FINAL HOOVER POWER MARKETING POST - 1987 June 7, 1985 ARIZONA POWER AUTHORITY 181 WEST ADAMS STREET PHOENIX, ARIZONA 857
INTRODUCTION, SUMMARY AND SCHEDULE Introduction... 1 Summary... 2 Schedule... 7 ALLOCATION PRINCIPLES & METHOD Schedule A... 9 Schedule B... 1 ELIGIBILITY FOR ALLOCATION Preference Qualifications &Requirements of A.R.S. Title 3 and Title 45 Eligibility for Allocation of Schedule A Power..... 13 Eligibility for Allocation of Schedule B Power.... 14 Non Tax-Exempt Entities... 15 DISCUSSICN OF PUBLIC COMMENTS. Possible Delay of Hoover Allocation and Contract Completion Dates... 16 Hoover Schedule A and Renewal of Existing Hoover Allocations... 17 Hoover Schedule B and CAWCD.... 17 Considerations Under Recapture Conditions... 18 Consideration in Allocating Hoover Schedules A & B Power... 19 Allocation of Schedules A & B Energy..., 21 Allocation to City of Page... 22 Term of Contracts... 23 Customer's Contract Subject to Western Area Power ministration Contracts... 24 Power Purchase Certificate... 24 Opinion Letters of Legal Counsel; Resolution.... 25 Financial Data.... 25 Facilities of Others... 26 Power Excess to Needs of Purchaser.... 26 Failure to Contract... 27 Allocation at Transmission Delivery Points.... 27 Hoover Uprating Program... 27
INTRODUCTION, SUMMARY AND SCHEDULE Introduction According to the Boulder Canyon Project Act, a portion of the power output of the Federal Hoover Dam hydroelectric facility was allotted to Arizona in its "sovereign capacity". The Arizona Power Authority ("Authority")is the entity in Arizona established to receive and market Arizona's allotted share of Hoover power. The Authority has been marketing Hoover power in Arizona since 1952. The present contract under which the Western Area Power Administration sells Hoover power to the Authority expires on May 31, 1987. The contracts under which the Authority sells Hoover power to its customers also expire on May 31, 1987. The Authority has developed the final Hoover Power Marketing Plan ("Plan")contained herein, through a public process. that public process on September 14, 1984, with A Public Comment Forum was held on November 1 were solicited and received by the Authority. The Authority began a Public Information Forum. 1, 1984. Written comments On January 11, 1985, 52 interested entities submitted Applications for amounts of either or both of Hoover Schedule A and Schedule B power. These entities also submitted Profile Data information requested by the Authority. On March 29, 1985, the Authority issued its Proposed Hoover Power Marketing Plan. A second Public Comment Forum was held on April 26, 1985, and written comments were again solicited and received by the Authority to A summary of the written comments received was included in the Authority's 1 Proposed Hoover Power Marketing Plan, dated March 29, 1985.
gather public input concerning the Authority's Proposed Hoover Power Marketing Plan. 2 Summary The Plan presented herein serves as the principles and guidelines for the marketing of Hoover Schedule A and Schedule B power by the Authority. This Plan provides: 1. Under the Plan, s with existing Hoover contracts with the Authority will receive existing kilowatt (kw) contract amounts from Schedule A. 2. The remaining Schedule A contingent capacity (approximately 3, kw) will be allocated among those s which do not have existing Hoover contracts with the Authority. 3. The available Schedule A energy will be allocated among all s based upon an equal division of kilowatt-hours (kwh) per kilowatt. 4. Schedule B contingent capacity and energy will be divided between qualified tax-exempt and non tax-exempt entities on a 75/25 percent basis as presently specified in I. R. S. (Treasury) Regulations. 5. As suggested in its Public Information Forum of September 14, 1984, the Authority will include in its power purchase contracts for Schedule B Hoover power and energy a "recapture" provision in the following form which will not be subject to negotiation or modification (other than technical corrections) : "Notwithstanding any other provision in this contract (and in addition to any other recapture rights of the Authority), the Schedule B Hoover capacity and energy is sold under this contract on a withdrawable basis; that is, the capacity and energy are subject to an absolute right of recapture by the 2 Table One (attached) presents a summary of the written comments received. -2-
Authority for the benefit of the Central Arizona Water Conservation at any time or times during the term of this contract. The purchaser under this contract has no vested right or interest in the determination of the amount or disposition of capacity and energy recaptured by the Authority. In each event of recapture, the capacity and energy shall be withdrawn from all Schedule B Hoover contractors on a prorata basis. If the recapture provision in any contract for Schedule B power and energy shall be held invalid or unenforceable by a final judicial decision from which no further appeal may be taken, then Schedule B power and energy shall be withdrawn on a pro-rata basis from those Schedule B power and energy contractors with which there remains a right of recapture which has not been determined by a final judicial decision to be invalid or unenforceable. Each exercise by the Authority of its right to recapture Schedule B Hoover capacity and energy shall be accomplished as follows: A. The Authority shall give the contractor written notice of recapture not less than twenty-four (24) months prior to the effective date of the recapture. B. The Authority's notice shall identify the amount of capacity and energy which will be recaptured and the effective date of recapture. The Authority's right to recapture shall not be affected by any claim of rights by the contractor from which the capacity and energy is recaptured, whether arising by reason of past, present or future claims." The Authority will recapture Schedule B Hoover capacity and energy in accordance with the foregoing contract provision in order to implement a Plan adopted by the Secretary of the Interior for marketing Navajo Surplus power and energy pursuant to Section 17(c) of the Hoover Power Plant Act of 1984, if such adopted Plan includes: a. Contracting for Schedule B Hoover capacity and energy by the Central Arizona Water Conservation (CAWCD), and b. Utilization and assignment of revenues from the sale and exchange of Navajo Surplus power and energy as authorized by the Hoover Power Plant Act of 1984, at least sufficient to make repayment -3-
