Page 3

Metadata

Title
Page 3
Source
How Boulder Dam will refinance Colorado River Project : statement to Congressional Colorado River Commission regarding present and probable future power demands, power supply and cost per K.W.H. for Southern California
Is Part Of
http://digital.library.unlv.edu/u?/dig,8
Full text
not been given any special allowance in estimating. Power Demand Affected by Amount and Cost of Supply The accompanying Chart "A," "Los Angeles Electric Power Load Curve Illustrating Stimulating Effect of an Abundant Supply of Cheap Hydro-Electric Power and the Depressing Effect of a Power Shortage," giving the Los Angeles power load from 1911 to 1927, inclusive, illustrates the stimulating effect of an abundant supply of cheap power and the deterring effect on community progress following for several years a power shortage, such as was experienced in Southern California in 1924. In 1916-17 community progress was very noticeably affected by the bringing in of blocks of hydroelectric power by the City in conjunction with the considerable increment in water supply provided by the City's aqueduct from the Owens River. There is full realization on the part of the people of this section and on the part of those making capital investments here, but living elsewhere, of the need of the Colorado River project, and unquestionably the breaking of the suspense by definite action by Congress making this project possible would have a stimulating effect throughout the Southwest far more marked in degree than that resulting in the city of Los Angeles from its Owens River joint water and power project. Nevertheless, the data submitted herewith is based on the supposition of annual growth unaffected by such exceptional stimulation and unaffected by power and water shortages. "Without the proposed Boulder Canyon project and its power and water supply, together with flood protection, Southern California cannot be expected to hold up to the growth indicated, and, on the other hand, with the assurance of realization of this project the indicated growth in population and power demand will be exceeded. Reliability of Former Power Demand Estimates In 1924 and 1925 representatives of the City, on behalf of the Boulder Dam Association of Southern California, made showings as to prospective power requirements in Southern California and market for power from the proposed Boulder Canyon project. In 1924 there was presented to the House Committee of Congress a tabulation showing prospective power demands in Southern California of the near future. The tabulation indicated 3,705,000,000 kilowatt-hours for the year 1926, and the actual as reported by the Central Committee representing all important power producers of California was 3,540,-000,000 kilowatt-hours, or 4.6 per cent less. In 1927 the tabulation indicated 4,165,000,000, and the actual was 3,961,000,000, or 5.1 per cent less. Manifestly these actual amounts, though practically the same as the estimates, would have been materially more than the estimates but for the retarding effect of the power and water shortage of 1924. Furthermore, Southern California has been continuing in a state of suspense during the years that the proposed Boulder Canyon project has been under consideration of Congress, since 1924. Manifestly, the important power producers of California feel called upon to make provision for the immediate future in amounts of power supply quite equal to, if not greater, than indicated in estimates by representatives of the City, by Doctor Durand, by Ready-Butler and others. Among these estimates it was indicated that the operative or installed capacity of all plants for supplying Southern California, exclusive of standby capacity as against abnormally low stream flow, would be 1,434,000 horsepower in 1928, while in fact the total for this year will be 1,933,000 horsepower, giving an excess over the estimate of 500,000 horsepower, which is greater than the requirement for provision against abnormally low stream flow or water supply. Source of Power and Other Data The data on which this "Statement" is based, and which is submitted herewith, respecting the amount of electric power generating capacity installed and the amount of use in kilowatt-hours in Northern and Southern California, and in the whole state, has been secured through a committee, in conjunction with the State Railroad Commission, to which all important power producers in the state report monthly. This practice has continued since the time of the Power Administrator, Mr. H. G. Butler, who acted under the direction of the State Railroad Commission during the