r THE LIBRARY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA DAVIS STATE OF^ CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS REPORTS OF THE DIVISION OF ENGINEERING AND IRRIGATION EDWARD HYATT, State Engineer BULLETIN No. 20 REPORT on KENNETT RESERVOIR DEVELOPMENT An Analysis of Methods and Extent of Financing by Electric Power Revenue By LESTER S. READY, Consulting Engineer A Report to the Joint Legislative Committee of 1927 on Water Resources 62689 LIBRARY UNIVERSITY- OF CALIFORNIA DAVIS ■J} o 'xh <-• c G CONTENTS Page LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL, STATE ENGINEER TO CHAIRMAN OF JOINT LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE ON AVATER RESOURCES 5 LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL, AUTHOR TO STATE ENGINEER 7 ENGINEERING ADVISORY COMMITTEE 11 ORGANIZATION 12 REPORT ON KENNETT RESERVIOR DEVELOPMENT An Analysis of Methods and Extent of Financing by Electric Power Revenue. AUTHORITY FOR REPORT 13 SUBJECT OF REPORT 13 SCOPE OF INVESTIGATION 14 COOPERATION 15 PROPOSED KENNETT DEVELOPMENT 15 IMPORTANT QUESTIONS INVOLVED 15 ABILITY OF POWER MARKET TO ABSORB OUTPUT OF KENNETT__ 17 Description of Present Power Developments of the State 17 A. Extent and Grouping of Sytems 17 B. Extent and Distribution of Present Load or Power Market 17 Division of Power Market and Sytems for Study of Problem 18 Distribution of Power Market by Counties 20 Growth of Power Load 20 Estimated Future Growth of Power Requirements 27 Date of Bringing in Konnett 29 Power Output of Kennett 29 Market Available at Time of Completion 32 Importance of Coordinated Development 32 COST OF KENNETT DEVELOPMENT 34 Investment Cost 34 Annual Cost of Kennett Development 34 Cost of Transmission 36 VALUE OF POWER OUTPUT 39 COST OF POWER FROM OTHER HYDRO-ELECTRIC PLANTS 39 VALUE OF KENNETT POWER DETERMINED FROM COST OF POWER FROM STEAM-ELECTRIC PLANTS 44 Cost of Steam-electric Power 44 Equivalent Value of Hydro-electric Power 44 MARKET PRICE OF POWER AS DETERMINED FROM EXISTING CONTRACTS 48 CONCLUSIONS RELATIVE TO VALUE OF KENNETT POWER OUTPUT 52 RELATION OF REVENUE FROM POWER TO ANNUAL COST OF KENNETT DEVELOPMENT 52 Value of Electric Power Output Under Full Control of Kennett Reservoir for Irrigation 52 Other Sources of Revenue Required 52 PLAN 3a: TRANSMISSION OF POWER BY PRIVATE COMPANIES AS COMMON CARRIERS 53 PLAN 5: STATE DISTRIBUTION OF ELECTRIC POWER FROM KENNETT 54 Present Development 54 Basis of Present Rates 58 Variation in Cost of Electricity 58 Problems Involved in Plan 5 59 Completion With and Duplication of Existing Systems 59 Condemnation of Existing Systems 59 Possible Economies Under Plan 5 61 2 — 62689 LIST OF PLATES Plate Title Page — I. Electric Power Production and Transmission Systems in California, December 31. 1927 17 II. Geographic Location of Electric Power Production and Load in Cali- fornia, 1927 17 III. Distribution of Electric Power Load by Counties in California, 1927 23 IV. Electric Power Installation in California, 1911-1927 24 V. Electric Power Production in California, 1913-1927 25 VI. Past and Estimated Future Growth of Electric Power Production in California, 1913-1950 28 VII. Variation of Annual and Monthly Power Output of Kennett Reservoir Compared with Typical Hydro-electric Plants 31 VIII. Electric Power Production and Sales by Companies and Political Sub- divisions in California, 1927 55 IX. Monthly Variation of Maximum Demand and Average Load for Typical Electric Power Systems in California, 1927 56 X. Classification of Electric Sales in California, 1927 57 " XI. Graphic Presentation of Source of Cost of Electricity 57 LIST OF TABLES Table Title Page 1. Electric Power Production and Substation Delivery by Companies, 1927 19 2. California Electric Power Load or Market by Counties Measured by Substation Delivery, 1927 1 20 3-A Substation Delivery by Counties Grouped Geographically (District Served by Northern Group of Companies) 21 3-B. Substation Delivery by Counties Grouped Geographically (District Served by Southern Group of Companies) 22 4. Electric Power Installation in California, December 31 of each year, 1911-1927 26 5. Electric Power Production in California, 1913-1927 27 6. Estimated Future Power Requirements (Power Plant Output), 1927- 1950 29 7. Estimated Power Output Kennett Reservoir, 420 ft. Dam 30 8. Estimated Annual Cost of Kennett Resen'oir and Power Plant 35 9. Cost of Transmission of Kennett Power, Kennett to Antioch 37 10. Summary of Water Power Resources of Caliofrnia (from Table 9, "Report to the Federal Power Commission on the Water Powers of California," by Frank E. Bonner) 40 11. Estimated Cost of Hydro-electric Power from Present and Future Pit and Feather River Developments 41 12. Estimated Cost of Steam-electric Power — Basis of Probable Efiiciency of Immediate Future 45 13. Estimated Cost of Steam-electric Power — Basis of Probable Efficiency — Future "___ 46 14. Comparison of Value of Kennett Power with Steam-electric Produced Power 46 15. Comparative Value of Pit Power with Steam-electric Produced Power 47 16. Comparison of Contract Prices for Power Purchase from Hydro-electric Power Plant Developments 50 List of Power Plants in California, 1927, Delineated on Plate I 63 List of Substations Delineated on Plate I 65 LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL, STATE ENGINEER TO CHAIRMAN OF JOINT LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE ON WATER RESOURCES Mr. B. S. Crittenden, Chairman, Joint Legislative Committee on Water Resources, Tracy, California. SUBJECT: WATER RESOURCES INVESTIGATION Sir: In accordance with request of your committee there has been prepared and is being transmitted herewith, a report on certain phases of the Kennett reservoir, a unit of the ''Coordinated Plan" for the development of the water resources of California. This report, pre- pared under the direction of Mr. Lester S. Ready, consulting engineer, deals particularly with the method and extent of financing this unit by revenues from electric power and is based upon estimates set forth in Bulletin No. 13 entitled ' ' The Development of the Upper Sacramento River," published by this Division. In the preparation of Bulletin No. 13, the basic consideration under the statute (chapter 477, Statutes of 1925) directing such report, was that of maximum utilization of the water resources of the State. The electric power installation was determined in accord with this mandate. In the following report, however, the consideration is one of economic immediate installation from present commercial viewpoint. Therefore, the conclusions of Bulletin No. 13 have been altered somewhat in this respect. The exact desirable installation can not be accurately stated until the manner of the disposition of the power is known. Whatever size is decided upon, provision should be made for future enlargement to that described in Bulletin No. 13, so that the maximum use of the water resources may be utilized. Very truly yours, ■» > i» — •— State Engineer. Sacramento, California, January 4, 1929. LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL, AUTHOR TO STATE ENGINEER Mr. Edward Hyatt, State Engineer. Sacramento, California. Sir : Submitted herewith is a report on ' ' Kennett Reservoir Develop- ment, an Analysis of Methods and Extent of Financing by Electric Power Revenue," prepared in compliance with your request. Although the analyses and conclusions are set forth in fairh^ concise manner in the report, matters of outstanding importance are summa- rized in this letter. SUBJECT OF REPORT. The Kennett reservoir was selected from several considered in the "Coordinated Plan" of water development in the Sacramento and San Joaquin valleys as being one of the principal units in that plan and in many respects typical of the various units. The analysis made, data submitted and deductions set forth will be applicable in general to other units of the plan with modifications, however, for operating characteristics and geographic location. The specific Is-ennett development considered was that contemplating a 420-foot dam, a 2,940,000 acre-foot reservoir and a power plant of 275,000 kilovolt-amperes (220.000 kilowatts) capacity, costing in total $70,000,000. The figures for the power plant capacity and total cost differ from those under Bulletin No. 13, "The Development of the Upper Sacramento River," issued by Division of Engineering and Irri- gation, Avliere they are given as 400,000 kilovolt-amperes and $80,000,- 000, respectively. The power plant capacity was reduced to 275,000 kilovolt-amperes after a study of poAver values revealed that the latter was the more economic commercial installation under present conditions. The diflference in cost is due to this change and to a reduction of interest rate during construction, from 6 per cent to 4.5 per cent. The development has been analyzed as suggested by you, based upon the operation of the reservoir coordinately for: 1. Control of salinity to Antioch in the delta of the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers. 2. Control of floods on the Sacramento River to 125,000 second- feet maximum, measured at Red Bluff. 3. An irrigation supply for San Joaquin Valley (330,000 acre- feet per season; 1000 second-feet maximum rate of flow) and additional water for Sacramento Valley. 4. Generation of power consistent with the primary uses of the reservoir as above set forth. Five plans of financing suggested have been studied, the plans being : 1. Reservoir, dam and power plant financed and operated by private capital. 2. Reservoir and dam financed and operated by the state ; power plant financed and operated by private capital ; use of water for (7) 8 KENNETT RESERVOIR DEVELOPMENT power generation sold by State to private interests financing the power plant. 3. Reservoir, dam and power plant financed and operated by- State; the power output wholesaled at the power plant. 4. Reservoir, dam and power plant and main trunk transmis- sion lines to important load centers in northern California, financed and operated by the State; power wholesaled at substations to political subdivisions and privately-owned public utilities. 5. Reservoir, dam and power plant, main trunk transmission lines and substations, steam standby plants and general secondary transmission and distribution systems financed and operated by the State; power retailed to the general public. In each of these plans the State is to retain control of the operations of the dam and reservoir in so far as it affects release of water for salinity or flood control and irrigation supply. CONCLUSIONS FROM INVESTIGATION. Ability of the market to absorb Kennett output. 1. The power market tributary to the Kennett development is that existing generally north of Stanislaus County within a distance of approximately 300 miles of Kennett. 2. This market required the production in 1927 of 3,219,000,000 kilowatt hours, and by 1936, the earliest that Kennett may l)e exi)ected to be completed, will require approximately 5,328,000,000 kilowatt hours annually. 3. Over 65 per cent of the tributary power market is located within 50 miles radius of San Francisco. 4. The tributary market at present is served through two main sys- tems; one including the Pacific Gas and Electric Company and connecting companies supplying 75 per cent; the other, the Great Western Power Company of California supplying 25 per cent of the requirements. 5. The average annual power output of Kennett based upon a plant installation of 275,000 kilovolt-amperes is estimated at 1,217,000,000 kilowatt hours, varying from 990,000,000 to 1,314,000,000 kilowatt hours. 6. The present development of power in northern California is almost entirely from hydro-electric plants, steam-electric plants being used for standby purposes primarily. A greater proportion of the energy required should be developed by steam-electric plants before Kennett is completed. 7. The output of Kennett represents the growth of load for the entire northern market for 4 years. Approximately 5^ years would be required for the growth of load on the system of the Pacific Gas and Electric Company and connecting companies to absorb the entire output. 8. With coordination of future developments between the State and the existing agencies, the growth in load prior to the completion of Kennett could be carried by steam-electric plants, thus materially reduc- ing the burden of absorption of Kennett output. 