Laserfiche WebLink
<br />.8 <br /> <br />COLORADO RIVER STORAGE PROJEC <br /> <br />N <br />..... <br />~ <br />..."- <br /> <br />The company submitted a new offer for wheeling by letter of Febru- <br />ary 15, 1962, by which it would accept power scheduled by the Bureau <br />of delivery to preference customers in Utah and make such power avail- <br />able to these customers to the same degree and extent delivery could <br />have been made over the all-Federal modified system had such system <br />been constructed. A similar offer was also made by California Pacific <br />Utilities Co. for delivery to preference customers in its territory in <br />southwestern Utah. The California Pacific Utilities Co. would take <br />the power from the Utah Power & Light Co., at 138 kilovolts at the <br />interconnection between their systems at the Iron-Beaver County line. <br />The Wheeling charge would be 0.82 mills per kilowatt-hour based <br />on an annual load factor of 58)~ percent, equivalent to a rate of about <br />$4.20 per kilowatt-year. The wheeling charge after an initial period <br />of 50 years, would be reduced to cover only ad valorem taxes, and <br />operation, maintenance, and replacement costs as actually incurred; <br />estimated by the companies to be about 50 percent of the initial charge. <br />The Utah Power & Light Co. also would take power from the Bureau <br />system at Shiprock, N. Mex., and Montrose, Colo., for the Western <br />Colorado Power Co. in exchange for a like amount of power from the <br />company delivered to the Bureau's customers in north-central Utah. <br />There would be no wheeling charge on the exchange power delivered <br />to preference customers by the company. <br />It is estimated the cost Jar wheeling under the offers of the Utah <br />Power & Light Co. and the Califorma Pacific Utilities Co. would <br />average about $785,000 annu!111y during the power payout period for <br />the storage project. <br />Acceptance of these offers would eliminate construction of Federal <br />lines estimated to cost about $22 million having an average annual <br />cost of about $1,500,000 during the power payout period. The aver- <br />age annual savings in transmission costs of about $715,000 would cor- <br />respondingly enhance the basin fund. <br /> <br />ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE Co. <br /> <br />SUMMARY OF NEGOTIATIONS ON TRANSMISSION ARRANGEMENTS AND <br />WHEELING PROPOSALS <br /> <br />'fhe Arizona Public Service Co. in its initial proposal in 1960, which <br />was rejected by the Department, offered to construct three 230-kilo- <br />volt lines from Glen Canyon to Phoenix and deliver storage project <br />power by transmission to Phoenix and by displacement at its Four <br />Corners steamplant. The wheeling charge would be 1.177 mills per <br />kilowatt-hour on all energy delivered or $6.74 per kilowatt-year (plus <br />taxes) for the yearly peak load. The average annual wheeling pay- <br />ment, using the kilowatt-hour rate, was estimated to be $3,550,000 <br />durfng the power payout period for thestora.ge project. <br />In a subsequent offer January 23, 1962, the company would con- <br />struct two 345-kilovolt lines from Glen Canyon to Phoenix (Pinnacle <br />Peak) and deliver storage project power by direct transmission to <br />l'hoenixand by exchan)l:e at Four Corners. The wheeling charge <br />would be $5.39 per kilowatt-year (plus taxes) for a specified yea.rly <br />maximum simultaneous peak load at Pinnacle Peak and Four Corners, <br />At the end of the 50th year or the period required to amortize the <br /> <br />, '-". <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />. <br />. <br />