published on August 8, 2014. The BCP 
Final Allocation documents Western's decisions prior to beginning the 
contractual phase of the process. Electric service contracts will 
provide for delivery from October 1, 2017 to September 30, 2067.

DATES: The BCP Final Allocation will become effective December 19, 
2014.

ADDRESSES: Information regarding the BCP Final Allocation including 
comments, letters, and other supporting documents is available for 
public inspection and copying at the Desert Southwest Customer Service 
Region, Western Area Power Administration, 615 South 43rd Avenue, 
Phoenix, AZ 85009. Public comments and related information may be 
accessed at http://www.wapa.gov/dsw/pwrmkt/BCP_Remarketing/BCP_Remarketing.htm.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Mike Simonton, Public Utilities 
Specialist, Desert Southwest Customer Service 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. 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 the 
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 (43 U.S.C. 619a) (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 power to the Arizona Power Authority (APA) and the Colorado 
River Commission of Nevada (CRC), as described in the June 14, 2012 
Federal Register notice. Of the remaining Schedule D power, 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.
    After conducting a public process and in consideration of comments 
received, Western published Final BCP Post-2017 Marketing Criteria 
(Marketing Criteria) and Call for Applications on December 30, 2013 (78 
FR 79436). Applications from those seeking an allocation of Schedule D 
power from Western were due on March 31, 2014. Western published the 
BCP Post-2017 Resource Pool Proposed Allocation of Power (BCP Proposed 
Allocation) in the Federal Register on August 8, 2014 (79 FR 46432). 
Public information and comment forums were held in Las Vegas, Nevada; 
Ontario, California; and Tempe, Arizona. Western received comments from 
existing power contractors, Native American tribes, cooperatives, 
municipals, and other potential contractors. Transcripts of the public 
forums, as well as comments received, may be viewed on Western's

[[Page 75545]]

Web site at http://www.wapa.gov/dsw/pwrmkt.
    The BCP Final Allocation was determined from the applications 
received during the call for applications in accordance with the 
guidelines of the 2012 Conformed Criteria and the Marketing Criteria.