9. With reasonable cooperation between the State and the existing agencies, absorption of Kennett output will present no serious diffi- WATER RESOURCES OF CALIFORNIA 9 culties under Plans 1, 2, 3 and 4. The existing utilities have met problems relatively greater than the absorption of the output of Ken- nett presents. The Pacific Gas and Electric Company in 1925 brought in its own Pit No. 3 plant and took delivery from the City of San Francisco and the California-Oregon Power Company, a total repre- senting over 40 per cent of its then existing load. This compares with Kennett output which represents approximately 25 per cent of the load that would be tributary in 1936. A similar condition was met by the Great Western Power Company in 1921. Cost of Kennett Development The estimated cost of Kennett reservoir, dam and power plant is : Land and improvements flooded 522,882,000 Dam 30,118,000 Total $53,000,000 Power plant 17,000,000 Total 170,000,000 The annual cost of Kennett reservoir, dam and power plant, which is set forth in detail for Plans 1, 2 and 3, varies depending upon the basis of treatment of taxes on private capital and amortization of State bonds. The limits of the estimated costs are as follows: Mil-^s per kwh. of Plan 1. Complete private ownership: Total output (a) Including state taxes $6,867,000 5.64 (b) Excluding state taxes 6,231,000 5.12 Plan 2. State ownership of reservoir and private ownership of power plant: (a) With 40-year straight line amortization of state bonds and state taxes on private capital 5,983,000 4.91 (b) With 40-year sinking fund amortization of state bonds and state taxes excluded 4,985,000 4.09 Plans 3, 4 and 5. State ownership: (a) With 40 jear straight line amortization of bonds 5,668,000 4.66 (b) W^ith 40-year sinking fund amortization of bonds 4,652,000 3.82 (c) Excluding bond amortization 3,918,000 3.22 Plan 4 will require additional capital for transmission lines and substations b}- the State, amounting as a minimum to $9,600,000. The added cost assuming wholesaling of power to the main utilities at a point near the center of load based on 4 per cent sinking fund amorti- zation is estimated at $784,000 per annum. Value of power. The value of power delivered from Kennett power plant to trans- mission as indicated by the cost of power from other hydro-electric plants is from 2.7 to 3.3 mills per kilowatt hour of power plant output; as indicated by steam power development, the value is from 3.45 to 3.68 mills per kilowatt hour; and as indicated from comparison with existing contracts, approximately 3.45 mills per kilowatt hour. Revenue from power. The revenue that may be obtained from the sale of power output at Kennett plant may not be expected to exceed $4,250,000 per annum, and at the terminal of transmission near the Baj" district, not to exceed $5,300,000, or approximately 3.5 and 5 mills per kilowatt hour deliv- ered, respectively. Under complete control and operation of Kennett reservoir for irrigation the value of power output will be reduced to approximately $2,000,000 per annum based upon plant delivery, 2 — 62689 10 KENNETT RESERVOIR DEVELOPMENT Plan 5. Plan 5, contemplating distribution of the total power output by the State, will require duplication of existing systems or condemnation of at least one-quarter of the distribution systems of northern California and the added capital expenditure of over $110,000,000. It is doubtful if this action would assist the State in the carrying of the costs of Kennett development beyond which would be possible under Plan 3 or 4. Other revenue required. By comparison of the cost of Kennett with the revenue from power at the plant of $4,250,000, or to substation delivery of $5,300,000, prob- able maximum, it is apparent that power can not carry much more than the cost of interest, depreciation and operating expenses of Kennett even under State development. Other sources of revenue such as State or Federal aid, sale of water for irrigation or payments by other bene- ficiaries would be needed to cover the full amortization requirements of State bonds. The amount of aid required would be minimized by extending the amortization period of State bonds beyond the period of forty years assumed in this report. Very truly j^ours, Consulting Engineer. San Francisco, California, October 23, 1928. ENGINEERING ADVISORY COMMITTEE This bulletin has been prepared in consultation with a committee of engineers, who advised in the preparation of the "Coordinated Plan" for the development of the water resources of California. The mem- bers of this committee are : Louis C. Hill G. A. Elliott J. B. LippiNCOTT B. A. Etcheverry H. A. VanNorman F. C. Herrmann Paul Bailey Walter L. Huber A. J. Cleary a. Kempkey Cooperating w^tli Committee : F. E. Bonner District Engineer, U. S. Forest Service representing the Federal Power Commission in California A. V. GUILLOU Assistant Chief Engineer, State Railroad Commission T. H. Emerson Major, Corps of Engineers, U. S. Army, member and Secretary of California Debris Commission 3 — 626S9 I ORGANIZATION B. B. Meek, Director of Fuhlic Works Edward Hyatt, State Engineer This bulletin lias been prepared by Lester S. Ready, Gonsultiyig Engineer, assisted by the following members of the staff of the Division of Engineering and Irrigation: A. D. Edmonston, Hydraulic Engineer ASSISTANT HYDRAULIC ENGINEERS C. B. Meyer T, Neuman A. M. Wells E. W. Roberts JUNIOR HYDRAULIC ENGINEERS L. N. Clinton T. Lewis C. W. Roberts H. C. Kelly DELINEATORS Jos. T. Maguire E. N. Sawtelle REPORT ON Kennett Reservoir Development An Analysis of Methods and Extent of Financing by Electric Power Revenue I AUTHORITY FOR REPORT. This report is prepared in compliance with request of Mr. Edward Hyatt, State Engineer, and of the Joint Legislative Committee on Water Resources for the State of California, that a study and analysis be made of the financial and economic phases of the proposed Kennett reservoir. SUBJECT OF REPORT. The "Coordinated Plan" for water development in the Sacramento and San Joaquin valleys contemplates several large reservoirs for the storage of water for flood and salinity control and irrigation. Consid- erable electric power can be developed incidental to and in connection with these reservoirs. The Kennett reservoir has been selected for analysis as being one of the principal units of the "Coordinated Plan," and typical in many respects of the several units of this plan. The analysis made, data submitted and deductions set forth will in general be applicable to the other units of the plan with modifications, however, for operating characeristics and geographic location. This study and report deals with the relative value of several plans of financing the Kennett unit, and the extent to which it can be financed by revenue from electric power that can be generated at the dam. The analysis is based on the operation of the reservoir coordinately for: 1. Control of salinity to Antioch in the delta of the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers. 2. Control of floods on Sacramento River to 125,000 second-feet maximum, measured at Red Bluff. 3. Irrigation supply for San Joaquin Valley (330,000 acre-feet per season : 1000 second-feet maximum rate of flow) and additional water for Sacramento Valley. 4. Generation of power consistent with the primary uses of the reservoir as above set forth. Although the primary purposes of this reservoir are for flood and salinity control and irrigation, the requirements for irrigation during the early period of use, apparently, will not seriously interfere with the power output, which will be relatively large. Therefore, an important element to be considered in connection with the financial analysis is the value of the power output and the extent to which it may carry the financial burden of the development. Five different plans for the financing of the development have been suggested for special consideration. In each plan the State is to retain control of the operation of the dam and reservoir in so far as it affects (13) 14 KEKNETT RESERVOIR DEVELOPMENT the release of water for salinity control, flood control and irrigation supply for San Joaquin Valley. The five plans suggested are : 1. Reservoir, dam and power plant financed and operated by private interests. 2. Reservoir and dam financed and operated by the State. Power plant financed and operated by private interests ; use of water for power generation sold by State to private interests financing the power plant. 3. Reservoir, dam and power plant financed and operated by State : power output wholesaled at the power plant. 4. Reservoir, dam and power plant, and main trunk transmis- sion lines to important load centers in northern California financed and operated by the State. Power wholesaled at substations to political subdivisions and privately-owned public utilities. 5. Reservoir, dam and power plant, main trunk transmission lines and substations, steam-electric standby plants and general secondary transmission and distribution systems financed and opei-ated by the State. Power retailed to general public. A modification of Plan 3. considered herein as Plan 3a, has also been suggested. This plan contemplates the disposition of part of the power at the power plant by sale to municipalities and resale companies. It is suggested that the large private power company or companies pur- chasing the bulk of the power be required under contract to act as com- mon carriers transmitting the power for compensation from the power plant to the respective municipalities or resale companies. The general benefits to central and northern California resulting from irrigation, flood control and salinity control, and to San Joaquin Valley for irrigation, are not considered in this report, the report being limited primarily to an analysis of the financial, economic and engineering phases of the development as afl'ected by the disposition of powder which may be produced. SCOPE OF INVESTIGATION. The investigation carried on in connection with this report has consisted of a study and analysis of the Kennett development with reference to annual cost, potential output and charaeteristics of the power to be produced, both when operated as suggested and when ultimately operated primarily for irrigation demands. This latter condition must be given some consideration in order that a clear per- spective of the future financial situation may be obtained. Study and analysis of the power market tributary to Kennett and the present and future ability of the market to absorb the output under the different plans presented' have been made. The value of the power output has been determined from study of cost of power from other sources, both steam-electric and hydro-electric, and the price for power as indicated by wholesale purchase contracts. The probable power revenue to be obtained from Kennett has been estimated. An inde- pendent check of the estimated cost of Kennett development as set forth in Bulletin No. 13, "The Development of the Upper Sacramento River, ' ' issued by Division of Engineei-ing and Irrigation, has not been WATER RESOURCES OF CALIFORNIA 15 made. The estimate therein has been revised, however, in two particu- lars. The interest rate ha.s been reduced to the basis of State financing. The size of the power plant has been reduced from 400,000 kilo volt- amperes (the figure used in Bulletin No. 13) to 275,000 kilovolt-amperes. The latter si/e would appear the more economical development, for the potential power output as viewed Prom the standpoint of present and probable future cost of power. The basic considerations, in the preparation of Bulletin Xo. 1.3, were that of maximum utilization of the water resources of the State rather than the most economic power development considered herein. No detailed layout of a system for complete distribution of poAver output of Kennett has been made. This matter has been analyzed from a broad consideration of the problem and the determining factors involved. COOPERATION. In connection with the investigation and preparation of this report, I have had the full assistance of the engineers of the State Division of Engineering and Irrigation under the direction of Mr. A. D. Edmons- ton, and the cooperation of the Eailroad Commission of the State of California and its engineering department; also of Mr. F. E. Bonner of the Federal Power Commission, and the power companies and municipal electric utilities. I wish to express herein my appreciation of the assistance received. PROPOSED KENNETT DEVELOPMENT. The Kennett dam and reservoir as contemplated in Bulletin No. 13 is to l)e located on the Sacramento River near Kennett, Shasta County, approximately two hundred miles due north of San Francisco. The development includes a dam, 420 feet in height, a reservoir of 2,940,000 acre-feet capacity and a power plant of 275,000 kilovolt-amperes capacity with a potential output of 1,217,600,000 kilowatt hours annu- ally. The reservoir will flood 23,000 acres of land. The main line of the Southern Pacific Company and a portion of the State highway will have to be relocated. The estimated cost of the development, including the dam, reservoir, flood control features and power plant, is $70,000,000. This estimate of cost includes interest during construction on basis of State financing. Though under private developmont interest rates would be higher, the analysis for clarity has been based upon equal capital cost, the difference being within the accuracy of the estimate. The above covers the development as outlined in Bulletin No. 13, except as to change in power plant capacity, and is the development contemplated in Plans 1, 2 and 3 listed herein. Under Plan 4, State construction of a 220,000-volt transmission line would be added, and, under Plan 5, extensive purchase of existing electric transmission and distribution systems or duplication thereof would be necessary to dispose of the power. IMPORTANT QUESTIONS INVOLVED. Following are certain of the important features to be considered in the analysis : 1. The ability of the electric power market to absorb the output of the development when completed. 2. The investment and annual cost of the development under the several plans proposed. 16 KENNETT RESERVOIR DEVELOPMENT 3. The value of power and the amount of revenue from power which may be obtained by the sale of the output of the Kennett development. 4. The effect of the ultimate operation of the reservoir primarily for irrigation on the value of power output. The first four of the five proposed plans of financing Kennett involve in general the same conditions wdth reference to the ability of the market to absorb the power output. The power would be delivered to the main existing agencies. Investment costs would be practically the same in total and the annual costs and revenues are subject to definite comparisons. The fifth plan contemplates a material departure from the other four and would be subject to special and separate consider- ation. PLATE I ELECTRIC POWER PRODUCTION AND TRANSMISSION SYSTEMS IN CALIFORNIA DECEMBER 31, 1927 SCALE or MILES fi B 16 24 32 40 a s e a i, I, c e :s 7 le n i- i; •n OS "i- id !d tt e- es id V im an il- o£ m. nd nd "or ta- lis- LEGEND STSTCM I Pacific Cos A Electric Co »na Connecting Companies STSTEM 11 GfMi W«»I«ro Power Co. of CsiHorma wd Sen Joaquin LJft' APowef Co'pOfJiion anfl Connocltng Companltti. SISTEM ffl SOuThern CJiKornle tdnon Co. and CItj of Lot AngeCe* anO Connec'ing Companie*. SVSTEM IV tO« Anieiet 6»» * Elec'nc Corporation, SoulHern surras Power CO. jna San Oiego Consolioatea Gas 1 f5>^- ^x:^/ ELECTRIC POWER PRODUCTION TRANSMISSION SYSTEMS IN CALIFORNIA DECEMBER 31. 1927 ^ m >ri i2 J. i s e a t, i, c e ts r • > 1- le n i- 3r i; id m OS li- id -'^ le- es id )TU an il- of m. nd nd for ta- lis- a s e a [, I, c e GS r ■ r. PJA le n i- i; '.d m OS li- id id :tt le- es id V im an il- o£ m. IE nd nd tor ta- lis- ..^^-. <• 3 /^sr^ /r^^^.