|
<br />Background
<br />
<br />Section 2
<br />
<br />
<br />ENDNOTES:
<br />
<br />The Collbran Project, which is integrated with the other SLCNIP, but is not a part ofCRSP,
<br />includes two powerplants, Upper Molina and Lower Molina. These power plants have a combined
<br />output ofabout 14 MW. The sole power feature of the Rio Grande Project is Elephant Butte Dam and
<br />power plant, with an installed capacity of24 MW.
<br />
<br />2 At maximum reservoir levels, about 1000 megawatts of capacity would be available under
<br />the interim operating criteria, based on approximately 40 megawatts per 1,000cfs.
<br />J
<br />
<br />Off-peak hours are hours of lower electrical demand, generally at night and on weekends and
<br />holidays. On-peak hours are hours of high electrical demand, generally during daytime and evening
<br />hours on work days.
<br />
<br />4
<br />
<br />In March and April 1996, Reclamation conducted a test of Beach/Habitat-Building flows at
<br />GCD. Beach/Habitat-Building flows are identified in the GCD-EIS as an element of the preferred
<br />alternative to be conducted approximately one year out of ten.. The initial test was conducted to assess
<br />the effectiveness of a high release of short duration for rebuilding high elevation sandbars, depositing
<br />nutrients, restoring backwater channels and providing some of the dynamics of a natural river
<br />ecosystem. During the test, 213,000 acre-feet of water by-passed the GCD turbines, resulting in
<br />105,000 MWh of lost generation. Preliminary results of the test provided by Reclamation indicate
<br />that the test was successful in restoring beaches and creating backwater habitats for endangered fish,
<br />but that a shorter release could achieve the desired results with a small loss of generation.
<br />
<br />Operation of Glen Canyon Dam, Final Environmental Impact Statement, U.S. Dept. of the
<br />Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, March 1995.
<br />
<br />.
<br />
<br />Biological Opinion, Operation of Glen Canyon Dam as the Modified Low Fluctuating Flow
<br />Alternative of the Final Environmental Impact Statement Operation of Glen Canyon Dam, U.S. Fish
<br />and Wildlife Service, Arizona State Office, December 21,1994.
<br />
<br />7
<br />
<br />However, the effects of endangered fish research flows on summer capacity can be
<br />approximated by that of the Seasonally Adjusted Steady Flow alternative. Summer capacity would be
<br />reduced from 1,315 MW to 498 MW during years in which endangered research flows occur, while
<br />winter capacity and annual energy would essentially remain unchanged from those identified above
<br />for the:tinal preferred alternative.
<br />
<br />8 Record of Decision, Operation of Glen Canyon Dam, Final Environmental Impact
<br />Statement, October 1996.
<br />
<br />Salt Lake City Area Integrated Projects Electric Power Marketing, Final Environmental
<br />Impact Statement, Western Area Power Administration, DOE/EIS-0150, January 1996.
<br />
<br />.
<br />
<br />,
<br />
<br />10 Western is currently reviewing its transmission pricing and contract terms for consistency
<br />with the orders. In addition, Western will continue to have rates approved by FERC and will develop
<br />standard contract offerings through a separate process.
<br />
<br />II The documents signed by Western tojoin WRTA and SWRTA were: the WRTA Governing
<br />Agreement, signed by the Salt Lake City Area Office on 2/17/95, the Phoenix Area Office on 4/24/95,
<br />and the Loveland Area Office on 5/23/95; and the SWRTA Bylaws, signed by the Phoenix Area
<br />Office on 6/8/94 and the Salt Lake City Area Office on 6/9/94.
<br />
<br />12 Record of Decision for the Energy Planning and Management Program. (60 FR 53181)
<br />October 12, 1995.
<br />
<br />I
<br />
<br />
<br />,
<br />
<br />Final Rules for the Energy Planning and Management Program, (60 FR 54151-54180),
<br />October 20, 1995.
<br />
<br />13
<br />
<br />,
<br />
<br />March 1998
<br />
<br />Western Area Power Administration 2-21
<br />
|