Parker-Davis Project--Post-2008 Resource Pool

Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.

[Federal Register: December 4, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 232)]
[Notices]
[Page 70380-70383]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr04de06-53]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Western Area Power Administration

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
Parker-Davis Project (P-DP) Post-2008 Resource Pool Final Allocation of
Power (Resource Pool Final Power Allocation), developed under the
requirements of the Energy Planning and Management Program (EPAMP).
This notice also includes Western's responses to public comments on the
proposed allocations published July 17, 2006.
The Resource Pool Final Power Allocation documents Western's
decisions prior to beginning the contractual phase of the process. Firm
electric service contracts, with the allottees in this notice, will
extend from October 1, 2008, through September 30, 2028.

DATES: The Resource Pool Final Power Allocation will become effective
January 3, 2007.

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Brian Young, Re-marketing Program
Manager, Desert Southwest Regional Office, Western Area Power
Administration, P.O. Box 6457, Phoenix, AZ 85005-6457, (602) 605-2594,
e-mail post2008pdp@wapa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Subpart C--Power Marketing Initiative (PMI)
of EPAMP's Final Rule, 10 CFR part 905 (60 FR 54151), developed in part
to implement Section 114 of the Energy Policy Act of 1992, became
effective on November 20, 1995. EPAMP calls for planning and efficient
electric energy use by Western's long-term firm power customers and
provides a framework for extending Western's firm power resource
commitments. One aspect of EPAMP is to establish project-specific power
resource pools when existing resource commitments expire and to
allocate power from these pools to eligible preference customers.
Existing resource commitments for the P-DP expire on September 30,
2008. Western published its decision to apply the EPAMP PMI to the P-DP
in the Federal Register on May 5, 2003 (68 FR 23709). This decision
created a resource pool of approximately 17 megawatts (MW) of summer
season capacity and 13 MW of winter season capacity, based on estimates
of current P-DP hydroelectric resource availability, for allocation to
eligible preference customers for 20 years beginning October 1, 2008.
The resource pool includes 0.869 MW of summer season withdrawable
capacity and 0.619 MW of winter season withdrawable capacity. The
associated energy will be a maximum of 3,441 kilowatthours per kilowatt
(kWh/kW) in the summer season and 1,703 kWh/kW in the winter season,
based on current marketing plan criteria.
Western published a notice of proposed allocation procedures and a
call for applications in the Federal Register on October 1, 2004 (69 FR
58900). Applications received by January 30, 2005, were considered. A
notice of final procedures for use in allocating power from the P-DP
Post-2008 resource pool (Final Allocation Procedures) was published in
the Federal Register on December 16, 2005 (70 FR 74805). The Final
Allocation Procedures include the eligibility criteria, allocation
criteria, and P-DP power contract principles.
Western published the Parker-Davis Project Post-2008 Resource Pool
Proposed Power Allocation (Resource Pool Proposed Power Allocation) in
the Federal Register on July 17, 2006, (71 FR 40503) and initiated a
public comment period on the proposed power allocations. Public
information forums were held on August 29 and August 31, 2006, and
public comment forums were held on September 12 and September 14, 2006.
The public comment period ended on September 15, 2006.
The Resource Pool Final Power Allocation was determined from the
applications received during the call for applications in accordance
with the guidelines and criteria of the Final Allocation Procedures,
the current P-DP Marketing Plan (49 FR 50582, 52 FR 7014, and 52 FR
28333), and EPAMP.