^. -/l^ \ ,) — \ / •« / ■'--^t^' ^ ^^ N GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION OF llectric power production and load IN CALIFORNIA 1927 sun Of UlLtS rT\ ABILITY OF POWER MARKET TO ABSORB OUTPUT OF KENNETT DESCRIPTION OF PRESENT POWER DEVELOPMENTS OF THE STATE A. Extent and grouping of systems The electric power development of the state has experienced a rapid and steady growth during the past twenty-five years. During this period, interconnections and consolidations have occurred until at the present time, the supplying of electric power is through four main networks or groupings of systems. These are set forth on Plate I, "Electric Power Production and Transmission Systems in California, December 31, 1927," which shows the location of the hydro-electric and steam-electric plants and the main transmission systems in the State : System I — Includes Pacific Gas and Electric Company and its subsidiary companies ; The California-Oregon Power Company ; Snow Mountain Water and Power Company; City of San Fran- cisco and Coast Counties Gas and Electric Company. This network, extending from the northern boundary of the State to the Salinas Valley, represents the largest northern sj^stem and has transmission lines nearest Kennett. System II — Includes Great Western Power Company of Cali- fornia and its allied companies. San Joaquin Light and Power Corporation and Midland Counties Public Service Corporation; also the Modesto and Turlock Irrigation Districts and the Merced Irrigation District. System III — Consists mainly of the Southern California Edison Company, the City of Los Angeles and the City of Pasadena. System IV — Includes Southern Sierras Power Company, Los Angeles Gas and Electric Corporation, and San Diego Consoli- dated Gas and Electric Company, operating in the southern and eastern portions of the State, which, although not fully connected at this time, will be a connected system within the near future. It is to be noted that System I is nearest in distance to the Kennett reservoir, which is shown in "black" on Plate I. System II is some- what further south, although the Great Western Power Company serves a territory generally the same as that served by the Pacific Gas and Electric Company and its connecting companies. Systems III and IV serve the southern part of the State, the market supplied being from 456 to 600 miles from Kennett. This distance is such that from an economic standpoint the market served by these companies is not avail- able to absorb the power from Kennett. This is also largely true of the market served by the San Joaquin Light and Power Corporation. B. Extent and distribution of present load or power market Plate II, "Geographic Location of Electric Power Production and Load in California, 1927," sets forth graphically the location and extent of the power production and market throughout the State for the year 1927 as indicated by existing utility power plant and substa- tion outputs, respectively. The magnitude of the production by dis- (17) ABILITY OF POWER MARKET TO ABSORB OUTPUT OF KENNETT DESCRIPTION OF PRESENT POWER DEVELOPMENTS OF THE STATE A. Extent and grouping of systems The electric power development of the state has experienced a rapid and stead}^ growth during the past twenty-five years. During this period, interconnections and consolidations have occurred until at the present time, the supplying of electric power is through four main networks or groupings of systems. These are set forth on Plate I, "Electric Power Production and Transmission Systems in California, December 31, 1927," which shows the location of the hydro-electric and steam-electric plants and the main transmission systems in the State : System I — Includes Pacific Gas and Electric Company and its subsidiary companies ; The California-Oregon Power Company ; Snow Mountain Water and Power Company; City of San Fran- cisco and Coast Counties Gas and Electric Company. This network, extending from the northern boundary of the State to the Salinas Valley, represents the largest northern system and has transmission lines nearest Kennett. System II — Includes Great Western Power Company of Cali- fornia and its allied companies, San Joaquin Light and Power Corporation and Midland Counties Public Service Corporation; also the Modesto and Turlock Irrigation Districts and the Merced Irrigation District. System III — Consists mainly of the Southern California Edison Company, the City of Los Angeles and the City of Pasadena. System IV — Includes Southern Sierras Power Company, Los Angeles Gas and Electric Corporation, and San Diego Consoli- dated Gas and Electric Company, operating in the southern and eastern portions of the State, which, although not fully connected at this time, will be a connected system within the near future. It is to be noted that System I is nearest in distance to the Kennett reservoir, which is shown in ''black" on Plate I. System II is some- what further south, although the Great Western Power Company serves a territory generally the same as that served by the Pacific Gas and Electric Company and its connecting companies. Systems III and IV serve the southern part of the State, the market supplied being from 456 to 600 miles from Kennett. This distance is such that from an economic standpoint the market served by these companies is not avail- able to absorb the power from Kennett. This is also largely true of the market served by the San Joaquin Light and Power Corporation. B. Extent and distribution of present load or power market Plate II, "Geographic Location of Electric Power Production and Load in California, 1927," sets forth graphically the location and extent of the power production and market throughout the State for the year 1927 as indicated by existing utility power plant and substa- tion outputs, respectively. The magnitude of the production by dis- (17) 18 KENNETT RESERVOIR DEVELOPMENT tricts or groups of plants and the load bv counties is indicated by "dots." Each "full dot" represents 25,000,000 kilowatt hours and each "half dot" an amount less than 25,000,000 kilowatt hours annual output. The potential output of Kennett is also delineated. This plate indicates where kilowatt houns were produced and where used in 1927. It does not shoAv the extent of plant capacities. It is to be noted that the main location of power production is along the Sierra Nevada Mountains from the California-Oregon line to the Kern River, the larger developments being on the Pit, Feather, Tuolumne and San Joaquin rivers. Plates I and II together indicate the general trans- mission of power southward from the power i^lants in the Sierra Nevadas to the power load which centers around San Francisco Bay for northern California,, and Los Angeles for southern California, with general but much less dense use throughout the Sacramento and San Joaquin valleys. Study of Plate II and the data supporting it indi- cates that in excess of 65 per cent of the power market of northern California is within a radius of fifty miles of San Francisco ; also a like percentage for southern California is located within the same radius of Los Angeles. ^&' DIVISION OF POWER MARKET AND SYSTEMS FOR STUDY OF PROBLEM. A general studj^ of the sources of power in the State, the systems and the market indicates that for this analysis, the State should be divided into a northern district, comprising generally that portion served by System I and the Great Western Power Company of System II. hereafter referred to as "Northern Group," and a southern dis- trict. The southern district comprises that portion of the State gen- erally south of Stanislaus County and served by San Joaquin Light and Power Corporation of System II, and System III and System IV, referred to as "Southern Group." The two districts or groups are connected for interchange of power by the transmission line between the Great Western Power Company and the San Joaquin Light and Power Corporation. This tie-line is available for the shifting of power between the two sections of the State. Table 1 sets forth by companies the production of power in mil- lions of kilowatt hours and in per cent of the total for the northern and southern groups, respectively. There is also set forth by com- panies the total substation output in millions of kilowatt hours and in per cent of the totals for the respective groups, eliminating inter- company deliveries. This represents, measured in substation output, the power market served directly by the respective companies. Table 1 also shows for the Northern Group that System I pro- duced 79 per cent and served directly 75.2 per cent of the entire load in the Northern District; for the Southern Group, the San Joaquin portion of System II produced 18.2 per cent; System III, 66.5 per cent; and System IV, 15.3 per cent of the total power requirements of the Southern District. The San Joaquin system directly serves 16.3 per cent; System III, 67.6 per cent; and System IV, 16.1 per cent of the market of the Southern District. WATER RESOURCES OF CALIFORNIA 19 TABLE 1 Electric Power Production and Substation Delivery by Companies, 1927 Name of company Production Substation delivery NORTHERN GROUP. Millions of Per cent Milli07is of Per cent System I. hiloivatt hours of total kilowatt hours of total CaliforniaOregron Power Co 290.3 9.0 24.2 0.9 Pacific Gas and Electric Company and its subsidiary companies 1,624.6 50.5 1,876.5 72.2 City of San Francisco 538.4 16.7 Snow Mountain W a te r and Power Co. 53.0 1.7 11.9 0.5 Utica Mining Co 19.0 0.6 Coast Counties Gas and Electric Company 4.2 0.1 36.7 1.4 Melones Mining Company 4.7 0.1 "West Side Lumber Company 1.6 0.1 Truckee River Power Co 7.6 0.2 4.1 0.2 Total, System I 2,543.6 79.0 1,953.4 75.2 System Il-a. ' Great Western Power Co. of Cali- fornia 675.4 21.0 645.6 24.8 Total, northern group 3,219.0 100.0 2,599.0 100.0 SOUTHERN GROUP. System Il-b. San Joaquin Light and Power Corporation 504.4 12.4 515.2 15.0 Merced Irrigation District 126.6 3.1 Turlock-Modesto Irrigation Dis- tricts 104.3 2.5 43.7 1.3 U. S. National Park' Service 7.7 0.2 Total, System Il-b 743.0 18.2 558.9 16.3 System III. Southern California Edison Com- pany 2,419.5 59.1 1,711.6 49.7 City of Los Angeles 268.8 6.6 567.9 16.5 City of Pasadena 31.6 0.8 49.4 1.4 Total, System III 2,719.9 66.5 2,328.9 67.6 System IV. Los Angeles Gas and Electric Corporation ^ 247.1 6.0 247.2 7.2 Southern Sierras Power Co 265.1 6.5 178.1 5.2 San Diego Consolidated Gas and Electric Co. 109.9 2.7 126.8 3.7 Yuma P r o j e c t — United States Reclamation Service 5.2 0.1 Total, System IV 627.3 15.3 552.1 16.1 Total, southern group 4,090.2 100.D 3,439.9 100.0 Northern group 3,219.0 44 2,599.0 43 Southern group 4,090.2 56 3,439.8 57 Grand total, entire State 7,309.2 100 6,038.8 100 The following table summarizes for the state the distribution of pro- duction and load among the four systems : Electric Production and Load in California, 1927 Millions of kiloioatt hours output Per cent of total Substation Substation Production outp\,t Prodxiction output System I 2543.6 1953.3 34.8 32.3 System Il-a 675.4 645.6 9.2 10.7 Total, northern group 3219.0 2599.0 44.0 43.0 System Il-b 743.0 558.9 10.2 9.3 System III 2719.9 2328.9 37.2 38 6 System IV 627.3 552.1 8.6 9.1 Total, southern group 4090.2 3439.9 100.0 100.0 Total State 7309.2 6038.8 56.0 67 4—62689 20 KENNETT RESERVOIR DEVELOPMENT DISTRIBUTION OF POWER MARKET BY COUNTIES. Tables 2, 3-A and 3-B, and Plate III, "Distribution of Electric Power Load by Counties in California, 1927," set forth by counties the distribution of the power load throughout the State. These, together with Plate II, indicate for the market of northern California that 13.8 per cent of the market is located north of Sacramento County; 18.8 per cent in the counties surrounding Sacramento, including the moun- tain counties as far south as Tuolumne County; 62.7 per cent in the Bay counties; and 4,7 per cent in the counties south of Santa Clara County. The total substation output of this entire part of the State for 1927 was somewhat in excess of twice the potential development of Kennett. California Electric Power l^oad TABLE 2 or IVlarket by Counties Measured by Substation Delivery, 1927 Suistation delivery, thousands of kilowatt hours 449,920 Cotcnty Alameda Alpine Amador 22,846 Butte 35,516 Calaveras 12,802 Colusa 20,175 Contra Costa 244,397 Del Norte El Dorado 2,449 Fresno 171,885 Glenn 21,161 Humboldt 14,451 Imperial 40,257 Inyo 8,188 Kern 256,869 Kings 43,863 Lake Lassen Los Angeles 1,859,426 Madera Marin Mariposa . Mendocino Merced Modoc Mono Monterey . Napa Nevada 33,457 32,073 3,000 5,535 69,341 50,271 4,884 33,901 County Orange Placer Plumas Riverside Sacramento San Benito San Bernardino . San Diego San Francisco San Joaquin San Luis Obispo. San Mateo Santa Barbara _- Santa Clara Santa Cruz Shasta Sierra Siskiyou Solano Sonoma Stanislaus Sutter Tehama Trinity Tulare Tuolumne Ventura Yolo Yuba Substation delivery, thousands of kilowatt hours 138,361 19,858 31,523 132,809 172,146 20,823 239,016 126,801 685,775 123,287 16,423 91,031 57,766 131,575 50,591 16,162 20,584 68,792 24,306 67,451 22,236 8,351 6,899 157,694 18,824 56,814 21,683 52,313 6,016,561 22,295 Total — Substation delivery by counties 6,016,561 Not segregated — Southern California Edison Co., interdepartmental — Entire State 6,038,856 GROWTH OF POWER LOAD. Plate IV, "Electric Power Installation in California, 1911-1927," sets forth for the northern and southern groups and for the entire State, the growth in power developed by plant capacities, both hydro- electric and steam-electric, for the period 1911 to 1927. It i^ to be noted that in the Northern Group, up to the present time, the amount of hydro-electric capacity in per cent of total is considerably greater than in the Southern Group. Table 4 sets forth statistically the data indicated in Plate IV. Plate V, "Electric Power Production in California, 1913-1927," presents for the period 1913 to 1927 and for the two groups and the State, the power output by months in thousands of kilowatts (average) for steam-electric and hydro-electric plants, respectively. The fluctua- tion in steam-electric production should be noted, as the amount is an important factor in the absorption of new hydro-electric developments. WATER RESOURCES OF CALIFORNIA 21 This fluctuation has occurred partly on account of variation of hydro- electric power production between wet and dry years and partly as a result of the bringing in of new hydro-electric plants. The heavy demand for steam-electric power as a result of the 1924 drought is clearly indicated. The material reduction in steam-electric power in the northern part of the State in the past three years has been the result mainly of bringing in three large hydro-electric projects in 1925 ; Copco No. 2 of The California-Oregon Power Company, Pit No. 3 of the Pacific Gas and Electric Company, and Moccasin Creek plant of the City of San Francisco. The result of bringing in theSe three developments, having an annual output of approximately 1,000,000,000 kilowatt hours, has been to reduce the steam-electric power production to less than 1 per cent of the total and to create a condition of tem- porary oversupplv. TABLE 3-A Substation Delivery by Counties Grouped Geographically (District Served by Northern Group of Companies) Siibstation delivery County Thousands of Per cent of total DISTRICT 1. kilowatt hours northern group Butte 35,516 Colusa 20,175 Del Norte Glenn 21,161 Humboldt 14,451 Lake Lassen Mendocino 5,535 Modoc Napa 4,884 Nevada 33,901 Placer 19,858 Plumas 31,523 Shasta 16,162 Siskiyou 'IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 2l)"584 Sonoma 24,306 Sutter 22,236 Tehama 8,351 Trinity 6,899 Yolo 21,683 Tuba 52,313 Total, District 1 359,538 13.8 DISTRICT 2. Alpine Amador 22,846 Calaveras 12,802 El Dorado 2,449 Sacramento 172,146 San Joaquin 123,287 Solano 68,792 Stanislaus 67,451 Tuolumne 18,824 Total, District 2 488,597 18.8 DISTRICT 3. Alameda 449,920 Contra Costa 244,397 Marin 32,073 Santa Clara 131,575 San Francisco 685,775 San Mateo 91.031 Total, District 3 1,634,771 62.7 DISTRICT 4. Monterey . 