Laserfiche WebLink
<br />1 <br /> <br />3 <br /> <br />1 <br /> <br />conclusions was forwarded to the chairmen of both committees; this statement <br /> <br />1 <br /> <br />subsequently appeared in the published hearings on H.R. 12326 before, the sub- <br /> <br />committee of the Committee on Appropriations. United States Senate, Eighty- <br /> <br />1 <br /> <br />sixth Congress, Second Session. <br /> <br />On May 18. 1960, the Secretary announced the physical system the Bureau <br /> <br />1 <br /> <br />proposed for integration of Colorado River power plants and the delivery of <br />4 <br />Project power to load centers. With this greater detail available. the cost <br /> <br />1 <br /> <br />of the Bureau and the utility proposals were more carefully compared. The <br />5 <br />criteria for this comparison remained the same as those previously applied. <br /> <br />1 <br /> <br />Examination showed an element of incomparability in these two systems. <br /> <br />1 <br /> <br />In order that the utilities' proposed system may even approach satisfactory <br /> <br />1 <br /> <br />operation for wheeling, it is necessary that the Four Corners plant and re- <br /> <br />lated lines to Phoenix be integrated with the Bureau's system. In contrast. <br /> <br />1 <br /> <br />the Bureau's plan provides for the delivery of Project power in accordance <br /> <br />with the needs of preference consumers. under marketing area priorities also <br /> <br />1 <br /> <br />set by the Secretary in his May announcement. Although this system may be <br /> <br />1 <br /> <br />interconnected with the utilities at several points. it is designed to be <br /> <br />adequate in itself to meet the physical requirements of transmission without <br /> <br />1 <br /> <br />such interconnections. <br /> <br />On August 1. 1960. the CRBCP. Inc. prepared a report showing revenue <br /> <br />'1 <br /> <br />requirements of these various conditions. ' It was determined in that analysis <br /> <br />1 <br /> <br />that the potential increase in revenue requirements for power transmission. if <br /> <br />the utilities' quotations were accepted, would amount to $685 million more <br /> <br />1 <br /> <br />than would be required to provide an all-federal system. <br /> <br />1 <br /> <br />4 <br />Colorado River Storage Project Proposed Transmission System contained in the <br />Secretary of the Interior's announcement of May 18. 1960. relating to Colorado <br />River Storage Project Power Marketing Area and Criteria. <br /> <br />5Committee Report. House Document No. 1087. 84th Congress. and letter from <br />E. O. Larson. Director of Region IV. Bureau of Reclamation. January 19. 1960. <br /> <br />1 <br /> <br />I <br />