Laserfiche WebLink
<br />." <br /> <br />PRELIMINARY . <br />.SUBJECT TO REVIS~N <br /> <br />" <br /> <br />and would market the power. The power would be marketed to encourage the most <br /> <br /> <br />~ widespread use at the lowest possible rates to consumers. Rates are generally <br />,-..., <br /> <br />established by the marketing agency to repay the Federal cost of the <br /> <br />~ <br />tn hydropower facility and transmission system with interest to the Treasury of <br /> <br /> <br />~ the United States within 50 years. In the sale of Federal power. preference <br /> <br /> <br />is given to publicly-owned utilities and cooperatives. <br /> <br />2. An electric cooperative. the Southeast Colorado Power Association. <br /> <br /> <br />provides electricity to the rural areas and communities near John Martin Dam <br /> <br /> <br />and they would be potential purchasers of power. In addition. the Arkansas <br /> <br /> <br />River Power Authority. an organization consisting of six member-towns located <br /> <br /> <br />in southeastern Colorado and northeastern New Mexico. has also expressed <br /> <br /> <br />interest in this potential power supply. <br /> <br />E. Transmission Lines. <br /> <br />1. There are both electrical distribution and transmission lines <br /> <br /> <br />existing in the vicinity of John Martin Dam. A 12.500 volt distribution line <br /> <br /> <br />serves the existing project facilities. There exists a 69.000 volt <br /> <br /> <br />transmission line which runs in an east-west direction about two miles south <br /> <br /> <br />of the dam. This line. which connects substations near Lamar and Las Animas. <br /> <br /> <br />is currently operating de-energized. <br /> <br />2. For this reconnaissace study. it was assumed that electricity <br /> <br /> <br />generated at John Martin Dam would be routed to the 69.000 volt line which <br /> <br /> <br />would require about two miles of new transmission line. <br /> <br />VII.. Project Costs. <br /> <br />A. Project Cost. <br /> <br />1. All estimated costs for the alternatives considered. except for <br /> <br /> <br />penstock and existing concrete excavation. were extracted from cost <br /> <br /> <br />relationships given in the reference Feasibility Studies For Small Scale <br /> <br /> <br />Hydropower Additions A Guide Manual. These costs were escalated from the July <br /> <br /> <br />1978 values given in this reference to January 1982 by using an escalation <br /> <br />12 <br />