Response to Comments on the BCP Proposed Allocation

    Western received numerous comments on its BCP Proposed Allocation 
during the comment period. Western reviewed and considered all comments 
received. This section summarizes and responds to the comments received 
on the BCP Proposed Allocation. The public comments below are 
paraphrased for brevity when not affecting the meaning of the 
statement(s).
    Comment: Several comments noted that Western's proposed allocations 
are consistent with the HPAA and the Marketing Criteria, which result 
in a reasonable distribution.
    Response: Western appreciates the support for its application of 
the Marketing Criteria resulting in reasonable allocation distributions 
that are consistent with the provisions of the HPAA.
    Comment: Several comments expressed appreciation and support for 
the proposed allocations. Western is acknowledged for administering a 
fair, expedient, and consistent process in the development of the 
proposed allocations. Final approval of the proposed allocations will 
enable allottees to achieve significant cost savings that will greatly 
benefit their communities, provide a widespread benefit of the BCP 
resource to new entities, and ensure allottees a stable, renewable, and 
environmentally friendly resource for the next 50 years.
    Response: Western appreciates the support and recognition of a 
fair, expedient, and consistent process administration. Western finds 
the BCP Final Allocation promotes widespread use principles that are in 
the public interest while navigating a multitude of competing 
interests.
    Comment: For Native American communities, access to low-cost power, 
such as BCP power, is a critical component to economic development and 
self-sufficiency programs. Western's ongoing recognition of tribal 
preference power status is therefore an extremely important 
contributor.
    Response: Western appreciates the support for its efforts related 
to tribes.
    Comment: Specific applicants requested a review of how their 
application was considered and potential allocation calculated. 
Corrections should be made in the event assumptions required 
adjustment.
    Response: Western provided descriptions and explanations of 
calculation methodologies at three public information forums and 
provided further detail in written responses to questions posed. For 
those that sought additional information, Western provided a more 
detailed summary of the calculations applicable to their application. 
In the process of reviewing Western's calculations and considerations, 
two corrections were made.
    In considering the Gila River Indian Community's (GRIC's) 
application, Western accounted for the direct allocation of Colorado 
River Storage Project (CRSP) power to GRIC and also erroneously 
included the same CRSP allocation as an indirect resource supplied by 
one of GRIC's host utilities, the Gila River Indian Community Utility 
Authority (GRICUA). When considering the application of the 
Metropolitan Domestic Water Improvement District (MDWID), the load 
distribution across MDWID's host utilities was incorrectly recorded, 
having an impact on the calculation of indirect benefits of Federal 
power.
    In the calculation of the final allocations, Western has removed 
the indirect benefits of GRIC's CRSP resource through the GRICUA host 
utility and corrected the load distribution of MDWID across its host 
utilities. These corrections altered not only the allocations of GRIC 
and MDWID, but other allottees as well.
    Comment: As private corporations, electric cooperatives fall within 
the defined class of beneficiaries set forth in Section 5 of the BCPA. 
The proposed allocations are within this legal predicate. As a 
consequence, Western should refrain from considering any comments that 
encourage revisiting the eligibility of cooperatives to receive power 
under Schedule D of the HPAA. The class of eligible entities as defined 
by the 2012 Conformed Criteria should remain consistent as Western 
develops the final allocations.
    Response: Comments concerning matters other than the BCP Proposed 
Allocation are outside the scope of this process. However, for clarity, 
Western agrees with the eligibility of cooperatives as determined in 
the development of the Marketing Criteria.
    Comment: At times, Western reduced the peak load of an applicant 
who is a host utility upon receiving an application from potential 
recipients within that host utility's service territory. Some 
applicants within these host utility service areas were not selected 
for a proposed allocation. For the sake of developing a fair and 
equitable calculation that relies on an accurate depiction of peak 
load, Western should recalculate the host utility's peak load used for 
calculating their proposed allocation by adding back those loads of 
unsuccessful applicants that Western subtracted from the host utility's 
peak load calculations. Failure to do so will result in a 
discriminatory allocation process that denies electric ratepayers' 
access to the Hoover resources that they are otherwise eligible to 
receive. Allocations should be re-calculated after these peak load 
adjustments have been made. These adjustments are particularly 
important in instances where the applicant within the host utility's 
service area was not eligible under the 2012 Conformed Criteria. In 
those circumstances, Western has decreased the host utility's load 
profile without justification that can be sustained. If Western is 
unable to adjust peak load in this manner, the commenter suggested that 
Western should give first priority to the power that a proposed 
allottee relinquishes due to load substantiation deficiencies, lack of 
viable transmission access, or other such reasons, and allocate to 
those entities that should have received a higher allocation if Western 
had not reduced the peak load submission.
    Response: Western finds merit in this comment and has accepted it. 
In the development of the BCP Final Allocation, Western re-instated 
loads from unsuccessful applicants back to their host utility that 
maintains load serving responsibility for these loads and recalculated 
the host utility's final allocation.
    In the event an applicant was successful in being awarded an 
allocation, Western retained the reduction to their host utility's 
application in order to refrain from considering the same load in the 
calculation of two separate allocations. In accepting this final 
allocation method, Western will not be providing a priority to the 
power that a proposed allottee relinquished because of load 
substantiation deficiencies, viable transmission access, or other such 
reasons.
    Comment: In substantiating load data, Western should rely on proven 
data sources such as Balancing Authority metered data, metered data 
from a Generation and Transmission Provider, and Transmission Provider 
meter data. Western should inform proposed allottees of data sources 
that would be insufficient or incomplete to

[[Page 75546]]

