50922 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 188 / Monday, September 29, 1997 / Notices

Commission’s Order No. 888 on open

transmission access. Consequently, an

extension of the current rates is needed

to provide sufficient time in which to

comply with the public participation

process required by 10 CFR 903.

Southwestern is developing open access

tariffs consistent with Order No. 888.

Southwestern has announced in the

Federal Register on August 22, 1997, a

90-day public comment period on the

FY 1997 proposed rates with a planned

implementation on January 1, 1998.

Discussion

The existing Integrated System rates

are based on the FY 1990 PRS. PRSs

have been completed on the Integrated

System each year since approval of the

existing rates. Rate changes identified

by the PRSs since that period have

indicated the need for minimal rate

increases or decreases. Since the

revenue changes reflected by the PRSs

were within Southwestern’s plus-orminus two percent Rate Adjustment

Threshold, these rate adjustments were

deferred in the best interest of the

government and provided for the

subsequent year’s PRS to determine the

appropriate level of revenues needed for

the next rate period.

The FY 1997 PRS indicates the need

for an annual revenue increase of 3.3

percent ($3,212,635). A rate adjustment

of this magnitude, together with the

need to revise rate schedules to address

the intent of FERC’s Order No. 888,

requires a formal rate filing. With

existing rates expiring on September 30,

1997, Southwestern proposes to extend

the existing rates for a six-month period

ending September 30, 1998, on a

temporary basis under the

implementation authorities noted in 10

CFR 903.22(h) and 903.23(b) to provide

sufficient time to complete the FY 1997

proposed rate development.

Southwestern continues to make

significant progress toward repayment

of the Federal investment in the

Integrated System. Through FY 1996,

cumulative amortization for the

Integrated System was over $369

million, which represents

approximately 37 percent of the $1

billion cumulative Federal investment

for the Integrated System. The

repayment status has increased over 100

percent since the existing rates were

placed in effect.

Inquiries regarding this rate extension

may be addressed to Forrest E. Reeves,

Assistant Administrator, Office of

Corporate Operations, Southwestern

Power Administration, One West Third

Street, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74101–1619.

Order

In view of the foregoing and pursuant

to the authority delegated to me by the

Secretary of Energy, I hereby extend on

an interim basis, for the period of six

months, effective October 1, 1997, the

current FERC-approved Integrated

System Rates for the sale of power and

energy.

Dated: September 19, 1997.

Elizabeth A. Moler,

Deputy Secretary.

[FR Doc. 97–25747 Filed 9–26–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Western Area Power Administration

Boulder Canyon Project—Notice of

Firm Power Service Base Charge

AGENCY: Western Area Power

Administration, DOE.

ACTION: Notice of base charge.

SUMMARY: Notice is given of the

confirmation and approval by the

Deputy Secretary of the Department of

Energy (DOE) of the Base Charge and its

components for the Boulder Canyon

Project (BCP) firm power service. The

Fiscal Year (FY) 1998 Base Charge and

its components for BCP firm power are

based on an Annual Revenue

Requirement of $43,479,183. The Base

Charge consists of an energy dollar

amount of $22,527,359 and a capacity

dollar amount of $20,951,824. This Base

Charge and its components are used for

calculating the monthly charges and

forecast rates pursuant to Rate Schedule

BCP–F5 as approved by the Federal

Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)

on April 19, 1996 (Rate Order No.

WAPA–70).

DATES: The Base Charge and its

components, used in calculating the

monthly charges and forecast rates

pursuant to Rate Schedule BCP–F5, will

be effective on the first day of the first

full billing period beginning on or after

October 1, 1997, and will be in effect

through FY 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. J. Tyler Carlson, Regional Manager,

Desert Southwest Customer Service

Region, Western Area Power

Administration, P.O. Box 6457,

Phoenix, AZ 85005–6457, (602) 352–

2453.