50,271 San Benito 20,823 Santa Cruz . 50,591 Total, District 4 121,685 4.7 Total Northern California 2,604,591 100.0 22 KENNETT RESERVOIR DEVELOPMENT TABLE 3-B Substation Delivery by Counties Grouped Geographically (District Served by Southern Group of Companies) Substation delivery Thousands of Per cent of total County kilowatt hours southern group DISTRICT 1. Fresno 171,885 Inyo 8,188 Kern 256,869 Kings 43,863 Madera 33,457 Mariposa 3,000 Merced 69,341 Mono _1 San Luis Obispo 16,423 Santa Barbara 57,766 Tulare 157,694 Total, District 1 818,486 24.0 DISTRICT 2. Los Angeles 1,859,426 Orange 138,361 Ventura 56,814 Total, District 2 2,054,601 60.2 DISTRICT 3. Imperial 40,257 Riverside 132,809 San Bernardino 239,016 San Diego 126,801 Total, District 3 538,883 15.8 Total South San Joaquin Valley and south- ern California 3,411,970 100.0 WATER RESOURCES OF CALIFORNIA 23 PLATE in SIERRA MONO MODOC LASSEN LAKE DEL NORTE ALPINE EL DORADO MARIPOSA NAPA MENDOCINO TRINITY INYO TEHAMA CALAVERAS HUMBOLDT SHASTA SAN LUIS OBISPO TUOLUMNE PLACER COLUSA SISKIYOU SAN BENITO GLENN YOLO SUTTER AMADOR SONOMA PLUMAS MARIN MADERA NEVADA BUTTE IMPERIAL KINGS MONTEREY SANTA CRUZ YUBA VENTURA SANTA BARBARA STANISLAUS SOLANO MERCED SAN MATEO SAN JOAQUIN SAN DIEGO SANTA CLARA RIVERSIDE I ORANGE TULARE FRESNO SACRAMENTO SAN BERNARDINO CONTRA COSTA KERN ALAMEDA SAN FRANCISCO mmta^imi^aBmBamBmmmt^mmmmmi^aammm^am^ LOS ANGELES 1 200 AOO 600 800 1.000 t200 lAOO 1.600 1.800 2D00 ^00 2(t00 Electric power load (substation output) in millions of kilowatt hours Distribution of Electric Power Load By Counties IN CALIFOR N lA !927 24 KENNETT RESERVOIR DEVELOPMENT PLATE IV. NORTHERN GROUP 200 COMPANIES IN NORTHERN GROUP _ California Oregon Power Company Pacific Gas and Electric Co. and subsidiaries" Snow Mountain Water i. Power Company _ Cit_y of San Francisco Coast Counties Gas it Electric Company — Great Western Power Co. of California _ Ufica Mining Company 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916 I9l7 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 SOUTHERN GROUP to -o c ro to :3 o 1,200 1,000 800 600 .COMPANIES IN SOUTHERN GROUP San Joaquin Light and Pomer Corporation Modesto - Turlock Irrigation Districts Merced Irrigation District United States National Park Service Souttiern California Edison Company City of Los Angeles 400 CI. o >> "o 200 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916 I9I7 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 ENTIRE STATE 911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 I9l9 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 ELECTRIC POWER INSTALLATION IN CALIFORNIA 1911 -1927 V///////////A HYDRO-ELECTRIC STEAM-ELECTRIC INSTALLATION INSTALLATION WATER RESOURCES OF CALIFORNIA 25 PLATE V. NORTHERN GROUP 1 1 I w V u '/}' /W T^» 1 jpr* w'M-' TnO - -= m^M,.*-M^.i ^^^ fy n — - - » § § i ?i ^"SSff ixzir r^aJr^ ~ni^ '-i,^ir(!\'.\. t.i . i!,ii. ././.,.\. 'j- -~ UnJiV J,iinf. rJ^i-,. ^t^l,/u-, JJflfUi ^ri-^.h^.y. t-i .^.y^l- J-', 'J. 'i- ^4;:;:;,;-;7.:.!:|:::x;t:;:;;t# 8 i. > OJ 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 I92A 1925 1926 1927 TO J: O ro O (rt c CD rrtn SOUTHERN GROUP NL Rn JM 4 ^(mM /.nn H WL £m 7^3 AM frnm 41 {■. .^ Pq /ftl''' _^^ ^ % ^Ip ||§ 1 l^g l^g^^^ !^ ' ■ -'^^-j ^ , / K^- ^ It _ J 3 9rtA 1 ' 1 f 55L KaWd - -xt •c^ ,_K^ ^^IvHg: ty/,,/, 4;/,,, a 1*3 1 'r-r,- /SiJiil '■-^- - - H— i- W^i ;6l5:W#|i * (t^j ?vi^. !TTt'\: |.T/ /,' W ,7 7/' , '■ .'hT/.;,/ -T"--'^ :J§'^2if '^ '■ ■ ^- ^- ■;■■ i il ";::■:; v4'}m n:-- LJ^ ; b.:[;i:i.;;,;.-'.L;./;,!; ■-1' N/ fftfif '/ :y4-' ,;.T \. . , .1 : u. m /T/T/ . ' m/i'%' 1'''^ "■•f<- .a^,,^/ ^(■i^il 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 ro 1.000 -o nj ^ 800 o o O LlJ 600 «00 200 ENT RE STATE 3 Bd r L iL'fl k1 (fflSL Dfl wIr frs B /^ I 1^ r /B (M ' 1 f -J L w no tcSl rt Pte^ ?" P'/ // 1 !*&>» (S''/t^ ""' ''^ n I I r*" sflSa l^'7V "^ 'il-Yy y ■ 3J L'*^^ '/ • ,■'■ ■;/, ' 'I- 'h"J'E.''?t''v i ■' / 1 '' ' y ' ■' ^/ > K i^ f-Jl^W rT '}" '■■j P . 1 1\f ^\ IV.'Vv \^ ' 1 i ' ' 1 '' /// flC5 fc"^ -£ '''^J '{*4iT; "'■ iT 1 ■ ■ ' 'uilXli;^^ '■'' j' ' ' I 'ill if^ Ti l->!^^ 1. nK^'v'"'/'' ■-V / V-"' "v L ' T^ v'"-ft i • ^ 1 ■ ■ ^ i' ' / / J 58. (fcjLO 3^ Js&^'' '■ ■■■;3l'^'-"^'i '' ■£• J ^ ' ■' ■ ,■■'■' ', ■}-:■> 'r '/ ' / ' '' ' ' V ' I P '^R^ ^'flr!^'-' ¥^ vft-''^ "-3** V \v -' ' 't t' ; ■ 1 ';';'''''. 7t-5 T '/ ' ''" ' / ' *f'yl ^J^ 'rf"*^ It '''v> '.•7* ,■'.■ J y- r."'. >'. ''A' H^l'' j ' ■ A , ■ "; J i '/'.''' ' ' ^'X ■ J' ■■ 'i ■";'■'/ ' / v /j n. R-'^^L J'-f'-V'' ^ ' '^■'' ''5 v^j ^' '''«■■'■ 'XT ' W ' I ■/ ' ('/'■■' r ' ' ' '' . 7* ''/'/' 7 V .''''■'.'. / ^ >5' S r'Tn'v^' v^vT+I^"- '^ ' 'r v.'- V //i 7 '', Z.'^?."' -ll 7 1 , / ' ■ ,' , / ' V 7 ' ' >■ ■ ^- ■ ■/■ | ■ y ■'}/),■ ^ ■ ',■'/// Of ''■^ "^^s */ V l:5y/^:' : ■^ -^ Oi ; g CO CO (M C-'*)' t:- CO •«< 05 ■* ■* CT> OS t£> r-( to 00 I'- MU30>W>a"tOUOOT'«*'COCt-0 1 i2 ^ eO'*"tD to CO !>•* oJ'c--''ccr-* oo"t--'"'^o,-re*t-OOOM005t- jS "a" •«< «o t- t- C- 00 00 00 0» iH CO •* t- O O rH ; = r-l iH tHiHNe-f fa H ^7^ •< H m « a p Bi c3 H r/1 /. w ' C CO 00 CO CO O tH ■-*i Ci -^ OS CO CO 05 ^ -Tj* OS to :° aCOCOtOiHCO-'J'COtDOtr-C- in t- iH to oo «*• : rt >" C^ToO Tt^CO LfToo c^oocq i-Too O COUO irTi-H CO 1 S j^'00000ST-trHTi in in do"© o toinco o"co"to"i-o ocs'''< lO in 111 . _l « m c o c o 73 g in in in in in m to to to to to to Tj* Tf Tj* -^ -Tj* c - 00 00 CO CO CO CO T-H iH CO to th to eg ca M t* c*3 *Z2 .ininooooTS^ostoto-^ocstooococooo -2 "^ in in t> CO Tj^oTto tOi-roort-TrH t-^c-^r-Tos 'S'^ooootot-c-t-cocoTji-iint:-eqtoos ^ iH T-* th th eg eq e-^-«:jiTjit- ' I^ . CO CO iH to 00 ij< to 00 CO in 1-H tH ,-H OS OS -^ o ; — ". i-Tosooine^frHooco c-^ooooc^i't^-^'inooeg" n ^. osiM'*f~ooocgT»3PO'^cO'^Tt«mirso^t-oooooooo c Liti lo u-s 1^ o ij^ o US L':: li^ (M c^ ca O O O U-D "rt ^ to COOaJO'rHC^CO'^lrtCDt* ^ 0> Oft O Od Oft Oft Oft Oft Oft 0> Oft Oft A Oft Oft Oft Oft WATER RESOURCES OF CALIFORNIA 27 Table 5 sets forth by years the production of power, both hydro- electric and steam-electric in millions of kilowatt hours for the years 1913 to 1927. The figures include a relativelj^ small production of power by plants of the California-Oregon Power Company and the Truckee River Power Company outside the State. TABLE 5 Electric Power Production in California, 1913-1927 Annual poicci- plant output in millions of ki.oivatt hours Steam-electric in per cent year Hydro-electric Steam-electrxc Total of total Northern group* 1913 852 266 1118 23.8 1914 1028 146 1174 12.4 1915 1072 220 1292 17.0 1916 1219 208 1427 14.6 1917 1332 242 1574 15.4 1918 1350 386 1736 22.2 1919 1343 473 1816 26.0 1920 1409 576 1985 29.0 1921 1719 253 1972 12.8 1922 1905 268 2173 12.3 1923 2118 302 2420 12.5 1924 1833 812 2645 30.7 1925 2721 162 2883 5.6 1926 3102 130 3232 5.0 1927 3266 32 3298 1.0 Southern groxip 1913 439 414 853 48.5 1914 858 173 1031 16.8 1915 911 170 1081 15.7 1916 894 137 1031 13.3 1917 930 242 1172 20.6 1918 1014 319 1333 23.9 1919 994 491 1485 33.1 1920 1163 543 1706 21.8 1921 1485 449 1934 13.2 1922 1886 287 2173 13.2 1923 1995 627 2622 13.9 1924 1335 1561 2896 53.5 1925 2462 836 3298 25.3 1926 2577 1091 3668 29.7 1927 3443 644 4087 15.8 Entire State* 1913 1291 680 1971 34.5 1914 1886 319 2205 14.5 1915 1983 390 2373 16.4 1916 2113 345 2458 14.0 1917 2262 484 2746 17.6 1918 2364 705 3069 23.0 1919 2337 964 3301 29.2 1920 2572 1119 3691 • 30.3 1921 3204 702 3906 18.0 1922 3791 555 4346 12.8 1923 4113 929 5042 18.4 1924 3168 2373 . 5541 42.8 1925 5183 998 6181 16.1 1926 5679 1221 6900 17.7 1927 6709 676 7385 9.2 * Limited production outside of State included. ESTIMATED FUTURE GROWTH OF POWER REQUIREMENTS. An important factor in determining the ability of the market to absorb the output of the Kennett development is the extent of the market and the rate of growth, especially just prior to and following the completion of such a plant. Numerous estimates have been made of the future growth of power in the State of California. The past growth in northern California has been steady, though not as rapid as in southern California. There has been apparently some slowing up of the growth in southern Cali- fornia during the past few years. Studies of estimates of growth of power requirements prepared by Mr. F. E. Bonner of the Federal Power Commission, together with other analyses of past and estimated future growth, have been made in connection with this report. The resultant conclusions are set forth in Plate VI, "Past and Estimated 5 — 62689 28 KENNETT RESERVOIR DEVELOPMENT PLATE VI. NORTHERN GROU[ 3 10,000 5,000 ^ >" .-1 "^ r-* '■ ^ -• .^ Si' ««i ** ' ' 1^ _ ^ -^ ^ "* Including San Joaauin sys'env-. ^ ^ «« ^ " ^* _ ^ .-- •" ^- h" _ «*■ ■^ '^Excludin^ Si n Joaquin system =1 •* 1^ ^ ^ 1915 1920 1925 1930 SOUTHERN G 19: RO }5 Jl 1940 1945 1950 3 x: 15.000 ° 10,000 (rt 5,000 c o ^ ^ ,•« • •' - *• •^ :- ^•- .-- .— •i «^ ^ lnr,l jding San Joaauin system^ .-"■ "^ J> _>■ --^ ^ ^ L'-r ^ »* ,^ ^ ^ ^ -^ ' ^ P*^ ^ e c g 30,000 o o 2^000 o. u ^ 20,000 Ou o il 15.000 u a> UJ 10,000 spoo ^ 1915 1920 1925 E^ TIF 1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 E STATE . — ;^ X .^ *^ »<• # ^ V » /" y* X K' ^ ^ ,*\ ^^ > ^ ** 1 *^ ^ ^ X ^ «^ i^ X - r^ •^ ■^ 1915 1920 1925 1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 py \ST AND ESTIMATED FUTURE GROWTH OF ELECTRIC POWER PRODUCTION IN CALIFORNIA 1913- 1950 E SI nr dA TE ID E .L£ :c TR IC f :>0\ iVE :r F R( DD U( :t N FC )R F Ul 'U RE : ^ rD \R s WATER RESOURCES OF CALIFORXLA. 29 Future Growth of Electric Power Production in California, 1913- 1950," and in Table 6 for the two sections of the State. The past growth of power in northern California has been at a compound rate approximating 8 per cent. The estimates herein, however, contemplate the future growth at a reducing percentage, ranging from approxi- mately 7 per cent in 1928, to as low as 4 per cent about 1950. DATE OF BRINGING IN KENNETT. The date of completion of Kennett development will have an impor- tant bearing on the ability of the market to absorb its potential power output. The construction program contemplates a period of four and one-half years for completion. Allowing for preliminaries and financ- ing, it may be concluded that the earliest time for bringing in this development would be 1935. For the purposes of this discussion, how- ever, completion by 1936 has been assumed. Should the completion occur at a later date, the market could more readily absorb the power output. POWER OUTPUT OF KENNETT. The power output of Kennett, when operated for flood and salinity control, and limited irrigation, is estimated at an average of 1,217,600,- 000 kilowatt hours annually. This output is based on a 275,000 kilo- volt-ampere plant operating at 80 per cent power factor and with an output equivalent to approximately 70 per cent plant load factor. TABLE 6 Estimated Future Power Requirement, 1927-1950 (Power Plant Output) Northern Group, Southern Group, Entire State, millions of millions of millions of Year kiloioatt hours kiloiuatt hours kilowatt hours 1927 3,219 4,090 7,309 1928 3,433 4,572 8,005 1929 3,668 5,054 8,722 1930 3,919 5,492 9,411 1931 4,125 6,017 10,142 1932 4,343 6.499 10,842 1933 4,570 6,981 11,551 1934 4,811 7,507 12,318 1935 5,063 8,032 13,095 1936 5,328 8,470 13,798 1987 5,606 8,908 14,514 1938 5,897 9,346 15,243 1S39 6,205 9,740 15,945 1940 6,539 10,178 16,717 1941 6,806 10,573 17,379 1942 7,083 10,923 18,006 1943 7,372 11,273 18,645 1944 7,673 11,624 19,297 1945 7,984 11,930 19,914 1946 :- 8,310 12,237 20,547 1947 8,647 12,587 21,234 1948 8,997 12,938 21,935 1949 9,362 13,201 22,563 1950 9,728 13.551 23,279 These bases of estimates are somewhat conservative. The output under the conditions as set forth will vary from a minimum of 990,400,000 kilowatt hours to a maximum of 1,314,000,000 kilowatt hours annually. Table 7 sets forth the estimated output which could have been developed under the water supply conditions of 1896-1927 had Kennett been installed. The relative variation of output both annually and monthly, compared with other typical plants, is presented graphically on Plate VII, "Variation of Annual and Monthly Power Output of Kennett Reservoir Compared with Typical Hydro-electric Plants." 30 KENNETT RESERVOIR DEVELOPMENT The Kennett output for the minimum year has been estimated to meet the normal variation of power demand on the main power systems and is under these conditions more valuable than that from the other plants. Although shown as uniform throughout the maximum year, the output could be varied to follow more closely the power demand. The output characteristics under condition of practically complete control for irrigation, which Mall ultimately occur, are very different and will materially reduce the value of the power available. An esti- mate of the conditions under such control based on a use of water to ■ the level of two hundred feet above the stream bed indicates an average annual output of 767,000,000 kilowatt hours with a variation in output from 46 per cent to 138 per cent of the average. Unless such a limit on the minimum head is provided much less power could be produced in the dry years and the value of the output would be materially reduced. TABLE 7 Estimated Power Output, Kennett Reservoir— 420 foot dam Operated for Flood Control, Saline Control and an Irrigation Supply to San Joaquin Valley. Installed Capacity of Plant, 275,000 k.v.a. Power Factor = 0.80. Load Factors 0.75 Power output in millions of Year kilowatt hours 1896 1310.7 1897 1287.9 1898 1074.7 1899 1104.0 1900 1242.9 1901 1192.5 1902 1288.5 1903 1252.5 1904 1314.0 1905 1288.6 1906 1314.0 1907 1314.0 1908 1291.2 1909 1314.0 1910 1283.8 1911 1308.7 1912 1240.0 1913 1229.7 1914 1314.0 1915 1314.0 1916 1314.0 1917 1215.8 1918 1098.6 1919 1186.3 1920 1054.5 1921 1227.7 1922 1208.0 1923 : 1031.7 1924 1035.4 1925 990.4 1926 1049.6 1927 1271-5 Average: 1896-1927 1217.6 WATER RESOURCES OF CALIFORNIA 31 PLATE Vir. (M 2 I O T3 O a> CL .o to u > C ear - I9C 9 - - 1- j- ■ "I 1 |- ^ — 1 ~ 1 • - Aver 3|e (19 07 192 5)^ "~M - — 1 I j — - . - ~ ~ — Mi nim um >< ar 19: 4- ^ _ 2"DQ:g>-zjotV>6 2aiQ:s>z5'5^>^>o ziriird>.u>jcJti^.'