Response to Comments on Resource Pool Proposed Power Allocation

Comments and Responses

Comment: Several comments commended Western for conducting a fair
and equitable allocation process. The comments stated that Western went
through a very thorough, complete, open, and methodical process to
arrive at the proposed allocations. Western held a sequence of open
meetings where all applicants had equal opportunity to access the
program information regarding the allocation processes, obtain a clear
definition of the information and data required for the application and
the application schedule, and update the application data when the
schedule was delayed. Western also provided applicants with a
definitive investigation of load, organization, and the organizational
ability to utilize the allocation in the manner prescribed. The
comments also expressed great appreciation for the integrity of the
allocation investigation and determination process which assured that
the results were based upon a thorough review of each application to
confirm qualifications and conformance with the Final Allocation
Procedures.
Response: Western appreciates the support for the lengthy, thorough
and methodical P-DP re-marketing process.
Comment: Western received a comment that it was inappropriate to
limit the first priority of consideration for allocations to entities
that have no contracts with Western stating that the existence of a
power contract by itself is not adequate to disqualify an applicant
from the first priority of consideration unless that contract provides
meaningful electric service. The commenter stated that their allocation
from the Colorado River Storage Project (CRSP) was not meaningful
because it did not consider loads on that portion of the reservation
located in California.
Response: The Final Allocation Procedures, consistent with EPAMP,
provide first priority for consideration to preference entities in the
P-DP marketing area that do not have a contract with Western for
Federal power resources and are not a member of a parent entity that
has a contract with Western for Federal power resources. This priority
was incorporated in the Final Allocation Procedures to further promote
widespread use of Federal resources which is a goal of EPAMP and this
allocation process. The Final Allocation Procedures do not provide for
an exception based upon the meaningfulness of electric service provided
by the power allocation in such contract with Western or the loads
considered when the allocation for Federal power under existing
contracts was made. The entity submitting this comment has a CRSP
allocation of 6.42 MW (summer capacity), and a P-DP allocation of 8.9
MW (summer capacity), for a total Federal power allocation of 15.32 MW
(summer capacity). The

[[Page 70381]]

