| OCR Text |
Show 92 UPDATING THE HOOVER DAM DOCUMENTS (2) A 500-kV AC line from John Day Dam, Oregon, via the Central Valley of California to Vincent Substation, Los Angeles, California; (3) A 750-kV DC line from The Dallas Dam, Oregon, to Hoover Dam, connected to Los Angeles by a 750-kV DC line, and to Phoenix, Arizona, by a second 345-kV AC line; and (4) A 500-kV AC line from John Day to Table Mountain in the Central Valley of California, and thence to Vincent Substation, Los Angeles, California. The physical detail and economic data on this proposal were submitted to the Appropriations Committees of the Congress by the June 1964 Report of the Secretary of the Interior to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees on the Pacific North west-Pacific Southwest Intertie. Congressional authority for construction of the Intertie was provided in the 1965 Public Works Appropriations, the Act of August 14, 1964, 78 Stat. 756. This authority was conditioned, however, by the report by the Senate Appropriations Committee which provided that construction of the Intertie lines was not to commence until a review was completed which found that The Dalles-Hoover Dam would be financially feasible and self-liquidating over its service life. In October 1964, the Feasibility Report on the Dalles-Hoover DC Intertie was submitted to the Appropriations Committees. As this report supported the economic feasibility of The Dalles-Hoover line, Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) and the Bureau of Reclamation were directed to proceed with construction of the Federal portions of the Intertie Project. The two 500-kV AC lines and an 800-kV DC line from The Dalles Dam to the southern California area were completed and have been in service since 1963, 1969, and 1970, respectively. A 345-kV line and associated facilities were constructed from Mead Substation, near Hoover Dam, to Liberty Substation near Phoenix with a connecting 230-kV line to Pinnacle Peak Substation north of Phoenix. These facilities were placed in service in 1968. Contracts were awarded for the construction and installation of the DC terminal at Mead Substation. Preliminary survey and acquisition of right-of-way were completed for The Dallas-Hoover DC line. The initial proposal included an expected inservice date of 1971. As a result of several delays in appropriation of funds, by 1969 the proposed inservice date of the "Hoover" DC Intertie had been delayed to the extent that the involved entities were forced to make other arrangements for a power supply. This resulted in an announcement by the Assistant Secretary for Water and Power Development, in May 1969, that the construction of the "Hoover" DC line would be postponed. Since the postponement of construction in 1969, several meetings have been held with the interested entities to reexamine the need for and interest in the Intertie based on updated costs, loads and available resources. During these reviews, both BPA and Reclamation took the position that any action which would involve a significant expenditure of funds must be contingent upon rather firm commitments on the part of the entities which would use the line. A review, which was initiated in 1975, indicated that there was not adequate interest to justify a complete reanalysis and feasibility study of the "Hoover" DC line. F.2 Task Forces In view of the increased costs of installing generating facilities on both the Pacific Northwest and Pacific Southwest systems, together with the greatly increased fuel costs and the need for conservation of fossil fuels, a review of the interests and need for the "Hoover" Intertie was initiated in August 1975. As a result of this review three task forces were established as follows: (1) System Studies Task Force; (2) Economic Evaluation Task Force; and (3) Environmental Task Force. The System studies task force was chaired by Bonneville Power Administration, with representation by U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Arizona Public Service Company, Salt River Project, and Nevada Power Company. Salt River Project chaired the Economic Evaluation Task Force, with representation from the same entities as the System Studies Task Force. |