war, and, manifestly, such data is incontrovertible. Other data, in tabular and graphic form, together with the explanation for a reasonable period of years into the future of the power installation and power use trend in California, has been obtained through close cooperation for a considerable period of years with various utilities in California, the California State Railroad Commission, various departments of the federal and state governments, the Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce and engineers of note on the Pacific Coast. It, therefore, represents careful thought and engineering judgment on the part of many, particularly with regard to the estimates of future growth in the Southwest. The Tabular and Graphic Data Submitted There is submitted herewith, for the information of the Colorado River Board, the underlying data given in both tabular and graphic form which has been heretofore acquired and carefully selected by the Bureau of Power and Light, from the sources and as a result of the contacts referred to, and used as a basis of judgment for the benefit of the bureau in making provision to meet its own obligations for rendering service. These include data sheets "1" to "6-e," inclusive, and charts "B" to "N," inclusive. The data sheets and charts are self-explanatory. The charts indicate past and anticipated future information relating to population, kilowatt-hours of demand and average and peak loads in kilowatts, generally speaking, for Los Angeles City, Southern California, California and certain Eastern cities. Absorption of Boulder Canyon Power by the Market With these data sheets and charts available to the Colorado River Board, a simple reference to the showing contained in the Ready-Butler Report of October, 1925, referred to by the Board's Secretary in his communication of August 31, 1928, as to the manner and rate at which the proposed Boulder Canyon power would naturally be absorbed by the market, would suffice. However, for the convenience of the Board, and possibly added assistance, a chart is inserted similar to the chart in the Ready-Butler Report illustrating rate of absorption, but slightly, the immaterially different quantitatively, and the same discussed. The chart entitled "Absorption of Boulder Canyon Power Development by Power Market of Southern California" is prepared to show that the market could absorb the power, over a period of a few years, in a logical and economically sound manner provided its advent is properly anticipated for a period of one or two years by deferring hydroelectric or steam installations. Also that the problem of its absorption would not be materially different from those met by power generating agencies of Southern California heretofore. The territory in which the power is assumed to be marketed by this chart is approximately the same as that of the Ready-Butler Report and includes the greater part of the so-called San Joaquin Valley. The chart shows graphically the time required for the absorption of the Boulder Canyon power on the assumptions made, which assumptions are, of course, indicated by the chart. The area entitled on the chart, "Replacing Steam"' indicates the total amount of kilowatt-hours from the Boulder Canyon which would otherwise have been generated by steam, and thus indicates the maximum extent to which steam plant investment might be rendered idle through such a program of absorption of the Boulder Canyon power within a period of approximately two years from the time the first of it is available. However, by deferring installation of additional standby or operative steam plant capacity during that period, and perhaps a year or more in advance, the amount of steam plant investment that would thus be rendered idle could be very materially reduced, if not entirely eliminated. To the extent that Boulder Canyon power, in kilowatt-hours, deprived existing steam plant investment, in excess of that reasonably required for standby, of a market, and thus rendered it idle, it may be TABLE NO. 2 Population Growth of Large American Cities ________________________________________________________________________________________________ Los New Phila- Year Angeles York Chicago delphia Boston Cleveland Detroit ________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1700 ...... 49,401 ........ 28,522 18,320 ....... ...... 1800 ...... 79,216 ........ 41,220 24,937 ....... ...... 1810 ...... 119,734 ........ 53,722 33,787 ....... ...... 1820 ...... 152,956 ........ 63,802 43,298 606 1,422 1830 ...... 242,278 ........ 80,462 61,392 l,076 2,222 1840 ...... 