Mr. Joel K. Bladow, Assistant

Administrator for Power Marketing

Liaison, Western Area Power

Administration, Room 8G–027,

Forrestal Building, 1000

Independence Avenue, SW.,

Washington, DC 20585–0001, (202)

586–5581.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Base

Charge and its components were

calculated in accordance with the

methodology approved under Rate

Order WAPA–70. The Procedures for

Public Participation in Power and

Transmission Rate Adjustments and

Extensions, 10 CFR Part 903, have been

followed by Western Area Power

Administration (Western) in

determining the Base Charge and its

components. The following summarizes

the steps taken by Western to ensure

involvement of all interested parties in

the determination of the Base Charge

and its components:

1. On April 18, 1997, a letter was

mailed from Western’s Desert Southwest

Customer Service Regional Office to all

BCP customers and other interested

parties. The letter provided a copy of

the BCP Proposed Rate Adjustment data,

dated April 18, 1997.

2. Discussion of the proposed Base

Charge and its components was initiated

at an informal BCP Contractor meeting

held on May 6, 1997, in Phoenix,

Arizona. At this informal meeting,

representatives from Western and the

Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation)

explained the basis for estimates used in

the calculation of the Base Charge and

its components. A question and answer

session was convened for those persons

attending.

3. A Federal Register Notice (FRN)

was published on May 7, 1997 (62 FR

24913), officially announcing the

proposed Base Charge adjustment

process, initiating the public

consultation and comment period,

announcing the public information and

public comment forums, and presenting

procedures for public participation.

4. At the public information forum

held on May 15, 1997, in Phoenix,

Arizona, Western and Reclamation

representatives explained the proposed

Base Charge and its components for Rate

Year 1998 in greater detail. A question

and answer session was convened for

those persons attending. A response to

a data request from the public

information forum was mailed to the

customers on June 2, 1997.

5. A public comment forum was held

on June 12, 1997, in Phoenix, Arizona,

to give the public an opportunity to

comment for the record. Three persons

representing customers and customer

groups made oral comments. A response

to the comments and data requests from

the public comment forum was mailed

to the customers on July 18, 1997.

6. Three comment letters were

received during the 90-day consultation
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 188 / Monday, September 29, 1997 / Notices 50923

and comment period. The consultation

and comment period ended August 5,

1997. All submitted written comments

have been considered in the preparation

of this FRN. Most of the comments

received during the public meetings

dealt with Hydrology (surplus water),

Realistic and Appropriate Costs, Rate

Impacts and Philosophy, and

Differences between Financial

Documents. All comments were

considered in developing the Base

Charge for FY 1998. Additional written

comments and responses, paraphrased

for brevity, are presented below.

Issue: Contractor raised concern with

the status of dispute regarding the blind

vendor services at Hoover and requested

to be kept informed and provided with

all pertinent correspondence.

Response: Reclamation will continue

to further evaluate the situation and will

keep the contractors informed of the

status to the blind vendor litigation.

Issue: Contractor requested Western to

ask Reclamation to convene dialogue

with Contractor representatives aimed at

accelerating delivery of a $5 million

revenue stream to offset certain

construction costs on the visitors

facilities.

Response: Western is committed to

working with Reclamation in

partnership with the Contractors to

recover revenues as soon as possible to

offset certain costs for the visitor

facilities. Substantial progress has been

made in meeting the $5 million revenue

goal. Revenue opportunities, as well as

expenses, are currently being discussed

with the BCP Engineering and

Operations Committee (E&OC)

representatives utilizing the Revenue

Subcommittee as the primary focal

point of exploring new opportunities.

As dialogue continues, Reclamation and

Western will continue to support the

E&OC process and welcome all

suggestions for meeting the revenue goal

as quickly as possible. Western will

initiate an agenda item relating to this

request at the October 1997 E&OC

meeting.

Issue: Contractors shared concern on

the estimates of, and cost responsibility

for, Highway 93 rehabilitation work.

