226894 research outputs found
Sort by
Letter Concerning WEST Associates
No full textLetter: To Stewart Udall, from Arizona Public Service Company, March 10, 1967, page 1ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY
March 10, 1967
WALTER T. LUCKING
Chairman and Chief Executive
The Honorable Stewart L. Udall
Secretary of the Interior
Department of the Interior
Interior Building
Washington, D. C.
Dear Mr. Secretary:
As you know, WEST Associates is now made up of some 22 public and private electric utilities in the West. This group has made great strides in cooperative planning of electric resources, and this planning has and will continue to provide benefits to the electric power consumers of the Western United States. The Department of Interior's cooperation in connection with the plants at Four Corners and Mohave have contributed to these efforts.
As you recall, on November 22, 1966, Salt River Project of Arizona, Southern California Edison Company and Arizona Public Service-all of whom are members of WEST-wrote to you and stated we were considering building a large coal-fired steam electric generating station in the vicinity of Page, Arizona, in which we contemplated the use of coal located on Indian Reservations and the use of Arizona Upper Basin water which has not been put to beneficial use. We indicated we would like to negotiate for the use of this water for the proposed Page plant and further, if appropriate assurance for the use of the water could be worked out, we would proceed with our investigation and studies necessary to determine the feasibility of the project. We also stated we would negotiate arrangements with appropriate entities, including Indian Tribal Councils and the State of Arizona, as well as your Department.
Following this letter, discussions were held among representatives of our three utilities and you in which we repeated our interest in a proposed plant near Page. At that time you stated the Administration was studying a number of different combinations of hydro and/or thermal power as sources for the Central Arizona Project pumping requirements. Further, you said that the Administration would be making its recommendation on the Lower Colorado legislation, following completion of these studies. You asked for an indication of our willingness to cooperate in helping work out power arrangements, whether the power source be thermal or hydro. We stated at that time it was impossible to give anything more than a general assurance of cooperation until a specific plan is presented on the basis of which details could be worked out. At that meeting we outlined to you
POST OFFICE BOX 2591
PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85002Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 1,220,996 byte
Federal Prepayment of Large Coal Fueled Steamplant Near Page, Arizona
No full textDocument: Central Arizona Project, Federal Prepayment of large coal fueled steamplant near Page, Arizona, 3-9-67, page 74
Project: Central Arizona
Region: 3
Date: March 8, 1967 (W.O.)
TOPIC: AMOUNT OF FEDERAL POWER FOR SALE--FEDERAL PREPAYMENT OF LARGE COAL-FIRED STEAMPLANT NEAR PAGE, ARIZONA
SYNOPSIS: Under the prepayment arrangement 400 megawatts of 85 percent load factor would be at the United States' disposal at all times. Since the plant will be operated continuously as a segment of a large efficient low-cost thermal installation, during those periods when the project pumping requirement is less than 400 megawatts it is intended that the surplus power will be either marketed at appropriate rates or delivered to other entities under a banking arrangement.
According to water supply projections, almost all of the Federal share of the thermal plant output will be used for project pumping through 1990. Commercial sales are expected to be only 23 megawatts in 1975 but will reach about 168 megawatts by 2025 due to the decrease in available water and resulting reduction in pumping requirements.
The attached tabulation indicates the approximate proportion of energy from the 400-megawatt Federal share to be used for irrigation pumping, municipal and industrial water pumping, and for commercial sales between 1975 and 2025. Over the 50-year repayment period project pump energy requirements range from 94 percent in 1975 to 50 percent in 2025.Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 830,642 byte
Federal Prepayment of Large Coal Fueled Steamplant Near Page, Arizona
No full textDocument: Central Arizona Project, Federal Prepayment of large coal fueled steamplant near Page, Arizona, 3-9-67, page 138
Project: Central Arizona
Region: 3
Date: March 9, 1967 (W. O.)
TOPIC: NEED FOR ADDITIONAL POWER RESOURCES IN THE SOUTHWEST
SYNOPSIS: The first 1000-MW thermal unit at the Page powerplant will be required to serve the growing area load between 1975 and 1976. The full output of the 5000-MW (4600 MW at load) ultimate capacity of the plant will be needed in 1977. The Colorado River Basin area (southern California, Arizona, Utah, New Mexico, southern Nevada, western Colorado, and southwestern Wyoming) power loads will be growing at a rate of about 2200 MW per year. The following tabulation shows the net load available for service from output of the Page plant. The estimated resources shown do not include the proposed Resources Company, Southern Utah, Kaiparowitz, 5000-MW plant. This plant may logically be constructed after Page is loaded.