and establish reserves for repayment of $175,, (or more) of funds advanced by CAWCD for construction of authorized features of the Central Arizona Project. Recapture will be accomplished by giving written nctice of recapture of all Schedule B capacity and energy included in the Navajo Marketing Plan and doing all other acts necessary to effect the recapture after adoption of the Plan by the Secretary of the Interior and not later than 9 days after the receipt by the Authority of a written request by CAWCD to recapture such capacity and energy. The Authority will, at the time it offers power purchase contracts for Schedule B Hoover power and energy, offer a power purchase contract to CAWCD stating the terms under which Schedule B Hoover power and energy recaptured by the Authority will be sold to CAWCD. The Authority's contract offered to CAWCD shall, to the extent practicable and consistent with the provisions of this marketing plan, contain the same terms and conditions as the contracts with other Schedule B Hoover power and energy contractors; provided, however, that the recapture provision contained in other contracts will not be included in the CAWCD contract.. The Authority will not give notice of recapture of Schedule B Hoover power and energy unless (and until) the following conditions have been met by CAWCD, nor will a recapture of Schedule B Hoover power and energy take effect unless, at the effective date of such recapture, the following conditions continue to be met by CAWCD: a. CAWCD has entered into a binding power purchase contract with the Authority for the purchase of Schedule B Hoover power and energy and CAWCD has accepted, as a part of its contract, the -4-
modifications, amendments and supplements required by the Authority in its contracts with other Schedule B Hoover power contractors. b. CAWCD shall have obtained (and the Authority shall cooperate with CAWCD in seeking to obtain) written evidence from the rating agency (or, if more than one rating agency shall have rated bonds or notes the Authority issued for the Hoover Uprating Project, rating agencies) to the effect that such rating agency or agencies has reviewed the power sales contract between the Authority and CAWCD and that, in its or their opinion, the sale of the recaptured power and energy to CAWCD pursuant to such power sales contract will result in a rating on such bonds or notes of the Authority at least equal to the then existing rating on such bonds or notes; provided, however, that nothing herein contained shall prevent CAWCD from taking such actions including, but not limited to, a letter of credit or other credit enhancement device as may be necessary or advisable to support the CAWCD's payment obligations under the power sales contract; the Authority will cooperate with CAWCD in its efforts to obtain written evidence of the opinion of such rating agency or agencies that the sale of the recaptured power and energy pursuant to such power sales contract will result in a rating on such bonds or notes of the Authority at least equal to the then existing rating on such bonds or notes. c. CAWCD has furnished to the Authority an opinion of a national consulting engineering firm that the projected revenues of the Central Arizona Water Conservation can be reasonably expected to be sufficient to fulfill its financial obligations under its power purchase contract with the Authority and such opinion is current and in place on -5-
the date upon which recapture of Schedule B Hoover power and energy takes effect. The Authority does not intend that this Hoover power marketing Plan by the Authority should constitute an interpretation of Section 17(b) of the Hoover Power Plant Act of 1984. 6. If included as a part of the Navajo Marketing Plan adopted by the Secretary of the Interior, the Authority intends to allocate and sell Schedule C energy in a manner which is consistent with such adopted Plan. 7. The available Schedule B energy will be allocated among all qualified entities based upon an equal division of kilowatt-hours per kilowatt. 8. The Authority will attempt to obtain additional supplies of energy to supplement the annual firm energy to be made available with either Schedule A or Schedule B (or both) if a customer so requests. 9. Each of the Authority's customers will be responsible for carrying the required amount of generation reserves or making appropriate arrangements with others for such reserves. The Authority, if requested by any customer, will investigate and attempt to make appropriate arrangements to obtain these generation reserves or will assist, when possible, any customer in making such arrangements. 1. The allocations of Schedule A and Schedule B have been made at transmission delivery points located on Western's Parker-Davis Transmission System. These Hoover A and B allocations are subject to adjustment, from 'time to time, for changes in transmission losses from Hoover to the transmission delivery points. Table Three includes -6-
Schedule A and Schedule B allocations, both at Hoover generation and at transmission delivery points. The results of applying the Marketing Plan guidelines and principles are summarized in attached Table Two and detailed in the attached Table Three, In general, these results are: Schedule Existing Customers New Customers Schedule A 83% 17% Schedule B3 5 % 5% A schedule for developing and completing the final Marketing Plan, the Hoover allocations and customer contracts was announced by the Authority at the September 14, 1984, Public Information Forum. Since that time, the Authority, in response to requests from interested entities, delayed publishing the Proposed Power Marketing Plan a total of 49 days to insure that all applicants received equitable treatment and also to insure that interested parties would not be penalized by a lack of reasonable opportunity to comply with the Authority's marketing schedule. The schedule for completing the remaining portions of the marketing and contracting of Hoover Schedule A and Schedule B power and energy is: * Filing of customer's application for purchase.of Hoover power and energy allocated herein. July 1, 1985 * Customer's financial data and opinion of legal counsel on ability to contract to be available. * Customer contracts available for execution October 1, 1985 October 1, 1985 3The Schedule B allocations are subject to recapture for CAWCD. -7-
* All applications and Power Purchase Certificates to be filed and issued by Authority to customers October 1, 1986 * Customer contracts with others for wheeling and delivery of Authority power (if required) October 1, 1986 The Authority will cooperate with and furnish necessary information to assist the customers in meeting the dates for the above activities in a timely manner. -8-
