|
<br />
<br />o
<br />, ..)
<br />,.,.,~
<br />~
<br />~t,
<br />N
<br />
<br />'The annual revenue, estimated at, $350,000, is shown on line. (B) and would
<br />be the s~ under either proposal. This is based on an estimated total sales to
<br />these four customers of 50,000,000 kilowatt-hours in the year 1952, probably the
<br />first full year of operation of the Colorado-Big Thompson Estes Park plants. The
<br />average revenue of 7 mills per kilowatt-hour is predicated on the interim rate
<br />schedule R7 F4 currently 'l.uoted by the Bureau.
<br />
<br />The annual fixed charges on the investment which the Bureau would be
<br />re'l.uired to make in special facilities to serve these four "preference customers"
<br />is shown ,on line (C). The fixed charges are calculated at 5% per annum and include
<br />interest at 3% and depreciation and amortization at 2%. Under the Bureau's plan
<br />the annual fixed charges amount to $149,287 and under the Company's plan the fixed
<br />charges are $18,000, or an annual savings of $131,287.
<br />
<br />Annual operation and maintenance expense of the special ,facilities has
<br />been ca19ulated on the'basis of the average expense experienced on the Public
<br />Service company's system in recent years. Using unit expense so obtained results
<br />in an'anqual operation and maintenance cbst for the special facilities of $50,000
<br />under the, :Bureau's plan and $15,000 per year under the Company' s plan~ or a savings
<br />of $35;OQO. These values are shown on line (D) of Schedule A.
<br />
<br />The cost of power from the backbone system of the Colorado-Big Thompson
<br />project is not definitely known at this time, since.the project is far from com-
<br />pleted a~d only one generating plant is presently in operation. However, in 1947,
<br />when testifying before the House Subcommittee on Interior Department Appropriations,
<br />Mr. Harve,y F. McPhail, Chief of the Division of Power, in response to a question
<br />by Congressman Jones of Ohio, presented estimated costs of power from the project.
<br />This information is contained in tabulations on :pages 940 and 942 of Part 3 of the
<br />Interior 'Department Appropriation Bill Heari~s for 1948. It indicates an average
<br />cost of power from the,project of 2.89 mills per kilowatt-hour. On this basis,
<br />the cost ,of power to supply the "preference customers" is $144,500 per year and is
<br />shown on 'line (E) of Schedule A.This .is a surprisingly low cost, particularly in
<br />view of the greatly increasedestima't.ed cost of the project, and the cost of power
<br />will undqubtedly have to be revieedupward. As previously stated, instead of the
<br />original:estima.ted cost of $43,800,000, the present estimated cost of the project
<br />is $144,581,000 of which the portion to be repaid by the Northern Colorado Water
<br />Conservancy District is fixed by contract at not more than $25,000,000. This
<br />leaves $+19,581,000 to be repaid from power revenues or a substantial portion to
<br />be written off as a permanent loss to the tax payers.
<br />
<br />The total annual cost under the two plans is shown on line (F). For
<br />the Burea.u's plan the total is $343,787 and for the Company's plan llhe total is
<br />$177,500. Subtracting these costs from the estimated annual revenue of $350,000
<br />gives the additional annual income available to repay the cost bf the irrigation
<br />features. of the project. As shown on line (G) of Schedule A, this .amount is
<br />$6,213 per year under the Bureau's plan and $172,500 per year under the Company's
<br />plan. TJie Company's plan, therefore, shows an advantage of $166,287 per year over
<br />the Bureau's plan.
<br />
<br />!
<br />"
<br />g
<br />.
<br />a
<br />~
<br />~
<br />~
<br />
<br />10
<br />
<br />,
<br />
<br />.
<br />
|