Page 5

Metadata

Title
Page 5
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
most economic power supply from that source. It will be noted that the load factor of the Boulder Canyon power delivery is assumed to be 61 per cent, while the combination load factor with the auxiliary steam power is 55 per cent. The assumed costs of power at Boulder Canyon switchboard of 2.26 mills and 2.14 mills are computed on the supposition that power would pay the total fixed charges and operating expenses on the dam and reservoir and the All-American Canal, as well as the power plants, and the resultant cost per kilowatt-hour of this combined power supply in Los Angeles is shown at the bottom of the tabulation. It is generally assumed that $1,500,000 annually will be received from the sale of water, as set out by the Secretary of the Interior in his communication to Congress. This will have the effect of increasing the margin between the cost of Boulder Canyon power as compared with the cost of steam power to take its place by .41 mills per kilowatt-hour. The particular reason for the combination of Boulder Canyon power with both steam standby and steam peak capacity is not that the peak can be provided more economically by steam than from the Boulder Canyon, but that the combination gives sufficient steam plant capacity to make possible the loss of transmission circuits without interference with service, and, as a whole, provides a somewhat more economical and a much more reliable power supply than would he provided by the delivery of the Boulder Canyon power at 55 per cent load factor with steam plant capacity provided for standby only. Furthermore, it will make the marketing of the Boulder Canyon power more easily accomplished by reducing, to some extent, the necessary substitution for steam as contemplated in the Ready-Butler set-up. The accompanying tabulation of estimates, "Cost of Providing for 664,000 Kilowatts of Demand From a Steam Plant Substituted for Boulder Canyon Power and Standby," and "Itemized Cost of Substitute Steam Plant," show the cost of steam power: First, on the basis of the most advanced practice in large steam electric units of the present time and fuel oil at $1.00 per barrel, which it is likely to be in the near future; and, second, on the basis of assumed possible improvement in steam plant economies of ten to fifteen years hence, combined with fuel oil at $1.25 per barrel. In the first study the cost per kilowatt-hour is 4.69 mills, and in the second study 4.90 mills, showing a substantial difference in either case in favor of the Boulder Canyon supply in combination with the steam auxiliary as contemplated in the estimates submitted herewith, in addition to the margin in favor of the Boulder Canyon supply equal to $1,500,000 per year of contemplated revenue from water. The steam plant estimates show an investment of $110 per kilowatt of demand to be met from the steam plant. This estimate includes not only a steam plant which will supply the demand of 664,000 kilowatts, at a 55 per cent load factor and 75 per cent to 80 per cent power factor with a goodly margin of overload capacity for standby against its own units, but also provision for stepping up the voltage and for transmission lines to such central distributing points as Boulder Canyon power would be delivered to at different locations in the metropolitan area and such synchronous condenser capacity and receiving station buildings and equipment as would be necessary to provide for lines connecting with the local distributing stations, as in the case of power delivered from the Boulder Canyon project, thus making the substitute steam plant an equivalent in every way of the Boulder Canyon supply in conjunction with its auxiliary system. The present cost of fuel available for steam electric plant consumption, in the form of heavier crude oil and natural gas, is cheapened in price because of the great demand for gasoline, resulting in heavier production, but permanency of such price is not only uncertain but most doubtful. At any time that production in the local fields should fall behind the continuing increase in demand for gasoline, gasoline could be shipped here from other points, but the by-product, so to term it, could not, so economically, and hence its price would immediately change and will ultimately be limited only through the influence of coal, which, it appears, would stop it at about $1.35 per barrel, or possibly $1.25 per barrel. Thus it appears that the most modern practice for large steam plants and $1.00 oil would give a cost about 10 per cent greater than the cost of Boulder Canyon power in conjunction with its auxiliary steam plant, assuming $125,000,000 as the total cost of the project, including interest during construction, and assuming no revenue whatever from water, which is contrary to the expectation and contrary to logic. The 10 per cent margin would be within ability to estimate, but the minimum of $1,500,000 annually, which has been suggested from water, would give an additional 18 per cent margin on the gross annual cost to the federal government, including interest and amortization. Furthermore, it seems it would be within the power of the government to protect its investment in greater degree by increased revenue from water, if thought necessary. The only other appreciable power source available to Southern California is from the Sierra