WSP10458 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. i Can you afford that?! Additional costs of this magnitude are of course of extreme importance to the preference customer group and indeed in many cases may be vital to continued operation in this highly competiti ve field. We have taken the view, along with the Secretary and the Congress, that there shall be no impairment in project revenues required for irri- gation assistance and payout on participating projects. We have also taken the view, along with the Congress, that there shall be no adverse affect on consumer power rates. There is one and only one way to assure ourselves that these principles will be met. The all-Bureau construction fully complies with both principles. The Utilities I combination system complies with neither. . The conclusions I have expressed to you today result from an in- tensive, year-long series of economic and engineering studies made by the Engineering Committee for the Colorado River Basin Consumers Power Group, The final report dated November 15, 1960 was mailed to the Secretary of the Interior yesterday. Copies are available to you today at the door if you wish them. With your permission I would like to bring this discussion down to a close by lifting three additional key elements in this matter from the letter of transmittal of this report to the Secretary. I am quoting Marion Wilson, President of the Colorado River Basin Consumers Power, Inc..,. "The attached report demonstrates that the desired criteria pre- viously set out in House Committee Report No. 1087, 84th Congress and letter from E. 0, Larson, Director of Region 4, Bureau of Reclamation, January 19, 1960, cannot be met by adopting the Utilities' proposal without raising consumer power rates to the extent of at least $492 million over the 100-year study period. This difference could be increased by as much as $167 million, or a total difference in power rates of $659 million, by recog- nizing wheeling revenues for energy displaced or interchanged over Bureau transmission lines. "These extra costs, which storage project consumers would bear if the Utilities wheeling offers are accepted, result even though the Utilities current wheeling offers are lower than their April 1960 offers. . "Integration of major generation at four corners with the storage project system is assured, so investment and the cost of operation and losses associated with the system proposed in your May 18 "Yardstick" announcement are reduced. A similar and equally important savings is made by Arizona Public Service Company through the opportunity to inter- connect with the storage project system. - 11 -