|
<br />Page 4
<br />
<br />Colorado Rural Electric News
<br />
<br />001094 Many Questions Unanswered In Closed
<br />Session Of Upper Colorado Water Board
<br />
<br />,
<br />
<br />(Editorll Note:, The' star chamber
<br />meeting of the Upper Colorado RIver
<br />Commission in Denver this month on
<br />the issue of all-federal power trans.
<br />mission vernus investor-utility toU gate
<br />system left the general public alid
<br />rural electric officials all over Colorado
<br />wondering, with many questions left
<br />unanswered. The following report by
<br />William H. Nelson of the Grand Junc-
<br />tion Daily Sentinel (and a member of
<br />the Colorado Wa t e r Conservstion
<br />Board) asks some of the questions. for
<br />which no snswer was forthcoming
<br />from the Upper Colorado River Com.
<br />mlslon.)
<br />By Willlam H. Nelson
<br />Sentinol Aslociale Editor
<br />DENVER-If the private utilities can
<br />afford to trim $146 million from wheel-
<br />ing charges, how much profit do ~ey
<br />expect to make from transportmg
<br />power generated at Glen Canyon and
<br />other Colorado River Storage Project
<br />dams to rural electrification admini-
<br />stration cooperatives and other public
<br />power organizations?
<br />Is it one-half blUlon dollars? A bil-
<br />lion? Or more~
<br />Public power (consumer-owned) util-
<br />ities are first in line under federal law,
<br />to buy power generated at power
<br />plants of the Bureau of Reclamation,
<br />Army Corps of Engineers, and other
<br />federal units.
<br />The possible'profit to electric com-
<br />panies from using CRSP power as they
<br />wish In. a flve.state transmission sys.
<br />tern - replacing it with power from
<br />theil' plants-was the subject of specu-
<br />lation among reporters, members of the
<br />Colorado Water, Conservation Board,
<br />and othern aa they cooled their ,heels
<br />in the marble halls of the State Of-
<br />fice Building at Denver hearings last
<br />week.
<br />They asked each other ques~ions
<br />. while the Upper Colorado River Com-
<br />miSllion argued in secret sessions about
<br />a resolution endorsing the private (in-
<br />
<br />vestor - owned) utilities' combination
<br />plan tor transmission lines, and later
<br />as they waited to get theIr-copies of
<br />the resolution and letters.
<br />Reporters often are cynical. Some
<br />of the questions they asked included
<br />the following. '~,
<br />What was in the original resolution?
<br />Did it give the public utility plan a
<br />much stronger endorsement than the
<br />one finally passed after hours of argu-
<br />ment and contention?
<br />The final rellolution included a clause
<br />stating that the approval of the electric
<br />companies system was dependent upon
<br />a deCision by Congress that Colorado
<br />River storage project repayment and
<br />consumer rates are not adversely af-
<br />fected when compared with other meth-
<br />ods of energy transmission.
<br />Did representatives of the private
<br />utilities hald back their letters offering
<br />a reduction in wheeling rates Friday
<br />until they received assurances a resolu-
<br />tion of endorsement would be ap.
<br />proved?
<br />When and where did. the com-
<br />mission meet with the utilily com-
<br />pany representatives? was the
<br />original resolution prepared at such
<br />an eerller leeret meeting or fol_
<br />lowing it? Did- the commlslionen
<br />!lrguing the caule of the private
<br />utilities expec:l quick Iteamroller
<br />approval here Friday? The original
<br />:l:equel! for en executive session
<br />w!lsfo:r 15 or 20 mlnules. I:Ilasled
<br />fo:r hou:rs.
<br />Why did New Mexico, supporter of
<br />the all-federai plan, weaken and ap-
<br />prove the utility combination scheme?
<br />Was Friday chosen beC!luse _Gov.
<br />Steve McNichols would be out of the
<br />city? Or was that a coincidence? Why
<br />was the meeting kept se~t until little
<br />more than 36 hours before' it started?
<br />What part did a life-time friendship
<br />between John Loiseau, chairman of the
<br />board of Public Service Co. of Colo-
<br />rado (fo:dner company president) with
<br />
<br />Ed Jahnson, Colorado commissioner,
<br />have to do with-the latter's determina-
<br />tion to- see that the uUlity plan is
<br />adopted? Jahnson campaigned success-
<br />fully several years ago to get more of
<br />the power revenues for Colorada.
<br />If the private utilities win the cur_
<br />rent fight, will some of the 'gain John-
<br />son achieved for the,s~ate be last?
<br />Shauld Colorado refuse ta appropri-
<br />ate money to the c.ommission when it
<br />wouldn't let members of the Colorado
<br />Water Canservation Baard 'attend the
<br />session where discussions involving
<br />millions of dollars were held?
<br />Two summarizing comments made
<br />after the Friday meeting:
<br />"There's been a lot of wheeling and
<br />dealing over wheeling .here today,"
<br />"If Utah Pawer and Light Co. gets
<br />to build the lines in Utah, I'm going
<br />ta buy ail the company stock I can get.
<br />They're going to get rich on the deal."
<br />Since the remarks were made in pri.
<br />vate canversations, identiflcatian of the
<br />non-Colarado men is not possible.
<br />
<br />
<br />GRAND JUNCTION-Sept. 27-29 an.
<br />nual statewide meeting.
<br />
<br />Success requires repetition of pur~
<br />pose.
<br />
<br />Keep fuses snug ill their holders to
<br />prevent needless autages.
<br />
<br />.t
<br />
<br />
<br />,...d. ..
<br />RURA1!I.ECTRIC ~
<br />
<br />Dear Sirll:
<br />We received yaur pape:r from the
<br />Margan County rural electric office.
<br />We were very impressed with the.arti-
<br />c1es. We were' also surprised and very
<br />proud reeding the article about our
<br />san Howard, Thank you so much far
<br />the wanderful write-up.
<br />Sincerly,
<br />Mr.' and Mrs. Robert Bostrom, Rt. I,
<br />Box 143, Brush, Cola.
<br />
<br />Auggust 7, 1961
<br />
<br />~ ~
<br />
<br />Dear Mr. Scott:
<br />I wish to. sincerely thank the Colo-
<br />rado Rural Electric Association for
<br />awarding the George Wilson Memorial
<br />Scholarship to me for the school year
<br />1961-62. It will be af unlimited value to
<br />me and I am very happy and I :feel
<br />hanored to receive such an award.
<br />Thank you very much.
<br />SJncerely,
<br />CbarlieA. Davis
<br />nt. 1 Monte Vista, Colo.
<br />
<br />:"
<br />'.
<br />.:;,
<br />
<br />Middle age is that period in a man's
<br />llfe when he'll do anything to feel bet-
<br />ter except ,ive up what's hurting him.
<br />.. .
<br />
<br />We've made great medical progress
<br />In the last generation. What used - ta
<br />be merely an itch is now an allerey.
<br />
<br />Colorado Position On Power
<br />System Flouted By Ed Johnson
<br />(Editors Note: The following letter without the knowledge, consent or
<br />was w:ritten by GQv. Steve McNichols counsel af the Calorado Water CQn-
<br />to Cangr(!uional membe:rs after return- servation Baard, our official state
<br />ing to Calorado and learni~g that the agency.
<br />state's member on the Upper Colorado I am alsa advised that the technical
<br />River Commission, :former Gov. and staff of the, Commission' was never
<br />Sen. Ed Johnson, had taken directly requested to make and therefore never
<br />opposite action to the official pasltion made a recomme,ndation on the import-
<br />of the Governor and the Colorado ant issue which was the subject af the
<br />Water Board.) Commission's resalution.
<br />September 5, 1961 I am further advised that the so-
<br />Honorable Clarence Cannon, Chairman, called new proposals of the private
<br />and Honorable Members pawer companies were never made in
<br />House Appropriations Committee . writillg until afler the Commission
<br />Hause Office Building adopted its resolutian. I also have in.
<br />Washingtan 25, D.C. formation that members of the Upper
<br />Dear Chairman Cannon: Colorado River Commission met in
<br />On September 1, 1961, the Upper secret sessian with officials of the prl.
<br />Colorado River Commission adopted a vate power companies in Salt Lake
<br />proposal by various private power City, Utah, about a week. before the
<br />companies to permit those companies official Commission meeting af Septem-
<br />to construct, own and operate major bel' 1, 1961. The proposals made at the
<br />segments _of-the Colarada R.lver Stor. Salt Lake City meeting were never
<br />age Praject transmission sYlltem. A communicated to me, to the Commls-
<br />meeting of the Commission Was held sian's awn staff, nor to the responsible
<br />in Denver, Colorado, far this purpose, state agencies.
<br />during my absence from the State. We would be pleased ta receive any
<br />:~i:~~'e 0~~~eY~~mh~7s~i:~~:a:~i~:.en new proposals by the Interested. private
<br />power companies and to have such pro.
<br />The official agency of tl1is state in pesals made available for review and
<br />matters pertaining to reclamatian de- recommendatian. by the appropriate
<br />velopment is the Colorado Water Con- state ag'encies, by ,the Commission's
<br />servatian Board. That board, after own staff, and by the Secretary of the
<br />intensive staff study, adopted a resolu- Interior. Until such proper reviews and
<br />tion on August 2, 1961, endorsing the recommendations are made, I sh9.11
<br />constructlon of the transmission sys- C d
<br />tern which heretofore, has qeen ap- forthwith ask the Upper olora 0
<br />proved by Secretary Seaton and See- River Commission to withdraw its I'l<~O-
<br />retary Udall, I have already expreSsed lution of September 1, 1961.
<br />my complete and continuing support Until the foregoing action takes
<br />of our state board's position. place, I wish to emphasize that. the
<br />The pu:rpose of this communicatian action of the Upper Colorado River
<br />is to advise you that the recent action Commission and of Colorado's com.
<br />of Colorado'a commissioner on the missione:r thereon, as herein de.scrlbed,
<br />Upper Colorado River Commissian, wa's and is contrary to my position
<br />who incidentally is my appointed repre. t'nd to the afficial position of the State
<br />sentative to the Commission, was of Colarado.
<br />undertaken withaut my knowledge or Sincerely,
<br />consent. The 'acUon was likewise taken Signed: Steve McNichols
<br />
<br />
<br />September, 1981
<br />
<br />
<br />By Nalioaal Rural Elecl:rlc
<br />Caoperative Association
<br />WASHINGTON. D. C.-During 1960,
<br />the private pow'er companies obtained
<br />8.2 per cent of the 101,1 billion kilo.
<br />watt-haurs-of Federallyrgenerated elec-
<br />tricity. This WIIS just a little less than
<br />rural electric systems got-l0.3 per
<br />cent.
<br />Most af the Federal power went to
<br />Federal agencies, such as the Atamic
<br />Energy Commission, These agencies
<br />used 30.6 per cent of the total. Secand
<br />largest purchaller of gavernment power
<br />was private industry-20.2 per cent.
<br />Municipal systems bought 16.9 per cent,
<br />and other publicly-owned utilities got
<br />13.8 per cent.
<br />WASHINGTON, D. C.-Cooperatives
<br />represent a powerful potential for pro-
<br />moting the cause of human freellam
<br />around the world, Secretary of AgIi.
<br />culture Orville L. Freeman told the
<br />annual meeting of the American Insti.
<br />tute of Cooperation at Minneapolis,
<br />Milln., this week. .
<br />The Secretary said: "The cooperative
<br />movement hIlS only begun to make itS
<br />cantribution to human freedom. There
<br />lie within the caoperatives af this na-
<br />tion resaurces of ability,. organizatian,
<br />experience and canvlcUon that can
<br />make invaluable contributions in help-
<br />ing people of emerging natians ,to
<br />achieve economic growth and highe:r
<br />standards of living within the frame-
<br />work of democracy and freedom~'
<br />On the domesUe- front the challenge
<br />that fsces cooperatives is to overcome
<br />public misunderlltanding, Freema~ 'as:'
<br />serted. "The~e Is something wrong'1'Iith
<br />public relations and public understand-
<br />ing when -those who are genuinely con-
<br />cerned with preventing the evils of
<br />monopoly, those wha are sincerely
<br />anxious to prevent exploitation of the
<br />cansumer, fear that farmer coopera-
<br />tives threaten to perpetrate the evils of
<br />monopoly."
<br />This "raadblack" must be remaved
<br />if there is .to be a sound expansion elf
<br />cooperative enteJ:prise. A, review of
<br />American history shaws that the fl\11Uer;
<br />wasflrsttofeelthe.Pressureilflf'i?OilQ'~
<br />polistic practices and the "agrarian .re-'
<br />volt" that followed resulted in the na-
<br />tion's first anti-trust laws, the-Secre.
<br />tary said. .
<br />Freeman noted that-there exists to.
<br />day "a deep artificial ,gulf" between
<br />the farmer and the conswner. "It is of
<br />vital interest to farmers, and therefore
<br />to their cooperatives, to bridge that.
<br />gull.
<br />
<br />COLORADO
<br />RURAL ElECTRIC NEWS
<br />
<br />Vol 9, No. 12
<br />
<br />s.ptelll&er.1961
<br />
<br />Editor ........"......Howord E. Scctt
<br />Managing Editor ........Lyle L.Mariner
<br />Associate Editor ..........TerryMoliner
<br />
<br />Editorlol ond'BuSlness Offlce
<br />802 Formers Unlan .
<br />Denver 3.-Colorado
<br />Telephone, K€ 4.0139
<br />PUBLISHED MONTHLY
<br />by the Colo..doSRta
<br />RurolElectrlc Assoclallon
<br />...cl.I."'l"SIQt.P..oIclontW.....ly~P<vIl..,SIol.
<br />:nnr:~.~:u~;~/~',I;~~n:.:" lt~-::'~~:
<br />C.Io.
<br />PubllcQUe" Co",mlttw, lu'..... Wl/ir.... Chel.."c,".
<br />"'k~ Re'~h M<Ml1/.... CeIQ"""'" Sp.I"Il" 1...10
<br />~~egr'::'o~'TJy CVI5;.,?t~~~'t1:~.f/m" K\Ioh"
<br />Tfto Col..e"" lIInel~11actr1o Nowt Is GW-'
<br />~;:~~~ r..'ih:~I~~1 ~ ::re.'ce~=rJc" eo;
<br />"',. of nll..1 a_. IpO.lllcelr, Gnd 1M .",1;
<br />."pulGtlGnof CGI"G"""ndfht...t\CfI"""GIIr.
<br />SIo"...I.llo.. _, Mol..,""" .... YOO'. ;0' HIlto.
<br />Nen_m.m",,", _ ,..... $l.llO, '",mosl." In
<br />u.ln, 'e... U79 "dd_ h,COtO.....-.. 1....1
<br />EI",1Ie N.ws, 102 Fa...... Ualo. 81dO" 0."'"
<br />J.Colo. llOIo..d.. Socond-ao. ""'_att".
<br />'osfOflk. 01 D.nvor, Colo., uodol: ctd of Mo.."
<br />J.1I79.,
<br />
<br />:L
<br />
|