![[logo] US EPA](http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}
Post-2004 Resource Pool-Salt Lake City Area Integrated Projects
Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.
[Federal Register: July 29, 2002 (Volume 67, Number 145)]
[Notices]
[Page 49019-49021]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr29jy02-30]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Western Area Power Administration
Post-2004 Resource Pool-Salt Lake City Area Integrated Projects
AGENCY: Western Area Power Administration, DOE.
ACTION: Notice of adjustment to final allocations.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Western Area Power Administration (Western), a Federal
power marketing agency of the Department of Energy (DOE), announces an
adjustment to its Salt Lake City Area Integrated Projects (SLCA/IP)
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. Final allocations
were published in the Federal Register on February 4, 2002. Information
received since then has made it necessary to revise the allocations.
Adjusted final allocations are published to indicate Western's
decisions prior to beginning the contractual phase of the allocation
process. Firm electric service contracts, negotiated between Western
and allottees, will permit delivery of power allocations from the
October 2004 billing period through the September 2024 billing period.
DATES: The Adjusted Post-2004 Resource Pool Final Allocation of Power
will become effective August 28, 2002, and will remain in effect
through September 30, 2024.
ADDRESSES: All documents developed or retained by Western in developing
the adjusted final allocations are available for inspection and copying
at the CRSP Management Center, 150 East Social Hall Avenue, Suite 300,
Salt Lake City, UT 84111.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Western published Final Post-2004 Resource
Pool Allocation Procedures (Procedures) in the Federal Register (64 FR
48825, September 8, 1999) 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 on 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.
The Procedures, in conjunction with the Post-1989 Marketing Plan
(51 FR 4844, February 7, 1986), establish the framework for allocating
power from the SLCA/IP Post-2004 Power Pool.
Proposed allocations were published in the Federal Register (66 FR
31910, June 13, 2001). Public information/comment forums concerning the
proposed allocations were held August 10, 15, 16, 21, and October 4,
2001. The public comment period closed October 11, 2001.
Final allocations were published in the Federal Register (67 FR
5113, February 4, 2002). Information received by Western since that
date has indicated that misinterpretation of data by Western made it
necessary to adjust these allocations.
I. Reason for Adjustment
Following publication of the final allocations, Western received
information indicating that because of errors made in evaluating the
data used to calculate the final allocations, three tribes' allocations
were incorrect. Western has stated in the criteria that it would be
consistent in determining the allocations of all tribes. It is
necessary to adjust the allocations to correct these errors. The first
of these is the San Carlos Apache Tribe (San Carlos). The San Carlos
Apache Reservation is served by three utilities. Only one of these
utilities currently receives Federal
[[Page 49020]]
power that is used to serve the reservation. In calculating the
allocation for San Carlos, the percentage of Federal power received by
this utility was applied to San Carlos's total load. The result of this
calculation was that San Carlos received a smaller allocation than it
should have.
The second adjustment made was to the allocation of the Yavapai
Prescott Tribe. The non-residential load information submitted with the
Applicant Profile Data by Yavapai Prescott was misinterpreted resulting
in only two commercial accounts being identified as tribally-owned and
thus eligible for an allocation. However, a number of other tribal
businesses, administrative offices, and eligible loads should have been
included. These loads have been identified, and an adjustment made to
Yavapai Prescott's allocation.
The third allottee to identify a problem was the Tohono O'odham
Utility Authority (TOUA). TOUA is a tribal utility which currently
receives an allocation of Federal power. The information available to
Western and used to determine the percentage of TOUA's load served by
its present Federal allocation was shown to be incorrect. This resulted
in TOUA receiving a lower level of service in 2004 than other tribes.
TOUA's allocation was adjusted by using the correct percentage of
current Federal power in the calculations.
To maintain consistency in its treatment of all tribes Western
believes it is necessary to make these corrections. Since the entire
resource pool has been allocated, any adjustment to an allocation
results in all of the allocations being changed. The result of these
adjustments is that other tribes' allocations are reduced slightly from
the previously published amounts. With these adjustments, the tribes'
SLCA/IP allocations, combined with existing and future Western
hydropower benefits, were reduced slightly to approximately 55.2
percent of eligible load in the Summer season and 57.2 percent in the
Winter season based on the adjusted seasonal energy data submitted by
each tribe.
Another result of recalculating the allocations is that the Kiabab
Paiute Tribe (Kiabab) will not receive an allocation. The utility which
serves Kiabab receives a greater portion of its power supply through
its allocation than Western is able to provide to the Tribes.
II. Final Power Allocation
Since the proposed allocations were published in June 2001 and
subsequently in February 2002, tribes have had sufficient time to
review the allocations and point out any inconsistencies with the
criteria. The following final power allocations are made in accordance
with the Procedures. All of the allocations are subject to the
execution of a firm electric service contract in accordance with the
Procedures. Western will proceed to offer firm electric service
contracts to the tribes receiving allocations in the amounts shown
below.
