Laserfiche WebLink
<br />- <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />The Upper Basin states were also concerned about the cost of <br />the CRSP transmission syscem. By limiting the area in which the <br />power was marketed, transmission coscs might be held to a <br />reasonable level. primarily for this reason, the Upper Colorado <br />River Commission (UCRC), an interstate administrative agency <br />created under the terms of the Upper Colorado River Basin Compact <br />(1948), requested that the USBR maintain "primary liaison" with <br />the appropriate official agencies of the four states in all power <br />allocation and transmission matters. As Felix Sparks of the CWCB <br />told the Commission: - <br /> <br />We have a lot of people who want this power <br />and they have a lot of grandiose ideas of <br />constructing transmission lines and other <br />facilities that we don't feel it is fair to <br />load the project down with...that was our <br />primary purpose (for the recuest to the <br />Bureau) ./22 <br /> <br />There were several reasons, then, why the Upper Basin states <br />sought to control the power marketing process: preference <br />customers wanted more power available to them; state agencies <br />like the CWCB wanted to insure maximum revenues for the <br />participating projects; and the UCRC was determined to control, <br />in some measure, the costs of the project. <br /> <br />Arizona and the other Lower Basin states had challenged this <br />concept of limiting CRSP power sales to the Upper Basin from the <br />ou tse t. The Federal Power Commiss ion had proj ected,. phenomenal <br />growth in Lower Basin electricity reauirements (1948), and in <br />1954, viewed Glen Canyon hydroelectricity as an excellent source <br />to meet this demand;/23 Arizona's"Governor Howard pyle then <br />reauested that the Bureau of Reclamation include his state within <br />the CRSP market area./24 The State of Nevada even went on record <br />before Congress as recommendinq a large allocation of Glen Canyon <br />power to Nevada and Southern California "in perpetuity"./25 <br /> <br />In addition to believing that the Lower Basin should receive <br />an allocation of CRSP power based upon its projected growth in <br />demand, California, Nevada and Arizona were concerned about the <br />impact of Glen Canyon Dam on Hoover power plant's production of <br />firm energy. Satisfying the deficiencv in noover firm energy <br />generation caused by the construction of Glen Canyon Dam became a <br />troublesome ~roblem for all parties concerned with CR5P; One <br />possible solution advanced for discu5s1on involved conStruct10n <br />o~ a transmission tie from Glen Canyon to the Colorado Ri~er <br />power plants at Hoover, and Parker-Davis Dams. Thi" <br />interconnection between the two basins wnulri also sati~f~ <br />Congress's directive tn operate CRSP power olants 1n conjunc:lon <br />witn other federal ;ower ~la~t5.!26 <br /> <br />P~ef~rence users :n Ar~zona, l~ neec of 3ccitional ~ow~r <br />r~~0urce~ just like their cOu~te(8c~t= in tr.e ~~?er Bas:r., wer~ <br />~1.~o ;::l?n?lt~"':P tCl the ::-rr:f('-r'~i1I.".~ i:=SLl~: n~mel'", ':"!;3t 3:1 :Ju.......-:..r <br />. . <br /> <br />s <br />