substantiate loads prior to the October 3, 2014 deadline. If any 
inconsistencies arise after load substantiation submissions on October 
3, 2014, proposed allottees should be provided an opportunity to 
correct any submissions so that the load data Western will use is 
completely accurate.
    Response: On August 21, 2014, Western sent a letter to all proposed 
allottees requiring them to substantiate their actual loads as supplied 
in the applications. Load substantiation materials could include, among 
other things, meter verification reports, historical billing records, 
annual reports, and host utility reports. Tribes were able to use 
estimated historical load values, subject to Western's review and 
adjustment, if actual load data was not available. Western received 
load substantiation materials from all final allottees and worked 
collaboratively to ensure actual loads were accurately depicted based 
on reliable materials including verified metering and/or billing data. 
Western informed those with insufficient or incomplete data submittals 
in a timely fashion and provided an opportunity to revise, correct, or 
confirm any inconsistencies identified. All final allocations are based 
on substantiated historical loads.
    Comment: Western is encouraged to develop operational protocols as 
soon as possible to facilitate planning of necessary transmission 
arrangements.
    Response: Western intends to establish operational protocols within 
the contract negotiation process. This is anticipated to occur in 
calendar year 2015.
    Comment: The City of Maricopa (Maricopa) is served by Electrical 
District No. 3 (ED3). Western's allocation methodology assumed that 
existing Federal power enjoyed by ED3 is shared indirectly with 
Maricopa. This resulted in Maricopa not receiving a proposed allocation 
because ED3's existing Federal power exceeds the targets that Western 
was able to establish in the allocation of BCP. While Maricopa is 
served by ED3, Maricopa does not benefit from ED3's historic allocation 
of Federal power. ED3's Federal power allocations are used exclusively 
for agriculture. This is evidenced by review of ED3's published rate 
structures that differentiate rates for agricultural irrigation loads 
and other uses. These rates clearly define how ED3 sequesters its 
Federal hydro allocation from benefiting non-agricultural customers 
such as the Maricopa. Based on the fact that Maricopa does not benefit 
from ED3's Federal allocation, Western should treat Maricopa as a 
separate island from ED3 in the calculation of BCP allocations.
    Response: In reviewing the comment, Western initially evaluated 
Maricopa's application without considering ED3's Federal power 
allocations as suggested by Maricopa. However, even under this 
scenario, Maricopa would still be ineligible to receive an allocation 
due to not meeting the minimum allocation threshold.
    Comment: The City of Sierra Vista (CSV) is served by Sulphur 
Springs Valley Electric Cooperative Inc. (SSVEC). Western's allocation 
methodology assumed that existing Federal power enjoyed by SSVEC is 
shared indirectly with CSV. This resulted in CSV not receiving a 
proposed allocation because its indirect share of SSVEC's existing 
Federal power causes CSV's target percentage peak load to fall below 
the 100 kW minimum threshold. This logic unfairly punishes an entity 
whose energy goals are to minimize consumption as a buyer, while it 
favors an entity that encourages consumption as a seller. Western's 
proposed allocation between SSVEC and CSV proves this with the later 
receiving zero and the former receiving the maximum allowed in this 
program (3,000 kW). SSVEC has various retail rates differentiating 
classes of customers, namely irrigation versus commercial classes. The 