The adjusted final allocations for Indian tribes and organizations
are shown in this table.
Salt Lake City Area Projects Post-2004 Power Pool Final Allocations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summer energy Winter energy Summer CROD Winter CROD
Tribe (kWh) (kWh) (kW) (kW)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alamo Navajo Chapter............................ 399,824 453,518 184 196
Canoncito Navajo Chapter........................ 292,937 335,242 135 145
Cocopah Indian Tribe............................ 2,779,230 2,454,829 1,281 1,058
Colorado River Indian Tribes.................... 12,969,838 8,747,829 5,978 3,772
Confederated Tribes of the Goshute Reservation.. 84,952 144,200 39 62
Duckwater Shoshone Tribe........................ 149,225 156,069 69 67
Ely Shoshone Tribe.............................. 168,395 299,306 78 129
Fort Mojave Indian Tribe........................ 612,855 631,886 282 272
Ft. McDowell Mojave-Apache Indian Community..... 5,089,153 5,263,924 2,346 2,270
Gila River Indian Community..................... 30,202,512 30,918,295 13,920 13,330
Havasupai Tribe................................. 432,433 548,898 199 237
Hopi Tribe...................................... 5,892,469 6,517,369 2,716 2,810
Hualapai Tribe.................................. 1,357,114 1,411,736 625 609
Jicarilla Apache Tribe.......................... 1,257,753 1,703,852 580 735
Las Vegas Paiute Tribe.......................... 1,563,305 1,213,043 721 523
Mescalero Apache Tribe.......................... 2,116,562 2,295,175 976 990
Nambe Pueblo.................................... 126,990 151,509 59 65
Navajo Tribal Utility Authority................. 45,155,581 56,535,996 20,812 24,375
Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah..................... 343,334 357,388 158 154
Pascua Yaqui Tribe.............................. 2,864,577 2,393,821 1,320 1,032
Picuris Pueblo.................................. 164,296 51,199 76 22
Pueblo De Cochiti............................... 401,422 520,585 185 224
Pueblo of Acoma................................. 911,224 950,635 420 410
Pueblo of Isleta................................ 2,381,563 2,572,647 1,098 1,109
Pueblo of Jemez................................. 464,155 613,561 214 265
Pueblo of Laguna................................ 1,610,018 1,745,884 742 753
Pueblo of Pojoaque.............................. 451,379 628,599 208 271
Pueblo of San Felipe............................ 711,597 977,634 328 422
Pueblo of San Ildefonso......................... 136,791 148,335 63 64
Pueblo of San Juan.............................. 647,460 702,893 298 303
Pueblo of Sandia................................ 2,045,141 1,894,685 943 817
Pueblo of Santa Clara........................... 463,973 613,363 214 264
Pueblo of Santo Domingo......................... 980,004 1,016,679 452 438
Pueblo of Taos.................................. 480,420 787,815 221 340
Pueblo of Tesuque............................... 1,361,547 1,387,845 628 598
Pueblo of Zia................................... 148,471 196,276 68 85
Pueblo of Zuni.................................. 2,212,186 2,748,632 1,020 1,185
Quechan Indian Tribe............................ 1,095,632 1,691,226 505 729
[[Page 49021]]
Ramah Navajo Chapter............................ 650,681 954,717 300 412
Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community....... 35,026,125 31,034,316 16,144 13,380
San Carlos Apache Tribe......................... 9,008,264 8,766,824 4,152 3,780
Santa Ana Pueblo................................ 997,747 950,995 460 410
Skull Valley Band of Goshute Indians............ 33,098 34,336 15 15
Southern Ute Indian Tribe....................... 2,435,344 2,723,333 1,122 1,174
Tohono O'Odham Utility Authority................ 2,270,947 7,060,054 1,047 3,044
Tonto Apache Tribe.............................. 829,541 810,134 382 349
Ute Indian Tribe................................ 991,484 1,596,382 457 688
Ute Mountain Ute Tribe.......................... 1,034,236 1,177,682 477 508
White Mountain Apache Tribe..................... 12,632,129 13,914,290 5,822 5,999
Wind River Reservation.......................... 1,050,627 1,138,890 484 491
Yavapai Apache Nation........................... 4,106,724 3,399,015 1,893 1,465
Yavapai Prescott Indian Tribe................... 1,589,784 1,867,486 733 805
Yomba Shoshone Tribe............................ 68,129 70,678 31 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................................... 203,251,178 217,281,509 93,679 93,680
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-621, 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. Environmental Compliance
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 these procedures have been analyzed.
VI. Determination 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, this notice requires no
clearance by the Office of Management and Budget.
VII. 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: July 5, 2002.
Michael S. Hacskaylo,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 02-19070 Filed 7-26-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P