>d li.5-)<(/)OZQ Variation of Annual and monthly Power Output OF KENNETT Reservoir COMPARED WITH Typical Hydro-Elegtric plants 32 KENNETT RESERVOIR DEVELOPMENT MARKET AVAILABLE AT TIME OF COMPLETION. Upon completion of Kennett, assumed as occurring in 1936, its power output of 1,217,600,000 kilowatt hours annually would be entering the market of northern California, estimated as requiring the production of 5,328,000,000 kilowatt hours annually. The demands of the territory at that time must and will be fully served by existing agencies. These agencies are at present grouped in two systems, one supplying approxi- mately 75 per cent, and the other 25 per cent of the market. The market will face the absorption of an added supply of approximately 23 per cent of the then existing production, assuming complete coordina- tion of the existing agencies. If the larger of the two systems is to absorb the output it will face the absorption of 31 per cent added supply. The estimated growth of the market of northern California during the period 1935 to 1940 is at a rate of approximately 300,000,000 kilo- watt hours per annum or one-fourth of the total estimated output of Kennett. The market will take, therefore, from four to five years for the growth of load to absorb the entire output, depending upon the extent of cooperation and coordination obtained. IMPORTANCE OF COORDINATED DEVELOPMENT, From a standpoint of economic absorption of power output, such as Kennett, the amount of steam-electric power produced at the time of completion of the project is important. It is economic, also the general practice of utilities in bringing in any large hydro-electric plant, to carrj' the growth of load for one or two years prior thereto on steam-electric plants so that a considerable load may be immediately shifted to the hydro-electric plants and thus reduce expenses as fixed charges are increased. At present the most economic balance between hydro-electric and steam-electric power pro- duction does not exist, there being too small a percentage of steam- electric power produced. The Pacific Gas and Electric Company has under construction added power plants on the Mokelumne River and plans for development on the Bear and Pit rivers in addition to steam-electric plants. Further development on the Feather River by the Great Western Power Com- pany may be expected as needed by that system. Other private and public enterprises are urging developments on other streams so that, at present, the tendency is toward further development of hydro-electric plants where a more economic procedure would be to meet the growth of load by steam-electric power installation. It is, therefore, important that, through cooperation Avith the agencies serving the public, their developments be coordinated to make possible the ready absorption of Kennett power output if it is to be wholesaled to them, otherwise the output of Kennett would enter a market not ready for the absorption of such a large added production. Under Plans 1, 2, 3, and in general, Plan 4, as suggested for consid- eration, the entire market of northern California tributary to Kennett power may be considered available for absorption of the output through the system of the existing utility agencies. These agencies, through the extent and diversity of their load, have developed a market fully inter- connected through their systems with a load factor in excess of 60 per cent and a flexibility such that the power output comld be readily WATER RESOURCES OF CALIFORNIA 33 absorbed. If definite obligations for sale and purchase are entered into, under Plans 2, 3 and 4, other developments may be adjusted sufficiently in advance to make possible a minimum period of absorp- tion. Much more extreme problems have been faced and overcome in the past than are presented by Kennett. In 1921, the Great Western Power Company brought in on its own system the first units of the Caribou development, the output of which represented in excess of 40 per cent of the then existing load ou that system. In 1925, the Pacific Gas and Electric Company completed its Pit No. 3 plant, commenced the purchase of additional power from the California-Oregon Power Company and the City of San Francisco, the total amount exceeding 40 per cent of its then existing load. Kennett output will represent from 23 per cent to 31 per cent of the load at the time it is available. With reasonable coordination and cooperation between this develop- ment and existing agencies no serious difficulty should arise in the absorption of power produced by Kennett development. The problem of obtaining a market for the output of Kennett plant were the market to be developed through state-owned and operated distribution systems as suggested in Plan 5, is one to be considered separately. COST OF KENNETT DEVELOPMENT INVESTMENT COST. The cost of the Kennett development (420 foot clam, 2,940,000 acre- foot reservoir) was estimated in Bulletin No. 13, "The Development of the Upper Sacramento River," at $80,000,000. That estimate was prepared on the basis of a power plant capacity of 400,000 kilovolt- amperes and with interest during construction at a rate of 6 per cent per annum. In this report the power plant capacity has been taken at 275,000 kilovolt-amperes as explained on page 15 of this report, and the interest rate reduced to a State financing basis of 4^ per cent. With these revisions the estimated cost is $70,000,000. This covers pur- chase of reservoir site and removal to new location of the Southern Pacific Company tracks and a part of the State highway that would be submerged, construction of the dam and a 275,000 kilovolt-ampere power plant. The total cost is divided as follows : Land.s and improvements flooded $22,882,000 Dam »nd appurtenances 30,118,000 Total reservoir and dam $53,000,000 Power plant 17,000,000 Total development $70,000,000 ANNUAL COST OF KENNETT DEVELOPMENT. The annual cost of Kennett development (reservoir, dam and power plant) will vary in the first three of the five plans of financing sug- gested, owing to differences in costs between private and state owner- ship and financing. The annual cost of this development will be the same under Plans 3, 4 and 5, as each contemplates complete State ownership of the reservoir, dam and power plant. The annual costs are fully set forth in Table 8 and are based on the following units : Basis of Estimated Annual Cost Kennett Reservoir and Power Plant Private State ownership ownership Straight Sinking Bond amortization basis line fund Excluded Return or interest per cent of capital 7.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Amortization of state bonds — 40 year basis, per cent of capital — 2.5 1.05 Depreciation : Land and improvements, per cent of capital Dam and appurtenances, per cent of capital .3 .3 .3 .3 Power plant, 40 year basis, per cent of capital -65 l.Oo 1.05 1.05 state, per cent of capital 1.35 Federal, per cent of capital .40 , , ^ Operating expense and maintenance, f $200,000 per annum for dam and reservoir, both private and state ownership { $300,000 per annum for power plant. Return on private investment is that at present generally estimated as fair for large electric projects such as Kennett. The interest rate of 4.5 per cent for State investment is slightly above the present cost. Amortization is a.ssumed on a basis of a forty-year period commencing ten years after date of issue of bonds. This period is within the legal limit for State bonds (seventy-five years). Ten years for construction and loading of power plant prior to commencement of amortization are allowed for. Estimated costs under straight line amortization show the maximum annual charges with State development. A 4 per cent sinking fund amortization is included in the table in order to set forth the approximate average annual cost during the forty-year amortiza- tion period. The estimate, excluding amortization, sets forth the cost (34) "WATER RESOURCES OF CALIFORNIA 35 «§„ O 1 o 1 o o O IO 1 IO o o lo 1 lo o O M c E B O lO lO o O IO 1 IO o O lO 1 lo oo" o cq o ■55-3 ^S g iO 1 o lO |o- o in 0_ IO 1 IO IO joo 1 jo" o CO O IO 1 1 o o" |oo" 1 |o- o 2 = 5 00 OS o t- «0 tr- O ■>*< U5 us O N "o -5 2 = eo 1 cq" 1 1 ^ 1- 1 1" ** 1 II M r^ rH !», j |U5 CO 1 II o e» > *0- «■ M- to- O s = S £J2 -r c ooo lO o ooo 1 |0 O ooo 1 1 o § LO cq rt a — — « ooo lO o OOO 1 |0 o OOO 1 1 o to 00 m*- C ■:i T3 ooo lO o ooo 1 |0 o ooo 1 1 o ■A CO (M <=<=fe «i S OtOO l'^" 1-7 \axao \ 'o" T-l o-«<"oo" 1 'o" ^ o o O n*-5 — "^ — 00 05 ■^ CO ot-c- o eq mco«o o >a ^ S ' 1« 1 co' ** 1 1 rHt-Cq j |U3 CO 1 1 o 3 3) 1 = to- «» «^ ««• >. 5« 3J „ ooo io o ooo 1 |0 o OOO 1 1 o o O CO -i-f > T3 ;= ^ « ooo lO o ooo 1 1 o o ooo 1 IO o o rH CO in ^ ti ^ ooo IO o ooo 1 |0 o 0_0_0 1 IO_ oo' ■* b §11 irTi-oo \° o" i.o"u-:"oo" ] |o" oo" oo"oo ] |o" 00 °° O o c » "5 t- "~" OOlM OJ \° o OC,-l CO 1 1 r-T rHC-C<) ] [uo Co'rH 1 1 lo" o ■= v> «o 69- ««■ ^ ill •3 = ii ooo IO o O 1 O 1 oo O OO o 1 OO o cq o> 3 §r g g-a ooo IO o O 1 O 1 oo O O oo lOO o rH o o »-i Ti '^ -^ o bo ^; ~ iS '^ ooo in'oo" IO o_^ O 1 O 1 o o_ in 'rH '(»o" O OOO IO o OtOrH 'ooo o s o o o S t: ^ - -2" ooirscn o CO t- T-l -O O uo o uo o Uo o -^^ ~l.-l C ^ !/: w o — 1 - to ro ■- ^ eoio 1" 1 CO W I.H 1 CO rH 1 1 1— 1 O LO Ol J IO co" 1 o" V ™ n.-o o 69- 60- ee- «> ««- i Q. Q. O »^ -3 H ■o n a. ooo IO |o o O 1 oooo IO Ir-Tc-rooO o CO OO oo oo OlO rH O ooo o CO 00 °I in ffi. o 5 o Q. o S OOM O o o c- S-i M -^ o 00 t^cvi ocg CO o £ • c 1 o eo |rH N CO i-T 1 Oi OCOC<1C^ LO CO r^ o W >-a cie- ««■ 69- ««• ««■ 3 ■a O 1 o OO o O IO lOO o O 1 O IO o Q c cq a* 0) t4 t£ O lO OO o O IO 1 oo o o 1 o 1 oo Q C5 rH -^ O 1 O 1 o^o_ o O 1 O IO o o o 1 o 1 oo o O :_ •^2 K :3 ea es "=" |o- 1 c^'o t-^ lo" i iH I OO'O •ctT O I'rH" !0 0" ,-r >> o > t~- OJ .-H O t- c~ Nh o o LO LO O CO O CO CM (0 M °l 1 (MM ■* cq 1-1 CO c- iM ] cq \cna o c E K CO 1 1 •^ * I 1 T-l 1 1 i-T IO 1 1 *9- 5 o Vi- eo- &9- ee- e«- -f c > O lO OO o o O 1 o o o o o o 1 o o oo o tH •* ^ « ffl O lOOOO o O lOOOO o o lOo oo o CO to c ^1 "^ r ^ ^ « |S5s = o io_o_o_o_ la ] o" t~^cqo o O 1 OOO o la 1 iHo'so o o_ CO o_ io_^o_oo_ O" ] rHo" 0"0 o CO o ~B Zi ^ ^ X t- 0» O T-H o OO t- Sneg oo 00 IO OCOOOO 3 ^ ?; r- rt 0» •* (M M 00 Cd S-it -a •a c o > 0) m (V .ii o t. a) (h oj 5s o ^ 5 4^ t- ;5- V to si S o ■a c -w 3 — .2 « *J t! ft t- 3 p. 03 -M 1) ft o o ® '5 "§ o o Eh H o .3 to ■a 03 o o -a '-4.J m . '^ o a. 36 KENNETT RESERVOIR DEVELOPMENT during the first years; also the estimated carrying cost of the develop- ment, excluding retirement of capital. The length of bond amortization might be increased to a sixty or sixty-five year period under the legal limitation and thus reduce the annual outlay. The table, however, indicates the limits between which the results, based on other assumptions, will fall. No depreciation has been assumed on lands or improvements removed. A minimum of 0.3 per cent has been included on the dam and appurtenances to cover con- tingencies and minor replacements. Depreciation on the power plant is estimated on forty years' life on a 6 per cent sinking fund for private and 4 per cent sinking fund for State ownership. Operating and maintenance expenses are estimated to cover not only local but also general expenses and are somewhat higher than a study of expenses of the larger developments of the State would indicate in order to cover possible contingencies. The table sets forth the estimated cost under private ownership of capital ^\^th and without State taxes. Under the present method of taxing electric utilities a private utility would pay the same State tax were it to purchase the power wholesale from the State as it would if the plant were constructed and owned by it, the tax being determined as a per cent of the total gross revenue of the utility. For comparison with costs of other power, therefore, the cost has been estimated exclud- ing State taxes. The present State tax rate is 7.5 per cent of the gross revenue. Assuming revenue would equal total cost the resultant tax rate would be seventy-two hundredths of 1 per cent of the capital under Plan 1. This basis can hardly be expected to continue indefinitely. The rate of 1.35 per cent of capital is based on the average tax rate on general property now existing over the State equated to a per cent of capital cost. No State tax is estimated on the capital representing lands and improvements as the greater part of this cost represents cost of relocation of the railroad and highway and would not represent power company property. COST OF TRANSMISSION. Plan 4 contemplates construction and operation of trunk transmis- sion lines to the important load centers of northern California, power to be wholesaled to political subdivisions and private utilities. As indicated in Plate II and Tables 2, 3-A and 3-B, over 65 per cent of the market is located within a radius of 50 miles of San Francisco. From Table 1, it is to be noted that at present 94 per cent of the power is sei'ved directly by two companies. Further data show that within the Sacramento Valley and the San Francisco Bay region less than 2 per cent of the power is distributed by municipal systems, only one individual sj^stem distributing over 0.5 of 1 per cent of the existing load. These systems are scattered from Redding on the north to Santa Clara on the south. This does not include the Modesto and Turlock districts which produce their own power and would require only standby service. Transmission of such a large amount of power as Kennett output will require as a minimum, a double circuit 220,000 volt transmission