OCR Text |
Show APPENDIX VI VI-59 54 COLOHADO RIVER STORAGE PROJECT revenues or energy with which to fulfill his Hoover power contracts; (6) Elimination of the concept of principle No. 5 of the proposed criteria to which the upper basin objects; and (c) Payment for the Hoover generating diminutions on a current (or almost current) basis, time preventing the accrual of increased interest charges against Glen Canyon. It has been suggested that the $500,000 per year from the CRD fund might be used by the Secretary either to directly make the necessary replacement energy purchases or to reimburse the upper basin fund for money diverted for making up Hoover generation diminutions. Since the Bureau proposes disregarding the return of the interest, cost to the upper basin fund when funds are diverted therefrom, it would be better to allow the Secretary to stay completely away from the upper basin fund in paving for Hoover power diminutions and use the CRD fund for direct purchase of replacement energy. In this manner the added interest burden to the upper basin fund would be eliminated. Disregarding for the moment the interest charges on the balances remaining annually of the cost of replacement energy and assuming the costs of nonfirm replacement energy and dollar charges that the Bureau of Reclamation used in its Financial and Power Rate Analysis, September I960 (same as referred to in the Dominy letter) the CRD fund could be applied as follows: Year N on firm energy cost Other enerfty purchases Total dollars needod From Colorado River development fund Balance 1963.................... $875,000 875,000 $875,000 923.000 2.052,000 1,247,000 565,000 $500,000 500,000 500,000 500.000 500,000 500,000 $375,000 800, OOf 2,352,000 3,099,000 3,164,000 2,664,000 2,164,000 1,664.000 1,164,000 664.000 1964..................... $50,000 2.052,000 1.247.000 1965................... 196C.................... 1967...................... 565,000 19RS____ 1969... 500,000 1970................... 500.000 500,000 500.000 1971................... 1972................... 1973............................. 500.000 ; 164,000 164.000 1974............................. I realize, of course, that to change the use of the Colorado River development fund would require congressional amendatory legislation, and that other changes in the Boulder Canyon Project Adjustment Act may be necessary. In shortening principle No. 8, the indented portion has been omitted, one part of wnich would have allowed Lake Mead to be drawn to elevation 1,050 after Glen Canyon Reservoir attains elevation 3,490, if necessary, in order to produce the greatest practical amount of power and energy. It is assumed that under the new principle No. 8 this procedure would still be foDowed because the Domin}r letter states, "the principle enunciated has not been changed." Commissioner Dominv in his letter states that the Bureau of Reclamation approves the idea that the upper basin be represented on a group which will consider the theoretical annual operation of Lake Mead. Representation of the upper basin on such a group is |