are essential if we are to effectively perform our management of a very large public trust. GENERAL STATEMENT LISTS CONSTRUCTION PROPOSALS Mr. LUCE. First of all, I would like to discuss a few points with reference to the various proposals that we have, both Federal and nonFederal, for the construction of the Pacific Northwest and Pacific Southwest interties. Senator Magnuson was not here this morning and he has asked that I touch on some of the details of these proposals this afternoon. Senator HAYDEN. Yes. Mr. LUCE. First of all I would like to call the committee's attention that over the Senator MAGNUSON. You have two statements here. Which is which? Mr. LUCE. The thicker one is the one that I am discussing now. That is the statement that refers to these intertie proposals. The other statement refers to the rest of our budget. Senator MAGNUSON. The rest of the projects. All right. LETTER FROM PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO. Mr. LUCE. As I was saying, this past weekend we received from the executive vice president, Mr. Gerdes, of the Pacific Gas & Electric Co., a letter dated May 31, 1963, and addressed to me which I would like to put in the record a little later. In effect it amends the proposal of the California Power Pool for the construction of power facilities in the State of California to receive power from the Bonneville Power Administration generated in the Pacific Northwest. SUBSTANCE OF REVISION Mr. LUCE. The substance of this amendment or revision of the proposal of the Pacific Gas & Electric Co. is this. In their original proposal they indicated an ability to receive from Pacific Northwest 1,500,000 kilowatts of power into the California Power Pool. By the amended or revised proposal, they state that through using series compensators on their proposed lines, they can take one-third again as much power from the Pacific Northwest or 2 million kilowatts of power. I would like to explain to the committee that over the past 6 weeks we have conducted with the California Power Pool and with utilities in the Pacific Northwest analyzer board studies which led in part to the conclusions stated in Mr. Gerdes' letter of May 31. FEASIBILITY OF DIRECT CURRENT LINE The letter also raises questions as to the feasibility of a direct current line of the capacity of 1,350,000 volts proposed through Nevada and into the Hoover Dam or Los Angeles area. The particular objection that the California Power Pool takes to that line at this stage is that they feel that an outage on that line would be of such serious consequence that it would disrupt electrical service in southern California. Our own engineers believe that there are practical ways of preventing such a disturbance and that the line is feasible. I would like to present for the record the revised proposal of the Pacific Gas & Electric Co. together with our engineers' comments on the engineering problems involved. Chairman HAYDEN. That may be done. (The document referred to follows:) Mr. CHARLES F. LUCE, PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO., Administrator, Bonneville Power Administration, DEAR MR. LUCE: At the meeting of our representatives in Portland on May 28, 1963, we were requested to provide a fair basis for comparing the transmission capacity of EHV lines proposed by Bonneville with those which the California Power Pool companies have offered to build. The California Power Pool by their letter dated January 11, 1963, offered to construct transmission capacity increasing to 900,000 kilowatts by 1967 and 1,500,000 kilowatts as soon after 1967 as required. In paragraph 3 the letter further stated: "If and when required, pool members will continue to expand their EHV and other transmission facilities to transmit such additional amounts of surplus Northwest power as can be used economically in the California market." Recent studies by Bonneville engineers, in which we participated, show one 500 kilovolts alternating current line to be capable of delivering at least 1 million kilowatts to California. The studies also show that two alternating current lines would be capable of delivering at least 2 million kilowatts to California on a firm transmission basis. Consequently, your comparative analysis should show (1) that the first line to be constructed by the California Power Pool would have a capability of 1 million kilowatts; and (2) that (if and when required as provided in paragraph 3 of said letter) the second complete line to Los Angeles would increase the capability to 2 million kilowatts. Our studies show that the interconnected California systems could sustain a sudden outage of no more than approximately 1 million kilowatts. Therefore, all single-line transmissions plans should be limited to 1 million kilowatts. One plan you propose is a 500-kilovolt alternating current line through California and a 750-kilovolt direct current line through Nevada to Los Angeles. These lines were rated by you at 900,000 and 1,350,000 kilowatts, respectively. In the event of an outage of the direct current line, loadings of this magnitude would require the almost instantaneous dropping of 1 million kilowatts of generation at various Northwest plants simultaneously with picking up an equal amount in California. Unless proper operation of intricate communications and relay equipment is obtained within a fraction of a second, the California systems would have serious and prolonged outages. We