WSP12315

• File Number: 8441.400
• Description: The Colorado Big Thompson Project - Reports
• Basin: South Platte
• Water Division: 1
• Date: 1/1/1949
• Title: Avoid Waste of Taxpayer's Dollars by Denying Appropriations for Duplicating Transmission Lines
• Water Supply Pro - Doc Type: Report/Study

o

,,,.~")

"">4
~
Or)
....~

GO~ DUPLICATING TRANS-
MISSION riINEs UNNECESSARY

The only practical method to provide
for the economical marketing, in this area
of the power produced by the Colorado-Big
existing facilities. This can readily be accoll1Plished

Tholl1Pson project is to utilize
as follows:

1. The Com;pany is ready and willing to use its existing trans-
mission facilities to transmit Colorado-Big Thompson energy
to certain "preference customers" proposed to be served by
the duplicating and unnecessary transmission loop intercon-
necting the fOllowing cities and towns - Greeley, Fort Collins,
Loveland, Longmont and Brighton (see map and overlay Page 11).

The "preference customers" proposed to be served are adjacent
to or are presently being served by the Company's transmission
system. These customers can contract directly wi th the Bureau
of Reclamation for their power requirements to be delivered to
the system of the Company at or near Loveland, Colorado, one
of the points of intersection between the Company's system and
the backbone transmission line now being constructed by the
Bureau. Another point of intersection will be Greeley, ColoIll.d.o
where the Company now has an interconnection with the Bureau
system.

The Company is willing to contract with these "preference
customers" for the deli very of this energy, firmed-up 'by the
Company's steam generating facilities. In connection therewith
the Company will erect any substations on its present trans-
mission system necessary to effectuate the delivery to the
said "preference customers" and will supply all necessary
operation and maintenance of the facilities used in this
service.

For these services the Company is presently suggesting a charge
to be paid to the Company by the "preference customers" of
approximately 1-1/4 mills per Idlowatt-hour subject tonegotia-
tions with the customer and subject to the approval of The
Public Utilities Commission of Colorado.

The effect of this construction cost
of the roject b 2 2 31 and to increase by 1 2 7 the
annual income available for repayment of project cost. An
analysis of these savings is shown on Schedule A on page 8 of
this statement. This schedule shows a comparison of the
investment required by the Bureau under its plan as compared
with the investment required by the Bureau under the COll1PanY's
plan to deliver Colorado-Big Thom;pson power to certain "pre-
ference customers" in northern Colorado. This schedule also

~
=
g
.
!
~

2