Laserfiche WebLink
<br />benefits to the area, the Federal governme t and tl.1e nation as a whole. <br /> <br />As one example: Although the utilit es were instructed that they <br />must be able to deliver 600,000 kw of p wer to Arizona preference <br />users, the Federal Government yardstick' system, by the Bureau's own <br />admission, does not have sufficient cap city to deliver more than <br />450,000 kw to Arizona, therefore the gro nd rules for the all-Federal <br />transmission system is in direct violatio of the Secretary's Market- <br />ing Criteria. <br /> <br />Two independent consulting engin ers were employed by the <br />Bureau of Reclamation to review the overnment analyses of the <br />project's proposed transmission system. The consultants' report in <br />many respects did not support the concl sion reached by the Secre- <br />tary of Interior. <br /> <br />Results of <br />Investor- Owned Utiliti s' Study <br /> <br />The investor-owned utilities made their own analyses of the <br />effect ofthe combination transmission sy tem on irrigation assistance <br />and project power rates. In order to ma e a fair comparison of the <br />two transmission alternatives, the utiliti s had to make certain ob- <br />vious corrections in the Bureau's analys' . It was found that: <br /> <br />a) The Bureau did not correctly e aluate the utilities' "wheel- <br />ing" offers. <br /> <br /> <br />b) The Bureau did not increase pr 'ect electric revenues under <br />the combination transmission pr posal by an amount repre- <br />senting the savings in power 10 ses that would result from <br />using this system. <br /> <br />9 <br />