[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 7 (Thursday, January 10, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1341-1344]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-618]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Western Area Power Administration


Post-2004 Resource Pool-Loveland Area Projects

AGENCY: Western Area Power Administration, DOE.

[[Page 1342]]


ACTION: Notice of final power allocations.

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

SUMMARY: Western Area Power Administration (Western), a Federal power 
marketing agency of the Department of Energy (DOE), announces its Post-
2004 Resource Pool Final Allocation of Power developed under the 
requirements of Subpart C--Power Marketing Initiative of the Energy 
Planning and Management Program (Program) Final Rule. This notice also 
includes Western's responses to public comments on proposed allocations 
published May 11, 2001.
    Final allocations are published to show Western's decisions prior 
to beginning the contractual phase of the process. Firm electric 
service contracts, negotiated between Western and allottees in this 
notice, will permit delivery of the allotted power from the October 
2004 billing period, through the September 2024 billing period.

DATES: The Post-2004 Resource Pool Final Allocation of Power will 
become effective February 11, 2002 and will remain in effect until 
September 30, 2024.

ADDRESSES: All documents developed or retained by Western in developing 
the final allocations are available for inspection and copying at the 
Rocky Mountain Customer Service Region Office, 5555 East Crossroads 
Boulevard, Loveland, CO 80538-8986.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Western published Final Post-2004 Resource 
Pool Allocation Procedures (Procedures) in the Federal Register (65 FR 
52419, August 29, 2000) to implement Subpart C--Power Marketing 
Initiative of the Program's Final Rule (10 CFR part 905), published in 
the Federal Register (60 FR 54151, October 20, 1995). The Program, 
developed in part to implement section 114 of the Energy Policy Act of 
1992, became effective November 20, 1995. The goal of the Program is to 
require planning and efficient electric energy use by Western's long-
term firm power customers and to extend Western's firm power resource 
commitments. One aspect of the Program is to establish project-specific 
power resource pools and allocate power from these pools to new 
preference customers.
    Western published its proposed allocations and initiated a public 
comment period in the Federal Register (66 FR 24133, May 11, 2001). 
Public information forums on the proposed allocations were held August 
2, 7, and 9, 2001. The public comment period was extended from 
September 10, 2001, to October 12, 2001, in the Federal Register (66 FR 
47652, September 13, 2001).
    The Procedures, in conjunction with the Post-1989 Marketing Plan 
(51 FR 4012, January 31, 1986), establish the framework for allocating 
power from the Loveland Area Projects (LAP) resource pool.

I. Comments and Responses

    Comment: Mni Sose asks that Western re-examine its understanding of 
government-to-government communications.
    Response: Western supports DOE's American Indian policy that 
stresses the need for a government-to-government, trust-based 
relationship. Western intends to continue its practice of consultation 
with tribal governments so that tribal rights and concerns are 
considered prior to any actions being taken that affect the tribes.
    The Post-1989 Marketing Plan, Program, and Procedures form the 
framework for allocating LAP power. The allocation process was 
conducted in a consistent manner with all LAP applicants. Prior to 
publishing proposed allocations, Western, recognizing the unique status 
of Native American tribes, consulted with tribes before their Applicant 
Profile Data (APD) submittal and during Western's review of data 
submitted on their APDs.
    Once proposed allocations were published, Western sought to follow 
the public process and only allow formal comments, written and oral, to 
be submitted as input to the final allocation decision. Western 
provided written responses to questions that were not answered in the 
public forums and extended the comment period in conjunction with those 
answers to provide additional time for tribes to submit written 
comments on the proposed allocations. Western will not engage in 
discussions about the allocations with any parties outside of the 
formal process until final allocations are published. This procedural 
rule is applied consistently to tribes as well as non-tribal entities. 
Western does not believe that this procedural rule affects tribal self-
governance rights nor creates an impact upon trust resources.
    Western believes that the tribes were consulted about the process 
and Western considered the information gained from those consultations 
along with oral and written comments received during the public comment 
period to make the final allocations.
    Comment: Western should not consider the benefits to tribes of 
Federal power from current service providers when making allocations to 
the tribes. In the event of the formation of a tribal utility, that 
power would be inaccessible to the tribes.
    Response: The intent of the Program is to provide the benefits of 
Federal hydropower directly to individual tribes. Allocations listed in 
this notice will be made directly to the tribes. Any indirect Western 
hydroelectric benefits recognized in the calculation method were used 
by Western to determine a fair share for tribes at the time of 
allocation with no intent to create any commitment to transfer those 
benefits to the tribes. Any indirect Western hydroelectric benefits 
received by the tribes are contractual commitments between Western and 
the existing customers.
    Comment: Western should consider the Wind River Reservation's 
Marathon and CamWest loads for allocation purposes.
    Response: Western agrees that oil and gas resources on the 
reservation are tribally owned. However, as stated in Western's 
response to comments in the publication of the Procedures, ``When 
submitting Native American load data as a non-utility, only load of 
tribal entities and their members will be considered for an 
allocation.'' Marathon and CamWest are neither tribal entities nor 
tribal members. Therefore, the loads submitted in the reservation's APD 
for these operations were not considered in determining allocations.
    Comment: Total allocations to the Wind River Reservation from Salt 
Lake City Area Integrated Projects (SLCA/IP) and LAP fall short of the 
65 percent allocation. LAP should make up any shortfall that occurs 
between the two projects. The reservation should receive no less of an 
allocation than if they were located solely within LAP.
    Response: LAP took into consideration the amount of the proposed 
SLCA/IP allocation in determining the final LAP allocation. Western 
believes that the allocation ultimately provided to the reservation 
should be congruent with the allocations made to other tribes. Taking 
into account current serving utility benefit, proposed SLCA/IP 
allocation, and LAP allocation, Western made every effort possible to 
provide approximately 65 percent total benefit to the reservation.
    Comment: The Kickapoo Tribe in Kansas is concerned about not having 
the future demand submitted in its APD considered in the allocation 
process. The tribe understood that proposed growth in the next 2 to 5 
years would be considered in the process. The tribe would like Western 
to consider future growth in the allocation process.

