Laserfiche WebLink
<br />\.'. <br /> <br />'.;..' <br /> <br />,.. ..;... <br /> <br />To further refresh your memory, on May 18, <br />1960, the Secretary of the Ihterior announced <br />his power marketing criteria in connection with <br />the project. You will recall that the Colorado <br />Wat~r I~vestigation Commission, the engineering <br />staff 'of this Board, the Upper Colorado River <br />Commission engineering committee, and the Upper . <br />Colorado River Commission itself, finally came <br />up wi t,h' . their proposal as to the power marketing <br />criter'i.ii. Our company was privileged to partici- I <br />pate in. those studies and in those recommendations. <br />Actually, the Upper Colorado River Commission's <br />recommendation as to the power marketing criteria <br />was essentially adopted in toto by the Secretary <br />of Interior. <br /> <br />On May 18, 1960, they also announced the.so- <br />. .... called 'yardstick' system against which the <br />proposal of the private companies would be eval- <br />....cuated. Since May 18, 1960, the Bureau has been <br />'-:1evaluating the proposal made by the companies. <br />Then on January 17, 1961, the Secretary of In- <br />.._ terior, based upon a recommendation of the <br />,:rCommi-ssioner of Reclamation, rejected the pro- <br />.. posa:l.of the companies. The essence of the <br />reason that the Secretary of Interior rejected <br />the proposal of the companies was: one, under <br />the.companies plan the payout requirements of <br />.the'project could not. be met; or two, if you <br />:.Jdid .me~t them, you would have to charge a higher <br />cpower.rate. <br /> <br />" <br /> <br />'I'd like,to;,.go back to this letter of Jan- <br />uary 19,196;0, .,''':lhen I mentioned the five cri- <br />teria. 'The 'report of the Commissioner of Recla- <br />mation ~aidt1iatthe proposal of the companies <br />met all.thecriteria except the 4th criteria. <br />The 4th ,criteria stated: 'Charges made for <br />delivery o~p6w~r must not adversely affect <br />project feasibility.and payoff and particularly <br />must be such as not to reduce timing or quantity <br />.of irrigation assistance'.. In all other respects, <br />. ,though, the offer of. .the companies met the stan- <br />dards set down by the Bureau. And this is in <br />the findings of the Commissioner'of Reclamation. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />What we want to show here this morning, and <br />