COLORADO RIVER BASIN AREA
(Southern California, Arizona, Utah, New Mexico, southern Nevada, western Colorado, and southwestern Wyoming)
Megawatts at load
Year
1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980
Estimated loads 30,200 32,400 34,600 36,800 39,000 41,200
Estimated resources existing and planned including Pacific Intertie and L.A., MWD desalting plant 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000
Net load available for service from the Page plant and other plants to be constructed later. 200 2,400 4,600 6,800 9,000 11,200Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 860,740 byte
Federal Prepayment of Large Coal Fueled Steamplant Near Page, Arizona
No full textDocument: Central Arizona Project, Federal Prepayment of large coal fueled steamplant near Page, Arizona, 3-9-67, page 1612
PREPAYMENT
"Prepayment" as used with regard to the proposed Page steamplant means a payment related to construction cost for which the United States received a right to utilize the output of a portion of the steamplant. No title or ownership rights would be transferred to the United States. Prepayment differs from ownership in that the United States does not receive title to property in return for the prepayment.Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 472,979 byte
Statement of Stewart L. Udall, Secretary of the Interior
No full textDocument: Statement of Stewart Udall before the subcommittee on Irrigation & Reclamation, March 14, 1967, page 5for such a close relationship. The Commission must, of course, report directly to the President, but we expect to participate very closely with the Commission as it prepares its reports as well as providing our views to the President on the Commission's studies presented to him.
The Commission will provide a means for obtaining the opinions and assistance of an independent and informed body of nationally recognized water experts. We all recognize that there exists a tremendous job to be done by such a Commission and we are anxious to take every step necessary to get this job started.
I have mentioned the Colorado and associated problems as only one example of the type of program which must be undertaken by this Commission. There are, of course, many others. I hesitate to enumerate these since to do so might incorrectly be construed as disapproval of those not mentioned. This I most certainly do not wish to do.
We are threatened yearly with water crises in different parts of the country, involving pollution, drought, and floods. Other examples abound of man's urgent need effectively to control the most important of our natural resources: a supply of usable water. The National Water Commission proposal takes another important step
5Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 808,693 byte
Letter Concerning Financial Statements of the Tennessee Valley Authority
No full textLetter: To the President of the Senate & the Speaker of the House of Representatives, from Comptroller General of the United States, February 28, 1967 (thermofax), page 1OB-see next page/R Louis
COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549
[Feb, 28, 1967]
B-114850
To the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives
The General Accounting Office has made an examination of the financial statements of the Tennessee Valley Authority for the fiscal year ended June 30, 1966, pursuant to the Government Corporation Control Act (31 U.S.C. 841) which requires that an annual audit report be made by the Comptroller General to the Congress. We have included as an appendix to this report a description of the Authority's retirement system together with financial statements and the certified public accountants' opinion thereon.
Our examinatin of the balance sheet of the Authority as of June 30, 1966, and the related statements of power and nonpower programs and of source and disposition of funds for the year then ended was made in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards and accordingly included such tests of the accounting records and such other auditing procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. As provided by Public Law 86-137, the Authority employs a firm of certified public accountants to audit its accounts and financial statements for each fiscal year to facilitate the Authority's issuance and sale of revenue bonds. The audit by the firm of certified public accountants does not take the place of that required of our Office under the Government Corporation Control Act. However, in view of the fact that a firm of certified public accountants was employed by the Authority, our audit included observations and tests of the firm's audit work.
The financial statements and supporting schedules prepared by the Authority are incorporated in this report together with the opinion of the firm of certified public accountants employed by the Authority.
In our opinion, the accompanying financial statements (exhibits I through IV) and the supporting schedules present fairly the financial position of the Tennessee Valley Authority at June 30, 1966, and the results of its operations and the source and disposition of its funds for the year then ended, in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles applied on a basis consistent with that of the preceding year and with applicable Federal laws.Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 24 bit, 1,905,152 byte
Letter Concerning Financial Statements of the Tennessee Valley Authority
No full textLetter: To the President of the Senate & the Speaker of the House of Representatives, from Comptroller General of the United States, February 28, 1967 (thermofax), page 2B-114850
During the year, the Authority made the decision to build a large nuclear power plant. Until recently the Authority had assumed that nuclear power generation for the system was several years away because of the proximity to low-cost coal supplies. However, in view of recent cost reductions for large nuclear plants, the Authority invited competitive bids on the fuel and equipment for nuclear and coal-fired plants to provide additional capacity needed in the early 1970's.
