WSP08794

• File Number: 8220.100.50
• Description: CRSP - Power Marketing
• Basin: Colorado Mainstem
• Date: 6/1/1983
• Author: Karen Smith
• Title: Dividing the Power - The Colorado River Basin States and the Colorado River Storage Project
• Water Supply Pro - Doc Type: Publication

r

.

.

necessary resolutions of support for their position./49 If the
Bureau was to reject the investor-owned utilities' o11er and move
away from the "participation project" concept, it would need the
complete support of all the preference groups.

The Permanent Allocation

The key to a consensus agreement on the permanent allocation
of 240 mw to Arizona seemed to hinge on all parties "giving
proper weight to (their) collective ability to take advantage of
diversity between winter and summer peak demands on the Storage
Project"./SO

The Upper Colorado River Commission had considered the power
marketing problem of interest to them primarily because of its
interrelationship with the Glen Canyon filling criteria. They
also felt some responsibility for taking a position on the
criteria since they were led to believe the Secretary of Interior
"would welcome" a statement of recommendation from the
Commission./Sl The Commission drafted a suggested power market
criceria statement to send to the Secretary which defined the
primary market area as those regions within economic transmission
distance in the Upper Basin states; and a secondary market area
of those regions within economic transmission distance within
Arizona, and those parts of California and Nevada within the
Colorado River drainage basin. Preference customer loads in the
primary market area were to be served to fill 1970 requirements
as determined by the Secretary of Interior. Prior to the need
for surplus CRSP power by Upper Basin preference users,
preference customer loads in the secondary market area were to be
served. The permanent allocation ~eature to the Lower Basin was
handled in the following manner:

In recognition of the possibility that in
order to be attractive to consumers in the
secondary market area, contracts for sales
of power may need to include provision for
continuing a minimum power supply beyond the
recapture period, it is recommended that any
such mi nimum, if deemed neces sary, should
not exceed 15 percent of the generation of
the power plants of the Colorado River
Storage Project./S2

The Power Commi~tee of the Colorado Water Conservation Board
f~lt the UCRC draft was in minor conflict in two wavs with
recommendations previously made within the State of-Colorado.
;hese involved che l~n9th of time surnlus ~ower should b~
available to Low~r Basin preference customers before reappraisal
of Uocer BaSln oreference customer needs (~ive years versus the
CCRC;~ ten years) and tne permanent allocatio~ feat~r~.

7he C~CB believed the l~ perc~~t of generatio~ fl~ure w&~
:00 rl~id for a ~e:mane~t ~ll!Jca:lon. anJ shoGl~ te ~5j0 ~~(~

11