BOARD01706

• Board Meeting Date: 8/2/1961
• Description: Table of Contents, Agenda and Minutes
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Meeting

I

states; at high elevations; there are no roads
through much of the country; and by any reason-
able assumption the operating cost for that
section is much higher than for the sections
which are over more favorable terrain and closer
to population centers. So what the utilities
have said is that the Bureau should apply the
same operating cost ratio to this rugged country
line. as they do to the lines which are easy to main-
tain. This argument is so ridiculous it falls
on its face. They say that you should use an
average operation cost. Well, there are no two
of these companies that use an average cost.
They vary in their operating costs as much as
three times - one will be three times higher
than the other company. But they say to the
Bureau, 'Don't pay any attention to that. You
take an average figure and apply that to your
own end for this rugged section of line'.

Now you come to Item 6. That is wrong if
any of the other five items are wrong. The com-
putations there are solely dependent upon the
accuracy of the preceding five items.

They come up then, with total errors and
omissions in the Bureau system of $363,664,000.
NOW here is the incredible punch line, in the
following paragraph:

'The total of these major errors and omis-
sions exceeds the Bureau's claimed advan-
tage at the end of the 86-year period of
$361,380,000 by $2,284,000.'

I

In other words, after all these computations,
they say the Bureau is $2 million wrong over
86 years; and therefore we should get into this
tremendous controversy and hold up the construc-
tion of this great project for $2 million. That
has not been the contention put out for public
consumption.

I have here certain brochures which have
been put out by these companies, been distri-
buted by means of numerous dinners held through-
out the five state area, accompanied by