Nevada Mountains, and the cost of this power is clearly greater, so that its consideration in this study is unnecessary. Economic Aspects of the Boulder Canyon Project as Affecting Southern California. The general public of Southern California has a remarkable appreciation of the fact that the Boulder Canyon project would result in tremendous advantage to all classes and that, in fact, it would more than double the total wealth, of the Southwest by the time the power possibilities were put to use. Careful studies show that the present wealth of approximately $11,000,000,000, at 100 per cent assessed valuation, would increase to something like $25,000,000,000, and, in like proportion, by comparison with present conditions, the annual gross product of industry, including agricultural and manufacturing, would be increased by something like $4,500,000,000, which is of interest both locally and nationally in increasing federal income tax and otherwise. During the ten years following the beginning of effective utilization of the City's Owens River joint water and power project in the year 1916-17, the actual increase in the community wealth was 200 per cent, and the securities of electric utilities increased in greater proportion. TABLE NO. 6 Estimated Growth in Electric Power Requirements for the State of California. October 19280 _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Year | Population | Total K. W. Hrs. | Average Load | Load | Peak Load | K.W. hrs. Per | | Per Year |_______________| Factor |________________| Capita per yr. | | Including | K.W. H.P. | Per Cent | K.W. H.P.| Excluding | | Rails | | | | Rails _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1914 2,883,000 2,099,608,696 239,500 321,000 48.5 494,000 662,000 727 1915 2,560,000 2,212,366,956 252,500 338,500 48.9 517,000 693,000 748 1916 2,990,000 2,351,460,635 268,500 360,000 49.3 544,000 730,000 787 1917 3,003,000 2,638,652,639 301,000 403 000 49.7 605,000 811,000 878 1918 3,120,000 2,966,870,197 339,000 454,000 50.1 677,000 908,000 950 1919 3,183,000 3,234,901,347 369,000 494,000 50.5 731,000 980,000 1015 1920 3,426,000 3,617,563,679 412,500 553 000 50.9 811,000 1,088,000 1055 1921 3,724,000 3,908,925,771 446,500 598 000 51.3 870,000 1,165,000 1050 1922 3,916,000 4,346,203,253 496,000 665,000 51.7 960,000 1,287,000 1110 1923 4,102,000 5,042.156,106 576,000 772 000 52.1 1,103,000 1,475,000 1230 1924 4,536,000 5,469,307,162 625,000 837,000 52.5 1,100,000 1,595,000 1210 1925 4,624,000 6,181,486,737 706,000 947,000 52.9 1,333,000 1,787,000 1335 1926 4,737,000 6,900,289,145 787,000 1,055,000 53.3 1,477,000 1,980,000 1450 1927 4,910.000 7,363,807,242 841,000 1,128,000 53/7 1,565,000 2,100,000 1500 ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1928 5,180,000 8,029,000,000 917,000 1 230 000 5Tl 1,693,000 2,270,000 1550 1929 5,400,000 8,694,000,000 988,000 l'325,000 54.5 1,810,000 2,425,000 1610 1930 5,640,000 9,447,000,000 1,077,000 1,442,000 54.9 1,960,000 2,625,000 1675 1931 5,900,000 10,266,000,000 1,171,000 1570 000 55.3 2,120,000 2,840,000 1740 1932 6,200,000 11,160,000,000 1,274,000 l'708'000 55.7 2,290,000 3,070,000 1800 1933 6,450,000 11,997,000,000 1,369,000 l*833'000 56.1 2,460,000 3,300,000 1860 1934 6,730.000 12,921,600,000 1,477,000 l'gSO^OOC 56.5 2,(ilO,00 3,500,000 1920 1935 7,000,000 13,860,000,000 1,582,000 1/120,000 56.9 2,780,000 3,725,000 1980 1936 7,330,000 14,953,200,000 1,709,000 2,290,000 57.3 2,980,000 3,990,000 2040 1937 7,670,000 16,183,700,000 1,848,000 2,475,000 57.7 3,200,000 4,290,000 2110 1938 8,000,000 17,360,000,000 1,980,000 2,650,000 58.0 3,420,000 4,580,000 2170 1939 8,S50,000 18,704,000,000 2,138,000 2,865,000 58.3 3,660,000 4,900,000 2240 1940 8,700,000 20,010,000,000 2,286 000 3,060,000 58.6 3,880,000 5,200,000 2300 ======================================================================================================= TABLE NO. 6-A Installed and Peak Horsepower of Southern California, Including Energy for Electric Railways Bureau of Power and Light, City of Los Angeles, California. October, 1928 ______________________________________________________________________________________________ Year Installed Horsepower Peak Horsepower 1914 ................................... 438,996 234,500 1915 ................................... 444,556 257,500 1916 ................................... 459,871 271,000 1917 ................................... 548,191 328,200 1918 ................................... 555,235 382,000 1919 ................................... 560,155 428,500 1920 ................................... 698,855 509,000 1921 ................................... 828,055 556,500 1922 ................................... 861,190 643,500 1923 ................................... 1,085,530 751,000 1924 ................................... 1,229,050 844,500 1925 ................................... 1,438,120 918,500 1926 ................................... 1,482,545 1,019,000 1927 ...................................1,548,545 1,125,000 1928 ...................................1,933,045 ......... =============================================================================================== Page 5

Cite this Item

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

http://digital.library.unlv.edu/u?/lv_water,1861

Tags

Comments

Subscribe to recent comments

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

Comment on this object