ALLOCATION PRINCIPLES & METHOD 1. Schedule A The Authority was guided by comments received during the public process and by its own Regulations in arriving at a fair allocation of the Schedule A resource. The Authority believes that renewal of existing contract kilowatt amounts and an allocation of the remaining Hoover Schedule A power among those districts without existing Authority contracts will provide a fair and equitable distribution of the Schedule A resource based upon the following set of allocation principles and the allocation method described below : a. Allocation Principles - Schedule A Allocation was made to the greatest number of eligible purchasers under Arizona law taking into consideration the following items: * First category preference under Title 3 to s. (A.R.S. 3-125) * Distribution made on the widest possible use. (APA Reg. R12-14-21A) * Consideration given to the existing electric needs of applicants. (APA Reg. R12-14-21B) * The reliance of existing customers on a hydroelectric power b. Allocation Method - Schedule A 1) The distribution of Schedule A power within each category was made on the basis of the applicant's net load requirement. (Power was allocated to the extent that the total hydroelectric resources (Hoover, -9-
Colorado River Storage Project -"CRSP"- and Parker-Davis) did not exceed 1 percent of the applicant's load requirements.] 2) Renewal of existing customers' kilowatt contract amounts because of reliance upon hydroelectric power. 3) Remaining Schedule A capacity (approximately 3, kw) allocated to new district applicants based on their total net existing electric load requirements. 4) Schedule A energy allocated to existing customers, as well as new eligible applicants, based upon an equal division of kilowatt-hour per kilowatt of available Schedule A energy. 2. Schedule B The Authority was guided by comments received during the public process and by its own Regulations in arriving at a fair allocation of the Schedule B resource. This allocation is represented by a set of allocation principles and an allocation method as described below: a. Allocation Principles - Schedule B Allocation was made to the greatest number of eligible purchasers under Arizona law taking into consideration the following items: * The greatest practical number of qualified potential users of electric power based on the electric load requirements of * purchaser. (APA Reg. R12-14-21C) An equitable distribution among all applicants of a class, with due consideration for priorities and preferences, as between different * classes. (APA Reg. R12-14-21C) Limited concentration of power allocated to a particular customer or service area. (APA Reg. R12-14-21E) -1-
* An equitable distribution for water programs of districts, municipalities and private utilities under Arizona law. (A. R. S. 445-251) * Long-term contract use and future load trends. * The State Water and Power Plan (Title 45 ) was originally enacted for the purpose of constructing and financing the Central Arizona Project (CAP); with the passage of federal legislation for the CAP, the financial responsibility originally contemplated by the plan in Title 45, does not now exist. However, because of the need for the State to assist the CAP under present conditions, Schedule B power and energy has been distributed as outlined above, but will be subject to recapture for the benefit of CAP. b. Allocation Method - Schedule B 1) Schedule B power and energy was.divided among qualified tax-exempt entities and qualified non tax-exempt public utilities on the basis of a 75 /25 percent division under current I. R. S. Regulations. (A.R.S. 45-258) 2) The djstribution of Schedule B power, within each method and category, was made on the basis of the applicant's net load requirement. Power was allocated to the extent that the total hydroelectric resources (Hoover, CRSP and Parker-Davis) did not exceed 1 percent of the applicant's load requirements. 3) Schedule B energy was allocated to all eligible applicants based on an equal division of kilowatt-hours per kilowatt of available Schedule B energy. 4) Three main allocation distributions were made to each category identified in Item 1 above: -11-
a) One-third of available Schedule B was allocated equally among all qualified applicants on the basis of widespread use (approximately 45, kw for tax-exempt and approximately 15, kw for non tax-exenpi utilities). b) One-third of Schedule B was allocated on the basis of water-related programs of districts, municipalities and private utilities. This distribution was limited to not greater than a 5 percent concentration to any one entity. c) One-third of Schedule B was allocated to all qualified applicants based upon peak load requirements which may occur during the years 1984-1989, including any possible conversions from natural gas irrigation pumping. This distribution was limited to not greater than a 5 percent concentration to any one entity. -12-
ELIGIBILITY FOR ALLOCATION The Authority, in accordance with the requirement to allocate Hoover power pursuant to Arizona law and the Authority's Regulations (and applicable federal statutes and regulations), has made the following determinations : 1. Preference Qualifications & Requirements of A.R.S. Title 3 & Title 45 Eligibility for Allocation of Schedule A Power In its allocations of Schedule A power, the Authority Commission was required to follow the provisions of Title 3, A.R.S., which, when read in conjunction with the provisions of the State Water and Power Plan (A.R.S. 45-251, et seq.), direct that the power resources designated as "Schedule A'' be marketed pursuant to A.R.S. 3-11, et seq, as amended. To qualify for an allocation under Title 3, an entity must be a "qualified purchaser1', "Qualified purchasers" include : "Per sons "Operating Units" 1. Natural Persons 1. s 2. Mutual & Cooperative 2. State Agencies Concerns 3. Federal Indian Agencies 3. Corporations 4. Cities 4. Business Trusts 5. Towns 5. Partnerships "s" are further defined as power organizations comprehended in the Arizona Power Authority (A.R.S. Title 3) or water organizations comprehended in A.R.S. Title 45, or both. Eligibility for Schedule A power is also controlled by the order of preference established in A.R.S. 3-125, which, in essence, states that if available power supplies are insufficient to meet pending power applications, preference must be given in the following order of priority: -13-
First: s Second: Incorporated Cities, Towns & Cooperatives Third: Applicants other than s which use power primarily for irrigation and drainage purposes, or both. Fourth : Any Qualified Applicant Because the supply of Schedule A power is insufficient to meet all pending power applications (i. e., available power, at transmission delivery, points, is 181,73 kw, and pending applications for Schedule A power exceed 649, kw), the Authority Commission, by law, has been required to restrict the allocations.of Schedule A power to s only. Therefore, no entities, other than s, are entitled to an allocation of Schedule A power, Eligibility for Allocation of Schedule B Power Arizona law requires the Authority to market the Hoover Uprating power (Schedule B) under the provisions of the State Water and Power Plan. (See A.R.S. 545-251, et seq., as amended.) Under the 1982 amendments to the State Water and Power Plan, eligibility for an allocation of Schedule B Power was restricted to public utilities providing electrical service and s organized to provide electrical service, except that non tax-exempt public utilities were allowed to purchase the maximum amount of Schedule B power permitted by federal regulations concerning the issuance of tax-free bonds. Although the definition of a "public utility", as contained in the State Water and Power Plan (A.R.S. 45-252) is quite broad, the 1982 amendments, being specific in their terms, control over the general definitions section in the statutes relating to this subject. Similarly, the definition of a lldistrictff is also quite broad, but, again, the 1982 amendments, being specific, control the general definitions. -14-
