Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />PART II-COMMENTS RECEIVED AND RELATED <br />CORRESPONDENCE <br /> <br />i <br />!ADDITIONAL REGULATION No.1 <br />i. . . . <br />By letter of Aipril 4, 1962, the Commissioner of Reclamation <br />requested the comments of the Hoover contractors on additional <br />regulation No.1. ! Oomments were received from the Arizona Power <br />Authority, California Electric Power 00., Colorado Power Oommis- <br />sion of Nevada, qity of Los Angeles, Metropolitan Water District <br />of Southern Oalifdrnia, and Southern Oalifornia Edison 00. Oom- <br />ments were not r~ceived from the eities of Burbank, Glendale, iLnd <br />Pasadena, Oalif.' . <br /> <br />MEMORANDUM <br /> <br />JUNE 11, 1962. <br /> <br />, <br />To. Secretary. of t~e Interior. <br />Through. Asslstan,t Secretary Kenneth Holum. <br />From. Oommission:er of Reclamation. <br />Subjeet. Additiol\S;1 regulation No. 1 to the General Regulations for <br />Generation arid Sale of Power in Aceordance With the Boulder <br />Oanyon Project Adjustment Act. <br />On April 4, 196~, in your behalf, and as required by article 27 of <br />the "General Regulations for Generation and Sale of Power in Accord- <br />anee With the Bou~de~ 9anyon Proj~ct Adjustment Aet," I sent copies <br />of the proposed aadltlOnal regulatIOn No. 1 to the Hoover power <br />contractors. The qontr~ct.ors'comments on the additional regula~ion <br />No.1 were requested wlthm 30 days. The 30' days have now expIred <br />and we have received comments from six of the nine eontraetors. <br />The comments rec~ived are as follows: <br />. Arizona Power Authority: Deelined to eomment and urged <br />diseussion of t]le matters it had previously raised in connection <br />with the filling criteria for Lake Powell. <br />Oalifornia Elleetrie Power 00.: Expressed its view that addi- <br />tional regulatipn No. 1 is unfair in forcing the Hoover power <br />contraetors to ,pay .for a power loss caused by the filling of Lake <br />Powell. This ieost it eontends, should be paid by the Upper <br />Basin States. i If, however, the Hoover eontractors mU,st stand <br />the cost, the e<;>mpany prefers to see the funds repaid after 1987, <br />but the moneys. used should be repaid without interest. <br />Oolorado River Oommission of Nevada. Questions the neeessity <br />and/or practie~bility of considering this proposed regulation at <br />this time since,it does not become effective until June 1, 1987. <br />Oity of Los Angeles: While it assumes that additional regula- <br />tion No. 1 e~ntemplates reimbursement wit.hout interest, it <br />prefers .that th~ regulation state specifically that sueh reimburse- <br />ment is to be without interest. <br />Metropolita4 Water Distriet of Southern Oalifornia: Withheld <br />its comments ]lending study of alternative proposal to use 0010- <br />rado River dev,elopment fund to make allowanee for diminution <br />in Hoover basib firm energy during filling period. <br /> <br />86 <br />