Fact Sheet on Colorado River Storage Project Transmission System Controversy

Document: From United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, "Fact Sheet on Colorado River Storage Project Transmission System Controversy," May 8, 1961, page 4Comment: The utilities fail to mention that only one of them actually offered to provide reserve generation and that at a price. By interconnection with the other great Federal systems of Hoover, Parker-Davis and the entire Western Division of the Missouri River Basin Project as well as the generation of preference customers as would be done, the Colorado River Storage Project system will have access to far greater generating capacity than is available in the utility systems. This would permit greater flexibility, more firm power from Colorado River Storage Project plants, and greater return to the Federal Government for payout of the participating projects than would otherwise be possible. It is foolish for anyone to assume or contemplate that the Storage Project system would be isolated, and deadended near, but not connected to these existing Federal systems. On the other hand, if the private utilities desire to participate in such an integrated arrangement as now exists in the Pacific Northwest where a Federal backbone system is maintained by the Bonneville Power Administration, even greater mutual benefits would be realized for all participants. 6. Use of the public utility system would produce $1,000,000 more revenue for the Government each year through elimination of heavy line losses on the Bureau's proposed transmission system. Comment: Two of the utilities in their official proposal to the Government, were silent as to the payment for losses in connection with power transmitted over their system. The others had the usual loss factor which the Government would have to pay. These losses were no different than would be case under the all-federal system. The Bureau met with the individual utilities with its interpretation of their offer and asked each if their offer was properly interpreted and handled. There were no dissenting voices. Although it was known that the partial Federal system associated with the interconnected utility system as proposed in their wheeling offer would result in lower losses than under an exclusive Federal transmission system, the only conclusion to be reached following the discussions was that the two utilities intended to keep this benefit of lower losses for themselves. Any contention they now make that it was their intention to be compensated for a lower level of losses than the Federal Government would experience with its own exclusive system can only be interpreted as a new offer made publicly as a propaganda weapon but not submitted officially. The Bureau of Reclamation evaluation was on the official submittal. The matter of losses is directly related to system interconnection and not to the wheeling offers. The same decrease in losses can be secured by the Bureau building the lines and effecting interconnections with the utilities without wheeling. For this reason, as well as the former, it was appropriate for the Bureau to not claim any added revenue due to savings in losses. 7. The Public Utilities transmission system will pay $3,280,000 a year in taxes including $1,160,000 for schools whereas the Federal system would pay none. 4Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 2,298,017 byte