[[Page 1343]]

    Response: Western stated during the publication of the Procedures 
that limited projected load estimates would be considered. As Western 
moved through the process and received data, a determination of 
definable limitations had to be developed that would ensure fairness in 
the allocation process and make sure that the pool was used to promote 
widespread use of the resource among new preference entities. The 
results of the data evaluation led Western to decide that eligible 
future load submitted in the APD would be considered in the allocation 
process only if the load was for facilities that were completed, or 
substantially near completion, at the time of the APD due date.
    Comment: Certain changes should be made to the General Power 
Contract Provisions that consider tribal sovereignty. Underlying 
reserve contracts should be offered to tribes to reserve the power 
allocation for each tribe and allow for changes to the method of 
implementation. Western's Integrated Resource Planning requirements 
should be useful but not burdensome to the tribes.
    Response: Entering into contractual arrangements with the tribes is 
the next step in the resource pool allocation process. However, 
contractual arrangements will not begin until final allocations are 
completed. Contractual provisions will be consistent with Section IV of 
the Procedures.
    Comment: Several comments were submitted concerning the source of 
LAP power for deliveries to allottees in Kansas. Additional comments 
expressed concern about delivery points, transmission access, 
transmission arrangements, and cost of delivery arrangements for the 
allottees in Kansas.
    Response: Transmission issues will be appropriately addressed 
during the contractual phase of the LAP post-2004 resource pool 
process. Allottees are ultimately responsible for transmission and 
delivery arrangements, but Western will assist allottees to secure 
arrangements required to provide the benefits of LAP power to the 
allottees.
    Comment: Kansas Electric Power Cooperative, Inc. (KEPCo) expressed 
concern about the financial impacts to KEPCo and its member 
cooperatives. Tribal allocations will reduce sales to KEPCo members. 
Additional concern was expressed that the lost sales to member 
cooperatives would make it more difficult to meet Rural Utilities 
Service commitments for loan repayment.
    Response: Western will work with KEPCo, its member cooperatives, 
and tribes to minimize negative financial impacts of LAP allocations. 
Western will assist tribes to find the best method of receiving LAP 
allocations that will ensure equitable treatment for all affected 
parties. Western understands that the cooperation of KEPCo and its 
member cooperatives is essential to making allocations to tribes in 
northeastern Kansas a success. Western will work to satisfy the needs 
of the parties involved.

II. Amount of Pool Resources

    Western will allocate up to 4 percent of the LAP long-term firm 
hydroelectric resource available as of October 1, 2004, as firm power. 
Current hydrologic studies indicate that about 28 megawatts (MW) of 
capacity and 44 Gigawatthours (GWh) of energy will be available for the 
summer season. Approximately 24 MW of capacity and 35 GWh of energy 
will be available for the winter season. Firm power means firm capacity 
and associated energy allocated by Western and subject to the terms and 
conditions specified in Western's long-term firm power electric service 
contracts.