average price paid by CSV to SSVEC is comparable to rates charged by 
Arizona Public Service and Tucson Electric Power, disproving any 
existing indirect benefit from existing Federal power finding its way 
to the CSV. It is proposed that a carve-out of 150 kW be taken from the 
proposed allocation to SSVEC and reallocated to the CSV.
    Response: The Marketing Criteria calls for allocation distributions 
based on historical loads with minimum and maximum allocation 
thresholds. Western finds distribution based on load is a reasonable 
means of promoting widespread use of Federal power to a diverse base of 
customers. Based on the comments provided, Western is not convinced 
that Federal power provided to SSVEC does not benefit CSV. There are 
many circumstances and variables contributing to the rates that CSV 
pays SSVEC. Comparing the rates CSV pays to the rates of neighboring 
investor owned utilities is not an indication of a lack of indirect 
Federal power benefit CSV might enjoy via SSVEC. In the calculation of 
the BCP Final Allocation, Western accounted for these indirect Federal 
power benefits when considering CSV's application.
    Comment: Several proposed allottees are served by Salt River 
Project (SRP). In the development of the proposed allocations, Western 
considered the indirect benefits of SRP's Federal power allocations 
associated to BCP, CRSP, and Parker Davis Project. These resources are 
supplemented by 450,000 kW from the Navajo Generating Station (NGS) in 
Page, Arizona, which was funded and developed as a Federal project. The 
``Exchange Agreement'' (Contract No. 14-06-400-2468) (Exchange 
Agreement) with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) gives 
533,000 kW of CRSP Glen Canyon dam capacity to SRP. The origins of SRP 
are rooted in Federal funding used to construct a series of dams on the 
Salt River with a capacity of 270,000 kW. Western should include these 
indirect benefits of existing Federal power when determining the 
allocations within SRP territory if it uses such logic for other 
applicants with indirect benefits of Federal power.
    Response: Reclamation has a 24.3 percent participating interest in 
the NGS, which is used to provide power for the Central Arizona Project 
(CAP), the Federal water project designed and constructed between the 
1970s and early 1990s to deliver Colorado River water to agricultural 
water users in central Arizona and many of the state's largest 
municipal water users. SRP does not have an allocation of the Federal 
interest in the NGS. Power that is not reserved for CAP use is made 
available to the wholesale market where it may be purchased by other 
utilities, including SRP. This does not convey an allocation or 
entitlement to portions of Reclamation's participating interest in the 
NGS; this surplus power is not sold at-cost, and therefore is not 
considered equivalent with the benefits of Federal power allocations.
    The Exchange Agreement does not convey Glen Canyon generating 
capacity to SRP for its use. The Exchange Agreement provides for up to 
500 megawatts (MW) of Glen Canyon generation delivered to SRP in 
exchange for receiving like amounts of thermal generation from SRP at 
alternate delivery points. This arrangement was established to reduce 
the amount of transmission constructed by both parties. This does not 
convey to SRP an allocation or entitlement to Glen Canyon generation 
and therefore is not considered on par with the benefits of Federal 
power allocations.
    Western acknowledges that the origins of SRP are rooted in Federal 
projects consisting of a series of dams on the Salt River, however a 
multitude of examples demonstrating widespread and diverse benefits of 
Federal funding must be considered if one includes

