![[logo] US EPA](http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}
Post-2004 Resource Pool-Loveland Area Projects
Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.
[Federal Register: January 10, 2002 (Volume 67, Number 7)]
[Notices]
[Page 1341-1344]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr10ja02-33]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Western Area Power Administration
Post-2004 Resource Pool-Loveland Area Projects
AGENCY: Western Area Power Administration, DOE.
ACTION: Notice of final power allocations.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Western Area Power Administration (Western), a Federal power
marketing agency of the Department of Energy (DOE), announces its Post-
2004 Resource Pool Final Allocation of Power developed under the
requirements of Subpart C--Power Marketing Initiative of the Energy
Planning and Management Program (Program) Final Rule. This notice also
includes Western's responses to public comments on proposed allocations
published May 11, 2001.
Final allocations are published to show Western's decisions prior
to beginning the contractual phase of the process. Firm electric
service contracts, negotiated between Western and allottees in this
notice, will permit delivery of the allotted power from the October
2004 billing period, through the September 2024 billing period.
DATES: The Post-2004 Resource Pool Final Allocation of Power will
become effective February 11, 2002 and will remain in effect until
September 30, 2024.
ADDRESSES: All documents developed or retained by Western in developing
the final allocations are available for inspection and copying at the
Rocky Mountain Customer Service Region Office, 5555 East Crossroads
Boulevard, Loveland, CO 80538-8986.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Western published Final Post-2004 Resource
Pool Allocation Procedures (Procedures) in the Federal Register (65 FR
52419, August 29, 2000) to implement Subpart C--Power Marketing
Initiative of the Program's Final Rule (10 CFR part 905), published in
the Federal Register (60 FR 54151, October 20, 1995). The Program,
developed in part to implement section 114 of the Energy Policy Act of
1992, became effective November 20, 1995. The goal of the Program is to
require planning and efficient electric energy use by Western's long-
term firm power customers and to extend Western's firm power resource
commitments. One aspect of the Program is to establish project-specific
power resource pools and allocate power from these pools to new
preference customers.
Western published its proposed allocations and initiated a public
comment period in the Federal Register (66 FR 24133, May 11, 2001).
Public information forums on the proposed allocations were held August
2, 7, and 9, 2001. The public comment period was extended from
September 10, 2001, to October 12, 2001, in the Federal Register (66 FR
47652, September 13, 2001).
The Procedures, in conjunction with the Post-1989 Marketing Plan
(51 FR 4012, January 31, 1986), establish the framework for allocating
power from the Loveland Area Projects (LAP) resource pool.
I. Comments and Responses
Comment: Mni Sose asks that Western re-examine its understanding of
government-to-government communications.
Response: Western supports DOE's American Indian policy that
stresses the need for a government-to-government, trust-based
relationship. Western intends to continue its practice of consultation
with tribal governments so that tribal rights and concerns are
considered prior to any actions being taken that affect the tribes.
The Post-1989 Marketing Plan, Program, and Procedures form the
framework for allocating LAP power. The allocation process was
conducted in a consistent manner with all LAP applicants. Prior to
publishing proposed allocations, Western, recognizing the unique status
of Native American tribes, consulted with tribes before their Applicant
Profile Data (APD) submittal and during Western's review of data
submitted on their APDs.
Once proposed allocations were published, Western sought to follow
the public process and only allow formal comments, written and oral, to
be submitted as input to the final allocation decision. Western
provided written responses to questions that were not answered in the
public forums and extended the comment period in conjunction with those
answers to provide additional time for tribes to submit written
comments on the proposed allocations. Western will not engage in
discussions about the allocations with any parties outside of the
formal process until final allocations are published. This procedural
rule is applied consistently to tribes as well as non-tribal entities.
Western does not believe that this procedural rule affects tribal self-
governance rights nor creates an impact upon trust resources.
Western believes that the tribes were consulted about the process
and Western considered the information gained from those consultations
along with oral and written comments received during the public comment
period to make the final allocations.
Comment: Western should not consider the benefits to tribes of
Federal power from current service providers when making allocations to
the tribes. In the event of the formation of a tribal utility, that
power would be inaccessible to the tribes.
Response: The intent of the Program is to provide the benefits of
Federal hydropower directly to individual tribes. Allocations listed in
this notice will be made directly to the tribes. Any indirect Western
hydroelectric benefits recognized in the calculation method were used
by Western to determine a fair share for tribes at the time of
allocation with no intent to create any commitment to transfer those
benefits to the tribes. Any indirect Western hydroelectric benefits
received by the tribes are contractual commitments between Western and
the existing customers.
Comment: Western should consider the Wind River Reservation's
Marathon and CamWest loads for allocation purposes.