Response: Three bids received from

local contractors were evaluated by a

contract specialist and found to be

reasonable. The evaluation revealed that

the engineer’s estimate appeared to be

low in the areas of mobilization and

removal/disposal of existing pavement.

Mobilization bids were significantly

higher. The low bidder plans to set up

a batch plant on site. The engineer’s

estimate did not include cost

consideration for offsite disposal

requirements. Recognizing that cost

estimates are not exact, cost estimating

practices will be continually reviewed

for improvement.

The cost responsibility for

rehabilitation of Highway 93 has been

the topic of previous discussions and

correspondence with the BCP E&OC

representatives. Reclamation attempted

to obtain separate funding for

rehabilitation of the roadway with no

results.

The BCP E&OC was made aware of

this effort by a letter dated June 2, 1994.

It is critical the subject work be

accomplished due to concern for public

safety. Because no alternate funding

sources have been identified, funding

must come from revenues authorized

under the Boulder Canyon Project Act.

Issue: The House and Senate

committee reports on the Energy and

Water Development Appropriation bills

contain directions to Reclamation to

involve customers in developing cost

estimates prior to budget submission.

Western is to initiate dialogue with

Reclamation to ensure proper

coordination with existing E&OC

process.

Response: Western will initiate this

dialogue and believes that both Western

and Reclamation are committed to

ensure the congressional directives to

Reclamation and the E&OC process are

consistent.

Issue: Contractor requested an

assessment to determine justification for

a specific replacement cost, and a

reduction in costs for certain

replacements.

Response: The assessment regarding

the Station Service Electrical item was

initially in the 1995 Ten Year Operating

Plan scheduled for FY97 and budgeted

at $445,000. The scope of work was to

replace the station service transformer

and station service circuit breaker. The

transformer was being replaced due to

age, and the circuit breaker was being

replaced due to problems operating the

breaker and inability to procure repair

parts. The station service transformer

provides the only tie to system power to

augment and stabilize frequency for

station power. Hoover had experienced

power fluctuations when operating

isolated on station service power that

tripped equipment and limited

operation of equipment that drew large

amounts of power such as cranes,

elevators and pumps. It was felt, at that

time, these problems could be

eliminated by replacing the transformer

and the circuit breaker.

The first Technical Review Committee

(Blue Ribbon Task Force) commented,

unless testing showed the transformer

was nearing the end of its service life,

it should not be replaced. The

committee also commented, replacing

the transformer would not eliminate the

problems encountered in running the

plant isolated on station service. If the

new transformer failed, instability

would still be a problem.

Reclamation agreed with these

comments and focused on minimizing

the need to run the plant isolated on

station service. Funding of $300,000

was budgeted for FY98 to eliminate the

station service breaker and to procure a

spare single phase transformer.

Eliminating the station service breaker

and providing a tie to the existing

circuit breakers was a lower cost

alternative to purchasing a new circuit

breaker. Purchasing a spare single phase

transformer would eliminate long lead

times in procuring a new transformer in

case of an in-service failure. The Project

believes that the probability of multiple

failures of the single phase transformer

is unlikely and would accept that risk.

The Technical Review Committee that

met in June 1997 questioned the need

for a spare transformer since there were

new governors on the Arizona station

service generator and the Nevada station

service generator that would likely

correct frequency instability.

Reclamation will be simulating

operating the plant isolated on station

service in September. Based on this

simulation, the Project will assess the

need for a spare transformer.

Reclamation will report on this

assessment and our decision on the

transformer at the October 1997 BCP

E&OC meeting. If it is determined a

spare transformer is not necessary, the

program expenditures for the

transformer would become carryover in

the next fiscal year. The work to tie to

existing circuit breakers also funded

under this item would still proceed in

FY 1998.

