Laserfiche WebLink
<br />,. <br /> <br />" <br /> <br />01'440 <br /> <br />Office with the intent that the exception criteria was to be used for CRSP and other <br />CRSP commitments EXCLUSIVELY. The exception criteria was not to be used for <br />other economic reasons or for future commitments. Other legitimate uses were limited <br />to control area emergencies and interconnected system emergencies. Since that time <br />WAPA has taken on new obligations without consulting USBR. Within WAPA's new <br />organization the potential exists for significant changes on how Glen Canyon Dam will <br />be used by the Lower Basin. The result of present and future WAPA commitments <br />could result in the loss of exception criteria. The financial loss to CRSP would be <br />staggering. Replacing lost Glen Canyon Dam electric capacity could run in the millions. <br /> <br />In 1993 WAPA operationally merged the CRSP and the Pick-Sloan, Colorado-Big <br />Thomson, Platte, ant the Frying Pan-Arkansas Projects into one control area. Since <br />that time CRSP has supplied capacity to these Projects without compensation. In 1994 <br />CRSP customers started to question WAPA about the CRSP capacity and energy use <br />by other projects. WAPA has yet to response to written requests from CRSP <br />customers. Glen Canyon has exceeded exception criteria because of this integration. <br />The Glen Canyon environmental office raised concerns at one of the quarterly meetings <br />with WAPA. It also, has yet to receive a response. WAPA until how has successfully <br />kept these violations from becoming a serious challenge to the future of exception <br />criteria. It has done this by forcing CRSP to use Blue Mesa for control instead of Glen <br />Canyon. This use of Blue Mesa costs CRSP lost revenue by forcing CRSP to buy <br />replacement energy. It has also, effectively silence many CRSP employees from <br />providing CRSP customers with answers to their questions. It has effectively silence <br />many USBR employees from voicing their concerns over what they see as improper <br />use of CRSP resources. <br /> <br />WAPA must be held accountable for its actions. Pressure must be brought forcing <br />WAPA to respond. An outside agency should be brought in to independently review <br />whether WAPA's actions were in the best interests of CRSP, <br /> <br />Conflicting use of CRSP hydroelectric resources <br /> <br />Throughout CRSP's 30+ years of operating history other USBR projects have used <br />CRSP resources to bolster their financial bottom line. Why has this happened for so <br />many years? Characteristically, the CRSP top manager have had the weakest <br />management support from within the organization and little local political support. <br />CRSP mangers over the years have fought a defensive bureaucratic struggle within the <br />agency to maintain CRSP's programs. Some inside observers will argue that managers <br />are reluctant to move to Salt Lake City for various personal reasons thus guaranteeing <br />that whomever is selected he/she will be looking for opportunities elsewhere or simply <br />are not top managers to begin with. Another strong negative influence is the fact that <br />CRSP electric power was marketed outside the Upper Basin and consequently, larger <br /> <br />4 <br />