The Authority's analysis of the bids received showed that a nuclear fuel-operated plant would have an advantage over a coal plant and that, during the first 12 years of operation, this would result in a cost reduction of about 247 million, including approximately 230 million contract was awarded to General Electric for a 12-year supply of nuclear fuel for this facility.
Copies of this report are being sent to the President of the United States; the Director, Bureau of the Budget; and the Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Tennessee Valley Authority.
Comptroller General
of the United States
-2-Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 24 bit, 1,765,215 byte
Memorandum Concerning Schedule of Hearings
No full textMemorandum: To the Secretary, from Orren Beaty, February 25, 1967 (thermofax)February 25, 1967
Memorandum to the Secretary
From: Orran Beaty
Attached to this are schedules of hearings in both the Senate and House in the next 2 or 3 weeks. You have seen them, but I want to call attention to some of them again to see if you plan to testify.
Also, Helene has given me an up-to-the-minute report on the status of hearings in the Senate on the Central Arizona Project.
You will note among the attachments a press release from the House Committee setting the week of March 13 to hear the CAP proposal. I am sure you agree it is important that your testimony be prepared early enough so that you can give it your own personal touch before it is put in final form. You might give the draff are some advance guidance Monday.
Helene reports after a conversation with Senator Anderson that he does not intend to call any hearings in the Senate until the House has acted because of the great divergence in the contents of the Aspinall bill and the one introduced by Senators Hayden, Jackson and Fannin. Anderson told her also that he does not intend to introduce or co-sponsor that bill.
Anderson's reason was that it did not include the New Mexico project, but she suspects opposition to the prepayment purchase of power proposal has made him additionally cautious.
She also taked to both Aspinall and Bizz Johnson and both expressed grave doubts about passage of any bill that does not include a dam on the Colorado River.
Having touched these Congressional bases, she then told Morley Fox that she thought the proposal was stalemated and he promised to stir up the Arizonas, but reiterated has belief that Senator Jackson would follow through on his promise to hold early hearings. Helene doubts that he will as long as Anderson, the Subcommittee Chairman and the senior member of the committee, is reluctant - - -
He says "Yes" on both counts OB - Recuse return this copy Hold max Edw. office 7
The House Committee has scheduled hearings on the National Trail System for March 6 and 7, and I assume you want to be the lead witness here as well as in the Senate.
Orren Beaty
AttachmentsEpson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 24 bit, 1,958,500 byte
Analysis of Proposed Bill "To Authorize the Construction"
No full textAttachment B: Analysis of Proposed Bill, page 4portion of the H.R. 3300, (Sec. 304(f)) which provides, on a contingent basis, for an exchange of an additional 30,000 acre-feet of water.
Section 3, dealing with fish and wildlife and recreation, appears as Section 308 of H.R. 3300. It specifically makes applicable the provisions of the Federal Water Project Recreation Act (79 Stat. 213).
Section 4 relating the reimbursability of costs of the Central Arizona project allocable to Indian lands, is Section 402 of H.R. 3300. It is a standard provision.
Section 5(Sec. 403(h) of H.R. 3300) is the usual provision establishing the interest rates applicable to reimbursable costs allocable to commercial power and municipal and industrial water. It is standard.
Section 6, dealing with water salvage programs in the lower Colorado River area, is essentially in the form in which it appeared in Section 305 of the version of H.R. 4671 upon which we reported.
Section 8 is similar to Section 502 of H.R. 3300 (Section 502 of H.R. 4671). It represents an agreement between upper and Lower Colorado River basin interests relative to the ultimate assumption of the costs entailed in meeting deficiencies in generation at Hoover dam occasioned by filling operations at the Colorado River storage project reservoirs. We offer no objection to it.
4Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 966,084 byte
Analysis of Proposed Bill "To Authorize the Construction"
No full textAttachment B: Analysis of Proposed Bill, page 6Section 601(d) of H.R. 3300 (Sec. 604(e) of H.R. 4671) appears to us to be unnecessary. We do not read the bill as having the effects referred to.
The other provisions of the draft bill are self-explanatory.
6Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 475,456 byte