[[Page 75547]]

SRP's origins. For example, CAP water users also enjoy an economical 
electric supply of NGS and BCP power. Many customers benefit from the 
capabilities of the Federal transmission system. For the purposes of 
this effort, Western focused on the quantifiable direct and indirect 
benefits of Federal power allocations in promotion of widespread use of 
Federal power consistent with Western's statutory mission to market and 
deliver Federal hydropower. Western does not find it appropriate or 
quantifiable to consider Federal participation in the origins of an 
applicant or the applicant's host utility in these proceedings.
    Comment: When speaking of ``direct and indirect benefits,'' Western 
has not defined what the term ``benefits'' means. The relative 
magnitude of an applicant's electrical consumption was not a basis when 
considering the ``benefits'' of Federal power. An allocation of 1 MW to 
a small utility is a significant resource that will greatly ``benefit'' 
the applicant. The allocation of 3 MW to a large utility with almost a 
1,000 MW load doesn't derive the same ``benefit.'' Western has not 
stated the basis for having a ceiling of 3 MW. Why couldn't the ceiling 
have been 2 MW and allocate more capacity to smaller utilities that can 
``benefit'' from an allocation of between 100 kW and 1 MW? A small 
customer is discriminated against simply because it has a small peak 
load that is met by a Federal resource that is greater than the peak 
load targets Western established and not whether the Hoover Schedule D 
would greatly ``benefit'' these small applicants. It is doubtful that 
the receipt of Hoover Schedule D power will have little if any impact 
on a large allottee's overall cost of power, while any allocation will 
substantially ``benefit'' a small allottee's cost of power. A 2 MW 
ceiling is just as meaningful as a 3 MW ceiling and would result in 
power being allocated to small entities that can ``benefit'' the most 
from an allocation of Hoover D power.
    Response: Western has historically used the term ``benefits'' of 
Federal hydropower to refer to the economic cost displacement of 
avoiding more costly power supply purchases or investments. This 
economic cost displacement is assumed to be universal regardless of the 
relative size of the allottee.
    Western considered a substantial body of comments when establishing 
the Marketing Criteria and found a 3 MW maximum allocation would 
provide a balance between meaningful allocations and promoting 
widespread use to a diverse base of customers. At this time, Western is 
only considering comments on the BCP Proposed Allocation and not the 
Marketing Criteria, including the 3 MW maximum allocation provision.
    Comment: The Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians (ACBCI) urges 
Western to reconsider its allocation of just 1,449 kW to ACBCI and 
increase such allocation to at least 2,500 kW to 3,000 kW. This 
increase of allocation should be granted since (1) Western should have 
accommodated ACBCI's future load needs and not only consider historical 
loads; (2) ACBCI's current Parker-Davis allocation is not relevant to 
this process and should have been disregarded; and (3) the 
``contingent'' nature of the BCP allocation further reduces what actual 
capacity ACBCI might receive from the BCP, placing ACBCI in a position 
of uncertainty in regard to its expansion plans.
    Response: These comments substantially concern matters other than 
the BCP Proposed Allocation and are outside the scope of this process. 
However, for clarity, Western considered and replied to comments 
related to the load basis to be used in the determination of 
allocations and the consideration of existing Federal power allocations 
when establishing the Marketing Criteria. Western determined that 
consideration of future loads would introduce speculation and 
unquantifiable collective risk across all applicants and will not be 
the foundation of establishing allocations. Western also determined 
that it would consider the benefits of existing Federal power 
allocations for all applicants. The ``contingent'' nature of the BCP 
allocation will result, at times, in all BCP customers receiving less 
resource than what was marketed. This has been the case for the vast 
majority of the current contract term of 30 years and is projected for 
the foreseeable future. A pro-rata reduction will be applied 
universally to all BCP customers.
    Comment: Several commenters indicated support for tribal 
allocations as proposed and a final allocation scheme that vests 
allocations of at least some quantity over the 100 kW minimum to every 
tribal applicant. Several tribal applicants received no proposed 
allocation and some comments expressed support for any reallocation 
scheme that favors tribes including those not already considered 
qualified.
    Response: Western appreciates the support for tribal allocations as 
proposed. In establishing the BCP Final Allocation, there were some 
tribal applicants excluded due to the application of the Marketing 
Criteria to the applications received.
    Comment: Western's application of its published allocation criteria 
in this process need not penalize any tribes and should not preclude 
allocations to specific tribal applicants. The wording of the criteria 
as written allows for tribes to now receive BCP power without a total 
preclusion based on the receipt of other Federal resources if the 25 
percent cap is applied differently. Such revisions to what is now 
proposed would be consistent with Western's obligations as resource 
administrator and Federal trustee to tribal interests, while also 
avoiding an overall process delay or disparate burden on non-tribal 
customers, as California recipients are proposed to receive an almost 
proximate share of the resource (20.8 percent) despite the absence of 
historical or trust considerations.
    Response: The BCP Final Allocation was established by applying the 
Marketing Criteria to the applications received and comments concerning 
the Marketing Criteria are outside the scope of this process. Western 
is not convinced that circumventing the Marketing Criteria, which 
already provides a first consideration for Native American tribes, 
would be fair, equitable, or in the public interest.
    Comment: Investor owned utilities are not preference power entities 
and a phase-out program diminishing their allocation over time would be 
appropriate. This should be considered when the next power marketing 
plan is developed.
    Response: Western is not allocating any Schedule D power to an 
investor owned utility. Therefore, this comment is outside of the scope 
of the proposed allocations under consideration.
    Comment: The HPAA states in part that ``[i]n the case of Arizona 
and Nevada, Schedule D contingent capacity and firm energy for new 
allottees other than federally recognized Indian tribes shall be 
offered through the Arizona Power Authority and the Colorado River 
Commission of Nevada, respectively.'' 43 U.S.C. 619a(a)(2)(C)(ii). To 
appropriately apply these ``through'' provisions in Arizona, Western 
should forward a list of the successful non-tribal applicants located 
in Arizona to APA. The APA would then enter into a standard power sales 
contract utilized by the APA for its customers for the specific 
federally-allocated amount of Schedule D power with the successful 
Arizona applicant. The power sales contract would include the relevant 
contract terms mandated by HPAA for Schedule D power.
    Response: Western considers this a contracting issue outside the 
scope of this process. However, for transparency,

[[Page 75548]]

