OCR Text |
Show 106 UPDATING THE HOOVER DAM DOCUMENTS Principle 8. Despite the desirability of maintaining rated head at both Hoover and Glen Canyon Powerplants, which could perhaps be an operating rule, Reclamation declined to include a requirement in the general principles that any water stored in Lake Powell above elevation 3400 should be subject to release to maintain rated head at Hoover. Likewise, a Lower Basin proposal was declined that the offsetting of Hoover impairment should have priority on Upper Basin power output to the extent the Secretary cannot find replacement energy for purchase. Reclamation was agreeable to devoting nonfirm energy to this purpose, but not firm energy. E. Secretarial Approval of General Principles and Operating Criteria On April 2, 1962, Secretary Udall approved Reclamation's recommendations that the general principles be approved, subject to whatever reconsideration may appear desirable after the Hoover power allottees comment on additional Regulation No. 1, and that the principles be transmitted to the Governors, Senators and Representatives of the Basin States, the Upper Colorado River Commission, the Hoover power allottees, and other interested parties. F. Additional Regulation No. 1 By letter of April 4, 1962, the Commissioner of Reclamation requested the comments of the Hoover power contractors on additional Regulation No. 1, which provide for reimbursement of the Upper Colorado River Basin Fund after June 1, 1987, in that the rates to be charged for energy after 1987 would include a component to assure revenues in the fund to accomplish reimbursement of the Upper Colorado River Basin Fund. Comments were received from the following named six of the nine contractors. No comments were received from the cities of Burbank, Glendale, and Pasadena, California. Arizona Power Authority: Declined to comment and urged discussion of the matters it previously raised in connection with the filling criteria for Lake Powell, particularly the lack of a sufficient basis for responsible evaluation of the effect of the filling criteria upon Hoover, Davis, and Parker interests. California Electric Power Co.: Additional Regulation No. 1 is unfair in forcing the Hoover power contractors to pay for a power loss caused by the filling of Lake Powell. It contends this cost should be paid by the Upper Basin States. If, however, the Hoover contractors must stand the cost, the company prefers to see the funds repaid after 1987, but the monies used should be repaid without interest. Further, the Hoover allottees are being discriminated against by allowing Lake Mead to drop to 14.5 maf during the filling of Lake Powell to its highest elevation, rather than 17 maf; that the low elevation water content will decrease its kilowatt capacity and the energy available to each contractor; and that if an allowance is made by delivering energy to an affected Hoover contractor, it should be delivered at times needed, as determined by the contractor. Colorado River Commission of Nevada: Questioned the necessity and/or the practicality of considering the proposed regulation at this time since it does not become effective until June 1, 1987. The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California: Withheld its comments pending study of an alternative proposal to use the Colorado River Development Fund to make allowance for diminution in Hoover basic firm energy during filling period. Since the District has no generating facilities, it will be compelled to purchase substitute energy, which cost will presumably be greater than the contract cost of Hoover energy, so that its view is that the "incremental cost" of substitute energy will refer to the actual cost of such energy to the District at the time and in the quantity required for District operations. Therefore, it prefers substitute energy instead of monetary compensation. City of Los Angeles: While it assumes that additional Regulation No. 1 contemplates reimbursement without interest, it prefers that the regulation state specifically that such reimbursement is to be without interest. Southern California Edison Co: The provisions of Article 5 of the filling criteria and proposed Regulation No. 1 relative to reimbursement of the Upper Colorado River Basin Fund from charges for electrical energy to be made at the Hoover Powerplant subsequent to June 1, 1987, would not appear to be authorized by existing law but rather to be in conflict therewith. It was Reclamation's opinion that the comments it received did not object to the issuance of additional Regulation No. 1, or did not offer substantive reasons opposing its issuance and, therefore, Reclamation recommended the Secretary's promulgation of the Regulation and its publication in the Federal Register. |