Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br /> <br />Also I have attended conferences with Mr. <br />Patterson of the Public Service Company of Colo- <br />rado and Mr. Kuiper, in Mr. Kuiper's office, <br />which were held for the purpose of clarifying <br />data submitted by the utilities to the State <br />Board. <br /> <br />Early in July, 1961, I met with Howard E. <br />Scott, Manager, Colorado Rural Electric Associa- <br />tion, and Leslie M. Alexander, Assistant General <br />Manager of the Salt River Project of Phoenix, <br />Arizona, in Mr. Scott's office for a full and <br />frank discussion of the whole controversy. Mr. <br />Alexander submitted some very interesting charts. <br />He contended also that a provision of Public Law <br />485 limited the activities of private utility <br />distribution of storage project energy. Mr. <br />Sparks advised me later that he entertained no <br />such interpretation of Public Law No. 485. <br /> <br />I might add here that I studied very care- <br />fully the charts tha t Mr. Alexander presented to <br />me and they throw considerable light on the <br />whole subject on which I was dealing. <br /> <br />On June 8, 1961, I prepared a statement in <br />the form of testimony before the Public Works <br />Subcommittee of the House Committee on Appropria- <br />tions in which I stated among other things: <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />'In my opinion, while the wheeling charges <br />of the Public Service Company of Colorado <br />and Pacific Power and Light of Wyoming are <br />fair and equitable, this cannot be said of <br />the Wheeling charges of Arizona Public Ser- <br />,vice,New Mexico Public Service and Utah <br />Power and Light. Further negotiations <br />should be undertaken between the Bureau and <br />these three companies to develop a combina- <br />tion system which would serve the areas in <br />their respective states at a more reason- <br />able combined system cost.' <br /> <br />Here is another quote from my June 8th <br />testimony: <br />