Laserfiche WebLink
<br />7 <br /> <br />After correcting for these omissions and errors, the investor- <br />owned uti~ities' analyses show that the combination transmission system <br />has the following advantages over the aU-Federal transmission system. <br /> <br />a) More of the participating irrigation projects can be <br />built sooner. <br /> <br />b) The combination transmission system will be more efficient <br />and more reliable. <br /> <br />c) It will save the nation's taxpayers $137 million in original <br />investment costs. <br /> <br />d) In addition, the Federal government will receive more than <br />$96 million in income tax, and comparable tax benefits <br />would accrue to schools, cities, counties and states. <br /> <br />All of these benefits can be achieved at no increased cost to <br />ultimate consumers of e~ectricity in the area and with complete protection <br />of preference users' rights to Federal power. <br /> <br />The graph shown as Figure 6 is a comparison of the amount of <br />irrigation assistance available as a function of time for the two trans- ' <br />mission alternatives. <br /> <br />Irrigation projects entitled to excess power revenues from the <br />Project under provision of Public Law 485, can be placed in service 50 <br />years prior to availability of assistance funds. Figure 7 shows that <br />under the combination system more money for irrigation assistance is <br />available under the combination system by the year 2020, This means <br />irrigation projects costing this amount can be in service by 1970. The <br />two yardsticks show this difference, which amounts to $97 million. <br /> <br />In addition, there is a matter of taxes. Federal income taxes <br />on wheeling revenues over the 86-year period will amount to $96 million. <br />Figure 8 shows how the two yardsticks compare in this respect, <br /> <br />At the local level, increased taxes will also be available. To <br />provide adequate capacity through the years to transport project power, <br />the investor-owned utilities will accelerate their transmission construc- <br />tion programs. In so doing, additional state and local taxes are generated <br />at an earlier date as a result of the utilities' wheeling offers. In <br />Colorado this amount to $14 million in additional state and local taxes. <br />Figure 9 shows how the yardsticks compare in this respect. <br /> <br />U'lder the cO't\b!,'1at ion transmiss ion proposal, project plants <br />wi1~ be more directly interconnected with the large investor-owned steam <br />electric systems in the area. T:ds would provide a continuity of service <br />superior to the all-Federal transmission system and would benefit all the <br />electric users in the area. <br />