My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP02609
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
2001-3000
>
WSP02609
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 12:37:46 PM
Creation date
10/11/2006 11:13:58 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8507
Description
Rio Grande Project
State
UT
Basin
Rio Grande
Date
10/1/1981
Title
Rio Grande Project - Proposed Power Rate Adjustment
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Report/Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
56
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. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY <br /> <br />The initial power facilities of the Rio Grande Project (RGP) were <br />placed in service in 1940. These facil ities were the Elepnant Butte <br />Powerplant, consistin9 of three 8.1 MW generating units, the 6.9 - 115 kV <br />Elephant Butte Switchyard, and 63 miles of 115-kV transmission line. <br />Between 1941 and 1952, 428 miles of 115-kV transmission lines and several <br />substations were added. In 1973 and 1979 the transmission lines and sub- <br />stations were sold, except for the Hot Springs Substation, the sale of <br />which is presently under negotiation. Present power customers are Plains <br />Electric Generation and Transmission Cooperative and the City of Truth or <br />Consequences, <br /> <br />Power revenues must pay all annual power operating expenses, must <br />pay all annual irrigation expenses in excess of those paid by the irri- <br />gators, must repay power replacement costs with interest within the ser- <br />vice lives of the equipment, must repay all power investment costs with <br />interest within 50 years, and must repay all irrigation investment costs <br />without interest in 60 years, except those paid by the irrigators. <br /> <br />An electric power rate of 7.12 mills per kWh at 58.2 percent load <br />factor was placed in effect in 1940 which was sufficient at that time to <br />pay operating expenses and to repay within established periods all costs <br />ass i gned to be repa id by the power revenues. The r ate was ch anged in <br />1949 to 6.64 mills per kWh. After 1950, conditions changed and power <br />revenues were insufficient for repayment; the major changes were a low <br />water supply and escalating operation and maintenance costs. <br /> <br />Repayment studies since 1950 showed that the project was in finan- <br />cial trouble. In an effort to improve the condition of the project, the <br />Bureau of Reclamation initiated procedures for rate adjustments in 1973. <br />A repayment study for Fiscal Year 1972 showed that a power rate of about <br />15 mills per kWh would be required for project payout. Because this rate <br />was higher than competitive rates in the area, the Bureau increased the <br />, RGP rate in April 1974 to only 8.15 mills, which was competitive with the <br />rates of other power supplies in the market area. <br /> <br />A repayment study for Fiscal Year 1974 showed that a rate of 24.5 <br />mills would be required to repay the project costs, but the rate approved <br />in 1978 was limited to 16,03 mills to be competitive with rates of other <br />area power sources, The rate was increased in three phases to the follow- <br />ing: <br /> <br />11.01 mills per kWh for April 1978 through March 1979 <br />13.40 mills per kWh for April 1979 through March 1980 <br />16.03 mills per kWh for April 1980 and thereafter <br /> <br />Power repayment stud i es cont i nue to i nd icate that the ex i st ing <br />power rate is insufficient to pay within allowable time frames the costs <br />ass i9ned to the power funct ion. Several power repayment studies have <br />been made for Fiscal Year 1980 and three options have been selected based <br />on possible modes of future operation and marketing. Following is a des- <br />cription of the three options and the power rate needed for each oj),t,'iClll'lLl ,~ <br />II '..).1~.. ~J. <br /> <br />1 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.