My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP06124
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
6001-7000
>
WSP06124
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 2:21:22 PM
Creation date
10/12/2006 1:26:53 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8220.100.50
Description
CRSP - Power
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Date
10/27/1983
Author
Helene Monberg
Title
Public Power Preference Issues Article
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
News Article/Press Release
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
5
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 />4-WRW washn x x x Da_a . <br />The state of south Dakota has held discussions ~ith the Northern <br />states Power Co., the largest investor-owned utility ~ the area, bead- <br />f ~nanc ~ng <br />quartered in Minneapolis, to enter into a partnership to help with/the <br />construction of the Gregory county project. The state has also made <br />application to FERC to build the project, a two-stag:! peak~'tCJ:oZ~~E~ (Ki' <br />project, to be built over a period of about 10-15 years, with 1~80,000/ <br />to be built in the first stage and 1,180,000 KW in the second stage. <br />Altho Abdnor insisted in his discussion with the press on Oct. 26 <br />that the language in the bill authorizing the Gregory county project was <br />not intended to undermine the preference clause, the authorization pro- <br />vided that "Notwithstanding any other provision of law.. . the marketing <br />Of project (power) output" was to be in accordance with I<'terms and con- <br />ditions agreeable to the state of south Dakota." A1tho their organiza- <br />tions might become beneficiaries of this power at some future date, of- <br />ficials of five South Dakota public and rural electric cooperative Or- <br />ganizations objected to the planned development of this project. It <br />would be done, they claimed in a statement issued on Oct. 24, "by prio- <br />vate and non-federal special interest groups whose primary objectives <br />are to maximize the return to their investors," and by destroying the <br />federal preference clause. The statement was issued in south Dakota. <br />Signing the statementwere Wendell Garwood of Heartland Consumers <br />Power District o~ Madison;\Russe1l Dau of the Missouri Basin Municipal <br />power Agency of Sioux Falls; Tom Fennell of the south Dakota Rural Elec- <br />tric Assn., of Pierre; Loren Zingmark of East River Electric power coop- <br />erative of Madison; and Harvey Malon of Rushmore Electric power Coopera- <br />tive of Rapid City. <br />Abdnor and his staff said with the amendments that he, Burdick and <br />Baucus sponsored and approved by the Committee on Oct. 26, investOr-own- <br />ed utilities would not be interested in helping to finance the Gregory <br />County project because of their concern that the reinstatement of the <br />Preference clause in marketing project power "will make it impossible <br />for them to protect their investment. without their investment, the <br />project would not be feasible," Owen Ambur of the Abdnor staff told West <br />ern Resources Wrap-up (WRW) on Oct. 26. "We clearly have additional ~ <br />work to do in reconciling differences," Abdnor told WRW. HCM <br /> <br />c\ <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.