Consequently, only those public utilities "providing electrical service", and only those "districts" which are "organized to provide electrical service" were deemed eligible for an allocation for Schedule B power. Cities and towns, for example, which are not "providing electrical service" were deemed by the Commission to have been excluded from eligibility as a result of the 1982 amendments to the State Water and Power Plan. Non Tax-Exempt Entities As noted above, the 1982 amendments to the State Water and Power Plan reserved to non tax-exempt public utilities an option to purchase the maximum amount of Schedule B power which is permitted by federal regulations governing the issuance of tax-free bonds. In considering the allocations of Schedule B power, the Authority Commission assumed that current tax regulations would allow such utilities to purchase up to 25 percent of the Schedule B resource. The identity of entities as being either tax-exempt or non tax-exempt was based upon the interpretation of federal tax regulations by the Authority's bond counsel. -15-
DISCUSSION OF PUBLIC COMMENTS Throughout the public process, the Authority received numerous constructive and hslpful comments from electrical and irrigation districts, public and private electric utilities, municipalities, customer organizations, associations and private citizens. The comments centered around eight major issues: 1. The impact of possible delay upon the Hoover allocations and customer contract completion dates. 2. Hoover Schedule A and renewal of existing Hoover allocations. 3. Hoover Schedule B and the Central Arizona Project, including recapture for (and pooling with) the CAWCD. 4. Considerations under recapture conditions. 5. Considerations in allocating Hoover Schedules A and B power, including : (a) total Colorado River resources not exceeding any entity's load requirements; (b) irrigation and water-related load requirements; and (c) natural gas and future load requirements. 6. Allocation of Schedule A and Schedule B energy. 7. Allocation to City of Page. 8. Term of contracts. 1. Possible Delay of Hoover Allocation and Contract Completion Dates The Authority appreciates the significance of the comments which have been submitted by numerous entities regarding the importance of the timely completion of the Authority's Marketing Plan and the completion of the individual activities and contracts with each of the Authority's proposed customers. The Authority has recognized, and continues to recognize, the importance of timely completion of these activities so the Authority will be in -16-
a position to make all the necessary arrangements to achieve the benefits which will be available to entities in the State of Arizona through the acquisition of both Hoover Schedule A and Schedule B power. 2. Hoover Schedule A and Renewal of Existing Hoover Allocations The Plan provides for a renewal of the existing kilowatt contract amounts from Schedule A. Through the public process, the Authority received comments in favor of renewal and comments opposing such renewal. The Authority has considered both sides of this question. The predominance of comments received from s with existing Hoover contracts was for renewal. Other entities, including some s without existing Hoover contracts, also urged renewal. Those opposed to renewing the existing contract amounts indicated Schedule A power should be allocated among all qualified entities based on each entity's individual load requirements. The Authority considered both of these approaches. Study results show that little, if any, difference would result in the amount of Schedule A power (kilowatts) which would be allocated to those districts without existing Authority Hoover contracts if the methodology of allocating on the basis of individual load requirements was used. Thus, the question of renewal versus non-renewal does not weigh upon the allocation of Hoover Schedule A power. 3. Hoover Schedule B and CAWCD The Plan divides the Hoover Schedule B contingent capacity and energy between qualified tax-exempt entities and non tax-exempt entities on a 75/25 percent basis. Many comments were received regarding making some or all of. the Schedule B resource available for pooling with CAWCD generation resources for the purposes and benefit of the Central Arizona Project. -17-
Many of the comments urged that pooling concepts should be explored but that committing an allocation of the Hoover Schedule B resource for this purpose at this time was premature. The Authority recognizes that potential benefits may accrue through the future use of the Hoover Schedule B resource in conjunction with the Central Arizona Project. However, the Authority also recognizes the very same Hoover Schedule B resource can also provide current and future benefits to the applicants for this power. The Authority has recognized both of these sets of benefits in arriving at its Marketing Plan by allocating the Hoover Schedule B resource in such a manner that the Schedule B resource will be subject to recapture by the Authority in accordance with the recapture provision included under of this Marketing Plan, supra, pages 2-6. 4. Considerations Under Recapture Conditions Several s commented that to recapture Schedule B power for the benefit of CAWCD from entities not receiving water from the CAP is neither justified nor equitable. These s argued that through taxation and surcharges they are required to support the CAP but do not receive any of its direct benefits. The Authority understands these concerns and in its marketing process considered a number of suggestions. To address this problem, the Authority will, in the future, assist these s (and others if requested to do so) in solving power procurement difficulties in the following manner: a. As stated in more detail under "Conditions of APA Power Purchase Contract" in this Marketing Plan, the Authority will, under its redistribution and reallocation procedures, give due consideration to the electric needs of these customers.