A meeting with customer

representatives was held August 13,

1997, to review the communication and

control system upgrades related to the

Reclamation Alternative Modular

SCADA System (RAMS) in use at

Hoover Dam. No changes will be made

to estimated costs in the proposed FY

1998 revenue requirements at this time,

however, should the existing plans for

future RAMS related investments be

modified as a result of this review,

changes to the items in the level of FY

1998 expenditures for these items may

result. And lastly, the FY 1998 rate

includes $150,000 for the piping

replacements. In Amendment No. 3 to

Delegation Order No. 0204–108,

published November 10, 1993 (58 FR

59716), the Secretary of Energy

(Secretary) delegated (1) the authority to

develop long-term power and
50924 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 188 / Monday, September 29, 1997 / Notices

transmission rates on a nonexclusive

basis to the Administrator of Western;

(2) the authority to confirm, approve,

and place such rates into effect on an

interim basis to the Deputy Secretary;

and (3) the authority to confirm,

approve, and place into effect on a final

basis, to remand, or to disapprove such

rates to FERC. Existing DOE procedures

for public participation in power rate

adjustments (10 CFR Part 903) became

effective on September 18, 1985 (50 FR

37835).

These charges and rates are

established pursuant to section 302(a) of

the DOE Organization Act, 42 U.S.C.

§ 7152(a), through which the power

marketing functions of the Secretary of

the Interior and Reclamation under the

Reclamation Act of 1902, 43 U.S.C.

§ 371 et seq, as amended and

supplemented by subsequent

enactments, particularly section 9(c) of

the Reclamation Project Act of 1939, 43

U.S.C. § 485h(c), and other acts

specifically applicable to the project

system involved, were transferred to

and vested in the Secretary.

Dated: September 19, 1997.

Elizabeth A. Moler,

Deputy Secretary.

[FR Doc. 97–25749 Filed 9–26–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Western Area Power Administration

Central Valley Project and CaliforniaOregon Transmission Project—WAPA–

77

AGENCY: Western Area Power

Administration, DOE.

ACTION: Notice of rate order.

SUMMARY: Notice is given of the

confirmation and approval by the

Deputy Secretary of the Department of

Energy (DOE) of Rate Order No. WAPA–

77 and Rate Schedules CV–F9, CV–FT3,

CV–NFT3, CV–TPT4, CV–NWT1, CV–

PSS1, CV–RFS1, CV–EID1, CV–SPR1,

CV–SUR1, COTP–FT1, and COTP–NFT1

placing provisional rates for the Central

Valley Project (CVP) commercial firm

power and transmission services, power

scheduling service, and ancillary

services of the Western Area Power

Administration (Western), and placing

provisional rates for the CaliforniaOregon Transmission Project (COTP)

transmission services into effect on an

interim basis. The provisional rates, will

remain in effect on an interim basis

until the Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission (FERC) confirms, approves,

and places them into effect on a final

basis or until they are replaced by other

rates. The provisional rates will provide

sufficient revenue to pay all annual

costs, including interest expense, and

repayment of required investment

within the allowable period.

DATES: The provisional rates will be

placed into effect on an interim basis on

October 1, 1997, and will be in effect

until FERC confirms, approves, and

places the provisional rates in effect on

a final basis for a 5-year period ending

September 30, 2002, or until

superseded.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.

Zola Jackson, Power Marketing

Manager, Western Area Power

Administration, Sierra Nevada

Customer Service Region, 114 Parkshore

Drive, Folsom, CA 95630–4710,

Telephone (916) 353–4421 or Mr. Joel K.

Bladow, Power Marketing Liaison

Office, Room 8G–027, 1000

Independence Avenue SW.,

Washington, DC 20585–0001,

Telephone (202) 586–5581.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Deputy Secretary of Energy, approved

the existing Rate Schedule CV–F8 for

CVP commercial firm power on

September 19, 1995 (Rate Order No.

