My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP09378
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
9001-10000
>
WSP09378
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 2:53:15 PM
Creation date
10/12/2006 3:35:47 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8200.200
Description
Colorado River - Basin Hydrology
State
CO
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Water Division
5
Date
4/9/1993
Author
CRWUA
Title
Colorado River Profiles
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Publication
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
46
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />M015~ <br /> <br />Colorado River Storage <br />Project (CRSP) power fea- <br />tures, the federal govern- <br />ment will receive more <br />than $5 billion in power <br />revenues. This 500 percent <br />return on investment paid <br />by CRSP power users is <br />much higher than the <br />return on investment paid <br />by the customers of any <br />investor-owned utility. <br />In the lower basin, pro- <br />jects on the mainstem of <br />the Colorado - Hoover, <br />Davis and Parker - were <br />built under Congressional <br />acts other than CRSP. <br />Typical of lower basin <br />power activity, 50-year con- <br />tracts for Hoover Dam <br />power expired in 1987; <br />about 65 percent of the <br />power had been going to six <br />California utilities which <br />had underwritten the pro- <br />ject's construction. Arizona <br />and Nevada state power <br />agencies had been splitting <br />equally the remaining 35 <br />percent of Hoover's power <br />output. In the early 1930s, <br />each of the latter two states <br />had had the option to take <br />one-third of the dam's <br />power, but had not been <br />able to afford to do so. As <br />contract renewals were <br />considered, more than <br />1,300 megawatts of electric- <br />ity were at stake. With the <br />rewriting of the contracts, <br />the Hoover power plant <br />was enlarged and a long <br /> <br />dispute over the allocation <br />of the dam's power supply <br />was resolved: California's <br />, share was reduced from 65 <br />to 45 percent, the 20 per- <br />cent difference going <br />equally to Arizona and <br />Nevada, and eight <br />Southern California cities <br />which had not received a <br />portion of California's <br />share during the first 50 <br />years,were included for a <br />share of the upgraded ' <br />increased generation <br />capacity. <br />Public power is not "sold <br />too cheaply. "Federal . <br />power marketed to public <br />bodies is a yardstick for <br />competition in the power <br />industry. In general, utili- <br />ties blend many power <br />sources (e.g., hydro, coal- <br />fired) to meet customers' <br />total power demands. The <br />true comparison is the <br />blended rate utilities <br />charge customers. Most <br />public power users are payc <br />ing rates comparable to <br />those charged by investor- <br />owned utilities. For exam- <br />ple, CRSP customer Plains <br />Electric in New Mexico <br />charges 5.7 cents/kWh, <br />while investor-owned <br />Public Service Company of <br />New Mexico charges 6.0 <br />cents/k Who <br />Increasingly; poweroper- <br />ations are being restricted <br />for environmental and <br />recreational purposes. For <br />example, the CRSP Glen <br />Canyon Dam:s eight-unit <br />power plant can generate <br />1,356,000 kW, but flow <br />restrictions have reduced <br />generation by 25 percent to <br />30 percent. While producing <br /> <br />" <br /> <br />CRWUA <br /> <br />less electricity, Western's <br />revenues must remain ade- <br />quate to meet reim- <br />burs ability requirements. <br />Consequently, CRSP cus- <br />tomers receive less power <br />for the same amount of <br />money. <br />Because of these <br />impacts, other sources of <br />power production are <br />being studied, such as coal- <br />and gas-fired plants and <br />combustion turbines. <br />Unlike existing hydroelec- <br />tric projects, some sources <br />will emit air pollutants and <br />cost significantly more. <br />Conservation is empha- <br />sized by public bodies pur- <br />chasing federal power. <br />Their extensive demand <br />and supply side conserva- <br />tion programs and research <br />on renewable energy have <br />existed since before 1980. <br />Since 1980, Western has <br />had a program requiring <br />documentation of cus- <br />tomer areas' conservation <br />projects, and the Bureau <br />of Reclamation alternative <br />power source studies <br />include conservation <br />through demand side <br />management. <br /> <br />'~l <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />; ';' <br />,,^, ,.~"",,,.l,, ,1li'llf <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.