[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 243 (Thursday, December 18, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 75544-75550]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing 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 [email protected].
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