existing P-DP allocation of 8.9 MW considered all loads in the P-DP
marketing area, which includes that portion of the reservation located
in California. Western considers all Federal power allocations to be
meaningful, including this entity's existing Federal power allocations
of 15.32 MW. Western's proposed power allocations conform to the Final
Allocation Procedures by excluding entities from the first priority of
consideration for an allocation of power from the resource pool based
on their existing contracts with Western for Federal power resources.
Comments proposing changes to the eligibility and allocation criteria
are outside the scope of this notice. This notice of Final Power
Allocation considers comments regarding the Resource Pool Proposed
Power Allocation.
Comment: A comment was received expressing appreciation for
recognition of the statutory obligation to give priority consideration
to Indian irrigation pumping load on certain Indian lands adjacent to
the Colorado River in the lower basin. The comment stated that the
Colorado River Indian Tribe (CRIT) has irrigation pumping load in
California and that they now look forward to getting a piece of that
power, which Congress and the Supreme Court clearly wanted CRIT to have
for the benefit of the tribes, and they look forward to using that
power on the California side of the river, which they believe has been
neglected in appraisals by Western.
Response: The CRIT currently has a P-DP allocation of 8.9 MW
(summer capacity) which was based on a consideration of loads in the P-
DP marketing area which includes southern California. The CRIT P-DP
allocation of 8.9 MW specifically considered and provided capacity for
on-reservation irrigation pumping loads, as documented in the Bureau of
Indian Affairs for Colorado River Indian Reservation Memorandum of
Understanding for Electric Service (Memorandum No. 14-06-300-2627 dated
April 1, 1976). CRIT's application data did not identify additional
irrigation pumping load in California above that already provided for
under their existing P-DP allocation.
Comment: Several comments were received providing additional
supplemental application information, revising load data previously
submitted, or requesting that Western reconsider an allocation based
upon potential future loads. Western also received several comments
expressing appreciation that the process included ample opportunity to
provide information in support of applications for power, including an
extension of the deadline for receipt of applications to January 30,
2005, and the opportunity to provide updated application data by the
deadline date of April 1, 2006.
Response: Applications, including load information, were required
to be submitted by January 30, 2005. In accordance with the Final
Allocation Procedures, actual load data submitted no later than April
1, 2006, was considered for calendar year 2003 or the most recent 12
months. In response to a comment that Western should consider future
projected load, Western declined to allow consideration of future load
projections, but did provide an opportunity for applicants to update
actual load data to the most recent 12 months available for submission
prior to the April 1, 2006, deadline.
Comment: One applicant for power from Western who was determined to
not meet the General Eligibility Criteria of attaining electrical
utility status requested an explanation of whether the decision to not
grant an allocation of power was based upon the fact that their
cooperative members are served by investor owned and publicly owned
utilities, when the allocation criteria stated that arrangements with
third parties for transmission and distribution by April 1, 2008, were
acceptable.
Response: Third party transmission and/or distribution arrangements
are different criteria from electrical utility status. Having a need
for third party transmission arrangements does not prevent an entity
from satisfying the electrical utility requirements. Applicants,
including cooperatives, desiring to purchase power from Western for
resale to consumers were required to attain electrical utility status
by April 1, 2006, to be eligible for an allocation. Having electrical
utility status means the applicant has the responsibility to meet load
growth, has a distribution system, and is ready, willing, and able to
purchase Federal power from Western on a wholesale basis for resale to
retail consumers. This applicant was determined to not be eligible for
an allocation because it did not meet these electrical utility status
requirements.
Allottees, including those that are electrical utilities, are
required to have transmission, displacement, or distribution
arrangements in place by April 1, 2008, if such arrangements are needed
to take delivery of P-DP power beyond the P-DP point(s) of delivery.
Arrangements may be with investor owned utilities or publicly owned
utilities for entities that require third party transmission,
displacement, or distribution.
Comment: Several comments expressed disappointment at not being
selected for an allocation and expressed understanding that there was a
limited quantity of power available to distribute among a significant
number of applicants. Some of these entities supported the allocations
as proposed, while others requested that Western reconsider them for
allocations if one of the current successful applicants is unable to
receive its proposed allocation.
Response: If any of those receiving an allocation are unable to
place the power under contract, the power will be offered to existing
contractors up to the amount they contributed to the resource pool.
Beyond that, any remaining resource pool power will be used as
determined by Western.
Comment: Several comments expressed appreciation for recognition of
the Native American needs in making the allocations and noted the
economic benefits that the Tribes will derive from the allocations. The
allocations will help further support the Tribes' business plans and
will provide employment opportunity to Tribal members.
Response: Western appreciates the support for allocations to Native
American entities.
Comment: Western received several comments regarding the large
positive economic impact to rural communities and the potential to
finance infrastructure improvements with the electric service cost
savings that will be realized as a result of the proposed allocations.
Response: Western appreciates the support for widespread use of the
P-DP resource including allocations to rural communities.
Comment: Western received several comments expressing appreciation
for allocations to municipal utilities other than electrical utilities,
and noting the positive impact that the allocations will have on
municipal utility rates.
Response: Western appreciates the support for widespread use of the
P-DP resource including allocations to municipal utilities.
Comment: Several comments expressed that data provided by
applicants in support of their allocation is proprietary and Western
should not make the data available to the public.
Response: Western does not intend to distribute or make public the
proprietary data submitted by applicants in support of their
applications for a P-DP power allocation.

[[Page 70382]]

Comment: The Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest
(NAVFAC SW), as the contracting agency for the Navy and Marine Corps
bases spread across the Southern California Edison (SCE) and the San
Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) service territories in California,
expressed appreciation for the 2 MW proposed allocation, which will
allow for a significant savings to the military and the taxpayers.
NAVFAC SW commented that the 2 MW P-DP allocation should be distributed
equally among the 11 Marine Corps and Naval facilities that were
included in the NAVFAC SW application to more widely disseminate the
use of the Federal power allocation.
Response: Western agrees that distribution of the NAFVAC SW
allocation among all the NAVFAC SW facilities included in the
application would further promote the widespread use of Federal
resources. NAVFAC SW, as the sole contracting agent and allotee, may
determine the specific distribution among the NAVFAC SW facilities in
the P-DP marketing area provided Western is able to schedule power
deliveries in 1 MW or greater quantities and Western is able to send a
single billing statement to NAVFAC SW. This change is noted in the
final allocation table.
Comment: Several comments expressed support for the process
employed by Western to allocate the Parker-Davis Project resource pool.
The procedure set forth in the Federal Register on July 17, 2006, (71
FR 40503) to allocate Parker-Davis power was well reasoned, giving
consideration for Indian irrigation pumping on certain Indian lands
adjacent to the Colorado River in the lower basin, widespread use of
the Federal resource, magnitude of the benefits, and load. Because
proper procedures were followed and a logical rationale for the Parker-
Davis allocation has been presented, the comments expressed support for
the proposed allocations and requested that the allocations should be
finalized as proposed.
Response: Western appreciates the support for the proposed
allocations. The Final Power Allocation of the Parker-Davis Project
Resource Pool is presented below.

