My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
BOARD00930
CWCB
>
Board Meetings
>
Backfile
>
1001-2000
>
BOARD00930
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/16/2009 2:55:26 PM
Creation date
10/4/2006 6:45:56 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Board Meetings
Board Meeting Date
5/10/1961
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.
/
70
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 />I <br /> <br />select the one which provided the minimum cost. <br />Instead they elected to consider the proposal <br />for the all-federal analysis in both instances <br />which resulted in the maximum cost. And this one <br />item alone. gentlemen. amounts to $34.000,000 in <br />'loading' under the Bureau's analysis favoring <br />an all-federal system. <br /> <br />Further distortions occurred when the Bureau <br />used 2 mills per kilowatt hour for the Wyoming <br />system although informed by the Pacific Power and <br />Light Company that they had acquired the Southern <br />Wyoming Utilities system and the resultant wheel- <br />ing rates would be one mill for all power going <br />into wyoming from Flaming Gorge. <br /> <br />Under this second item of variance, there <br />were also discrepancies as to the power displaced <br />through the Public Service Company of Colorado <br />and the Utah Power and Light Company. In total. <br />this misapplication and misinterpretation of <br />wheeling rates produced $95 million of over- <br />charges in the period of study against the com- <br />bined system. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />Under the third major variance. we will dis- <br />cuss the construction of the transmission lines. <br />This has been categorized, in the various con- <br />versations with the other parties, under two <br />definitions - the non-controversial lines or <br />those lines which the Bureau would build under <br />the utilities proposal; and the so-called con- <br />troversial lines. the additional lines which the <br />Bureau would construct under the all-federal <br />scheme. In the Bureau's analysis. operation and <br />maintenance of the Bureau's transmission facili- <br />ties for the non-controversial lines were stated <br />to be 2.29 percent of the investment per year. <br />However. the controversial lines required opera- <br />tion and maintenance costs of only .8 percent of <br />the investment. The Bureau. therefore. appears <br />to have assumed that operation and maintenance of <br />their transmission facilities would cost them <br />almost three times as much if the utilities pro- <br />posals were accepted than what the cost would be <br />under an all-federal system. The Bureau's con- <br />sultants were highly critical of this item and <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.