line to the main load center in the Bay district. It is apparent from an engineering consideration of the data that outside of the two main companies there are at present no municipal WATER RESOURCES OF CALIFORNIA 37 or private resale systems of sufficient size or advantageous location to take power economically from the main trunk transmission line. Should another system develop which could avail itself of the purchase of power wholesale it must be assumed that the revenue to be received would justify the added capital expenditure. At present only two agencies of sufficient size to utilize the output of Kennett exist : one, the Pacific Gas and Electric Company; the other, the Great Western Power Compam" of California. If transmission of power by the State is contemplated the logical terminal of the transmission line would be in the general vicinity of Antioch. Contra Costa County, practically two hundred miles' transmission distance from Kennett. Both com- panies have important substations and transmission lines in this loca- tion which is near the center of load. The cost of transmission per kilowatt hour will vary materially, depending on the plan of operation and whether adequate standby service against interruption is contemplated. By wholesaling the output to these two agencies the cost to the State will be reduced to a minimum. Under such delivery the transmission line can be limited to two circuits and one substation as the purchasing systems with their steam-electric and hydro-electric plants and extensive transmission net- works will be adequate in size to take care of interruptions without detriment to the public service. If the State contemplates delivery of power comparable in continuity to that now delivered by existing utilities an additional transmission line and steam-electric standby plant would be required in excess of that herein estimated. Table 9 sets forth the estimated investment and annual cost to the State and to a private utility to transmit Kennett power to the load center wholesaling it to the existing agencies. This represents the minimum capital and annual cost requirements for transmission. TABLE 9 Cost of Transmission of Kennett Power, Kennett to Antioch Investment Cost Transmission line — 200 miles double circuit tower line $6,000,000 Receiving substation, 200,000 kilowatt capacity 3,600,000 Total 19,600,000 Power delivered 88% of 1,217,600,000 kilowatt hours= 1,070,000,000 kilowatt hours. Basis of Annual Cost Per cent of Capital State development Straight Shiking line fund Private ainortisa- aviortisa- develop- tio7i tion ment Interest or return 4.5 4.5 7.50 Amortization — 40 years 2.5 1.05 Depreciation 1.35 1.35 1.00 Maintenance and operating expense, including general expense : Transmission line .75 .75 .75 Terminal substation '2.50 2.50 2.50 Taxes, state and federal 1.75 Annual Cost 1. Transmission line : Interest on ?6,000,000 $270,000 $270,000 $450,000 Amortization 150,000 63,000 Depreciation 81,000 81,000 60,000 Maintenance and operating expense 45,000 45,000 45,000 Taxes 105,000 Total cost of transmission to substations $546,000 $459,000 $660,000 38 KENNETT RESERVOIR DEVELOPMENT 2. Receiving substation : Interest on ?3, 600,000 $162,000 $162,000 $270 000 Amortization 90,000 37,800 Depreciation 48,500 48,500 36,000 Operating expense 90,000 90,000 90 000 Taxes 63,000 Total cost of receiving substation $390,500 $338,300 $459,000 3. (a) Total cost of transmission $936,500 $784,300 $1,119,000 (b) Total cost of transmission, excluding state taxes 989 gQQ 4. Cost per kilowatt hour delivered, a $0.000875 $0.000733 $0.001044 b 0.000924 From Tables 8 and 9, the total cost to the State under Plan 4, assuming the wholesaling of power to the existing agencies, may be summarized as follows : Annual cost Straight line Sinking fund atnortisa- amortiza- tion tion of bonds — of bonds — . ^ . , Capital cost iO years iO years 1. Dam, reservoir and power plant $70,000,000 $5,668,000 $4 652 000 2. Cost per kilowatt hour produced — (1,217,- 600,000 kilowatt hours) ($0.00466) ($0.00382) 3. Transmission line and substation 9,600,000 936,500 784,300 4. Totals $79,600,000 $6,604,500 $5,436,300 5. Total cost per kilowatt hour delivered from terminal substation — (1,070,000,000 kilo- watt hours) ($0.00617) ($0.00508) In the above table and in Table 9, preceding, the figures under straight line amortization represent the maximum costs which occur during the first year of the amortization period. VALUE OF POWER OUTPUT The value of the power output of Kennett and the revenue from the power under Plans 1, 2, 3 and 4 will depend upon the characteristics of the output and upon the cost of power from other and competitive sources. Power that is available mainly in spring months or in wet years is less valuable, requiring more auxiliary steam-electric power installation than power which can be depended upon under adverse conditions of drought. Plate VII, heretofore referred to, sets forth graphically the estimated annual and monthly variation of power from Kennett compared with other hydro-electric plants of northern Cali- fornia. This comparison shows that Kennett power under the condi- tions of operation specified has better characteristics than the power from other plants. There are three measures of the value of power, based upon cost of power from other sources : 1. Cost of power from other hydro-electric plants. 2. Cost of power from steam-electric plants. 3. Wholesale price for power as indicated by existing contracts. Throughout this analysis comparison will be made on a unit basis of mills per kilowatt hour. Such a basis is only correct where power characteristics and point of delivery are equivalent. These units are better understood, however, and will be used with qualifying state- ments. COST OF POWER FROM OTHER HYDRO-ELECTRIC PLANTS The potential water power resources of California have been inven- toried and summarized by Mr. F. E. Bonner of the Federal Power Commission, in a report just issued by that commission. Table 10, compiled from Table 9 of the Bonner Keport, shows the present and principal ultimate development of the water power resources of the State. This shows by main streams the present and estimated ulti- mate installed capacity and output in average kilowatts, and ultimate output in millions of kilowatt hours. Although these figures are not directly comparable with estimates of kilowatt hours and plant capaci- ties shown in other portions of this report, they are indicative of the extent of the present development, the potential development and the main source of future production of power in California from hydro- electric sources. It is to be noted from the table that 70 per cent of the potential hydro-electric power of California exists on streams north of Merced and tributary to northern California, and only 30 per cent in the territory tributary to southern California. Present development in the north is only 14 per cent of the total potential and indicates that for a long period undeveloped resources will exist. The important streams of northern California are the Klamath ; the Pit, McCloud and Sacramento group ; the Feather and the American rivers. The important streams tributary to southern California are the San Joaquin and Kings. In view of the relative proximity of the Pit and Feather rivers to the Kennett development, the cost of power (39) 40 KENNETT RESERVOIR DEVELOPMENT ft- ?> * s a gOgo a. o lost- CO cncQiH N w*oo M M i-i ' rH i> a» CO to in o t- c a u fa J2 a (8 O f O O o I d wo 3 tilS a 3 b o I* 5§| 05 a~= s e ■*U5 OONO 00 05 00 000*00 OOO lOiH OOO OOO (MOO CQOOO t-r-KM cot- CO toect-^ 1-lCOlO OOO OOO IrtlOO OOM^ OOrH 00 CQ Or-lOS oocq CO ns 0} +-> C o c o m ;;- e « s ns £ t- -o d t- 00 00 It- icn lo 1^- -I rfs a.- o ^ FHcaco"* woe- U5 eq ■>!< t> o u5 o CO tH a> ■*r-i«DU5Ot>-050d C3 Ci Csl rH O OO CO tH O tH M tH rH C<1 t- 00 00 ■>!< to tO O to C- tONCO CQtH O ^OolrtOOOO O OOot-OOOO O O"^ 00 tooo t-co 1H O M in 05 to 00 CO tH t- to C iH rj< •«< 05 to ,H t— ■* l=> O 1 |0 O 1 |0 in 1 .'■^ t- ico in 1 1 i-( (U >■ 'w p C I O H 3 pq -a c to rt "^ — I 0) t-c •S5 njfa « p^fa I I I > O) H c ■3 3 'u c " > I) S .2 (D "1 k' QJ I « p s s 3 Sod 3 ooosoiHCQco'^m o o lO I-I I o ira I in I IH I mOCOCO"«';0000OC0-*Or-li-lrHC-i-(l0r-l tOtOrHrHOOCOLCCqtdo'^'oOr-lo'cOCO THCit-'<**mm'^coootomc^t-i-(toc^ ■*mio o iH-* th ■*CO tH rH r-tt-Ot-rHC'lOOOCq'^'^OC^ICvlOOO ^tomcI 5 i I- C t. > , . Hj TO 4)" 5 ■- d 3 in Ti^cv^ I c-g'in'cs Ncqo ' r-l rH rH-*in(M IrHrHMNrH 1) t, "r; O IBS ° 2 1;^ "i o 1h t, . ? * J > > TO it C t- ^ ^— •;:X X. "i '^ '^ '^ WOmwWM c 3 O TO ^g O J>intOC-OOOSOrHe^CO Sr-lrHrHrHC^NPqMCqiNCgNPjeqCOCOeOCO O t-O ino t-rH to •* CO 1^ I cq I T-t r-1 toco O in 00 t-^ CO t- 1) a > o TO 3 r* <1) o-a c •- 0) CO d CO G I .5 o c O 1 in -* 1 eg 1 CO CO i CO to eg 1 CO eq 1 r^ a 3 o y O) Pi--i o d H^ s s § eg" in 00 TO (0 C 3 4) o E c a c - °o „- 0) tm J- -oo ""toe 3 ™ O _ -ii *• ■M TO !h to ■♦J to5? o c.S 1- 11 se WATER RESOURCES OP CALIFORNIA 41 c 4) Q t. > UJ _l m < re U. •a c re Q. £. 3 •♦J 3 IL T5 C re « S b (C g S ^ 3 ^^ ^^ !-. (0 ^^ ?1 as 0-" !u (a . '-^ Co c o 00 &•' Oc tome ft"' OU5 o l^OO a S 3 o !0 J-.000 Oco ..QtH CO '^ S «=■« OCOO — iOcOO lOO O O u LU 73 >v I O O ■a re E UJ o 3 CO 3 o a -w bfl " c "-y ; [Co 10 CO cqoo 00 t- ej 00 CON 00 00 do coco o o 00 oio do y^j O €^«^ d"^ e to e a rf CqCO-* U5 42 KENNETT RESERVOIR DEVELOPMENT from the present and future developments on these streams M'ill indicate fairly eloselj^ the cost of power from other hydro-electric sources com- petitive with Kennett. These streams are being developed by the two major agencies serving northern California, namely the Pacific Gas and Electric Company and the Great "Western Power Company, and are the probable sources of the main development during the next ten j^ears or more. Table 11 sets forth the estimated cost of power from the present developments and the estimated cost of power from future develop- ments contemplated on the Pit and Feather rivers by the Pacific Gas and Electric Company and the Great Western Power Company, respec- tiveh'. The cost of electric power from existing plants is based upon the actual costs or estimated costs of the projects under present price levels. The cost for future plants is based on tentative estimates here- tofore prepared by these companies. The costs with and without State taxes are shown for the reasons heretofore set forth. The characteristics of power from the present Pit River development compared with Kennett are shown in Plate VII. The locations of tlie present developments on Pit River are approximately forty miles fur- ther from the power market than Kennett. This results in a differen- tial in favor of Kennett of approximately two-tenths mills per kilo- watt hour. The characteristics of the power noAv being produced by the existing plants on the Feather River and that which may be produced by future plants are in general closely comparable with the primary or dry year output of Kennett development ; that is, the minimum output of 990,- 400,000 kilowatt hours, per year. This greater dependability has been made possible by the large cyclic storage of water in Lake Almanor at the upper end of the series of plants. It is to be noted from the table that the estimated cost including taxes for the present Pit development is approximately three mills per kilowatt hour and for the future development, two and seven- tenths mills, while the cost of power from the Feather River approxi- mates three and six-tenths mills for present plants and three and three- tenths mills per kilowatt hour for future plants. These plants are 100 miles nearer the main power market than the Pit plants and the char- acteristics of power are better. If weight be given to these factoi-s and the value of power measured at the load center near San Fi-an- cisco Bay, the two sources of power are practically of equal value per kilowatt hour. There are other potential dcA'elopments of power, as indicated in Table 10 on the Klamath and south of the Feather River. Klamath, being approximately 90 miles further from the market, is subject to a differential in favor of Kennett of from four-tenths to five- tenths mills per kilowatt hour. The developments south of Feather River are in general at least 100 miles nearer the center of the power market than Kennett and therefore have a differential in their favor of from five-tenths to seventy-five hundredths mills per kilowatt hour, this differential including cost of transmission and shrinkage of kilo- watt hours due to transmission losses. The San Joaquin Valley power market depends upon the San Joa- quin and Kings rivers mainly for hydro-electric power. The cost of WATER RESOURCES OP CALIFORNIA 43 power from these streams is estimated at three to five mills per kilo- watt hour of average annual output. The distance from Kennett to the market in the San Joaquin Valley is from 300 to 450 miles. Gen- erally transmission of power in excess of 300 miles has not been justi- fied. The differential for transmission from Kennett would be at least two mills per kilowatt hour which, deducted from an average cost of four mills would leave two mills or less per kilowatt hour for power at Kennett. The potential power available from the main streams of northern California which may be economically developed would indicate that until this is utilized the value of Kennett power measured by compe- tition with other hydro-electric sources would be between two and seven-tenths and three and three-tenths mills per kilowatt hour. As the more economical sources are used the value compared with other hydro-electric sources may tend to increase. VALUE OF KENNETT POWER DETERMINED FROM COST OF POWER FROM STEAM-ELECTRIC PLANTS COST OF STEAM-ELECTRIC POWER. There has been during the last several j'^ears a marked increase in efficiency of steam-electric production. A still further improvement in efficiencj^ may be expected. On the basis of 60 per cent plant load factor with present efficiencies the fuel requirements are 15,000 British thermal units or less per kilowatt hour produced. It appears from study of literature on the subject and from present trend of efficiency that reduction of the requirement to below 14,000 British thermal units may be expected in the near future and later as low as 12,000 British thermal units per kilowatt hour. The question of price of oil is impossible of determination for any period of time. The