WSP08794 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. . controversy surrounding the government's sale of CRSP power: the priority of one region over another, and of preference customers over investor-owned utilities./B Both helped define the area of debate concerning CRSP power marketing criteria during the years 1959 and 1960. Claims on the power While Secretary of Interior Fred Seaton had ultimate responsibility for determining the power marketing area, many organizations lobbied vigorously to influence his decision. The investor-owned utilities saw the CRSP power facilities as being potentially profitable to their operations. If the power market area was limited to the preference customers in th~ four Upper Basin states, whose estimated loads would not require all CRSP power until sometime beyond 1970, the investor-owned utilities assumed they would be able to purchase the remaining power at a rate less than the proposed firm rate of six mills per kilowatt hour (6 mills/kwh) ./9 At the same time, the investor- owned utilities proposed to construct the transmission lines needed to distribute CRSP power to load centers as supposedly integral elements in their own systems designed for future use. They claimed this private construction of the majority of the CRSP transmission system lines would save the federal government millions of dollars in immediate transmission costs, while the investor-owned utilities would realize what they considered a modest wheeling charge for delivering the power./10 , Another significant lobbyer on the CRSP power marketing issue was the Bureau of Reclamation !tself. Initially, in 1950, the Bureau showed no power flowing south of Glen Canyon Dam on its transmission plans./ll Complaints from Lower Basin states, coupled with congressional directions to treat both Upper and Lower Basin power customers equally, prompted the Washington office to retreat from that position to one less openly partisan./12 The USBR, in 1956, asked the Federal Power Commission (FPC) to produce another market survey detailing power needs, reouirements, and re:ources for southern Nevada, Arizona, Utah, colorado, Wyoming and New Mexico. The FPC report (195B) illustrated the fact that with Arizona included in the power market area, all the power generated from CRSP hydroelectric facir~ties could be immediately utilized. This meant, of course, greater available revenues to be applied to the amount charged for the water storage works.ll3 ~hile the FPC worked on its power market survey, the USBR Reqion 4 staff Derformed its own studies. Although no Dlan had Jet been thoroughly analyzed, the Region 4 Office proposed, in J~ly 1959, that a transmission tie from Glen Canyon Dam south to prescott, Arizona be included within the CRSP power market 3~ea. 14 rurther evidence of the Bureau's r~evaluation of CPSP 3