WSP06445 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

.. '>'!. 014",) be managed mo.re closely with WAPA's power marketing functions and remain in close conlad with the USBR water schedulers, Real-time, minute-to-minutecontrol of the Federal powerplants on the Upper Colorado will be transferred from Montrose to W AP A's Phoenix office, Instantaneous control, the majority of which is done automatically by the real-time control system will, therefore, move from an Upper Basin to a Lower Basin location. However, this "contror' is primarily exercised in order to meet instantaneous demands for electricity from utility customers and the project financial accounting will still be performed by the Sah Lake City office. Concern 114: It violates Federal law to control the operation of Upper Colorado River dams from a Lower Basin location. Review: The Federal Dams in the Upper Colorado River Basin were constructed under the authority of the Colorado River Storage Project Act of 1956, Their operation must be consistent with the operating policies laid out in that act and subsequent acts, such as the Colorado River Basin Project Act of 1968 and the Grand Canyon Protection Act of 1992, A review of the relevant laws concluded that there are no restrictions on the location of the real-time operational control of the Upper Basin powerplants. Decisions regarding basin fund management and water scheduling of the Federal powerplants in the Upper Colorado River Basin will remain in the Upper Basin, since these functions have been performed from the Salt Lake City Office, or are being transferred from Montrose to Salt Lake City. Concern #5: WAPA's Transformation process did not include a "cost-benefit" analysis of the Montrose office functions and their locations. This flaw in the process means W AP A management's decision to downsize the Montrose Office is unsupportable, Review: A cost/savings analysis of various options was perfonned; and this analysis supports the recommendation. The analysis compared the cost savings, or benefits, to the power customers against the cost of implementation for various options. This analysis measured the capacity of each proposal to assist W AP A in accomplishing the agency's mission, SpecificaIJy, the analysis indicates that closing the Montrose Control Center, eliminating the engineering/construction function, and reducing management overhead in both Montrose and Salt Lake City will save CRSP customers $4.6 million annually, The analysis estimates a one-time implementation cost of $3,1 million, This analysis bas been shared with all interested parties (see attachment 2). Concern #16: CRSP power cust?mers do not support the Montrose downsizing, Review: Some CRSP power customers expressed concerns over control area boundaries and the 5