WSP08794 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

, . . . elastic to take account of seasonal demands. Since the permanent allocation would be sold outside the Upper Basin without the rec30ture clause, Colorado was concerned that 15 oercent was too high- as a fixed, year-round amount./53 Instead, Felix Sparks (CWCB) suggested a permanent allocation which could be increased during the summer and decreased during the winter; in other words, a figure based upon seasonal demands. Sparks suggested a figure from five to twenty percent, during specified periods./54 Governor Clyde of Utah, perhaps the most outspoken of the Commissioners present, agreed to the concept of a permanent allocation based upon a curve rather than a fixed figure. But he thought there should be some maximum amount above which the Lower Basin could not expect to take firm power or a block of firm ~~~er out of the primary market area./55 The UCRC agreed to give its Secretary, Ival Goslin, authority to send a proposed power market criteria draft to the Secretary of Interior after meeting with the Joint Power Committee of the Colorado Water Conservation Board and the Colorado River Basin Consumers' Power, Inc., March 3, 1960 in Denver./56 At the power allocation consultation meeting in Denver, Arizona representatives presented a strong case for a permanent allocation for that state's preference customers. The earliest sale, at firm rates, of all power produced on the CRSP required integration of the Upper and Lower Basin systems. Other advantages accruing to both regions from this inter~onnection were sharing of seasonal diversity and of standby and firming capabilities. Preference customer& in both basins were in general agreement on everything relating to the power marketing but a withdrawal procedure./5? The proposal put forward by the Upper Colorado River Commission--the fifteen percent of CRSP generation allocation figure--was not acceptable to the State of Colorado because it was not sufficiently flexible to satisfy Upper Basin winter power requirements. ~he first revised draft of the UCRC marketing criteria, prese~ted at Denver, took advantage of the seasonal diversity concept by allocating a variable amount of power to the secondary market area as a permanent amount. Using Arizona's claim to 240 mw as the base, the representative groups used the estlffiated di~ersity figure (162 mw) between Upper Basin winter and summer loads to calculate a seasonal allocation; the secondary market ~o~ld have a permanent allocation of 240 mw in the summer and 75 mw i~ the winter. The permanent winter allocation would be decreased and the summer allocation increased as diversitv of pre:erence loads between the primary and secondary market- areas i~c.csted. When the final version of the power ffiarketi~g crl:er13 was written, these megawatts were tcanslat~c i~to per=e!~tages: a seven percent of CRS? generatlon permanent wint~r 12