WSP12315 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

c.::) . I t~'" ~ ~ .-'" , DISCUSSION OF SCHEDULE "A" SHOWING A COMPARISON OF FINANCIAL BENEFITS TO COLORADO-BIG THOMPSON PROJECT UNDER PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY PLAN SChedule A shows, in tabular form, a comparison of the investments and annual c6sts to serve certain "preference customers" in northern Colorado under the plan proposed by the Bureau of Rec:L9.m9.tion and under the plan proposed by the Public Servioe dom;pany of Colorado. These "pref'erence customers" are the municipal power systems it Fort Collins, Loveland and Longmont, and the Union REA near Brighton. INVEsrMEW' ANALYSIS - SHOWING EXCESSCOar OF $:2 .6:25.731 The Bureau of Reclamation proposal, designated as Plan I on SchedUle A, is based on the data shown in the Bureau's Apprgpriation re~uest for 1950. No de- total figure can be shown on line (A) under tails are' available so that onlY the Plan I of'the attached, Schedule A. .The plan proposed by the Public Service Company of Colorado, designated as Plan I::J;, is to make use of the Company's existing facilities shown on the map on page 11, more particularlY the 44 Xv Loop transmission system which is located adjacent to these four "preference customers". Under this proposal the Company will provide the customer substations thus reducing the investment re~uired by the Bureau to that for a single substation at Loveland, Colorado, to stepdown from the 115 Xv Flatiron-Greeley transmission line to 44,000 volts for connection to the Company's 44 Xv Loop. The estimated cost of this substation made by the Company engineers and' lased on present day construction is $36:),000 and is shown on line (A) under Plan II. Comparing these investments shows that the cost of the Big Thompson project w~uld be reduced by $:2,6:25,731, or approximately 88% of the proposed expenditure for these special facilities. This is a direct saving to the taxpayers of the Nation. It is recognized that as the Colorado-Big Thompson project develops the Bureau may'alter its plans for the transmission system to fit changing circum- stances. However, any plan which proposes to construct new transmission facilities rather than using available existing facilities will result in a similar increase in the project cost and a longer period for its amortization. ECONOMIC ANALYSIS - SHOWING A comparison of the annual cost to ANNUAL SAmOS OF $166,:287 the Bureau under the two plans and a , de-termination of the income which will be available from the gross revenue to aid in the repayment of the irrigation cost of the project reveals a substantial advantage for the Company's proposal. i . . g . . : . . f 9 " 1