75544 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 243 / Thursday, December 18, 2014 / Notices 

1 18 CFR 385.2001–2005 (2014). 

Filing and Service of Responsive 

Documents: All filings must (1) bear in 

all capital letters the ‘‘COMMENTS 

CONTESTING QUALIFICATION FOR A 

CONDUIT HYDROPOWER FACILITY’’ 

or ‘‘MOTION TO INTERVENE,’’ as 

applicable; (2) state in the heading the 

name of the applicant and the project 

number of the application to which the 

filing responds; (3) state the name, 

address, and telephone number of the 

person filing; and (4) otherwise comply 

with the requirements of sections 

385.2001 through 385.2005 of the 

Commission’s regulations.1 All 

comments contesting Commission staff’s 

preliminary determination that the 

facility meets the qualifying criteria 

must set forth their evidentiary basis. 

The Commission strongly encourages 

electronic filing. Please file motions to 

intervene and comments using the 

Commission’s eFiling system at http://

www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. 

Commenters can submit brief comments 

up to 6,000 characters, without prior 

registration, using the eComment system 

at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/

ecomment.asp. You must include your 

name and contact information at the end 

of your comments. For assistance, 

please contact FERC Online Support at 

FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov, (866) 

208–3676 (toll free), or (202) 502–8659 

(TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please 

send a paper copy to: Secretary, Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 

First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. 

A copy of all other filings in reference 

to this application must be accompanied 

by proof of service on all persons listed 

in the service list prepared by the 

Commission in this proceeding, in 

accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b) and 

385.2010. 

Locations of Notice of Intent: Copies 

of the notice of intent can be obtained 

directly from the applicant or such 

copies can be viewed and reproduced at 

the Commission in its Public Reference 

Room, Room 2A, 888 First Street NE., 

Washington, DC 20426. The filing may 

also be viewed on the Web at http://

www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp 

using the ‘‘eLibrary’’ link. Enter the 

docket number (e.g., CD15–5–000) in 

the docket number field to access the 

document. For assistance, call toll-free 

1–866–208–3676 or email 

FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov. For TTY, 

call (202) 502–8659. 

Dated: December 10, 2014. 

Kimberly D. Bose, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2014–29626 Filed 12–17–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P 

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) Post2017 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 

Post2017BCP@wapa.gov. 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 243 / Thursday, December 18, 2014 / Notices 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

75546 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 243 / Thursday, December 18, 2014 / Notices 

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 nonagricultural 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 carveout 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 243 / Thursday, December 18, 2014 / Notices 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 nontribal 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, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

75548 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 243 / Thursday, December 18, 2014 / Notices 

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 Hooverrelated 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 suballocation 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 243 / Thursday, December 18, 2014 / Notices 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 

Allottee Contingent 

capacity (kW) 

Firm energy (kWh) 

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 Department ....................................... 676 1,032,393 443,461 1,475,854 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

75550 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 243 / Thursday, December 18, 2014 / Notices 

Boulder Canyon Project Final post-2017 power allocations 

Allottee Contingent 

capacity (kW) 

Firm energy (kWh) 

Summer Winter Total 

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 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[FRL–9920–65–OA] 

Notification of a Closed 

Teleconference of the Chartered 

Science Advisory Board 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency’s (EPA), Science Advisory 

Board (SAB) Staff Office is announcing 

a teleconference of the Chartered SAB to 

conduct a review of two draft reports of 

recommendations regarding the 

agency’s 2013 and 2014 Scientific and 

Technological Achievement Awards 

(STAA). The Chartered SAB 

teleconference will be closed to the 

public. 

DATES: The Chartered SAB 

teleconference date is Monday, January 

26, 2015, from 2:00 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. 

(Eastern Time). 

ADDRESSES: The Chartered SAB closed 

teleconference will take place via 

telephone only. General information 

about the SAB may be found on the SAB 

Web site at http://www.epa.gov/sab. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Members of the public who wish to 

obtain further information regarding this 

announcement may contact Angela 

Nugent, Designated Federal Officer, by 

telephone: (202) 564–2218 or email at 

nugent.angela@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant 

to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory 

Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C. App. 2, 

and section (c)(6) of the Government in 

the Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(6), 

the EPA has determined that the 

chartered SAB quality review 

teleconference will be closed to the 

public. The purpose of the 

teleconference is for the chartered SAB 

to conduct a review of two draft reports 

of recommendations regarding the 

agency’s 2013 and 2014 STAA. The 

Chartered SAB teleconference will be 

closed to the public. 

Quality review is a key function of the 

chartered SAB. Draft reports prepared 

by SAB committees, panels, or work 

groups must be reviewed and approved 

by the chartered SAB before transmittal 

to the EPA Administrator. The chartered 

SAB makes a determination in a 

meeting consistent with FACA about all 

draft reports and determines whether 

the report is ready to be transmitted to 

the EPA Administrator. 

At the teleconference, the chartered 

SAB will conduct reviews for two draft 

reports developed by an SAB committee 

charged with developing 

recommendations regarding the 

agency’s STAA. The first draft report 

focuses on review of additional agency 

recommendations for the 2013 awards. 

Although the chartered SAB reviewed 

the agency’s 2013 STAA nominations 

and provided advice regarding those 

nominations in January 2014 (for more 

information, see http://yosemite.epa.

gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/fedrgstr_

activites/2013%20STAA%20Review

?OpenDocument), the agency later 

identified additional nominations for 

SAB review. The second draft report 

focuses on the agency’s 2014 STAA 

nominations (for more information, see 

http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.

nsf/fedrgstr_activites/2014%20STAA

%20Review?OpenDocument). 

The STAA awards are established to 

honor and recognize EPA employees 

who have made outstanding 

contributions in the advancement of 

science and technology through their 

research and development activities, as 

exhibited in publication of their results 

in peer reviewed journals. I have 

determined that the Chartered SAB 

quality review teleconference will be 

closed to the public because it is 

concerned with recommending 

employees deserving of awards. In 

making these draft recommendations, 

the EPA requires full and frank advice 

from the SAB. This advice will involve 

professional judgments on the relative 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES