DOCSLIB.ORG

RCED-97-12 Bureau of Reclamation: an Assessment of The

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

United States General Accounting Office GAO Report to Congressional Committees October 1996 BUREAU OF RECLAMATION An Assessment of the Environmental Impact Statement on the Operations of the Glen Canyon Dam GOA years 1921 - 1996 GAO/RCED-97-12 United States General Accounting Office GAO Washington, D.C. 20548 Resources, Community, and Economic Development Division B-272927 October 2, 1996 The Honorable Frank Murkowski Chairman The Honorable J. Bennett Johnston Ranking Minority Member Committee on Energy and Natural Resources United States Senate The Honorable Don Young Chairman The Honorable George Miller Ranking Minority Member Committee on Resources House of Representatives This report responds to subsection 1804(b) of the Grand Canyon Protection Act of 1992 (title XVIII of P.L. 102-575), which required GAO to audit the Bureau of Reclamation’s final environmental impact statement on the operations of the Glen Canyon Dam. The report discusses (1) whether Reclamation’s determination of the impact of various dam-operating alternatives on selected resources was reasonable and (2) what, if any, concerns still exist on the part of key interested parties about the final impact statement. We are providing a copy of this report to the Secretary of the Interior, the Assistant Secretary for Water and Power, and the Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation. We will also make copies available to others upon request. This report was prepared under the direction of Victor S. Rezendes, Director, Energy, Resources, and Science Issues, who can be reached at (202) 512-3841 if you or your staff have any questions. Major contributors to this report are listed in appendix XIII. Keith O. Fultz Assistant Comptroller General Executive Summary Since the Glen Canyon Dam, located in Page, Arizona, was completed by Purpose the Bureau of Reclamation in 1963, it has been used to generate power during periods of high demand, commonly known as peaking power. The fluctuating releases of water associated with the dam’s peaking power operations have caused concerns about the detrimental effects such flows have on downstream resources, particularly those located in the Grand Canyon. In response to these concerns, the Secretary of the Interior, in July 1989, directed the Bureau of Reclamation to prepare an environmental impact statement that would reevaluate the Glen Canyon Dam’s operations. The purpose of the reevaluation was to determine specific options for operating the dam that could minimize the adverse impacts on the downstream environmental and recreational resources, as well as on Native American interests in the Glen and Grand canyons, while still producing hydropower. Figure 1: Location of the Glen Canyon Dam River River Colorado Utah Gunnison Green River Nevada Colorado Glen Canyon Paria River Dam River San Juan Virgin Lake Powell River Lake Mead Lees Ferry Upper Colorado Little River Basin Hoover Dam Grand Canyon ColoradoLower Colorado River Basin California New Mexico Arizona River Salt River Source: Bureau of Reclamation. Page 2 GAO/RCED-97-12 Glen Canyon Dam’s Environmental Impact Statement Executive Summary In October 1992, the Congress enacted the Grand Canyon Protection Act of 1992 (title XVIII of P.L. 102-575), which required the Secretary of the Interior to complete the environmental impact statement by October 30, 1994. The act also required that GAO audit the costs and benefits of the various operating alternatives identified in the final environmental impact statement. In preparing the statement, Reclamation studied the potential impact of various flow alternatives on selected resources. Reclamation reported the results of these studies in the final environmental impact statement on March 21, 1995. As discussed with the responsible congressional committees, for the purpose of this audit, GAO examined (1) whether Reclamation’s impact determinations were reasonable and (2) what, if any, concerns still exist about the Glen Canyon Dam’s final environmental impact statement. The act also requires that on the basis of the findings, conclusions, and recommendations made in the environmental impact statement and the GAO audit report, the Secretary is to adopt criteria and operating plans for the dam. Before the construction of the Glen Canyon Dam, the Colorado River’s Background sediment-laden flows fluctuated dramatically during different seasons of the year. Annual daily flows of greater than 80,000 cubic feet per second were common during the spring runoff. In contrast, flows of less than 3,000 cubic feet per second were typical throughout the late summer, fall, and winter. Water temperatures ranged from near freezing in the winter to more than 80 degrees Fahrenheit in the summer. The construction of the Glen Canyon Dam altered the natural dynamics of the Colorado River corridor through the Glen and Grand canyons. The dam replaced the dramatic seasonal flow variations with significant daily fluctuations, greatly reduced the amount of sediment in the water, and resulted in nearly constant water release temperatures of about 46 degrees Fahrenheit. As early as 1982, the Secretary of the Interior initiated the Glen Canyon Environmental Studies of the effects of the dam. These studies were led by Reclamation and conducted by a number of different agencies. In 1989, the Secretary designated Reclamation as the lead agency in preparing an environmental impact statement. Other agencies and individuals participated in these efforts, including federal and state resource agencies, Indian tribes, private consultants, universities, and river guides. To protect the downstream resources until the completion of the impact statement and the adoption of a new operating plan for the dam, in November 1991 Reclamation implemented interim operating criteria. The interim Page 3 GAO/RCED-97-12 Glen Canyon Dam’s Environmental Impact Statement Executive Summary operating criteria reduced the maximum peak releases and daily fluctuations. With the passage of the Grand Canyon Protection Act of 1992, the Congress required that the Glen Canyon Dam be operated to protect and restore the downstream resources of the Grand Canyon National Park and the Glen Canyon National Recreational Area. The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) requires that a detailed environmental impact statement be prepared for every major federal action that may significantly affect the quality of the human environment. The act and its implementing regulations set forth the requirements for preparing an impact statement. Among other things, a statement must (1) address the purpose of and need for the action, (2) describe the environment that will be affected, (3) identify alternatives to the proposed action, (4) present the environmental impacts of the proposed action (including the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts), and (5) identify the agency’s preferred alternative. The act does not require, and Reclamation did not perform, a cost and benefit analysis of the proposed action. In preparing the environmental impact statement for the operation of the Glen Canyon Dam, Reclamation identified 11 resources affected by the dam’s operations to be analyzed in detail: water, sediment, fish, vegetation, wildlife and habitat, endangered and other special-status species, cultural resources, air quality, recreation, hydropower, and non-use value. (Non-use values have been defined as those values that people may receive from the knowledge that such things as rare plants and unspoiled natural environments exist, even if people do not consume or use these goods directly.) In addition, the impact statement identified nine alternative operational scenarios to be studied in detail. These alternatives can be divided into three descriptive categories: unrestricted fluctuating flows (two alternatives, including the no-action alternative); restricted fluctuating flows (four alternatives); and steady flows (three alternatives). In the final impact statement, Reclamation recommended the Modified Low Fluctuating Flow as the preferred alternative. This alternative was developed to reduce daily flow fluctuations well below the dam’s previous operating levels and to provide periodic high, steady releases of short duration; the goal of this alternative was to protect or enhance downstream resources while allowing limited flexibility for power operations. Page 4 GAO/RCED-97-12 Glen Canyon Dam’s Environmental Impact Statement Executive Summary In general, Reclamation used appropriate methodologies and the best Results in Brief available information in determining the potential impact of the dam’s various flow alternatives on selected resources. GAO identified some shortcomings and controversy in Reclamation’s application of certain methodologies, and some of the data that Reclamation used in making its impact determinations were dated, preliminary, or incomplete. These limitations, combined with the inherent uncertainty associated with making forecasts, reduces the precision of the impacts contained in the statement, and some uncertainty, such as the impact of steady flows on fish resources, remains. Nonetheless, according to GAO’s analysis and the opinions of experts, these limitations are not significant enough to alter the relative ranking of the flow alternatives nor render the final environmental impact statement unusable as a decision-making document. Furthermore, Reclamation recognizes that uncertainties still exist. To address these concerns, Reclamation intends to initiate a process
Recommended publications
  • Operation of Flaming Gorge Dam Final Environmental Impact Statement

    Operation of Flaming Gorge Dam Final Environmental Impact Statement

    Record of Decision Operation of Flaming Gorge Dam Final Environmental Impact Statement I. Summary of Action and Background The Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) has completed a final environmental impact statement (EIS) on the operation of Flaming Gorge Dam. The EIS describes the potential effects of modifying the operation of Flaming Gorge Dam to assist in the recovery of four endangered fish, and their critical habitat, downstream from the dam. The four endangered fish species are Colorado pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus lucius), humpback chub (Gila cypha), razorback sucker (Xyrauchen texanus), and bonytail (Gila elegans). Reclamation would implement the proposed action by modifying the operations of Flaming Gorge Dam, to the extent possible, to achieve the flows and temperatures recommended by participants of the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program (Recovery Program). Reclamation’s goal is to implement the proposed action and, at the same time, maintain and continue all authorized purposes of the Colorado River Storage Project. The purpose of the proposed action is to operate Flaming Gorge Dam to protect and assist in recovery of the populations and designated critical habitat of the four endangered fishes, while maintaining all authorized purposes of the Flaming Gorge Unit of the Colorado River Storage Project (CRSP), including those related to the development of water resources in accordance with the Colorado River Compact. As the Federal agency responsible for the operation of Flaming Gorge Dam, Reclamation was the lead agency in preparing the EIS. Eight cooperating agencies also participated in preparing this EIS: the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service, State of Utah Department of Natural Resources, U.S.
  • APS Four Corners Power Plant

    APS Four Corners Power Plant

    NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM PERMIT FACT SHEET SEPTEMBER 2019 Permittee Name: Arizona Public Service Company Mailing Address: P.O. Box 53999 Phoenix, AZ 85072 Facility Address: Four Corners Power Plant P.O. Box 355, Station 4900 Fruitland, NM 87416 Contact Person(s): Jeffrey Jenkins, Plant Manager Tel: (505) 598-8200 NPDES Permit No.: NN0000019 I. STATUS OF PERMIT The United States Environmental Protection Agency (hereinafter “EPA Region 9” or “EPA”) re-issued the current National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (“NPDES”) Permit (No. NN0000019) for the discharge of treated wastewater from the Arizona Public Service Company’s (hereinafter “APS” or “the Permittee” or “the Applicant”) Four Corners Power Plant (hereinafter “FCPP” or “the Plant”) to No Name Wash in the Navajo Nation on January 24, 2001, with an expiration date of January 24, 2006. On October 5, 2005, APS, as co- owner and operator of the FCPP, applied to the United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9 (hereinafter “EPA Region 9” or “EPA”) for renewal of APS’ permit for discharge of wastewater to waters of the United States, and the permit was administratively extended. APS subsequently provided updates to their initial application, allowing the facility to operate under the administrative extension. Via a letter dated October 30, 2012, EPA Region 9 requested that APS submit a fully revised application that reflected current operations, as well as future plans for the next permit cycle. On or about February 15, 2013, APS submitted a revised application, which included a description of the planned shutdown of Units 1, 2, and 3, as well as likely impacts on surface water discharges to be regulated under a renewed NPDES permit.
  • Big-River Monitoring on the Colorado Plateau

    Big-River Monitoring on the Colorado Plateau

    I NVENTORY & M ONITORING N ETWORK Big-River Monitoring on the Colorado Plateau Dustin Perkins1, Mike Scott2, Greg Auble2, Mark Wondzell3, Chris Holmquist-Johnson2, Eric Wahlig2, Helen Thomas1, and Aneth Wight1; 1Northern Colorado Plateau Network, P.O. Box 848, Bldg. 11, Arches National Park, Moab, UT 84532 2U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources Discipline, FORT Science Center, 2150 Centre Ave., Building C, Fort Collins, CO 80526; 3National Park Service, Water Resources Division, 1201 Oakridge Dr., Ste. 150, Fort Collins, CO 80525 Introduction and Green rivers in Canyonlands National Park. The Yampa River is the longest relatively free-flowing river Water has always been in short supply in the western reach remaining in the Colorado River basin. The U.S., making it a consistent source of conflict. In Green River is highly regulated by Flaming Gorge Dam the Colorado River drainage, an increasing human but is partially restored below its confluence with the population fuels increased demands for water from Yampa River. There have been large-scale changes the river and its tributaries. As a result, streamflow to the Green River since Flaming Gorge Dam was in virtually all of these systems has been altered by completed in 1962. reservoirs and other water-development projects. In most cases, reduced flows have significantly altered Monitoring of these rivers and their riparian peak flows and increased base flows that structure vegetation focuses on processes that affect the river floodplain vegetation, stream-channel morphology, channel, active bars, and riparian floodplains. To get and water quality (e.g., temperature, suspended a complete picture of river conditions, the NCPN sediment, nutrients).
  • Itinerary: the Yampa River: 5 Days/4 Nights

    Itinerary: the Yampa River: 5 Days/4 Nights

    Itinerary: PO Box 1324 Moab, UT 84532 (800) 332-2439 The Yampa River: (435) 259-8229 Fax (435) 259-2226 Email: [email protected] 5 Days/4 Nights www.GriffithExp.com T h r o u g h Dinosaur National Monument O v e r v i e w of The Yampa River Meeting Place Best Western Antlers 423 West Main Street Vernal, UT 84078 Meeting Time : 6 : 3 0 pm (MDT) The evening before your trip Orientation: 6 : 3 0 pm (MDT) the day BEFORE d e p a r t u r e H e r e you will learn what to expect and prepare for, receive your dry bags, sign Assumption of Risk forms, and get a chance to ask last minute q u e s t i o n s . Morning Place : Best Western Antlers 423 West Main Street Vernal, UT 84078 M o r n i n g T i m e : 7 : 0 0 a m (MDT) Return Time : Approximately 5 : 0 0 - 6 : 0 0 P M Rapid Rating: C l a s s I I I - I V (water level dependent) # of Rapids : 16 River Miles: 72 P u t i n : Deer Lodge Park Ranger Station T a k e - out : Split Mountain boat ramp Trip Length: 5 D a y s / 4 N i g h t s Raft Type(s): O a r b o a t s , Paddleboats and Inflatable Kayaks Age Limit: Minimum Age is 10 y e a r s o l d What makes this trip special? The Yampa River through the Dinosaur National Monument has it all! As the last free-flowing river in the entire Colorado River drainage, the Yampa is incredibly wild in May and June.
  • Arizona-Public-Service-Profile

    Arizona-Public-Service-Profile

    Arizona Public Service Arizona Public Service Company is the largest electric utility in Arizona and the subsidiary of publicly-traded S&P 500 member Pinnacle West Capital Corporation. The utility provides power for nearly 1.2 million customers in 11 of the state's 15 counties. Despite the fact that Arizona is the sunniest state in the U.S., it is falling far behind on solar installations, and by the end of 2015, the state had fallen from second in total U.S. installed solar to sixth. # " In fact, New Jersey, a state with far less solar energy resource potential, has more small-scale distributed rooftop solar than Arizona. There are 793 megawatts of solar installed in New Jersey compared to 609 megawatts in Arizona." !1 Why would the sunniest state in the U.S. have so little solar, when solar power purchase agreements have been signed in the Southwestern U.S. for 4 to 6 cents/kWh?" Why, then, is Arizona less than 4% solar and over 40% coal?" One reason is that Arizona utilities make far more money running old, polluting coal plants that generate electricity for around 3 cents/kWh, than risking a loss of sales to solar energy. Although utility-scale solar in Arizona has been as cheap as new natural gas for a number of years, utilities like Arizona Public Service have not lived up to the state’s solar potential." Summary As is illustrated by its June 2016 request for a $3.6 billion rate increase over only three years, APS is investing far more money in coal and natural gas than in solar.
  • Flaming Gorge Operation Plan - May 2021 Through April 2022

    Flaming Gorge Operation Plan - May 2021 Through April 2022

    Flaming Gorge Operation Plan - May 2021 through April 2022 Concurrence by Kathleen Callister, Resources Management Division Manager Kent Kofford, Provo Area Office Manager Nicholas Williams, Upper Colorado Basin Power Manager Approved by Wayne Pullan, Upper Colorado Basin Regional Director U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation • Interior Region 7 Upper Colorado Basin • Power Office Salt Lake City, Utah May 2021 Purpose This Flaming Gorge Operation Plan (FG-Ops) fulfills the 2006 Flaming Gorge Record of Decision (ROD) requirement for May 2021 through April 2022. The FG-Ops also completes the 4-step process outlined in the Flaming Gorge Standard Operation Procedures. The Upper Colorado Basin Power Office (UCPO) operators will fulfil the operation plan and may alter from FG-Ops due to day to day conditions, although we will attempt to stay within the boundaries of the operations defined below. Listed below are proposed operation plans for four different scenarios: moderately dry, average (above median), average (below median), and moderately wet. As of the publishing of this document, the most likely scenario is the moderately dry, however actual operations will vary with hydrologic conditions. The Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program (Recovery Program), the Flaming Gorge Technical Working Group (FGTWG), Flaming Gorge Working Group (FG WG), United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and Western Area Power Administration (WAPA) provided input that was considered in the development of this report. The FG-Ops describes the current hydrologic classification of the Green River Basin and the hydrologic conditions in the Yampa River Basin. The FG-Ops identifies the most likely Reach 2 peak flow magnitude and duration that is to be targeted for the upcoming spring flows.
  • When the Navajo Generating Station Closes, Where Does the Water Go?

    When the Navajo Generating Station Closes, Where Does the Water Go?

    COLORADO NATURAL RESOURCES, ENERGY & ENVIRONMENTAL LAW REVIEW When the Navajo Generating Station Closes, Where Does the Water Go? Gregor Allen MacGregor* INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................... 291 I. HISTORICAL SETTING OF THE CURRENT CONFLICT .......................... 292 A. “Discovery” of the Colorado River; Spanish Colonization Sets the Stage for European Expansion into the Southwest ....... 292 B. American Indian Law: Sovereignty, Trust Responsibility, and Treaty Interpretation ........................................................... 293 C. Navajo Conflict and Resettlement on their Historic Homelands ............................................................................................ 295 D. Navajo Generating Station in the Context of the American Southwest’s “Big Buildup” ................................................. 297 II. OF MILLET AND MINERS: WATER LAW IN THE WEST, ON THE RESERVATIONS, AND ON THE COLORADO.................................. 301 A. Prior Appropriation: First in Time, First in Right ................ 302 B. The Winters Doctrine and the McCarran Amendment ......... 303 D. River, the Law of ................................................................. 305 1. Introduction.................................................................... 305 2. The Colorado River Compact ........................................ 306 3. Conflict in the Lower Basin Clarifies Winters .............. 307 * Mr. MacGregor is a retired US Army Cavalry Officer. This
  • Yampa River Is Placed on Call for 1St Time Ever | Steamboattoday.Com 8/12/20, 9�43 AM

    Yampa River Is Placed on Call for 1St Time Ever | Steamboattoday.Com 8/12/20, 943 AM

    Yampa River is placed on call for 1st time ever | SteamboatToday.com 8/12/20, 943 AM YOUR AD HERE » Yampa River is placed on call for 1st time ever News FOLLOW NEWS | September 5, 2018 Eleanor C. Hasenbeck FOLLOW [email protected] The Yampa River flows through Dinosaur National Monument around Aug. 18. Low flows in the lower stretch of the river led water managers to curtail some use of water from the river. (courtesy photo) STEAMBOAT SPRINGS — For the first time, water users on the main stem of the Yampa River have been curtailed. Due to low water conditions in the lower stretch of the river near Dinosaur National Monument, the Colorado Division of Water Resources placed a call on the river Tuesday. The call applies to water users upstream from the river’s lowest diversion point, which essentially places the entire river on call. https://www.steamboatpilot.com/news/yampa-river-is-placed-on-call-for-1st-time-ever/ Page 1 of 4 Yampa River is placed on call for 1st time ever | SteamboatToday.com 8/12/20, 943 AM “We are now faced again with the Yampa River being extremely low at its lower end, and we are unable to both protect the Endangered Fishes Recovery Program reservoir water and allow all water users to continue to divert water,” Erin Light, the area division engineer, wrote in an email to water users in the Yampa River Basin on Wednesday morning. The Division of Water Resources places a call on a stream when water rights owners do not receive the amount of water they have a legal right to.
  • Those Glen Canyon Transmission Lines -- Some Facts and Figures on a Bitter Dispute

    Those Glen Canyon Transmission Lines -- Some Facts and Figures on a Bitter Dispute

    [July 1961] THOSE GLEN CANYON TRANSMISSION LINES -- SOME FACTS AND FIGURES ON A BITTER DISPUTE A Special Report by Rep. Morris K. Udall Since I came to Congress in May, my office has been flooded with more mail on one single issue than the combined total dealing with Castro, Berlin, Aid to Education, and Foreign Aid. Many writers, it soon became apparent, did not have complete or adequate information about the issues or facts involved in this dispute. The matter has now been resolved by the House of Representatives, and it occurs to me that many Arizonans might want a background paper on the facts and issues as they appeared to me. I earnestly hope that those who have criticized my stand will be willing to take a look at the other side of the story -- for it has received little attention in the Arizona press. It is always sad to see a falling out among reputable and important Arizona industrial groups. In these past months we have witnessed a fierce struggle which has divided two important segments of the Arizona electrical industry. For many years Arizona Public Service Company (APSCO) and such public or consumer-owned utilities as City of Mesa, Salt River Valley Water Users Association, the electrical districts, REA co-ops, etc. have worked harmoniously solving the electrical needs of a growing state. Since early 1961, however, APSCO has been locked in deadly combat with the other groups. Charges and counter-charges have filled the air. The largest part of my mail has directly resulted from a very large, expensive (and most effective) public relations effort by APSCO, working in close cooperation with the Arizona Republic and Phoenix Gazette.
  • Mormon Flat Dam Salt River Phoenix Vicinity Maricopa County Arizona

    Mormon Flat Dam Salt River Phoenix Vicinity Maricopa County Arizona

    Mormon Flat Dam Salt River HAER No. AZ- 14 Phoenix Vicinity Maricopa County Arizona PHOTOGRAPHS WRITTEN HISTORICAL AND DESCRIPTIVE DATA Historic American Engineering Record National Park Service Western Region Department of Interior San Francisco, California 94102 ( ( f ' HISTORIC AMERICAN ENGINEERING RECORD Mormon Flat Dam HAER No. AZ-14 Location: Mormon Flat Dam is located on the Salt River in eastern Maricopa County, Arizona. It is approximately 50 miles east of Phoenix. UTM coordinates 25 feet northeast of the dam (in feet) are: Easting 1505701.5184; Northing 12180405.3728, Zone 12. USGS 7.5 quad Mormon Flat Dam. Date of Construction: 1923-1925. Engineer: Charles C. Cragin. Present Owner: The Salt River Project. Present Use: Mormon Flat Dam is operated by the Salt River Project for the purposes of generating hydroelectic power and for storing approximately 57,000 acre feet of water for agricultural and urban uses. Significance: Mormon Flat Dam was the first dam constructed under the Salt River Project's 1920's hydroelectic expansion program. Historian: David M. Introcaso, Corporate Information Management, Salt River Project. Mormon Flat Dam HAER No. AZ-14 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter I Introduction 3 Chapter II The Need to Expand the Association's Hydroelectric Capacity . • . • • . 20 Chapter III The Construction of Mormon Flat Dam . 37 Chapter IV The Construction of Horse Mesa Dam 60 Chapter V Post-Construction: Additions to the Association's Hydroelectric Program and Modifications to Mormon Flat and Horse Mesa Dams 79 Chapter VI Conclusion . 105 Chapter VII Epilogue: Expansion Backlash, "Water Users Oust Cragin" . 114 Appendixes . 130 Bibliography 145 Mormon Flat Darn HAER No.
  • UNS Holdco Cash Sources & Uses

    UNS Holdco Cash Sources & Uses

    An Historic Look at UNS Energy Tucson Electric Power & Unisource Electric Kevin Battaglia Resource Planning 1 First Power Plant downtown at 120 N. Church St. W. Congress at Church (1916) 1904 Power Plant moves to 220 W. Sixth Street 220 W. Sixth Street Generators 5 Changes in the 60’s 6 Until 1942 TEP was an electrical island, disconnected from other utilities NEVADA Davis Dam PHOENIX Tucson 1950 Demoss Petrie 100 MW 8 1950 DeMoss Petrie 100 MW Irvington Generating Station - 1958 • Eventually, there would be four gas units producing 422 MW. Later named H. Wilson Sundt Generating Station • Tucson’s population in 1958 was 230,000 • Conversion of Unit 4 to Gas was mandated by Power Plant and Industrial Fuel Use Act of 1978 (PPIFUA) 1964 Interconnection to Arizona Public Service at Saguaro PHOENIX Tucson’s population wasSaguaro (APS)309,000 TUCSON Being connected to other utilities allows sales of excess power and it provides outside support in emergencies. 1969 Four Corners Units 4 & 5 – 110MW Tucson’s population was 345,000 Participation: Southern California Edison: 48 % Arizona Public Service: 15 % Public Service Co. of New Mexico: 13 % Salt River Project: 10 % Tucson Electric Power: 7 % 1972 Palo Verde – 521 MW By 1975, management saw that slower than expected load growth and higher than forecast costs did not merit the risk of such a large project. In 1975 TEP’s interest in Palo Verde was sold. Arizona Coal Resources 14 Transmission Resources San Juan McKinley PHOENIX Greenlee Saguaro Tortolita Tucson Irvington South Vail November 2013 15 Future Expansion Requires More EHV Transmission Tucson’s population was 416,000 The 345 KV San Juan to Vail line is completed in 1973 at a cost of $89 million or about $250 million in today’s dollars.
  • Background Report Prepared by Arizona State University NINETY-NINTH ARIZONA TOWN HALL

    Background Report Prepared by Arizona State University NINETY-NINTH ARIZONA TOWN HALL

    Arizona’s Energy Future 99th Arizona Town Hall November 6 - 9, 2011 Background Report Prepared by Arizona State University NINETY-NINTH ARIZONA TOWN HALL PREMIER PARTNER CONTRIBUTING PARTNER COLLABORATING PARTNERS SUPPORTING PARTNERS CIVIC PARTNERS CORE Construction Kennedy Partners Ryley, Carlock & Applewhite Sundt Construction One East Camelback, Suite 530, Phoenix, Arizona 85012 Phone: 602.252.9600 Fax: 602.252.6189 Website: www.aztownhall.org Email: [email protected] ARIZONA’S ENERGY FUTURE September 2011 We thank you for making the commitment to participate in the 99th Arizona Town Hall to be held at the Grand Canyon on November 6-9, 2011. You will be discussing and developing consensus with fellow Arizonans on the future of energy in Arizona. An essential element to the success of these consensus-driven discussions is this background report that is provided to all participants before the Town Hall convenes. As they have so often done for past Arizona Town Halls, Arizona State University has prepared a detailed and informative report that will provide a unique and unparalleled resource for your Town Hall panel sessions. Special thanks go to editors Clark Miller and Sharlissa Moore of the Consortium for Science, Policy, and Outcomes at ASU for spearheading this effort and marshaling many talented professionals to write individual chapters. For sharing their wealth of knowledge and professional talents, our thanks go to the many authors who contributed to the report. Our deepest gratitude also goes to University Vice President and Dean of the College of Public Programs for ASU, Debra Friedman, and Director of the School of Public Affairs for ASU, Jonathan Koppell, who made great efforts to ensure that ASU could provide this type of resource to Arizona.