b. Under the Navajo Marketing Plan addressed in the Hoover Power Plant Act of 1984 and upon recapture of Schedule B power, it is anticipated that upon implementation of that Plan, certain amounts of Navajo power and energy will be made available for purchase at appropriate savings to such purchasers. The Authority, if requested by its customers, will attempt to replace such amounts of recaptured Schedule B power with Navajo power; or explore the purchase of additional amounts of Navajo power, as well as the purchase of other lower cost power supplies. c. The Authority believes that through pooling of electric power loads and resources and through centralized wholesale power purchase contracts with generation utilities, appropriate savings can also be accomplished. The Authority will explore these alternatives with its customers. 5. Consideration in Allocating Hoover Schedules A and B Power Many of the comments received by the Authority during the public process dealt with the mechanics of allocation. These comments centered around (a) consideration of the amount of existing Colorado River resources available to each applicant; (b) the types of loads to be served, including irrigation and water-related electric load requirements ; and (c) consideration of loads currently served by natural gas and future load requirements. As previously noted, the Authority has proposed that the Schedule A capacity be allocated to s under a renewal approach combined with providing the remaining amount of Hoover Schedule A capacity to those districts without existing Hoover contracts ; the distribution of the remaining Schedule A capacity (approximately 3, kw) among those districts was made on the basis of the net load requirements. Net loads were determined -19-
by taking the five-year average kilowatt peak demand loads (1979 through 1983) as submitted in each applicant's Profile Data and deducting that applicant's share of the Colorado River electric resources (Parker-Davis plus Colorado River Storage Project ). Schedule A contingent capacity allocations were limited so that the applicant's total hydroelectric generation resources did not exceed 1 percent of the applicant's load requirements. A number of s commented that four-year average loads (obtained by omitting 1983 data, perceived by some as a year with unusually low loads because of the federal "Payment In Kind" program) should be used. The comments suggested that because 1983 was a below-average year, its inclusion produced inappropriate averages. This suggestion was tested by comparing the proposed five-year average to the suggested four-year average loads. The results showed that some entities' averages decreased and some increased. Overall, the s' four-year average load decreased by only one percent, rather than increasing, The five-year average provides a broader base of data, and no equitable basis for eliminating 1983 appears to exist. Two s commented that existing natural gas loads should have been included in the allocation bases for both Hoover Schedules A and B. A variety of factors have been suggested for allocating Schedules A and B. The Authority Commission has considered several alternative bases, including natural gas loads. The use of many of these factors would have increased the complexity of the allocation process beyond reasonable bounds. Examples of these complexities (in the case of natural gas loads) are that the Authority would have been required to obtain commitment schedules for converting the natural gas facilities which, in turn, would require a mechanism for reviewing the schedule of conversions. Further, the Authority would have been -2-
required to assure that satisfactory electric transmission and distribution facilities were either in place, or could be arranged, in time for these potential customers to receive allocated power. The Authority Commission has, however, given recognition to identifiable natural gas loads by including those requirements as future loads in the allocation base for a portion of Schedule B. The proposed allocation issued on March 29, 1985, used the existing CRSP contract amounts. Many entities commented that future CRSP allocations are to be reduced (effective 1989) in accordance with a September, 1984, announcement by the Western Area Power Administration. It was suggested that the Authority should use the future CRSP amounts instead of the existing amounts. Both levels of the CRSP resource were investigated. The use of future CRSP amounts causes only small changes in the allocation of Schedules A and B. The Authority Commission believes it is appropriate to use the future CRSP amounts in the process of determining net loads for the final allocation of Hoover Schedules A and B. A few comments were received regarding the use of the highest five-year peak demand for four s (which would have received a smaller allocation than their existing contract amounts) in arriving at the proposed Schedule A allocation. The Authority Commission, in order to be consistent in its allocation method, used the same approach (five-year average peak demands) for all s in the final allocation of Hoover Schedule A capacity. 6. Allocation of Schedules A and B Energy The Plan provides for allocating Schedules A and B energy on an equal kilowatt-hours per kilowatt basis. The Authority received several comments during the public process favoring this approach; no comments in opposition were received. -21-
The equal kilowatt-hours per kilowatt approach is consistent with past practices of the Authority and others in the distribution of energy associated with an electric capacity resource. The Authority also believes this approach will provide the best and most fair distribution of this energy among all entities receiving a share of either Hoover Schedule A or Hoover Schedule B capacity. 7. Allocation to City of Page The Authority has allocated 1, kw of Schedule B Hoover power and energy to the City of Page, Arizona, contingent upon the City executing a power sales contract when offered by the Authority and further conditioned upon the completion by the City of arrangements necessary to qualify itself as a public utility providing electric service not later than six months prior to the effective date of the contract. Comments from the Town of Gilbert, Arizona, and the Gila River Indian Community Utility Authority ("CRICUA") suggest (among other points) that they should be treated similarly to Page because they intend, at some future time, to provide electrical service. Based upon present circumstances, the position of the City of Page is easily distinguishable from that of Gilbert and GRICUA. In the case of Page, the City has already undertaken the steps necessary to qualify as an entity "providing electrical service". Page has held an election in which the voters approved acquisition of electric facilities of Arizona Public Service Company (APA) which services the City.4 Based upon the approval of its voters, Page 4 The Authority understands that a lawsuit contesting the election is on appeal. -22-