WAPA–72, 60 FR 52671, October 10,

1995) and FERC confirmed and

approved the rate schedule on March

14, 1996, under FERC Docket No. EF95–

5012–000 (74 FERC ¶ 62,136). The

existing Rate Schedule CV–F8 became

effective on October 1, 1995, for the

period ending April 30, 1998, and is

being superseded by Rate Schedule CV–

F9. Under Rate Schedule CV–F8, the

composite rate on October 1, 1997, is

26.50 mills per kilowatt-hour (mills/

kWh), the base energy rate is 16.93

mills/kWh, the energy tier rate is 26.48

mills/kWh, and the capacity rate is

$4.58 per kilowatt-month (kW-month).

The provisional rates for CVP

commercial firm power in Rate

Schedule CV–F9 will result in an

overall composite rate of 20.95 mills/

kWh on October 1, 1997, and will result

in a decrease of approximately 21

percent when compared with the

existing CVP commercial firm power

rates under Rate Schedule CV–F8.

The Acting Assistant Secretary of

Energy, approved the existing Rate

Schedules CV–FT2, CV–NFT2, and CV–

TPT3 for CVP transmission services,

and the existing Rate Schedule CV–PC1

for peaking capacity service on April 12,

1993 (Rate Order No. WAPA–59, 58 FR

35933, July 2, 1993), and FERC

confirmed and approved the rate

schedules on September 22, 1993, under

FERC Docket No. EF93–5011–000 (64

FERC ¶ 61,332). The existing rate

schedules became effective on May 1,

1993, for the period ending April 30,

1998. Rate Schedule CV–PC1 is being

terminated effective October 1, 1997.

Rate Schedules CV–FT2, CV–NFT2, and

CV–TPT3 are being superseded by Rate

Schedules CV–FT3, CV–NFT3, and CV–

TPT4. Under Rate Schedules CV–FT2

and CV–NFT2, the CVP transmission

firm and non-firm services rates on

October 1, 1997, are $0.43 per kWmonth for firm service and 1.23 mills/

kWh for non-firm service. On October 1,

1997, the provisional rates in Rate

Schedules CV–FT3 and CV–NFT3 will

be $0.51 per kW-month for firm CVP

transmission service, an 18.6 percent

increase when compared with the

existing rate, and 1.00 mill/kWh for

non-firm CVP transmission service, an

18.7 percent decrease when compared

with the existing rate. The provisional

rate for transmission of CVP power by

others in Rate Schedule CV–TPT4 is a

direct pass through cost and will result

in no change on October 1, 1997, when

compared with the existing rate under

Rate Schedule CV–TPT3.

Since the COTP went into operation

in 1993, Western has sold COTP

transmission services on a short-term

basis using rates approved by the

Administrator of Western. Rate

schedules are being promulgated for

COTP firm and non-firm transmission

services to be consistent with FERC

Order No. 888. The provisional rates for

firm transmission service for Western’s

share of the COTP will result in 9.9

percent (FY 1998) and 34.0 percent (FY

1999 through FY 2002) reductions in the

existing rate of $2.03 per kW-month.

The provisional rates are $1.83 per kWmonth for FY 1998 and $1.34 per kWmonth for FY 1999 through FY 2002.

The provisional rates for non-firm COTP

transmission service will result in 21.2

percent (FY 1998) and 47.8 percent (FY

1999 through FY 2002) reductions in the

existing rate of 2.78 mills/kWh. The

provisional rates are 2.19 mills/kWh for

FY 1998 and 1.45 mills/kWh for FY

1999 through FY 2002.

Power scheduling service, network

transmission service, and ancillary

services are new services. The

provisional rates are designed to recover

only the cost incurred for providing the

services.

Provisional Rates for CVP Commercial

Firm Power

The provisional rates for CVP

commercial firm power are designed to

recover an annual revenue requirement

that includes the investment repayment,

interest, purchase power, and operation

and maintenance expense. A cost of

service study was used to allocate the