Laserfiche WebLink
<br />MR. STAPLETON: Mr. Fischer. <br /> <br />1 <br /> <br />MR. FISCHER: I wonder if IvaI couldn't comment for Harris' benefit on <br />the recent marketing meeting and the power rate proposed for increase <br />this year for lower basin preference customers to prevent the rate <br />increase on the basis that the projects are not going to be built <br />anyway and, therefore, the Upper Basin States don't need any Upper Basin <br />Fund. <br /> <br />Now, fortunately, Colorado Ute Electric Association has written to WAPA <br />and said they will take all the power at the higher rate. And I sure <br />hope that puts Uncle Sam in a heck of a spot. <br /> <br />MR. GOSLIN: Well, I think you have about covered the situation, Rolly. <br /> <br />MR. FISCHER: Didn't you attend the meeting? <br /> <br />MR. GOSLIN: I did not, but we had a representative at the meeting. <br /> <br />The proposal in the 21st Annual Report of the Secretary of the Interior <br />on the Colorado' River Storage Project, that is required by law, indicates <br />that there should be a 43 percent increase in the power rate for colo- <br />rado River Storage Project power. Subsequently, there have been a <br />number of meetings of preference users in the Colorado River Basin, not <br />just the Lower Basin, but the Upper and Lower Basin. And another dOCU- <br />ment has been worked out by DOE and the Bureau that indicates a 38 ' <br />percent increase in power rate would be sufficient to keep the Upper <br />Colorado River Basin whole. By "whole," I mean that it would, under the <br />law, provide sufficient funds to pay back the cost of all of the con- <br />structed, under construction, and authorized projects under the Colorado <br />River Storage Project and still not be in the hole. That is what I <br />mean by "keeping it whole." <br /> <br />I don't know what the final outcome of that is going to be. I understand <br />from some of the contacts I have had with DOE and others that DOE <br />attorneys have been asked to try to interpret the colorado River Storage <br />Project Act in such a way that funds that would be apparently surplus <br />to a state like Colorado at the present time or Wyoming or New Mexico <br />might be used on a project in another state that might run out of reve- <br />nues if the rate turned out not to be high enough, due to inflation and <br />so on. But I'm satisfied in my own mind that they can't find that <br />interpretation of it, because I happened to have something to do with <br />writing the language of Section 5 of that act. <br /> <br />1 <br /> <br />But, nevertheless, I can foresee that we are going to have some problems <br />with respect to it, and I regret it very much, because the preference <br />users in the Colorado River Basin, particularly the upper Colorado River <br />Basin, have been some of our very best supporters so far as the Colo- <br />rado River Storage Project and participating project legislation has <br />been concerned. But I also think that, if everybody would be reasonable <br />on it, we could come out with some kind of solution. <br /> <br />But one thing that states that are not using their basin fund revenues <br />at the present time or may not use them for several years in the future <br /> <br />-31- <br />