has also commenced condemnation proceedings to acquire the APS facilities. Neither Gilbert or GRICUA has undertaken similar qualifying steps. Furthermore, Page arguably is already "providing electrical service" as a result of the direct allocation to it, of Colorado River Storage Project (CRSP) power, pursuant to the "Page, Arizona, Community Act of 1974" (P.L. 93-493, 93rd Congress; H.R. 15736, October 27, 1974), a part of the "Reclamation Development Act of 1974". 8. Term of Contracts The Authority received several comments during the public process which urged a fixed thirty-year contract term. As previously noted, by the Authority at page 19 of its Hoover Power Marketing booklet (initially distributed at the Public Information Forum on September 14, 1984), the Authority's contract with its customers will have a term of thirty years. In accordance with A.R.S. Title 3, the Authority reserves the right to terminate that portion of the contract attributable to Schedule A power and energy, upon reasonable notice by the Authority, at any time after the initial twenty-year contract period. -23-
CONDITIONS OF APA POWER PURCHASE CONTRACT 1. Customer's Contract Subject to Western Area Power Administration Contracts The Authority's contract with the Western Area Power Administration (Western) will contain terms and conditions which will be applicable to power marketed by Western under the Conformed General Consolidated Power Marketing Criteria or Regulations for the Boulder Canyon Area Projects and in accordance.with the Hoover Power Plant Act of 184. The Authority's contracts with its customers, effective June 1, 1987, will also contain terms and conditions which are necessary to comply with the provisions of the Authority's contract for purchase of Hoover power from Western, as well as the terms and conditions for delivery under a transmission contract from Western of such power to points of delivery on Western's Parker-Davis Transmission System. Terms and conditions of the Authority's contracts with its customers will provide for (but will not be limited to) the following: 1) Contract Term; 2) Conservation Programs ; 3) Reserve Requirements; 4) Transfer of Contract Rights; 5) Conditions on Resale of Power and Energy; 6) Metering; 7) Performance Bonds; 8) Delivery Points and Conditions; 9) Losses; 1) Billing; 11) CAWCD Recapture Provision; and 12) Power Availability. The contracts will also be subject to all applicable provisions of federal law, including the Colorado River Compact; the Hoover Power Plant Act of 1984; the Boulder Canyon Project Act; and the Boulder Canyon Project Adjustment Act and any applicable federal regulations relating to the Hoover hydro-power resource. 2. Power Purchase Certificate No person or operating unit in the State shall become a purchaser of -24-
electrical power from the Authority unless a power purchase certificate is obtained as provided in Article 3, Title 3 Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.), or as provided by the Authority's Regulations. Following the date upon which power purchase contracts are offered for execution (scheduled for October 1, 1985), and not later than October 1, 1986, a purchaser shall apply for and obtain a power purchase certificate from the Authority, pursuant to procedures established by the Authority. 3. Opinion Letters of Legal Counsel; Resolution Upon execution of a power purchase contract; upon initial revenue bond financing by the Authority and upon any subsequent financing, each purchaser will be required to provide to the Authority (and its financial representatives) an opinion letter of the purchaser's legal counsel indicating that the purchaser is legally entitled to enter into the contract upon the terms and conditions set forth in the contract. The opinion letter must also be accompanied by a proper form of Resolution authorizing the execution of the contract by the purchaser. The opinion letter and the Resolution must be in a form acceptable to the Authority and its advisors and will be in substantially the same form as the letter and Resolution previously circulated among interested parties. (A sample form of opinion letter and Resolution will be provided upon request.) 4. Financial Data In connection with the Authority's power purchase contracts and its financing program for the Hoover Uprating Project, each purchaser will be required, upon the Authority's request, to provide financial data and certification regarding such financial data. -25-
5. Facilities of Others A purchaser not engaged in the management and operation of its own electric transmission or distribution system will be required, on or before October 1, 1986, to submit for approval by the Authority, its respective contracts or agreements with others for the handling, wheeling, utilization, administration and delivery of power and energy purchased from the Authority. 6. Power Excess to Needs of Purchaser a. Relinquishment with Right to Recapture: Authority Hoover power, from time to time, may be in excess of the purchaser's immediate needs. Power purchase contracts will provide that purchasers may tender or relinquish to the Authority, for resale by the Authority, power and energy not deemed immediately needed. Such power and energy will be subject to recapture by the purchaser if needful and necessary within a reasonable period of time. However, such tender or relinquishment for resale shall not relieve the purchaser of any original contractual obligations except under such conditions as may be provided in supplemental contracts or agreements covering the resale of such power or energy. b. Restoration to Authority Power Pool: Authority Hoover power, from time to time, may be in excess of the purchaser's needs due (among other things) to load change or delivery of Central Arizona Project water. Authority contracts will provide that any Schedule A or Schedule B power which is found to be excessive or unnecessary for the electric needs of the purchaser may be surrendered for restoration to the Authority power pool, subject to approval of the Authority; provided, however, that in the resale or reallocation of power and energy under -26-
this paragraph and under paragraph 6a, above, due regard and consideration shall be given to the electric needs of qualified districts which do not receive, or are not eligible to receive, delivery of water from CAP 7. Failure to Contract If a purchaser (or contract at the time such potential purchaser) fails to place power under contract is offered by the Authority (scheduled for October 1, 1985), in accordance with the terms and conditions offered by the Authority, or fails to obtain a power purchase certificate (or fails to meet conditions precedent or to provide such other documentation or agreements that may be required for the delivery of such power), the amount of power and energy for which no effective contract has been made will be reallocated for purchase by other qualified entities. 8. Allocation at Transmission Delivery Points The amounts of Hoover contingent capacity (kw) and energy (kwh) listed in the attached Tables Two and Three are at transmission delivery points on Western's Parker-Davis Transmission System. To determine capacity and energy amounts at generation, a four percent (4%) loss figure must be added. This four percent (4%) transmission loss value is subject to modification from time to time. Appropriate adjustments will be made in the amounts of Hoover Schedules A and B capacity and energy when (and if) the four percent (4%) value is modified. The Authority has also included in Table Three, the allocation of Hoover Schedules A and B capacity and energy, at generation. 9. Hoover Uprating Program The capacity amounts listed for Schedule B are equivalent to the Authority's total allocated amount. The total Hoover Uprating Program will provide an additional 53 MW of contingent capacity, of which the Authority -27-