Western has adopted the ``through'' provisions described in HPAA in the 
2012 Conformed Criteria (77 FR 35676). Western intends to contract with 
APA and CRC for the capacity and energy allocated to non-tribal 
entities in the States of Arizona and Nevada respectively. These 
contracts will require APA and CRC to contract with the new allottees 
for the amount of power allocated to them by Western and 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: The CRC presented a series of concerns with how Western 
has conducted this process which include:
    (1) Western has refused to provide public access to its 
calculations and work papers, which denies participants the opportunity 
to participate effectively in this proceeding.
    (2) Western has denied allocations to eligible Nevada applicants by 
incorrectly calculating the current Hoover power benefit to Nevada 
Power Company's (NPC's) non-residential customers.
    (3) Western has issued proposed allocations without verifying 
applicant loads, which must lead to significant questions regarding 
whether the allocations are valid.
    (4) Western has denied allocations to eligible Nevada applicants by 
applying an extreme version of super-priorities for tribes, which is 
not authorized by the HPAA.
    (5) Western has denied allocations to eligible Nevada applicants by 
giving preference to cooperatives, which is not authorized by the HPAA. 
There is no legislative authority for Western to allocate Schedule D 
power to electric cooperatives.
    (6) Western should apply its criteria in a manner which ensures 
that Nevada's share of Hoover power is closer to the \1/3\ authorized 
by the 1928 Act, not in a matter that exacerbates the disparity.
    (7) Western has not yet taken the necessary steps to ensure that 
Nevada non-tribal applicants receiving allocations through its process 
will contract for Schedule D power through the CRC.
    (8) Western has not yet ensured that entities crossing state 
boundaries will pay their proportionate share of Hoover-related costs.
    (9) Western has not yet re-issued its Hoover Conformed Criteria in 
a single integrated document, making it extremely difficult for 
applicants to understand the process.
    Response: Western's responses in turn to CRC's comments are as 
follows:
    (1) Western responded to all questions presented at the public 
information forums prior to the close of the comment period, including 
how the Marketing Criteria were applied to the applications received. 
The CRC request included access to all materials contained in all 
applications, in particular applicant peak load and resource portfolio 
information. This information has historically been treated as 
confidential and proprietary information in the electric industry. 
Furthermore, Western has previously received numerous comments from 
applicants explicitly stating that application data is confidential, 
proprietary, and disclosure by Western of this information would be 
inappropriate. All applicants that requested further detail regarding 
the consideration of its application were provided a detailed summary 
of how the application was considered. Western finds that sufficient 
information has been provided for all parties to understand how the 
Marketing Criteria were applied to the applications received in order 
to calculate the BCP Final Allocation.
    (2) Western has reviewed CRC's comment regarding the calculation of 
indirect benefits of Federal power for those applicants with load 
served by the NPC and finds merit in accepting the comment as 
suggested. In the calculation of the proposed allocations, Western 
assumed the CRC sub-allocation of BCP power to NPC of 235,232 kW 
benefited all NPC's customers totaling a peak load of 5,761,000 kW as 
reported by the Energy Information Administration (EIA) for calendar 
year 2012. This resulted in Western's assumption of approximately 4.1 
percent of peak load being served by Federal power for all applicants' 
load served by NPC. In researching CRC's comments, Western confirmed 
that Schedule B (135,000 kW) is limited to NPC residential customers 
only. This leaves Schedule A (100,232 kW) left to serve NPC load. As 
reported by NPC and cross-referenced with EIA 2012 data, NPC load is 
composed of approximately 42.7 percent residential and 57.3 percent 
non-residential. This warrants the consideration of 57.3 percent of 
NPC's Schedule A, or 57,461 kW, benefiting non-residential customers 
served by NPC (3,302,675 kW) equating to a NPC indirect Federal power 
benefit to non-residential applicants of approximately 1.74 percent. 
Western finds that no residential load is represented in those 
applicants with load served by NPC. Western recalculated the final 
post-2017 allocations assuming approximately 1.74 percent of NPC non-
residential customers' peak load is being served by Federal power.
    (3) Western did not find it appropriate to verify loads in 
developing proposed allocations as they are subject to change. Western 
has since required all allottees to substantiate their actual loads as 
supplied in the applications. Western received load substantiation 
materials from all final allottees and worked collaboratively to ensure 
actual loads were accurately depicted based on reliable materials, 
including verified metering and/or billing data.
    (4) Western considered and replied to comments related to a first 
consideration for Native American tribes when establishing the 
Marketing Criteria. At this time, Western is only considering comments 
on the BCP Proposed Allocation and not the Marketing Criteria, which 
includes a first consideration for Native American tribes.
    (5) Western considered and replied to comments related to the 
preference and eligibility of cooperatives when establishing the 
Marketing Criteria. At this time, Western is only considering comments 
on the BCP Proposed Allocation and not the Marketing Criteria, which 
includes the preference and eligibility of cooperatives.
    (6) Western considered and replied to comments related to a \1/3\ 
distribution of the 69,170 kW to the States of Arizona, California, and 
Nevada when establishing the Marketing Criteria. At this time Western 
is only considering comments on the BCP Proposed Allocations and not 
the Marketing Criteria, including a \1/3\ each distribution among these 
States.
    (7) Western considers this a contracting issue outside the scope of 
this process. However, for transparency, Western has adopted the 
``through'' provisions described in the HPAA in the 2012 Conformed 
Criteria (77 FR 35676). Western intends to contract with APA and CRC 
for the capacity and energy allocated to non-tribal entities in the 
States of Arizona and Nevada respectively. These contracts will require 
APA and CRC to contract with the new allottees for the amount of power 
allocated to them by Western and 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.
    (8) This comment also pertains to a contract issue outside the 
scope of this process. However, Western stated in the 2012 Conformed 
Criteria that contract