391,114 4,470 93,665 93,383 6,071 9,012 1850 1,610 696,115 29,933 121,376 136,881 17,034 21,019 I860 4,385 1,174,779 109,260 505,529 177,840 43,417 45,619 1870 5,728 1,478,103 298,977 674,023 250,526 92,829 79,577 1880 11,183 1,911,698 503,298 847,170 362,839 l60,146 116,340 1890 50,395 2,507,414 1,099,850 l,046,964 448,477 261,353 205,876 1900 102,479 3,437,332 1,698,515 1,293,097 560,892 381,768 285,704 1910 320,000 4,766,833 2,185,283 1,549,008 670,585 500,663 465,766 1911 350,000 4,873,069 ........ ......... ....... ........ ....... 1912 382,000 4,960,948 ........ ......... ....... ........ ....... 1913 414,000 5,048,827 ........ ......... ....... ........ ....... 1914 448,000 5,136,706 ........ ......... ....... ........ ....... 1915 485,000 5,224,585 ........ ......... ....... ........ ....... 1916 528,000 5,312,464 ........ ......... ....... ........ ....... 1917 572,000 5,400,343 ........ ......... ....... ........ ....... 1818 619,000 5,488,222 ........ ......... ....... ........ ....... 1919 678,000 5,576,101 ........ ......... ....... ........ ....... 1920 716,000 5,620,048 2,701,705 l,823,779 748,060 796,841 993,678 1921 780,000 5,690,223 ........ .......... ....... ........ ....... 1922 840,000 5,737,006 ........ .......... ....... ........ ....... 1923 904,000 5,783,789 ........ .......... ....... ........ ....... 1924 975,000 5,830,572 ........ ........ ....... ........ ....... 1925 1,053,000 6,103,384 2,995,239 1,979,364 781,529 936,485 124,044 1926 l,133,000 ........ ......... ......... ....... ........ ....... 1927 1,212,000 ........ ......... ......... ....... ........ ....... 1928 1,296,000 6,017 500 3,157.400 2,064,200 799,200 1,010,300 1,378,900 ================================================================================================= TABLE NO. 3 Growth in Building Permits, Bank Clearings, Postoffice Receipts and Manufactured Products of the City of Los Angeles, California October, 1928 ______________________________________________________________________________________________ Manufactured Building Bank Postoffice Products in Permits Clearings Receipts Metropolitan Area __________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1914 .............. $ 17,361,925 $1,145,167,110 $2,215,114 .......... 1915 .............. 11,888,662 1,049,110,927 2,241,992 .......... 1916 .............. 15,036,045 1,292,961,997 2,437,356 .......... 1917 .............. 16,932,082 1,502,250,332 2,640,202 .......... 1918 .............. 8,678,862 1,547,065,951 3,070,760 .......... 1919 .............. 28,253,619 2,339,401,197 3,269,134 $ 618,772,520 1920 .............. 60,023,600 3,994,280,520 4,190,660 788,652,885 1921 .............. 82,761,386 4,211,196,797 4,919,348 800,926,641 1922 .............. 121,206,787 5,152,311,839 5,813,139 959,806,503 1923 .............. 200,133,181 7,024,888,783 7,068,875 1,151,643,537 1924 .............. 150,147,516 7,194,525,378 7,916,340 1,202,677,004 1925 .............. 152,646,436 7,945,493,930 8,226,710 1,255,814,187 1926 .............. 123,006,215 8,917,424,196 9,089,918 1,275,000,000 1927 .............. 123,027,139 9,381,948,451 9,781,076 *1,300,000,000 _________________________________________________________________________________________________ *Estimated ================================================================================================= TABLE NO. 3-A Kilowatt Hours Per Capita Per Year of United States Cities, Exclusive of Energy for Electric Railways ________________________________________________________________________________________________ Year Detroit Chicago Los Angeles Boston (A) (B) (C) (D) _________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1915 ............................ 356 213 271 178 1916 ............................ 471 245 276 200 1917 ............................ 537 282 294 224 1318 ............................ 572 302 324 241 1919 ............................ 600 340 353 273 1920 ............................ 646 406 418 323 1921 ............................ 560 420 453 324 1922 ............................ 648 552 493 364 1923 ............................ 769 630 585 415 1924 ........................... 733 672 600 437 1925 ............................ 868 765 623 497 1926 ............................ 976 850 647 535 1927 ............................ 1003 925 698 588 ===================================================================================================== Page 3

Cite this Item

When linking to this object, please use the following URL:

http://digital.library.unlv.edu/u?/lv_water,1859

Tags

Comments

Subscribe to recent comments

There are no comments yet. Be the first to comment below!

Comment on this object