has been allocated 188 MW. The Hoover Uprating Program is now underway by the United States Bureau of Reclamation (Bureau), and the Authority estimates that approximately 9 MW will be available to the Authority on June 1, 1987 (the Bureau's determination of this amount is not known at this time). The development and subsequent availability of the Hoover Uprating capacity and associated energy is contingent upon the Authority finalizing financing agreements with the Bureau. The availability of such capacity and energy is also contingent upon completion of the Uprating Program, which is to be completed in stages and is currently scheduled for completion in 1992. Power contracts effective on June 1, 1987, will contain an estimated schedule for power deliveries from the Uprating Program as the Program progresses. If any part of the Uprating Program is not completed, the total amount of contingent capacity initially allocated to contractors will be reduced on a proportional basis. Power proposed for Schedule A allocations will not be affected. If, subsequent to such a *capacity reduction, the Uprating Program is reinstated, in whole or in part, the amounts initially allocated will be restored to the contractors in proportionate amounts as the Upratings are completed. -28-
E N T I T Y C O M M E N T S S U M M A R Y
TABLE ONE PAGE 1-1 JUNE 7, 1985 ENTITY -c- Aguila Irrigation Avra Valley Irrigation & Drainage Buckeye Water Conservation Central Arizona Water Conservation Chandler Heights Citrus Irrigation Cortaro-Harana Irrigation Electrical 1, Pinal Electrical 2, Pinal Elect rical 3, Pinal Electrical 4, Pinal Electrical 5, Maricopa Electrical 5, Pinal Electrical 6, Pinal ARS ARS HIGHEST TITLE TITLE MAINT PEAK 3 45 SCBED RENEWAL DEMAND - - - - - A* A* * A* SCXED B FOR CAWCD - D D * A* A* * LOADS 5-YEAR ALLOCATION CURRENT CRSP/NET TERM OF GAS LOADS SCBED A SCRED B LOADS CONTRACTS SCHED C.. NATURAL AVG - -I - D * A* * A* * D D * A* * * A* * A* * * *
TABLE ONE PAGE 1-2 JUNE 7, 1985 Electrical 7, Maricopa Electrical 8, Maricopa Harquahala Power Maricopa Water - - - - A* * A I I GH EST PEAK DEHAND - SCHED B FOR CAWCD - A* * D *f A McMullen Valley Water D Conservation & Drainage Ocotillo Water Conservation Queen Creek Irrigation Roosevelt Irrigation A A Roosevelt Wa t e r Conservation Salt River Project * A* A* San Tan Irrigation Silverbell Irrigation & Drainage Tonopah Irrigation D We 1 1 t o n-mo h a w k A A A Irrigation & Drainage D D A* * D LOADS NATURAL GAS D A* * A* A* * A* * A* D D
TABLE ONE PAGE 1-3 JUNE 7, 1985 ENTITY... City of Mesa city of Page City of Saf ford Town of Thatcher Town of Wickenburg ARS ARS TITLE TITLE MAINT 3 45 SCEED RENEWAL - - - - A* A A* A* ' * * * * * * * - - c - SCHED B FOR CAWCD - A* D * * * LOADS 5-YEAR NATURAL AVG GAS LOADS - * * * * * * CUR RENT CRSP/NET LOADS - A* * TERM OF CONTRACTS - A* * * * Ak-Chin Indian Community Arizona Electric A* Power Cooperative Arizona Public Service Company Citizens Utilities Company Papago Tribal Utility Authority San Carlos Project * Tucson Electric Power Company
TABLE ONE PAGE 1-4 JUNE 7, 1985 ARS ARS HIGHEST SCRED B LOADS 5-YEAR ALLOCATION CURRENT TITLE TITLE MAINT PEAK CNSP/NET TERM OF 3 45 SCHED RENEWAL DEMAND CAWCD GAS LOADS SCHED A SCHED B LOADS CONTRACTS SCHED C. I FOR NATURAL AVG - Agri-Business Council of Arizona, Inc. Arizona Municipal Power Users' Association A A A A 3 YR D Arizona Power Pooling Association A A A A A City of Phoenix City of Tucson Gila River Indian Community Utility Auth. Irrigation & Electrical s Assoc. of Arizona A A D A A D Southern Arizona Water Resources Association Town of Gilbert * MEMBER OF AMPUA. SEE AMPUA'S COMMENTS. MEMBER OF IEDA. SEE IEDA'S COMMENTS. A = AGREE D = DISAGREE
S C H E D U L E A A N D S C H E D U L E B A L L O C A T I O N S I
* TOTALS 377, 857,989, 25.98% 2,276 * =5====== ====I======== =====c== ======a======= * * * HOOVER POWER AVAILABLE AT TRANSMISSION DELIVERY POINTS * * * * SCHEDULE B ENTITIES: * TAX-EXEMPT: (1) * NON TAX-EXEMPT: (2) * (1) ASSUMED TO * (2) ASSUMED TO * * * * * * * * * * * * 135,58 152,887, 12.87% 1,128 45,19 5,959, 12.87% 1,128 BE 75%. BE 25%. *.............................. * * * JUNE 7, 1985
TABLE TWO PAGE 2-1 JUNE 7, 1985 AT TRANSMISSION DELIVERY POINTS -^- Aguila Irrigation 6, 48 21,681,826 6,48 21,681,826 23,8 75,451 6,5 12, 227, Avra Valley Irrigation & Drainage 1, 575 4, 466, 1,575 4,466, 23, 119,22, 24 1, 58 3,179, Buckeye Water Conse rva t io n Di st r i c t 2,871 6,285,729 2,871 6,285,729 4, 4 18,586, 2,87 9,89, Central Arizona Water Conservation 23,732 143,, 141, 159,, Chandler Heights Citrus Irrigation 1,282 5, 652,674 894 4,663,682 1, 4 6,7, 89 3, 42, Cortaro-Narana Irrigation 6,188 18,329,541 6, 188 18,329,541 7,8 32,848, 6,19 21,157, Electrical 1, Pinal 12,793 39,374,959 12,793 39,374,959 19,7 71,96, 1,24 22, 976, Electrical 2, Pinal 53, 18 193,538, 43,539 168,952,736 37,351 96,584, 28,7 74,482, Electrical 3, Pinal 75,656 271,56,692 64,64 237,169,388 93,2 424,12, 27,82 54, 962, Electrical 4, Pinal 31,78 134,679,297 27,71 122, 855,457 41,3 2,8, 24,9 7,97, Electrical 5, Maricopa 1,987 4,84, 448 343 611,24 2,65 8,7, 34 1,162, Electrical 5, Pinal 2,462 87,623,861 17,673 8,512,421 22, 114,5, 17,18 51,895, Electrical 6, Pi nal 34,319 14,94,356 28,37 89,77,1 31, 125,8, 1 5,8 35,452,
TABLE TWO PAGE 2-2 AT TRANSMISSION DELIVERY POINTS Electrical 7, Maricopa 11,529 48,925,825 13,1 58,5, kw 11, 53 Electrical 8, Maricopa 32,961 85, 56, 53 32,961 85, 56,53 48,1 131,658, 23,26 55,75, Harquahala Power 6,14 191576,48 6,14 19,576,48 25,5 6,, 6,9 12,34, Maricopa Water 17,222 53,87,261 11,747 39, 99,317 19,4 116,7, 11,37 McMullen Valley Water Conservation & Drainage 9,341 19,633,641 9,341 19,633,641 29,2 53,11, 8,74 Ocotillo Water Conservation 3,991 2,879 11,566,285 2,3 9,683, 2,3 71 861, Queen Creek Irrigation 6,165 17,77,524 4,356 13,158,492 6,8 22,7, 4,35 8,799, Roosevelt Irrigation 19,15 65,52,792 14,11 52,293,816 16,2 65,423, 7,85 15,952, Roosevelt Water Conservation 2,24 75,638,529 17,955 2,2 12,79 29,31, Salt River Project 2, 133,2 91821,44,4 2, 3,385 9,424,24,736 195,957 326,227,6 61,87 155,196, San Tan Irrigation 2,636 9,694,245 1,786 71527,765 3, 12,, 1,79 3,164, Silverbell Irrigation 1,738 & Drainage 4,854,693 1,738 4,854,693 1,75 5,, 68 2,324, Tonopah Irrigation 3,811 12,739,839 3, 811 12,739,839 4,3 16,5, 3,81 7,79, W el 1 t on-mohawk 3,87 Irrigation & Drainage 138,,54 27,663 122, 859, 444 11, 26,158, 7,8 15,28,
