My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP06019
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
6001-7000
>
WSP06019
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 2:20:53 PM
Creation date
10/12/2006 1:24:16 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8220.101.10
Description
Colorado River-Water Projects-Glen Canyon Dam/Lake Powel-Glen Canyon Adaptive Management
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Water Division
5
Date
1/1/3000
Title
Western States Power
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.
/
17
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 />,- <br /> <br />J <br /> <br />01441 <br /> <br />customers with considerable influence tend to support their local USSR projects. Given <br />the political and bureaucratic environment that most CRSP managers deal with, one <br />must give them credit for at least keeping most of the farm intact for so many years. <br />Some examples gleaned from discussions with USSR and WAPA employees are briefly <br />discussed below: <br /> <br />Loveland's use of CRSP diversity <br /> <br />CRSP customers' firm allocations are used to peak-shave for the benefit of other <br />Federal projects and private interests (Rocky Mountain Generation). CRSP has <br />objected to this practice by Loveland. However, Loveland's influence within WAPA has <br />successfully negated CRSP's concerns. Loveland's use of CRSP capacity cost CRSP <br />because CRSP could have used the resource for its own surplus marketing activities. <br />The revenue stream form this CRSP activity would be used to reduce CRSP financial <br />requirements. <br /> <br />Phoenix use of CRSP firming capability <br /> <br />CRSP was used to firmup the marketability of the Parker-Davis project in the '70s, '80s, <br />and early '90s. Restrictions at Glen Canyon stopped all CRSP and Parker -Davis <br />firming activities. As a Result Parker-Davis for the first time in Project history had to <br />buy power from third parties. Compensation from Parker-Davis to CRSP was never <br />adequate for the resources provided from CRSP. <br /> <br />CRSP regulation capacity use by Loveland <br /> <br />Control area services provided to Loveland Area Projects (LAP) started in the '70s and <br />continue today. Loveland aggressively markets LAP on the Front Range. LAP also to <br />improve its marketability integrates its capacity and energy with Tri-state and Rocky <br />Mountain Generation Cooperative, Inc. The LAP hydroelectric system characteristic <br />are small reservoirs with limited use (time) electric capacity. As a comparison, CRSP <br />was designed with large reservoirs and capacity that could be used over longer period if <br />needed. Therefore, LAP needs capacity support to meet its obligations. It does not <br />pay CRSP for this support. <br /> <br />It is expected that with WAPA's new organization this support will continue and most <br />likely increase. Under WAPA's plan Loveland will now control CRSP's transmission <br />system thru the Four Corners area and have all CRSP's Northern Division hydroelectric <br />plants under its control. <br /> <br />The revenue loss to CRSP can be approximated using 75 MW of regulating capacity <br />used by Loveland at $3.90 KW/month. The loss per month would be 75 MW times <br />$3.83 times 1000 and would equal $287,250, or for 12 months $3,447,000 per year. <br /> <br />5 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.