Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br /> <br />2 <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />INTRODUCTION <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />In December 1958, the Bureau of Reclamation provided, in its preliminary <br />2 <br />payout study for the Colorado River Storage Project and Participating <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />Projects, an estimate of transmission costs for a federally-owned system. In <br /> <br />1959, five major private utilities operating in the Storage Project area pro- <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />posed a combination utility-federal transmission system and provided estimated <br /> <br />3 <br />construction costs. These two alternatives were studied by the Colorado <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />River Basin Consumers Power, Inc., a five-state group of preference customers <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />for Storage Project power. <br /> <br />The utilities offered to wheel power over their proposed lines, but at <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />that time quoted no specific prices for the service. The federal and com- <br /> <br />bined systems were therefore compared by the CRBCP, Inc. as to cost under the <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />assumptions that: <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />1. Typical Bureau charges would be those required to repay the costs of <br /> <br />federal construction, and, <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />2. Typical utility charges would be imposed for utility construction. <br /> <br />From that study, the preference users concluded the utilities' probable <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />charges would result in increased Storage Project power costs to consumers of <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />$637 million over a 100-year period if Project payout were not to be less than <br /> <br />that provided by the Bureau's proposal. This conclusion was presented to <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />Congressional Subcommittees during the hearings of April 11 and 12, 1960. <br /> <br />At the time of those hearings, actual quotations of prices for wheeling <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />were made known to the Secretary by the five major utilities. The effect of <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />these actual quotations was compared with typical charges for the Bureau's <br /> <br />estimated investment; the results of that comparison supported the earlier <br /> <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />conclusions of the CRBCP, Inc. A supplemental statement to set forth these <br /> <br />2 <br />U.S.B.R. Financial and Economic Analysis Report, December, 1958. <br /> <br />3 <br />Electric Utility Transmission System Study as related to the <br />Colorado River Storage Project, October 1, 1959. <br />