Response: Western agrees that oil and gas resources on the
reservation are tribally owned. However, as stated in Western's
response to comments in the publication of the Procedures, ``When
submitting Native American load data as a non-utility, only load of
tribal entities and their members will be considered for an
allocation.'' Marathon and CamWest are neither tribal entities nor
tribal members. Therefore, the loads submitted in the reservation's APD
for these operations were not considered in determining allocations.
Comment: Total allocations to the Wind River Reservation from Salt
Lake City Area Integrated Projects (SLCA/IP) and LAP fall short of the
65 percent allocation. LAP should make up any shortfall that occurs
between the two projects. The reservation should receive no less of an
allocation than if they were located solely within LAP.
Response: LAP took into consideration the amount of the proposed
SLCA/IP allocation in determining the final LAP allocation. Western
believes that the allocation ultimately provided to the reservation
should be congruent with the allocations made to other tribes. Taking
into account current serving utility benefit, proposed SLCA/IP
allocation, and LAP allocation, Western made every effort possible to
provide approximately 65 percent total benefit to the reservation.
Comment: The Kickapoo Tribe in Kansas is concerned about not having
the future demand submitted in its APD considered in the allocation
process. The tribe understood that proposed growth in the next 2 to 5
years would be considered in the process. The tribe would like Western
to consider future growth in the allocation process.
[[Page 1343]]
Response: Western stated during the publication of the Procedures
that limited projected load estimates would be considered. As Western
moved through the process and received data, a determination of
definable limitations had to be developed that would ensure fairness in
the allocation process and make sure that the pool was used to promote
widespread use of the resource among new preference entities. The
results of the data evaluation led Western to decide that eligible
future load submitted in the APD would be considered in the allocation
process only if the load was for facilities that were completed, or
substantially near completion, at the time of the APD due date.
Comment: Certain changes should be made to the General Power
Contract Provisions that consider tribal sovereignty. Underlying
reserve contracts should be offered to tribes to reserve the power
allocation for each tribe and allow for changes to the method of
implementation. Western's Integrated Resource Planning requirements
should be useful but not burdensome to the tribes.
Response: Entering into contractual arrangements with the tribes is
the next step in the resource pool allocation process. However,
contractual arrangements will not begin until final allocations are
completed. Contractual provisions will be consistent with Section IV of
the Procedures.
Comment: Several comments were submitted concerning the source of
LAP power for deliveries to allottees in Kansas. Additional comments
expressed concern about delivery points, transmission access,
transmission arrangements, and cost of delivery arrangements for the
allottees in Kansas.
Response: Transmission issues will be appropriately addressed
during the contractual phase of the LAP post-2004 resource pool
process. Allottees are ultimately responsible for transmission and
delivery arrangements, but Western will assist allottees to secure
arrangements required to provide the benefits of LAP power to the
allottees.
Comment: Kansas Electric Power Cooperative, Inc. (KEPCo) expressed
concern about the financial impacts to KEPCo and its member
cooperatives. Tribal allocations will reduce sales to KEPCo members.
Additional concern was expressed that the lost sales to member
cooperatives would make it more difficult to meet Rural Utilities
Service commitments for loan repayment.
Response: Western will work with KEPCo, its member cooperatives,
and tribes to minimize negative financial impacts of LAP allocations.
Western will assist tribes to find the best method of receiving LAP
allocations that will ensure equitable treatment for all affected
parties. Western understands that the cooperation of KEPCo and its
member cooperatives is essential to making allocations to tribes in
northeastern Kansas a success. Western will work to satisfy the needs
of the parties involved.
II. Amount of Pool Resources
Western will allocate up to 4 percent of the LAP long-term firm
hydroelectric resource available as of October 1, 2004, as firm power.
Current hydrologic studies indicate that about 28 megawatts (MW) of
capacity and 44 Gigawatthours (GWh) of energy will be available for the
summer season. Approximately 24 MW of capacity and 35 GWh of energy
will be available for the winter season. Firm power means firm capacity
and associated energy allocated by Western and subject to the terms and
conditions specified in Western's long-term firm power electric service
contracts.
III. Final Power Allocation
The following final power allocations are made in accordance with
the Procedures. All of the allocations are subject to the execution of
a contract in accordance with the Procedures.
Final allocations for Native American allottees are shown in this
table.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final post-2004 power allocation
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Native American allottees Summer Winter Summer Winter
kilowatthours kilowatthours kilowatts kilowatts
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iowa Tribe of Kansas and Nebraska........... 1,986,640 1,722,043 1,232 1,180
Kickapoo Tribe in Kansas.................... 2,760,701 2,323,337 1,713 1,592
Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation.............. 5,536,170 4,458,846 3,435 3,056
Sac and Fox Nation of Missouri.............. 2,690,754 2,289,904 1,669 1,570
Wind River Reservation (Eastern Shoshone and 2,242,166 1,968,930 1,391 1,350
Northern Arapaho Tribes)...................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Native American allottees received LAP allocations, that when
combined with existing and future Western hydropower benefits, total
approximately 65 percent of their eligible load in both the summer and
winter season based on the adjusted seasonal energy data submitted by
each tribe. The allocation process considered the current Western
hydroelectric benefits received through serving utilities and future
Western hydroelectric benefits that will be received by serving
utilities as a result of this allocation process.
