Interior Department Appropriation Bill for 1946

and if it is not you will get an adversary, depending on what the figures

are.

Mr. WARNE. We will convert you.

Mr. JONES. More power to you.

Mr. WARNE. A change of $33,000 was made against the Parker operating expenses during 1944 for administrative expenses, which included the cost of rate studies by the Denver office.

Mr. JONES. Now on page 25 of your justification, I have a cross reference in reference to these justifications, and I will not take it up again, but on page 25 you have noted the purchase of 18,000,000 kilowatt-hours of energy at a cost of $62,000 while 105,000,000 kilowatt-hours is to be purchased at $82,500 to supplement Parker. Now, the 18,000,000 kilowatt-hours will be purchased at a cost of 3.37 mills while that purchase at Parker is 78 cents. Those are the things I just happened to pick up and I have not had a chance to study it before. I do not understand it the way you put up the justification.

Mr. WARNE. As stated before, the rate of 78 cents per kilowatthour for the purchase of power at Parker is not correct-$82,500 divided by 105,000,000 kilowatt-hours gives seventy-eight onehundredths mills per kilowatt-hour. Your rate of 78 cents is the cost of 1,000 kilowatt-hours. For Colorado-Big Thompson purchased power the rate would be $3.37 per 1,000 kilowatts. The difference in the rates is due to the fact that 80,938,000 kilowatt-hours is to be furnished from Boulder without charge as a set-off against a saving of water in Boulder Reservoir through integrated operation of the two plants. Eliminating the nonpay power at Parker, the average rate for purchased power would be 3.5 mills per kilowatt-hour. Each one of the projects, Parker and Big Thompson, are a long way apart physically and also in their financial structures. Each one is a separate entity and has separate operating expenses, and on the Big Thompson in Colorado-which, for example, is the one which you last referred to-we are operating only one power plant; that is, at the Green Mountain Dam. The installations have not been made on the eastern slope, and there is a considerable amount of interchange of energy from the Kendrick and other projects of that general system of Wyoming, Colorado, and Nebraska.

Mr. JONES. It would indicate from your justification in passing that in one case they can purchase kilowatts cheaper than they can generate them, namely, 78.5 cents for power purchased at Parker Dam and generated apparently at $1 a kilowatt.

Mr. WARNE. Well, you cannot compare kilowatts with killowatthours.

Mr. JONES. I am saying it is misleading. I was mislead by the justification, although I will not say you did it intentionally. My questions were directed at trying to get the right information. Mr. WARNE. I understand your point on that.