[[Page 75549]]

offers shall contain a provision requiring a new allottee to pay a 
proportionate share of its State's respective contribution (determined 
in accordance with each State's applicable funding agreement) to the 
cost of the Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation Program (as 
defined in Section 9401 of the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 
2009 (Pub. L. 111-11; 123 Stat. 1327)). Western will work with 
stakeholders to ensure the provisions of the HPAA and the 2012 
Conformed Criteria are met in this regard during the contracting 
process in calendar year 2015.
    (9) While establishing the Marketing Criteria, Western stated that 
it will not combine all this information into one integrated document. 
Material is available for review at Western's BCP Web site located at 
http://www.wapa.gov/dsw/pwrmkt/BCP_Remarketing/BCP_Remarketing.htm.

Final Power Allocation

    The BCP Final Allocation is made in accordance with the 2012 
Conformed Criteria, the HPAA, and Western's Marketing Criteria. All 
allocations are subject to the execution of a contract in accordance 
with the 2012 Conformed Criteria. After substantiation of applicant 
loads, corrections as described within, and consideration of comments; 
two allottees were added and one removed from the list of allottees 
contained in the BCP Proposed Allocation. The State of Nevada 
Department of Administration and the State of Nevada Department of 
Transportation were added as final allottees. The Duncan Valley 
Electric Cooperative Inc. was excluded due to the potential allocation 
falling below the 100 kW minimum allocation threshold.
    The BCP Final Allocation is shown in the table below:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Boulder Canyon Project                              Final post-2017 power allocations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                 Firm energy (kWh)
                    Allottee                        Contingent   -----------------------------------------------
                                                   capacity (kW)      Summer          Winter           Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians..........           1,449       2,212,925         950,554       3,163,479
Anza Electric Cooperative, Inc..................           1,596       2,437,679       1,044,541       3,482,220
Augustine Band of Cahuilla Indians..............             479         731,533         314,227       1,045,760
Bishop Paiute Tribe.............................             380         580,339         249,283         829,622
Cabazon Band of Mission Indians.................           1,003       1,531,790         657,975       2,189,765
California Department of Water Resources........           3,000       4,581,625       1,968,021       6,549,646
Chemehuevi Indian Tribe.........................           1,397       2,133,510         916,442       3,049,952
City of Cerritos, California....................           3,000       4,581,943       1,964,953       6,546,896
City of Chandler, AZ Municipal Utilities                     676       1,032,393         443,461       1,475,854
 Department.....................................
City of Corona, California......................           2,988       4,563,774       1,955,570       6,519,344
City of Flagstaff, Arizona......................             201         306,969         131,857         438,826
City of Glendale, Arizona.......................             426         650,591         279,459         930,050
City of Globe, Arizona..........................             115         175,629          75,441         251,070
City of Henderson, Nevada.......................             906       1,383,651         594,342       1,977,993
City of Las Vegas, Nevada.......................           1,054       1,609,678         691,431       2,301,109
City of North Las Vegas, Nevada.................             763       1,165,260         500,533       1,665,793
City of Payson, Arizona.........................             119         181,738          78,065         259,803
City of Peoria, Arizona.........................             691       1,055,301         453,301       1,508,602
City of Phoenix, Arizona........................           3,000       4,581,625       1,968,021       6,549,646
City of Rancho Cucamonga, CA Municipal Utility..           3,000       4,581,945       1,964,940       6,546,885
City of Scottsdale, Arizona.....................           2,366       3,613,375       1,552,112       5,165,487
City of Tempe, AZ Public Works Department.......             241         368,057         158,098         526,155
City of Tucson, Arizona Water Department........           1,248       1,905,956         818,697       2,724,653
City of Victorville, California.................           2,625       4,009,209       1,719,255       5,728,464
Clark County School District....................           3,000       4,581,625       1,968,020       6,549,645