Based on the applications submitted by the Northern Arapaho and the
Eastern Shoshone tribes, Western could not differentiate between each
tribe's load. The data from each tribe was used to arrive at a final
allocation for the Wind River Reservation instead of each tribe. The
final LAP allocation for the reservation considers, in addition to the
hydroelectric benefit from Western through the reservation's serving
utility, the proposed allocation from Western's SLCA/IP resource pool.
The combination of all three factors, LAP, SLCA/IP proposed allocation,
and current serving utility benefit, provides approximately a 65
percent benefit of Western hydroelectric power to the reservation. The
reservation's LAP allocation was changed after considering the proposed
SLCA/IP allocation published in the Federal Register (66 FR 31910, June
13, 2001). Because system plant factors are different for LAP and SLCA/
IP, only SLCA/IP's proposed kilowatthours were used to determine the
LAP allocation. The allocation change to the reservation had no effect
on other tribal allocations.
Final allocations of power for non-Native American utility and
nonutility allottees are listed here.
[[Page 1344]]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final Post-2004 power allocation
Non-Native American utility and nonutility ---------------------------------------------------------------
allottees Summer Winter Summer Winter
kilowatthours kilowatthours kilowatts kilowatts
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Chapman, KS............................. 254,099 167,487 158 115
City of Elwood, KS.............................. 167,205 146,045 104 100
City of Eudora, KS.............................. 984,255 683,931 610 469
City of Fountain, CO............................ 3,733,271 2,840,741 2,316 1,947
City of Garden City, KS......................... 3,733,271 2,840,741 2,316 1,947
City of Goodland, KS............................ 1,566,184 1,216,583 972 834
City of Horton, KS.............................. 434,979 313,926 270 215
City of Hugoton, KS............................. 743,402 630,379 461 432
City of Johnson City, KS........................ 440,463 336,772 273 231
City of Meade, KS............................... 497,516 313,427 309 215
City of Minneapolis, KS......................... 537,092 339,984 333 233
City of Troy, KS................................ 192,401 150,826 119 103
Doniphan Electric Cooperative Association, Inc., 460,699 384,738 286 264
KS.............................................
Fort Carson, CO................................. 3,144,463 2,648,172 1,951 1,815
Kaw Valley Electric, KS......................... 3,288,355 2,458,719 2,040 1,685
Midwest Energy, Inc., KS........................ 3,733,271 2,840,741 2,316 1,947
Nemaha-Marshall Electric Cooperative 1,129,867 973,099 701 667
Association, Inc., KS..........................
Regional Transportation District, Denver, CO.... 327,209 287,994 203 198
Sunflower Electric Power Corporation, KS........ 3,733,271 2,840,741 2,316 1,947
Yellowstone National Park, WY................... 220,999 145,946 137 100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The allocation change to the Wind River Reservation caused a
reduction in the total pool available to non-Native American utility
and nonutility allottees. Therefore, the final allocation of power to
non-Native American utility and nonutility allottees was changed
accordingly.
The final allocations of power shown in the tables above are based
on the LAP marketable resource available at this time. If the LAP
marketable resource is reduced in the future, all allocations will be
adjusted accordingly. Long-term firm energy with associated capacity
made available for marketing because an allocation(s) has been reduced
or withdrawn may be administratively reallocated by Western's
Administrator without further public process.
IV. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601, et seq.)
requires Federal agencies to perform a regulatory flexibility analysis
if a final rule is likely to have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities and there is a legal requirement
to issue a general notice of proposed rulemaking. Western has
determined that this action does not require a regulatory flexibility
analysis since it is a rulemaking of particular applicability involving
rates or services applicable to public property.
V. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act
Western has completed an environmental impact statement on the
Program, pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA). The Record of Decision was published in the Federal Register
(60 FR 53181, October 12, 1995). Western's NEPA review assured all
environmental effects related to this process have been analyzed.
VI. Determination Under Executive Order 12866
DOE has determined that this is not a significant regulatory action
because it does not meet the criteria of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR
51735). 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 (OMB) is required.
VII. Determination Under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act
Western has determined that this rule is exempt from congressional
notification requirements under 5 U.S.C. 801 because the action is a
rulemaking of particular applicability relating to rates or services
and involves matters of procedure.
Dated: December 18, 2001.
Michael S. Hacskaylo,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 02-618 Filed 1-9-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P