TABLE TWO PAGE 2-3 JUNE 7, 1985 FIVE-Y EAR AVERAGE LOADS (3)... - ENTITY kw kwh _I -_ City of Mesa 54,52 214,387,4 City of Page 1,233 46,23,948 City of Safford 9,432 37,885,343 Town of Thatcher 2,525 12,882, 893 Town of Wickenburg 3,392 13,653,5 -_- *Subtotal IRS Tax-Exempts 2,655,353 11,759,87,649 - TOTAL SCHEDULES A AND B ALLOCATIONS (1)... kw kwh 4,94 5,571, 1, 1,128, 2, 2,255, Ak-Chin Indian Commu n i ty Arizona Electric power Cooperative Arizona Public Service Company Citizens Utilities Company Papago Tribal Utility Authority San Carlos Project Tucson Electric Fower Company *Subtotal IRS Non Tax-Exempts 5,129 277,441 19,43, 1,611,81,16 1,7 241,876 9,79,856 1,468,45,91 3,9 47, 19,85, 411,72, 1,7 3,3 2,833,68 13,739,658,2 2,833,68 13,739,658,2 128, 33,775, 23,93 14,311 4,599 515,643,57 21,676,632 14,311 4,599 515,643,57 21,676,632 25, 15, 38,13, 5,25, 2,8 2,37 2,47 9,25 1,27, 3,721, 26,985, 3,157, 2,673, 2,785, 1,431, TOTAL :
(1) THE AMOUNTS OF SCHEDULE A ALLOCATIONS AND SCHEDULE B ALLOCATIONS ARE SHOWN ON THE ATTACHED TABLE THREE. (2) THE VALUES SHOWN FOR TOTAL APPLICATIONS ARE EITHER THE SUM OR MAXIMUM OF THE SCHEDULE A AND SCHEDULE B AMOUNTS SPECIFIED IN EACH APPLICATION AS APPROPRIATE. (3) THE FIVE-YEAR AVERAGE LOADS ARE THE AVERAGE OF THE 1979 THROUGH 1983 KILOWATT (kw) AND KILOWATT-HOUR (kwh) AMOUNTS SPECIFIED IN THE PROFILE DATA ACCOMPANYING EACH APPLICATION. (4) THE NET LOADS ARE THE FIVE-YEAR AVERAGE LOADS LESS EACH ENTITY'S ENTITLEMENT FROM PARKER-DAVIS AND COLORADO RIVER STORAGE PROJECT (ADJUSTED FOR LOSSES TO TRANSMISSION DELIVERY POINTS). PAGE 2-4
DETAILED INFORMATION REGARDING SCHEDULE A AND SCHEDULE B ALLOCATIONS
TABLE THREE PAGE 3-1 JUNE 7, 1985 EXISTING APA CONTRACTS AND NEW SCHEDULES A AND B ALLOCATIONS AT TRANSMISSION DELIVERY POINTS...... Aguila Irrigation Avra Valley Irrigation & Drainage kw I. kwh - 2,36 8,66, 61 2,85, 3,69 97 4, 161, 1,94, TOTAL kw 6, 5 1,58 TOTAL kwh -_ 12, 227, 3,179, Buckeye Water Conservation Central Arizona Water Conservation 3, 12,636, 2,87 9,89, 2,87 9,89, Chandler Heights Citrus Irrigation 9 3,792, 89 3,42, 89 3142, Co r ta ro -Mar an a Irrigation Electrical 1, Pinal 7,8 32, 848, 6,19 4,99 21,157, 17,56, 5, 25 5,92, 6,19 1,24 21,157, 22,976, Electrical 2, Pinal 18,7 78,746, 18,7 63,916, 9,37 1,566, 28,7 74,482, Electrical 3, Pinal 1 3 43,378, 1,3 35, 25, 17,52 19,7571 27,82 54, 962, Electrical 4, Pinal 16,7 78,746, 16,7 63,916, 6, 2 6, 991, 24,9 7,97, Electrical 5, Maricopa 1, 4,212, 34 11162, 34 1, 162, Electrical 5, Pinal 14,2 59,799, 14,2 48,535, 2,98 3, 36, 17,18 51,895, Electrical 6, Pinal 7,7 32,429, 7,7 26,318, 8,1 9,134, 15, 8 35, 452,
TABLE THREE PAGE 3-2 JUNE 7, 1985 Electrical 7, 1,1 Maricopa Electrical 8, Mar icopa Harquahala Power 42,532, EXISTING APA CONTRACTS AND NEW SCHEDULES A AND B ALLOCATIONS...... NEW SCHEDULE A ALLOCATIONS 1,1 12,87 2,39 34,521, 43,989, 8,168, 1,43 1,39 3,7 1,613, 11,716, 4,172, AT TRANSMISSION DELIVERY POINTS NEW TOTAL SCHEDULES A.and B ALLOCATIONS... TOTAL kw TOTAL kwh 11,53 23,26 6,9 36,134, 55,75, 12,34, Maricopa Water 8,5 McMullen Valley Water Conservation & Drainage 35,794, 8,5 3,65 29,53, 12, 475, 2,87 5,9 3,236, 5,74, 11,37 8174 32,289, 18,215, Ocotillo Water Cons e rva tion Di s t r ic t Queen Creek Irrigation 2, 3 9,683, 2,3 1,7 7,861, 5,811, 2,65 2,988, 2,3 4,35 7, 861, 8, 799, Roosevelt Irrigation 3,1 13,49, 3,1 1,596, 4,75 5,356, 7,85 15,952, Roosevelt Water Con se rva t ion D i st ric t 6,5 27,371, 6,5 22,217, 6,29 7,93, 12,79 29,31, Salt River Project 37,3 157,79, 37,3 127,489,, 24,57 27,77, 61,87 155,196, San Tan Irrigation Silverbell Irrigation & Drainage Tonopah Irrigation 5 2,16, 5 68 1, 49 1, 79, 2,324, 5, 93, 1,29 2,32 1,455, 2,616, 1,79 68 3,81 3,164, 2,324, 7,79, Wellton-Mohawk Irrigation & Drainage *Subtotal D i s t ri c t s: 2, 8 2, 8 9,57, 5,.. 124,43 5,638, 7,8 15,28,
TABLE THREE PAGE 3-3 JUNE 7, 1985 City of Mesa City of Page City of Safford Town of Thatcher Town of Wickenburg *Subtotal IRS Tax-Exempts 153,4 645,989, Ak-Chin Indian Community Arizona Electric Power Cooperative Arizona Public Service Company Citizens Utilities Company Papago Tribal utility Authority San ;Carlos Project Tucson Electric Power Company *Subtotal IRS Non Tax-Exempts 3,3 3,721, 23,93 26,985, 2,8 3,157, 2,37 21673, TOTAL :
TABLE THREE PAGE 3-4 JUNE 7, 1985 AT GENERATION - EXISTING APA CONTRACT AMOUNTS Aguila Irrigation Avra Valley Irrigation & Drainage 2,45 63 8,389, 2,168, 3,84 1, 1 4,327, 1,138, 6,29 1,64 12,716, 3,36, Buckeye Water Conservation Central Arizona Water Conservation 3, 12,636, 2,98 1,21, 2,98 1,21, Chandler Heights Citrus Irrigation 9 3,792, 93 3,164, 93 3,164, Cortaro-Marana Irrigation Electrical 1, Pinal 7, 8 32,848, 6,44 5,19 22,3, 17,738, 5,46 6,157, 6, 44 1,65 22,3, 23,895, Electrical 2, Pinal 18,7 78,746, 19,45 66,473, 9,74 1,989, 29,19 77,462, Electrical 3, Pinal 1,3 43,378, 1,71 36,613, 18,22 2,547, 28,93 57,16, Electrical 4, Pinal 18,7 78,746, 19,45 66,473, 6,45 7,271, 25,9 73,744, Electrical 5, Maricopa 1, 4,212, 35 1,28, 35 1,28, Electrical 5, Pinal 14,2 59,799, 14,77 5,476, 3,1 3,494, 17,87 53,97, Electrical 6, Pinal 7,7 32,429, 8,1 27,371, 8,42 9,499, 16,43 36,87,
TABLE THREE PAGE 3-5 JUNE 7, 1985 AT GENERATION - EXISTING APA CONTRACT AMOUNTS Electrical 7, 1,1 Mar i copa Electrical 8, Maricopa Marquahala Power 42,532, 1,5 13,39 2, 49 45,749, 8, 495, 1,49 1, 81 3, 85 1, 678, 12,185, 4,339, 11, 99 24,2 6,34 37,58, 57,934, 12, 834, Maricopa Water 8,5 McMullen Valley Water Conservation & Drainage 35,794, 8,84 3, 8 3, 215, 12,974, 2, 98 5, 29 3,365, 5, 97, 11, 82 9,9 33,58, 18,944, Ocotillo Water Conservation Queen Creek Irrigation 2,3 9,683, 2, 39 1,77 8, 175, 6,43, 2,76 3,18, 2,39 4,53 Roosevelt Irrigation 3,1 13 I 49 I 3, 22 11,2, 4,94 5,57, 8,16 16,59, Roo s eve lt Wa t er Conservation 6, 5 27,371, 6,76 23,1O6,OOO 6,54 7,377, 13,3 3,483, Salt River Project 37,3 157,79, 38,79 25,55 28,815, 64,34 161,44, San Tan Irrigation Silverbell Irrigation & Drainage Tonopah Irrigation 5 2,16, 52 71 1, 55 5,297, 1,34 2,41 1,513, 2,721, 1,86 71 3,96 3,29, 2, 417, 8,18, Wellton-Mohawk Irrigation & Drainage 2,8 2, 91 9,953, 5, 2 5,864, 8,11 *Subtotal s:
TABLE THREE PAGE 3-6 JUNE- 7, 1985 EXISTING APA CONTRACTS AND NEW SCHEDULES A AND B ALLOCATIONS... AT GENERATION - City of Mesa City of Page city of Safford Town of Thatcher Town of Wickenburg *Subtotal IRS Tax-Exempts 153,4 645,989, 5,14 5,794, 1,4 1,173, Ak-Chin Indian Community Arizona Electric Power cooperative Arizona Public Service Company Citizens Utilities Company Papago Tribal Utility Authority Sari Carlos Project Tucson Electric Power Company *Subtotal IRS Non Tax-Exempts 3,43 3,87, 3,43 3,87, 24,89 28,64, 24,89 28,64, 2,91 3,283, 2,91 3,283, 2,57 2,896, L- 9,62 1,848, 2,47 2,78, 2, 57 2,896, 9,62 1,848,