Final Power Allocation

The Resource Pool Final Power Allocation is made in accordance with
the Final Allocation Procedures. All allocations are subject to the
execution of a contract in accordance with the General Contract
Principles contained in the Final Allocation Procedures.
The Resource Pool Final Power Allocation is shown in the table below:

Final Allocation Capacity in Megawatts (MW)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summer Winter
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non- Non-
Allottee withdrawable Withdrawable Total FES withdrawable Withdrawable Total FES
FES FES allocation FES FES
allocation allocation (MW) allocation allocation allocation
(MW) (MW) (MW) (MW) (MW)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aqua Caliente Band of Cahuilla 1.000 0.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 1.000
Indians........................
Aha Macav Power Service \1\..... 2.000 0.000 2.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Corona, CA, City of............. 2.000 0.000 2.000 1.000 0.000 1.000
Eastern Arizona Preference 1.000 0.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 1.000
Pooling Association \2\........
Town of Gilbert, AZ Utility 1.000 0.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 1.000
Department.....................
Hohokam Irrigation & Drainage 1.000 0.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 1.000
District.......................
Naval Facilities Engineering 1.131 0.869 2.000 1.381 0.619 2.000
Command Southwest \3\..........
Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission 1.000 0.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 1.000
Indians........................
San Luis Rey River Indian Water 2.000 0.000 2.000 1.000 0.000 1.000
Authority \4\..................
Town of Marana, AZ Water 1.000 0.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 1.000
Department.....................
Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians. 1.000 0.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 1.000
Williams, AZ, City of........... 1.000 0.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 1.000
City of Yuma, AZ Public Works 1.000 0.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 1.000
Department.....................
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Allocations........... 16.131 0.869 17.000 12.381 0.619 13.000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Addition to existing post-2008 allocation to serve Indian irrigation pumping load of the Fort Mohave Indian
Tribe.
\2\ Allocation to aggregated group consisting of the utility functions of Town of Eagar, AZ, City of St. Johns,
AZ, Town of Springerville, AZ & Village of Reserve, NM. The Town of Pinetop-Lakeside, AZ is excluded from the
allocation.
\3\ Allocation to Naval Facilities Engineering Command Southwest as the contracting agency for California Marine
Corps & Naval facilities included in the P-DP marketing area.
\4\ Allocation to aggregated group consisting of San Luis Rey River Indian Water Authority, Vista Irrigation
District and the City of Escondido, CA Utility Division.

The Resource Pool Final Power Allocation listed in the table above
is based on the P-DP marketable resource available at this time. Firm
electric service contracts will be offered to the customers listed in
the table. The contracts offered will incorporate the general contract
principles listed in the Final Allocation Procedures. If the P-DP
marketable resource is adjusted in the future, P-DP power allocations
may be adjusted accordingly.

Regulatory Procedure Requirements

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

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.

Environmental Compliance

Western completed an environmental impact statement on EPAMP, under
the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). The Record of
Decision was published in the Federal Register on October 12, 1995 (60
FR 53181). Western's NEPA review assured all environmental effects
related to these actions have been analyzed.

[[Page 70383]]

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.

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

Western has determined 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: November 20, 2006.
Michael S. Hacskaylo,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. E6-20438 Filed 12-1-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P

Notices For
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994

Parker-Davis Project--Post-2008 Resource Pool

Local Navigation