Laserfiche WebLink
<br />() <br /> <br />II <br />\. 1 <br /> <br />.. <br /> <br />, <br /> <br />Colorado relies on the Law of the River to safeguard its ability to develop its compact <br />apportionment. Colorado also relies on power generated at Glen Canyon Dam, both <br />directly and as a source of revenue for the Upper Colorado River Basin Fund. The loss of <br />power due to the proposed beach/habitat building flows has the potential to affect the <br />Fund directly, and also to force other changes at other CRSP facilities upon which Colorado <br />relies, such as the Aspinall Unit. Further, if one set of power plant bypasses is allowed, <br />Colorado is concerned that under the Adaptive Management concept other bypasses of even . <br />greater mllgnitude or frequency might be proposed, seriously affecting power generation at <br />Glen Canyon. The beach/habitat building flows violate the Law of the River and should <br />not be implemented. . <br /> <br />EconomiclFinancial Impacts. The restricted flow alternatives, which include the Modified <br />Low Fluctuating Flow Alternative (the Preferred Alternative), will significantly restrict daily <br />fluctuations, mllYimum and minimum releases and ramping rates. These restrictions will <br />drastically. reduce marketable capacity and reduce the value of energy by moving generation <br />from peak to off-peak periods. <br /> <br />Impacts from the restricted flow alternatives become even more significant because <br />operational changes reducing the marketable capacity and peaking power are also being <br />implemented at the Aspinall Unit and F1l1ming Gorge Reservoir as a result of Endangered <br />Species Act Section 7 Consultations. The impacts of ~ese operational changes will result <br />in reduced power revenues, higher power rates, and a need for the replacement of lost <br />capacity and pt'.>ilrillg power. <br /> <br />The loss in power revenues may affect the ability to meet repayment obligations to the <br />Upper Colorado River Basin Fund. The increased power rates.will adversely affect the <br />many users in Colorado of CRSP power for municipal, domestic and irrigation uses. <br />Replacement of lost capacity and energy will most likely require the construction of new <br />coal fired power plants earlier than anticipated, and create additional environmental <br />problems. Colorado therefore recommends adoption of an alternative that minimizes the <br />economic and financial impacts. <br /> <br />The measures called for in Section 1804 of the Grand Canyon Protection Act, if properly <br />implemented, should alleviate some of the adverse impacts caused by the reoperation of <br />Glen Canyon Dam. Colorado believes these measures must be undertaken in consultation <br />with the seven Basin States and other interested parties as required by the Act. <br /> <br />ALTERNATIVES <br /> <br />The OBIS considered nine alternatives in detail. Several alternatives were eliminated <br />following detailed analysis and four other concepts were eliminated without analysis. One <br />such alternative was the construction of a reregulating dam .below Glen Canyon, which was <br />eliminated merely because it is controversial. It is illegal to eliminated an alternative only <br />for this reason. The Preferred Alternative and Modified Low Fiuc-tuating Flow Alternative <br /> <br />6 <br />