cannot subject our customers to any such grave risk. Therefore, the maximum firm transmission capacity of this alternating-direct current combination would be 1,350,000 kilowatts. On the other hand, the combination of two alternating current lines would provide a firm transmission capacity of 2 million kilowatts, because with an outage on one section of a line the remaining facilities could carry the load. These factors should also be considered in your analysis. Very truly yours, ROBERT H. GERDES, Executive Vice President. STATEMENT RE LETTER TO MR. LUCE, BPA ADMINISTRATOR, FROM MR. GERDES, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT OF P.G. & E. Co., DATED MAY 31, 1963 During engineering studies of the California Power Pool proposals, which were conducted jointly with P.G. & E. Co. and other California Power Pool representatives, one of the principal assumptions was the amount of power flowing into California which could be interrupted safely and economically under line fault conditions. Based on the company's statement as to operations of the pool, the arrangements within California with respect to generation reserves, and technical difficulties anticipated from sudden large increments in the output of turbogenerators, Booneville saw no reason to differ with a limitation of 1,000 megawatts on the amount of southward-flowing power to be dropped under fault conditions. Mr. Gerdes, commenting on Bonneville's proposals for an intertie combination of one alternating-current line and one direct-current line quite properly questions those plans which place a capacity rating of 1,350 megawatts on the d.c. line. Bonneville does not agree that this rating exceeds the above limitation or that its proposals for dropping generation in the Northwest would be hazardous to interconnected operations of the Columbia River system and the California pool. In short, Bonneville does not concur in Mr. Gerdes' statement that the maximum firm capacity of this alternating-direct current combination should be 1,350 megawatts instead of 2,250 megawatts. Mr. Gerdes' letter apparently takes the position that the foregoing combination of alternating and direct-current lines would subject the California systems to operating risks which they do not now have. Further, the letter infers that a combination of two 500-kilovolt lines would not entail such risks. In this connection, it must be pointed out that the sensing devices, the relays, and the communications which would be used with either combination of lines are in common use by Bonneville and the power industry generally. Moreover, the application of these common-use devices to generator dropping arrangements are certainly no more intricate than those to be employed in the combination of two a.c., lines, which would include intermediate switching stations. Indeed, it can be argued that both applications are quite simple and straightforward by comparison with generation control systems and other processes in successful use in the electric power and other industries today. It should be emphasized also that Bonneville has employed generator dropping arrangements, in amounts up to approximately 6 percent of the connected Northwest system load, since World War II to assure stable operations of the Northwest Federal system. Perhaps this matter can be resolved by pointing out that engineering studies demonstrate that the amount of generator dropping necessary to assure stable operation in the case cited by Mr. Gerdes is much less than 1,000 megawatts. Without generator dropping in the Northwest, the studies show that the a.c. line would have almost sufficient capability to ride through a complete outage of the d.c. line. Dropping Northwest generation amounting to less than half of the reserve margin of 1,000 megawatts would be more than sufficient to assure stable operation. In other words, the California systems would need to pick up less than half the amount of the spinning reserves provided against this contingency to continue carrying California loads. Further refinement of the studies is expected to reduce rather than increase the amount of generator dropping in the Northwest. Moreover, more refined studies show that generator dropping can be accomplished at The Dalles powerhouse, thereby eliminating the "intricate" equipment to which Mr. Gerdes refers. In the free world, as well as behind the Iron Curtain, many countries are allocating large amounts of capital to develop the new technology of EHV direct current transmission of electricity. Sweden, England, France, Italy, New Zealand, and Russia have either begun or completed direct-current construction programs. Our country is long overdue, we believe, in a program to move forward in this important field. It is always possible to conjure doubts, and raise questions, about any important new development in technology. The doubts expressed in Mr. Gerdes' letter, we believe, underestimate the ability of American electrical manufacturers and engineers. BUDGET ESTIMATE Chairman HAYDEN. I would like to ask some questions about this matter if it is agreeable. First, I will include in the record justification for the budget program of $72,058,000 for construction. The budget estimate is $56,058,000, an increase of $26,258,000 over the amount appropriated for last year. The budget estimate is based on an underfinancing of $8 million and an unobligated balance from fiscal year 1963 of $8 million. |