III. Final Power Allocation

    The following final power allocations are made in accordance with 
the Procedures. All of the allocations are subject to the execution of 
a contract in accordance with the Procedures.
    Final allocations for Native American allottees are shown in this 
table.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Final post-2004 power allocation
                                             -------------------------------------------------------------------
          Native American allottees                Summer           Winter           Summer           Winter
                                               kilowatthours    kilowatthours      kilowatts        kilowatts
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iowa Tribe of Kansas and Nebraska...........        1,986,640        1,722,043            1,232            1,180
Kickapoo Tribe in Kansas....................        2,760,701        2,323,337            1,713            1,592
Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation..............        5,536,170        4,458,846            3,435            3,056
Sac and Fox Nation of Missouri..............        2,690,754        2,289,904            1,669            1,570
Wind River Reservation (Eastern Shoshone and        2,242,166        1,968,930            1,391            1,350
 Northern Arapaho Tribes)...................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Native American allottees received LAP allocations, that when 
combined with existing and future Western hydropower benefits, total 
approximately 65 percent of their eligible load in both the summer and 
winter season based on the adjusted seasonal energy data submitted by 
each tribe. The allocation process considered the current Western 
hydroelectric benefits received through serving utilities and future 
Western hydroelectric benefits that will be received by serving 
utilities as a result of this allocation process.
    Based on the applications submitted by the Northern Arapaho and the 
Eastern Shoshone tribes, Western could not differentiate between each 
tribe's load. The data from each tribe was used to arrive at a final 
allocation for the Wind River Reservation instead of each tribe. The 
final LAP allocation for the reservation considers, in addition to the 
hydroelectric benefit from Western through the reservation's serving 
utility, the proposed allocation from Western's SLCA/IP resource pool. 
The combination of all three factors, LAP, SLCA/IP proposed allocation, 
and current serving utility benefit, provides approximately a 65 
percent benefit of Western hydroelectric power to the reservation. The 
reservation's LAP allocation was changed after considering the proposed 
SLCA/IP allocation published in the Federal Register (66 FR 31910, June 
13, 2001). Because system plant factors are different for LAP and SLCA/
IP, only SLCA/IP's proposed kilowatthours were used to determine the 
LAP allocation. The allocation change to the reservation had no effect 
on other tribal allocations.
    Final allocations of power for non-Native American utility and 
nonutility allottees are listed here.

[[Page 1344]]



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Final Post-2004 power allocation
   Non-Native American utility and nonutility    ---------------------------------------------------------------
                    allottees                         Summer          Winter          Summer          Winter
                                                   kilowatthours   kilowatthours     kilowatts       kilowatts
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Chapman, KS.............................         254,099         167,487             158             115
City of Elwood, KS..............................         167,205         146,045             104             100
City of Eudora, KS..............................         984,255         683,931             610             469
City of Fountain, CO............................       3,733,271       2,840,741           2,316           1,947
City of Garden City, KS.........................       3,733,271       2,840,741           2,316           1,947
City of Goodland, KS............................       1,566,184       1,216,583             972             834
City of Horton, KS..............................         434,979         313,926             270             215
City of Hugoton, KS.............................         743,402         630,379             461             432
City of Johnson City, KS........................         440,463         336,772             273             231
City of Meade, KS...............................         497,516         313,427             309             215
City of Minneapolis, KS.........................         537,092         339,984             333             233
City of Troy, KS................................         192,401         150,826             119             103
Doniphan Electric Cooperative Association, Inc.,         460,699         384,738             286             264
 KS.............................................
Fort Carson, CO.................................       3,144,463       2,648,172           1,951           1,815
Kaw Valley Electric, KS.........................       3,288,355       2,458,719           2,040           1,685
Midwest Energy, Inc., KS........................       3,733,271       2,840,741           2,316           1,947
Nemaha-Marshall Electric Cooperative                   1,129,867         973,099             701             667
 Association, Inc., KS..........................
Regional Transportation District, Denver, CO....         327,209         287,994             203             198
Sunflower Electric Power Corporation, KS........       3,733,271       2,840,741           2,316           1,947
Yellowstone National Park, WY...................         220,999         145,946             137             100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The allocation change to the Wind River Reservation caused a 
reduction in the total pool available to non-Native American utility 
and nonutility allottees. Therefore, the final allocation of power to 
non-Native American utility and nonutility allottees was changed 
accordingly.
    The final allocations of power shown in the tables above are based 
on the LAP marketable resource available at this time. If the LAP 
marketable resource is reduced in the future, all allocations will be 
adjusted accordingly. Long-term firm energy with associated capacity 
made available for marketing because an allocation(s) has been reduced 
or withdrawn may be administratively reallocated by Western's 
Administrator without further public process.

IV. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601, et seq.) 
requires Federal agencies to perform a regulatory flexibility analysis 
if a final rule is likely to have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities and there is a legal requirement 
to issue a general notice of proposed rulemaking. Western has 
determined that this action does not require a regulatory flexibility 
analysis since it is a rulemaking of particular applicability involving 
rates or services applicable to public property.

V. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act

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

VI. Determination Under Executive Order 12866

    DOE has determined that this is not a significant regulatory action 
because it does not meet the criteria of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 
51735). Western has an exemption from centralized regulatory review 
under Executive Order 12866; accordingly, no clearance of this notice 
by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is required.

VII. Determination Under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 
Fairness Act

    Western has determined that this rule is exempt from congressional 
notification requirements under 5 U.S.C. 801 because the action is a 
rulemaking of particular applicability relating to rates or services 
and involves matters of procedure.

    Dated: December 18, 2001.
Michael S. Hacskaylo,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 02-618 Filed 1-9-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P