Clark County Water Reclamation District.........             680       1,038,501         446,085       1,484,586
College of Southern Nevada......................             281         429,145         184,338         613,483
Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation....................             338         516,197         221,730         737,927
Gila River Indian Community.....................           3,000       4,581,625       1,968,020       6,549,645
Graham County Electric Cooperative, Inc.........             312         476,489         204,674         681,163
Hualapai Indian Tribe...........................             381         581,866         249,939         831,805
Imperial Irrigation District....................           3,000       4,581,625       1,968,021       6,549,646
Kaibab Band of Paiute Indians...................             124         189,374          81,345         270,719
Las Vegas Paiute Tribe..........................             688       1,050,719         451,333       1,502,052
Las Vegas Valley Water District.................           3,000       4,581,625       1,968,021       6,549,646
Metropolitan Domestic Water Improvement District             179         273,371         117,425         390,796
Mohave Electric Cooperative, Inc................           1,145       1,748,653         751,128       2,499,781
Morongo Band of Mission Indians.................           1,098       1,676,874         720,296       2,397,170
Navajo Tribal Utility Authority.................           3,000       4,581,625       1,968,021       6,549,646
Navopache Electric Cooperative, Inc.............             888       1,356,161         582,534       1,938,695
Northern Arizona Irrigation District Power Pool.             246         375,693         161,378         537,071
Pascua Yaqui Tribe..............................             437         667,390         286,675         954,065
Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians........           2,000       3,054,417       1,312,014       4,366,431
Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community.......           3,000       4,581,625       1,968,021       6,549,646
San Diego County Water Authority................           1,619       2,472,728       1,060,370       3,533,098
San Luis Rey River Indian Water Authority.......           3,000       4,581,625       1,968,021       6,549,646
San Manuel Band of Mission Indians..............           2,554       3,900,490       1,675,442       5,575,932
State of Nevada Department of Administration....             109         166,465          71,505         237,970
State of Nevada Department of Corrections.......             281         429,145         184,338         613,483
State of Nevada Department of Transportation....             116         177,156          76,097         253,253
Sulphur Springs Valley Electric Cooperative, Inc           2,731       4,170,806       1,791,555       5,962,361
Timbisha Shoshone Tribe.........................             119         181,738          78,065         259,803

[[Page 75550]]

 
Tohono O'odham Nation...........................           2,709       4,137,207       1,777,123       5,914,330
Tonto Apache Tribe..............................             250         381,802         164,002         545,804
Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians.........           1,659       2,533,639       1,088,315       3,621,954
Trico Electric Cooperative, Inc.................           3,000       4,581,625       1,968,021       6,549,646
Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians.......           1,320       2,015,915         865,929       2,881,844
University of Nevada, Las Vegas.................             305         465,799         200,082         665,881
Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians.................           1,388       2,119,765         910,538       3,030,303
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................          80,680     123,217,000      52,909,000     176,126,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The BCP Final Allocation listed above is based on the quantities of 
contingent capacity and firm energy to be marketed as defined by the 
HPAA and the 2012 Conformed Criteria. In accordance with the provisions 
of the HPAA and the 2012 Conformed Criteria, non-tribal allottees in 
the states of Arizona and Nevada will need to contract for electric 
service with the APA and CRC. Western will offer electric service 
contracts to all Native American tribes and California customers. 
Redistributions of allocated power that is not put under contract by 
specified dates are prescribed under the provisions of the HPAA, the 
2012 Conformed Criteria, and the Marketing Criteria.

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 12, 2014.
Mark A. Gabriel,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2014-29638 Filed 12-17-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P