Common use of Hypothetical Example Clause in Contracts

Hypothetical Example. Subject to appropriate Congressional authorizations, construct a renewable power generating or hybrid renewable/conventional power generating facility on Indian lands closer to load centers that could produce a revenue stream that would be dedicated to reducing the costs related to tribal water supplies or supply a revenue stream to the Development Fund to offset reduced revenues from the reduced sale of excess NGS power supplies. – Options do not necessarily need to off-set NGS power production. o The above hypothetical example could either provide a source of power for the CAP pumping needs to offset NGS power or all the power could be sold to provide a revenue stream and NGS would continue to supply all power needs of the CAP project. – Options may be revenue generating. o If, in the above hypothetical example, power is marketed solely to provide a revenue stream, that revenue stream could be used to either buy down the cost of water for Tribes or provide a revenue stream to the Development Fund. – Options should have an energy nexus (other non-energy revenue generating initiatives may be explored under a complementary initiative) and may be inclusive of power generation or some degree of energy intensity reduction initiatives. – Final BART Rule may be a constraint to the consideration of some potential options; however, some options may be independent of BART and evaluated on a “no-regrets basis,” i.e., they would be potentially viable under any foreseeable BART outcome. – Information generated during this scope element may be of use in preparation of the NGS-KMC EIS. – Potential Non-Federal Participants o Affected CAP Tribes o Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR) o Governor of Arizona – Federal agencies’ participation may be limited to those that have applicable authority, programs or interests. – Programmatic funds may be allocated to conduct planning evaluations of potential options: for example, potential use of “programmatic” resources or existing authorized projects/studies to evaluate power-/water-related options that would produce economic benefits as an off-set to the NGS benefits currently supporting the tribes. – Some elements of the Development Fund may be able to provide funding to implement this scope element or a subsequent project. o Because this could be considered an implementation action necessary under AWSA, it may be possible to utilize funding that currently exists in the Development Fund to conduct this study and, pending its relationship to the fund, implement the project. – WaterSMART (Sustain and Manage America’s Resources for Tomorrow)/Secure Water Act - Public Law 111-11, Rural Water Supply Act - Public Law 109-451, or Native American Affairs (NAA) Technical Assistance Program (TAP) may be able to provide funding to implement this scope element or a subsequent project. – Short-Term to Mid-Term – Appraisal Level Report of Findings – Identify subgroup members who will participate in this scope element – August 2013 – Prepare draft scope, schedule and budget – September/October 2013 – Share draft scope/schedule with non-federal participants requesting participation in the process –October 2013 – Share draft scope/schedule with CAWCD, Affected CAP Tribes and ADWR water users not requesting participation in the process – October 2013 – Develop complete scope, schedule and budget –November 2013 – Identify funding source and complete cost-share agreement(s) –October 2013 – Draft Report of Finding – July 2014 Final Report of Findings – September 2014