My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
BOARD00343
CWCB
>
Board Meetings
>
Backfile
>
1-1000
>
BOARD00343
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/16/2009 2:49:10 PM
Creation date
10/4/2006 6:36:25 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Board Meetings
Board Meeting Date
10/27/1959
Description
Minutes
Board Meetings - Doc Type
Meeting
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
77
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />1699 <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />The high voltages we are talking about <br />here, to break that down to a usable voltage <br />for a small system like the average rural <br />electric, is prohibitive. We just can't do <br />it. Nor can you break it down for an aver- <br />age municipal system. When you talk about <br />230 KV or 345 KV it is too much for one small <br />system. What we are talking about is a back- <br />bone system to tie together hydro~plants and <br />existing steam plants and bring that power to <br />load centers but not to users. From the load <br />centers it must thereafter be distributed to <br />users. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />Even if we have this federal backbone <br />system at high voltage it must be stepped <br />down to 115 KV or 69 KV or even less, and <br />then be carried along and delivered to some- <br />one. Colorado, from the presentation made by <br />the commercial companies in Salt Lake, is all <br />set. The only Bureau lines that are to be <br />built are to be built for the exclusive bene- <br />fit of the State of Colorado except that New <br />Mexico can come up to Four Corners and get it <br />and will probably be in a position to do so. <br />That's great stuff for Colorado but I don't <br />know how it is going to set with users in <br />other areas. Utah and Wyoming may find rea- <br />son to object, if they end up by having to <br />pay substantial charges for the delivery of <br />this power, up and back through Utah when <br />they may be 50 miles from the dam site. <br /> <br />We also have the matter of the State of <br />Arizona, which you are all familiar with, and <br />the fact the State of Arizona has a state <br />claiming agency, the Arizona Power Authority, <br />and it can go in and file and receive appli- <br />cations for perference users. They have a <br />large number of preference users - irrigation <br />district~pumping districts, rural electrics - <br />so they have a whole kit and caboodle of pre- <br />ference users in Arizona which are substantial <br />and solid and have a great and growing demand <br />for power. The Arizona Power Authority has <br />filed with the Bureau a request for all the <br />project power from Glen Canyon, all of it, <br />and it'is possible at the present time to make <br />contracts for substantial blocks of it all, <br />with the claim their preference is just as <br />good as our preference even though it is our <br />water. I don't know as I like this but that's <br />just the way the ball bounces so we can't <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.