present price is $1 per barrel. The price has fluctuated widely in the past. When the present condition of over- production of oil is past, increase in price may be expected. Coal sup- ply would indicate a limitation in fuel cost, however, to approximately the equivalent of $1.50 per barrel of oil. Table 12 sets forth the estimated cost of power from a steam- electric plant operating at 60 per cent load factor to supply a load necessary to absorb fully the potential output of Kennett. The condi- tions of efficiency are those that should be obtained by new plants in the next few years. Oil has been estimated at $1 per barrel. The cost of power from recently constructed plants would, on a basis of $1 per barrel for oil, be two-tenths mills per kilowatt higher. Table 13 sets forth the estimated cost based on probable further efficiency develop- ment and price of oil of $1.25 per barrel. It is to be noted that the cost of steam-electric power is divisible into two parts ; one fixed and amounting to approximately $17 or $15.50 per kilowatt of capacity, depending upon treatment of taxes, and on output cost varying with the power produced from two to two and twenty-three hundredths mills per kilowatt hour. EQUIVALENT VALUE OF HYDRO-ELECTRIC POWER. A determination of the relative value of hydro-electric power by com- parison with the cost of steam-electric power requires special care to insure equivalent bases, owing to market difference in fundamental characteristics of output and variation in costs between the two sources. The output of hydro-electric plants such as Kennett varies from year to year, depending upon conditions of precipitation. Costs are practi- cally fixed and do not vary with output or with price of fuel. Steam- electric power output can be readily adjusted to demands, a consider- able part of the cost varying directly with the output and the price of fuel. The determination of relative value has been made by load char- acteristics similar to those of northern California and sufficient to absorb the output of Kennett without wastage. This cost has then been compared with cost of power from Kennett with necessary auxili ary steam-electric power. (44) WATER RESOURCES OF CALIFORNIA 45 TABLE 12 Estimated Cost of Steam- Electric Power Basis of Probable Efficiency of Immediate Future Basis 1. Steam-electric power installation to supply load equivalent to Kennett plus steam-electric auxiliary : (a) Annual production 1,275,000,000 kilowatt hours (b) Capacity for 60% load factor, 243,000 kilowatts, use 250,000 kilowatt capacity (c) Cost of power plant and connecting transmission line at $110 per kilo- watt f27,500,000 2. Estimated efficiency: 1 bbl. of oil per kilowatt per year plus 1/500 bbl. of oil per kilowatt hour net output. 3. Annual cost : (a) Return on investment 7.5% (b) Depreciation 2.25% (c) Operating expenses other than oil $3.00 per kilowatt year (d) General expense 3% of cost other than oil and taxes (e) Oil 11-00 per bbl. (f) Tax: State 1.35% Federal .40 1.75% 4. Annual cost: (a) Fixed costs: Return at 7.5% $2,062,500 Depreciation at 2.25% 618,750 Operating expense at $3 750,000 General expenses 102,940 Standby oil at $1 250,000 Taxes at 1.75% 481,250 Total fixed costs $4,265,440 (b) Output costs : Oil at $.002 per kilowatt hour 2,550,000 (c) Total costs $6,815,440 (o) (6) 5. Unit costs : Including state tax Excluding state tax Demand or fixed cost per kilowatt of capacity $17.06 $15.57 Energy cost per kilowatt hour of output .002 "'''' ot 6. Average cost per kilowatt hour .00535 .00527 The steam-electric plant would be located on San Francisco Bay and as to relative distance to the market, would be equivalent to the terminal substation of Kennett transmission. The cost of steam-electric power based on the estimates in Table 12 have been set up in Table 14 (Item "C"). From this has been deducted the annual cost of the auxiliary steam-electric plant required to supply the load without wastage of power from Kennett in years of maximum output. The balance (Item E-10) represents the relative value of Kennett Power delivered at Antioch. Deducting the cost of transmission the relative value of Kennett power at the plant is deter- mined. 46 KENNETT RESERVOIR DEVELOPMENT TABLE 13 Estimated Cost of Steam- Electric Power Basis of Probable Efficiency Future Basis 1. Steam-electric power installation to supply load equivalent to Kennett plus steam-electric auxiliary : (a) Annual production 1,275,000,000 kilowatt hours (b) Capacity for 60% load factor, 243,000 kilowatts, use 250,000 kilowatt capacity (c) Cost of power plant and connecting transmission line at $110 per kilo- watt ?27, 500,000 2. Estimated efficiency : 75 bbl. of oil per kilowatt per year plus 1/560 bbl. of oil per kilowatt hour net output. 3. Annual cost : (a) Return on investment 7.5% (b) Depreciation 2.25% (c) Operating expenses other than oil $3.00 per kilowatt year (d) General expense 3% of cost other than oil and taxes (e) Oil $1.25 per bbl. (f) Tax: State 1.35% Federal .40 1.75% 4. Annual cost : (a) Fixed costs : Return at 7.5% $2,062,500 Depreciation at 2.25% 618,750 Operating expense at $3 750,000 General expenses 102,940 Standby oil at $1.25 234,000 Taxes at 1.75% 481,250 Total fixed costs $4,249,440 (b) Output costs : Oil at $.00223 per kilowatt hour 2,843,325 (c) Total costs $7,092,765 (a) (b) 5. Unit costs : Including state tax Excluding state tax Demand or fixed cost per kilowatt of capacity $17.00 $15.58 Energy cost per kilowatt hour of output .00223 .00223 6. Average cost per kilowatt hour .00556 .00527 TABLE 14 Comparison of Value of Kennett Power With Steam-Electric Produced Power L. Kennett development 220,000 kilowatts — 275,000 kilovolt-amperes. 1. Output of Kennett plant annual average 1,217,600,000 kwh. 2. Delivery from terminal substation 1,070,000,000 kwh. 3. Steam-electric auxiliary plant output required to supply load that will absorb Kennett output without wastage- 205,000,000 kwh. 4. Total output basis of terminal delivery 1,275,000,000 kwh. 5. Steam-electric auxiliary capacity required based on maxi- mum monthly requirement 80% load factor 62,500 kw. J. Steam-electric power equivalent. 6. Steam-electric plant capacity to supply load on 60% load factor basis 243,000 kw., use 250,000 kw. :. Steam-electric plant costs. Itioluding tax Excluding tax 7. Demand charge unit cost $17.00 $15.50 S. Demand cost 250,000 kw. $4,250,000 $3,875,000 Energy cost 1,275,000,000 kwh. 2,550,000 2,550,000 Totals Per kilowatt hour delivered. D. Auxiliary steam-electric cost. 9. Demand cost 62,500 kw. Energy cost ,205,000,000 kwh. Totals E. Value of hydro-electric power at substation terminals. 10. Available for hvdro-electric power from trans- mission (8)-(9) _, Per kilowatt hour delivered. (1,070,000,000 kwh.) 11. Transmission cost . F. Value of hydro-electric power at Kennett 12. Value per kilowatt hour (1,217,600,000 kwh.) 13. Value per kilowatt hour based on future steam plant efficiency and oil at $1.25 per bbl $6,800,000 .oosae $1,062,000 410,001) $1,472,000 $5,328,000 .00498 $1,119,000 $4,209,000 .00347 .00868 $6,425,000 .00504 $968,750 410,000 U,378,750" $6,046,260 .00471 $989,600 $4,056,650 .00334 .00355 WATER RESOURCES OF CALIFORNIA 47 Similar comparison has been made of the relative value of Pit power now developed. This computation is shown in Table 15. The difference of two-tenths mill per kilowatt hour in the unit values between Kennett and Pit is accounted for mainly bj- the greater, transmission distance to Pit plants. TABLE 15 Comparative Value of Pit Power With Steam-Electric Produced Power A. Pit development 141,600 kilowatts. 1. Output of Pit developments, annual average 828,000,000 kwh. 2. Delivery from terminal substation, 14% transmission loss- 713,000,000 kwh. 3. Steam-electric auxiliary plant output required to supply load that will absorb Pit output without wastage 387,000,000 kwh. 4. Total output based on terminal delivery 1,100,000,000 kwh. 5. Steam auxiliary capacity required based on maximum monthly requirements 80% load factor 92,500 kw. B. Steam-electric power equivalent. 6. Steam plant capacity to supply load on 60% load factor basis 209,000 kilowatts use 215,000 kw. C. Steam-electric plant costs. Including tax Excluding tax 7. Unit demand cost $17.00 $15.50 8. Demand cost 215,000 kw. $3,655,000 $3,332,500 Energy cost 1,100,000,000 kwh. 2,200,000 2,200,000 Totals $5,855,000 $5,532,500 Per kilowatt hour delivered .00533 .00505 D. Auxiliary steam-electric cost. 9. Demand 92,500 kw. $1,572,500 $1,433,400 Energy 387,000,000 kwh. 774,000 774,000 Totals $2,346,500 $2,207,400 E. Value of hydro-electric power at substation terminals. 10. Available for hydro-electric power from trans- mission (8)-(9) $3,508,500 $3,325,100 Per kilowatt hour delivered- (713,000,000 kwh.) .00493 .00467 11. Transmission cost $845,000 $733,000 F. Value of hydro-electric power at Pit plants $2,663,500 $2,592,100 12. Value per kilowatt hour (828,000,000 kwh.) .00322 .00313 13. Value based on future steam-electric plant effi- ciency and oil at $1.25 per bbl .00342 ,00333 The value of Kennett power measured at the power plant, deter- mined from comparison with steam-electric power, is between three and thirty-four hundredths and three and sixtj^-eight hundredths mills per kilowatt hour based on the prices of oil considered. MARKET PRICE OF POWER AS DETERMINED FROM EXISTING CONTRACTS There exists at the present time in the northern and central parts of the State, six main contracts covering the purchase by utilities of the output of hydro-electric plants constructed by irrigation districts, municipalities or other public utilities. These contracts and purchases involve the follo*wing: 1. Merced Irrigation District and San Joaquin Light and Power Corporation. 2. Turlock Irrigation District and San Joaquin Light and Power Corporation. 3. South San Joaquin and Oakdale Irrigation Districts and Pacific Gas and Electric Company. 4. City of San Francisco and Pacific Gas and Electric Company. 5. Feather River Power Company and Great "Western Power Com- pany of California. 6. California Oregon Power Company and Pacific Gas and Electric Company. These contracts, in total, involve the delivery of approximately the amount of power to be produced at the Kennett development. There are two other contracts not readily comparable which have not been included but, in so far as can be ascertained, indicate somewhat lower prices than the six contracts considered. 1. Merced Irrigation District and San Joaquin Light and Power Corporation. This contract involves delivery of power at the high tension terminal of the power plant on the Merced River. The power is seasonal in character and the output fluctuates between wide limits from wet to dry years. The contract was entered into when costs of construction and competitive costs of power were higher than at the present time. The price is four and five-tenths mills per kilowatt hour and delivery is approximately fifty miles from a point which may be considered equivalent to Bay district delivery of Kennett power. 2. Turlock Irrigation District and San Joaquin Light and Power Corporation. This contract provides for delivery at Livingston or Merced Falls of the surplus power of the Turlock Irrigation District. Obligation to purchase is maximum from June to December and reduced during the months of January to May. The price is four and five-tenths mills per kilowatt hour. Delivery is practically equivalent in location to Meroed District delivery. 3. South San Joaquin and Oakdale Irrigation Districts and Pacific Gas and Electric Company. In this case the dam and reservoir were constructed by the Districts, the power company constructed the power plant and in addition to its own costs pays to the Districts for a period of forty years an amount equal to interest and amortization on the Districts' capital. The cost, including estimated State tax based upon power plant output, is approxi- mately four and two-tenths mills per kilowatt hour. The contract provides, however, that after the forty-year period the power company (48) WATER RESOURCES OF CALIFORNIA 49 is obligated to pay to the districts only half of the operation and maintenance of the dam and reservoir and nothing in the way of return. The power is seasonal in character and involves fairly ^vide fluctuations between wet and dr}^ years. Equivalent transmission distance is approximately 50 miles. 4. City of San Francisco and Pacific Gas and Electric Company. This contract provides for delivery at Newark substation, which is comparable with delivery at Antioch, of the output of the Moccasin Creek plant at 75 per cent daily load factor. The power supply is dependable from the standpoint of variation from wet to dry years, but the contract provides for cancellation. This contract represents the largest power delivery and the nearest comparable with the delivery of power from Kennett reservoir to a point such as Antioch. The price is four and eight hundred seventy-eight thousandths plus mills per kilowatt hour. 5. Feathej River Power Company and Great Western Power Com- pany of California. This contract provides for a delivery of 40,000 kilowatts at approxi- mately 60 per cent annual load factor at the high tension terminals of the power plant transformers, a distance of 150 miles from the Bay area. The price is four mills per kilowatt hour, but the contract pro- vides that at the end of thirty-five years the total power development of the Feather RiA-er Power Company will become the property of the Great Western Power Compan3\ The purchase of property feature in the contract represents about twenty-five hundredths mills per kilowatt hour. 6. The California Oregon Power Company and Pacific Gas and Elec- tric Company. The agreements between these companies call for 30,000 kilowatts delivery at 70 per cent load factor, measurement at Cottonwood sub- station of the Pacific Gas and Electric Company, but provide that the purchasing company will construct a part of the transmission line between the California Oregon Power Company plants and Cottonwood substation. The price for power at 70 per cent load factor or less is four and five-tenths mills per kilowatt hour. The point of delivery is comparable generally with delivery at Kennett power plant. Table 16 sets forth certain statistics with reference to the six agreements, showing the approximate annual power delivery, the volt- age and point of delivery, the relative characteristics of the power com- pared with Kennett power, the approximate distance to the general market comparable with the 200 miles transmission from Kennett to Antioch, the equivalent delivery, the price covered by the contract, this price equated to delivery equivalent to Antioch for Kennett power, and to delivery at Kennett. In the determination of the differential between the various prices actually paid for power and the equivalent price at Antioch and Kennett, transmission costs and losses have been estimated as proportional to relative transmission distance from the power market. 