My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
BOARD01799
CWCB
>
Chatfield Mitigation
>
Board Meetings
>
Backfile
>
1001-2000
>
BOARD01799
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/16/2009 3:07:09 PM
Creation date
10/4/2006 7:02:22 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Board Meetings
Board Meeting Date
9/8/1961
Description
Minutes and Resolution
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.
/
104
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 />MR. W. M. WILLIAMS: <br /> <br />GOVERNOR JOHNSON: <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />already have arrangements in Colorado, as you <br />know, on the Colorado-Big Tom where, in one <br />case, we have a wheeling contract with the <br />Public Service Company of Colorado in which <br />they wheel about 7~ percent of the Colorado- <br />Big Tom project power. Now in those cases it <br />is profitable for the Bureau of Reclamation to <br />enter into wheeling contracts with the private <br />utilities but not in the case where the line <br />is being used almost exclusively for Project <br />power. <br /> <br />Is that distinction clear, Mr. williams?" <br /> <br />"Thank you." <br /> <br />"Mr. Chairman, may I call attention to <br />House Report No. 1087 in the 84th Congress, 1st <br />Session, in which this language is found: 'The <br />Department of the Interior advised the Committe~ <br />that it was sympathetic to the private companie~' <br />proposal and indicated that the suggestion <br />would be given studied consideration if the <br />project were authorized. Therefore, the Com- <br />mittee expects the proposal by the private <br />power companies for cooperation in the devel- <br />opment to be carefully considered by the <br />Department of the Interior and the electric <br />power and energy of the project to be marketed, <br />so far as possible, through the facilities of <br />the electric utilities operating in the area, <br />provided, of course, that the power preference <br />laws are complied with and project repayment <br />and consumer power rates are not adversely <br />affected. ' . <br /> <br />If this was a matter of law and if the <br />law does not permit the private utilities to <br />distribute this power, why have this contro- <br />versy? Why should there have been this con- <br />troversy? I think the fact there has been a <br />controversy - a controversial statement that <br />it can only be done one way legally. I think <br />it could be operated by the private utilities <br />or by the all-federal. I'm surprised to have <br />it said now that the law says the private <br />utilities can't do this business. If they can't, <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.