Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />and a permanent Arizona allocation of 240 megawatts (mw) of CRSP <br />power. CRSP power surplus to Upper Basin needs would be <br />purchased by Arizona preference users with the understanding it <br />would be recaptured by the Upper Basin as their loads <br />de',eloped./43 <br /> <br />"What we are suggesting," Les Alexandet told the preference <br />power organization, "is that the preference users in Arizona <br />assist you to guarantee the repayment revenue for CRSP and <br />participating projects through purchase of the power (the <br />investor-owned utilities) want to sponge up..."/44 The permanent <br />Arizona allocation of 240 mw, or one-fifth of CRSP estimated <br />power, was necessary to justify transmission line construction <br />from Glen Canyon south to carry CRSP pOwer to the Phoenix market. <br />If the Upper Basin states insisted upon a power market limited to <br />their region, Alexander and Jordan, Arizona's representatives to <br />the CRBCP, estimated the project would lose approximately $50 <br />million in power revenues due to the investor-owned utilities <br />purchasing surplus power at non-firm rates; this would hamper <br />construction of the participating projects. If the investor- <br />owned utilities also built sections of the CRSP transmission <br />system, Alexander and Jordan judged that Upper Basin preference <br />customers would pay an additional S60 million in wheeling charges <br />by the end of project payout./45 <br /> <br />Arizona preference users believed the five-state preference <br />market area, with a permanent 240 mw allocation to Arizona, was <br />an equitable solution to the power marketing controv~rsy; they <br />also believed it made good economic sense. Alexander delivered <br />copies of the Arizona plan to Assistant Secretary of the Interior <br />Fred Aandahl, USBR Commissioner Floyd Dominy and USBR Assistant <br />Commissioner Newcomb Bennett on February 16, 1960, and to Lynn <br />Kuiper of the Co~otado Water Conservation Board February 24, <br />1960./46 . <br /> <br />The Bureau followed these discussions between preference <br />users in the Upper and Lower Basins with great interest. <br />Congress's attitude regarding reclamation project power <br />development had focused, .in the 1950's, on "participation <br />projects"; that is, federal power developments in which investor- <br />owned utilities shared in their construction and benefits./47 <br />The Eisenhower Administration also supported the partiCipatIOn <br />project concept. The Bureau, therefore, felt obliged to give <br />every consideration to the investor-owned utilities' plan for <br />CRSP power distribution. <br /> <br />Yet the Bureau's natural electric Dower constituencv was the <br />Dre~erence customer, and USBR and Interior officials urged <br />oreference customers to agree to a power ffiarketing plan which <br />~o~lj allow power delivery to those preference customers outSide <br />of ~~e Upper Basin states./48 Assistant Co~misSloner Bennett <br />war.:ed a general consensus on the DOWer ~arkpt area from hoth <br />gro~=2 of preference customers, and suggested tr.at the ~r~zona <br />,e::,,~~pntat i':ps to the CRBCP (i\le"an'~e, ",,,.j Jordan) sec"r-o the <br /> <br />10 <br />