50 KENNETT RESERVOIR DEVELOPMENT c w E a. o « > « Q V> *^ ^j *^ tf ■ s2 § tag fe ; g o o I S-a „ ^ xi ° .g ■^ i a _ c g o jj -a o ^^ to " e S o 'ri S' S p t- 12 ^. ^ & S l-s ■c ■= ^ S " Ja 2 c IS « o a. o 1. u « a ; a « 2 § ■" < a •7< S U ■o >> Cli 1 »-" I o a g 13 TO O 1 03 ++ E 0^ 02 CO ^ CO > 1- o *-> o Q |1 if o o o to o o o o OL t»5 c o o e o o TJ 1 c o o M to C4 5« ►. o o o n a. flS ■g 3 o. > 3 cr ii 2 « >> si C in to f-l o o in oo CO o o o L •o ^-f j= a o o c .fcj ^ 3 o e O 3 H 1 o o O O a o 2 « a) a CO fc-^o— . ^ Tl ^ "^ a a CO T3 eo ^ M O C ° S o nj "^ «> "C O '-I c I- oo n a >! S 2 a « « s a 2 :*! m o t-i 3 to c o c3 M g 1 S e t S " c c jj : a ."si" C ^ I n 03 ^ « ^ « 3 *-" , g c ^ *-< /T* tU C , a o ' lE^ ■ S S c a ^ ' 5 " ° g Ah^ a a «3 u o s a re fc S o WATER RESOURCES OF CALIFORNIA 51 The purchase price for power from the California-Oregon Power Company is high, considered both from a standpoint of cost of hydro- electric power and in comparison with other contracts. At the time the contract was entered into, the Pacific Gas and Electric Company had excess transmission capacity from Cottonwood substation to Vaca- Dixon substation. It would still have this excess in lines from Vaca- Dixon to Antioch when completed for delivery of power to Antioch. For a part of the period of the contract, therefore, the added trans- mission cost of this power would be relatively small. This condition could not be applied to Kennett power, which in itself would require two transmission circuits. The Pacific Gas and Electric Company, however, could, by coordinating its transmission lines with those from Kennett, obtain some advantage over conditions under separate operation. The purchases from the City of San Francisco, Feather River Power Company, the California-Oregon Power Company and the Turlock Irrigation District are equal to or slightly better than Kennett in quality of power. The total purchases under the contracts are prac- tically equivalent in amount and in quality of power to Kennett power. With the adjustments for plant purchase in rates under certain con- tracts and for transmission capacity available in the case of the Cali- fornia-Oregon Power Company, the resultant value at Kennett is three and fortj'-five hundredths mills per kilowatt hour, and at Antioch four and ninety-six hundredths mills per kilowatt hour. The above analysis indicates that from the standpoint of comparison with existing contracts for power, the value of electric power from Kennett under conditions of limited flood, salinity and irrigation opera- tion would be three and forty-five hundredths mills per kilowatt hour at the power plant. CONCLUSIONS RELATIVE TO VALUE OF KENNETT POWER OUTPUT The value of Kennett electric power based upon the operation of the reservoir for limited flood and salinity control and irrigation, would appear from the foregoing to be approximately as follows: Kennett delivery : Mills per kilowatt hour 1. Based on other hydro-electric develop- ments 2.7 to 3.3 2. Based on steam-electric costs as estimated 3.34 to 3.68 3. Based on existing contracts 3.45 From the present indications as to future economic conditions, the revenue that may be obtained from the sale of the electric power output of Kennett at the plant may not be expected to exceed $4,250,- 000 and at the terminal transmission near the Bay district not to exceed $5,300,000 per annum. Changes in economic conditions in the future may tend to increase or reduce these values. RELATION OP REVENUE FROM POWER TO ANNUAL COST OP KENNETT DEVELOPMENT Comparison of annual costs, as set forth in Table 8, with the estimated maximum revenue from power $4,250,000 per annum, indi- cates that this power revenue can be expected to meet State costs, excluding amortization, with a margin of safety of approximately 8.5 per cent, or $332,000. The annual cost under Plan 3, including 40-year sinking fund amortization, will exceed the power revenue, as estimated, by $402,000. Under Plan 2, with sinking fund amortization of State bonds and exclusion of State taxes, the annual cost will exceed the revenue, as estimated, by $735,000. VALUE OF ELECTRIC POWER OUTPUT UNDER FULL CONTROL OF KENNETT RESERVOIR FOR IRRIGATION. As heretofore referred to, analysis of the conditions under control for irrigation indicates that in the extreme the average annual output of the Kennett development will be reduced to about 770,000,000 kilowatt hours, varying from a minimum of 350,000,000 kilowatt hours, provided a minimum head on the power plant of 200 feet can be maintained, to somewhat over 1,000,000,000 kilowatt hours. The proportion of depend- able power would be so reduced and the secondary power subjected io such wide fluctuation that the economic value of the composite output under present economic conditions would not exceed $2,000,000 per annum. OTHER SOURCES OF REVENUE REQUIRED. Power can not be expected, even under State financing, to carry much more than interest, depreciation and operating expenses of the Ken- nett development. Other sources of revenue such as State or Federal aid, sale of water for irrigation and payments by other beneficiaries will be required to cover amortization requirements under State financ- ing. Greater aid would be required to carry the total cost in case of private development. (52) „ PLAN 3a TRANSMISSION OF POWER BY PRIVATE COMPANIES AS COMMON CARRIERS Plan 3a suggests that the State sell power at Kennett to individual municipalities or private resale companies and that the private com- panies purchasing the larger portion of the output be required under their contracts to transmit power as common carriers from Kennett for these municipalities and private companies. The service to municipalities and private companies distributing electric energy requires extensive secondary transmission and sub- station systems in addition to the main trunk transmission lines con- sidered herein ; also steam-electric standby plants to insure against shortage of power in years of low precipitation and interruptions. The power requirements of such companies are at much lower load factors (between 30 and 45 per cent) than the estimated load factor of the Kennett output (70 per cent). If power were to be purchased for such service at Kennett the price per kilowatt hour, owing to the lower use per kilowatt of demand, would have to be materially higher than the average costs or values referred to under Plans 1, 2 and 3 lierein. For the same reason transmission costs per kilowatt hour would be higher than the average. The costs or values per kilowatt hour here- tofore referred to are not, therefore, indicative of what the charges would be for such deliveries at Kennett or of the total cost of the energy delivered to the individual municipalities. The rates now in effect for wholesale power on the systems of the existing agencies are low com- pared with the cost of power production and transmission on these systems. The cost of hj'dro-electric power from the present utilities is equal to or less than the price that could be paid wholesale for Kennett power. The State, therefore, would not receive any greater net return from such a plan than could be obtained under Plan 3. (53) PLAN 5 STATE DISTRIBUTION OF ELECTRIC POWER TROM KENNETT Plan 5 contemplates State ownership of the power development, transmission lines, steam-electric standby plants and the necessary- distribution system required to distribute the electric energy to the general public. This plan is a material departure from Plans 1 to 4, inclusive, and will require the investment of at least twice the capital. It is important in considering Plan 5 that a clear perspective be had of the present and future conditions of service, PRESENT DEVELOPMENT. The past fifteen to twenty years of electric poM^er development in the State have witnessed increasing consolidation of the electric utilities. Much of this has come about because of the possible economies from coordination and consolidation of the existing systems. This condition has developed to a greater extent in California than in many other states. The market tributary to Kennett development is at present served by two main agencies supplying directly to the ultimate consumers 72 and 22 per cent, respectively, of the total load. At the time Kennett power would be available the entire market would be served by the existing agencies whose cost of power as far as production and transmission to the center of the market are concerned, is equal to or less than the cost that may be incurred by the State in the development of Kennett and no greater than the price the private utilities could pay for Kennett output in total. Plate VIII, "Electric Power Production and Sales by Companies in California, 1927," sets forth graphically the division of the market as indicated by production and sales by companies and political subdivisions for the northern and southern groups of the State for the year 1927. The relative extent of service by the various agencies in the northern part of the State is to be noted. Plate IX, "Monthly Variation of Maximum Demand and Average Load for Typical Electric Power Systems in California, 1927," sets forth graphically some of the typical characteristics of the power demands of urban and rural territory. The upper right-hand chart indicates in percentage of the annual maximum requirement the varia- tion in demand and energy requirements by months for two typical urban districts. The average use is approximately 45 to 50 per cent of the maximum demand and use is least in summer and greatest in winter. The lower left-hand chart gives characteristias of power for typical agricultural districts with their wide variation in demand and energy requirements, the maximum occurring generally in July, little requirement coming in winter. The lower right-hand chart indicates the wide variations between urban and rural power requirements. Compared with these characteristics for urban and rural power require- ments is the upper left-hand chart giving similar characteristics of two of the most extensive electric systems of the State. This type of load is available to a development such as Kennett if its power were wholesaled to the existing agencies. Any one of the separate classes of service or districts could not supply a market which would readily (54) WATER RESOURCES OF CALIFORNIA 55 PLATE Vni. PRODUCTION AT POWER PLANTS INORTHERN GROUP SALES TO ULTIMATE CONSUMER 3PO0 - 2P00 in O o o t/) c o 1,000 COAST COUNTIES GAS 1 ELECTRIC CO. UTICA MINING CO. V'^NOW MOUNTAIN WATER & POWER CO. CALIFORNIA OREGON POWER CO. CITY OF SAN FRANCISCO PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO. AND SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES GREAT WESTERN POWER CO. OF CALIF 3P00 - 2P00 -' ipoo ^LOSSES AND UNACCOUNTED FOR ALAMEDA, CALIFORNIA TELEPHONE & UGHT CO., PALO ALTO, L0DI,VALLEJO ELECTRIC LIGHT & POWfR CO., SANTA CLARA, REDDING, ROSEVILLE, NAPA VALLEY ELECTRIC CO., UTICA MINING CO. UKIAH, SNOW MOUNTAIN WATER & POWER CO., HEALD5BURG, GRIDLEY AND BIGGS S^^ALIFORNIA OREGON POWER GO. OAST COUNTIES GAS & ELECTRIC CO. PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO. SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES AND GREAT WESTERN POWER CO. OF CALIF. PRODUCTION — AT POWER PLANTS E 4000 SOUTHERN GROUP SALES TO ULTIMATE CONSUMER MODESTO-TURLOCK IRRIGATION ^ IDISTBICTS MERCED IRRIGATION DISTRICT tv UNITED STATES NATIONAL PARK SERVICE "SAN JOAfiUIN LIGHT & POWER CORP. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA Et)t50N CO. CITY OF LOS ANGELETS ITY OF PASADENA LOS ANGELES GAS & ELECTRIC CORP. SOUTHERN SIERRAS POWER CO. SAN DIEGO CONSOLIDATED GAS & ELECTRIC CO. 4000 3.000 2pOO 1.000 LOSSES AND UNACCOUNTED FOR imooesto-turlcck irrigation Idistricts san joaquin light & power corr SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON CO. —I . /; XITY OF LOS ANGELES ':■ '^C\Ty OF PASADENA /gLENDALE RIVERSIDE, BURBANK, /JANAH El IVI,COLTON,AZUSA, BANNING, rr:MLr A LOMPOC AND TEHACHAPI LOS ANGELES GAS & ELECTRIC CORP. SOUTHERN SIERRAS POWER CO. SAN DIEGO CONSOLIDATED GAS & lELECTRIC CO. ELECTRIC POWER PRODUCTION AND SALES BY COMPANIES AND POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS IN CALIFORNIA 1927 56 KENNETT RESERVOIR DEVELOPMENT PLATE IX. PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC CO. SYSTEM SOUTH EIRN CALIFORNIA EDISON CO. SYSTEM CITY OF LOS ANGELES CITY OF SAN FRANCISCO c: OJ E E e ■x CD E c c TO c o CD Cl. -a _o -00 TO i_ > TO tI3 -a c ft) . E 0) -a E rj E x ro E o uu "-, '/ 80 »--. •1^ .^' /< r^pa Sou :irc hern ;as 2 Cali icEle forn ctric a Ed Co. son Co. i 60 A H s s V ^ 9^Pacific Gas & Electric Co. "\ -^ 1 1 1 1 1 1 / "Southern California Edison Co. '" 40 City of Los Angeles [Bureau of Powers Light.),,^ / -::■-■- '•^. w-> .^' // ^r ^City of San Francisco '.&:E.Co. exclusive of Street (PG. Railways.) City of Los Angeles (Bureau of Powers Light.) M^ity ot ban rrancisco (RG.atE. Co. exclusive of Street Railways) z < Z < I I >3 o ^ I- > o 3 3 Sj O O U Z m < UJ -> u. Z3 o t I- > L \ y_ < E D J < L. a 1 ! I I c I E - S : ■> C I i ■ > ) c > 2 ' 6 > u : D < .-•■ \ \ / / r ^ V i 1 4 V \ t \ / \ 1 < / "*'S 1 1 \ 1 ^ .VE.LiP.co.:?''' *►. > < 1 1 1 1 / 1 / \ ^ \ i / \ f \ > \ . / 1 1 V* ~7 — Coast Valle^s'^ \ 9^ K / Gas &. Electric Co. \ ^ \ 1 1 ^ \ It allejo E ectri cLigt It* 'owe rCo. \ — z a < k -) b J < z i\ c 1 J > S I 1 » C u 1 c -■ 5 i c 3 a > ki c o MONTHLY Variation of Maximum Demand AVERAGE LOAD FOR TYPICAL ELECTRIC POWER SYSTEMS IN CALIFORNIA 1927 ...... MAXIMUM DEMAND '^—^— AVERAGE LOAD WATER RESOURCES OP CALIFORNIA 57 PLATE X. NORTHERN GROUP ■ TOTAL LIGHTING I Residential and commercial lighting Municipall, street and ottjer lighting Other lighting TOTAL POWER (exclusive of lighting) Commercial arid industrial power Other power Railway power Agricultural power Municipal power TOTAL SALES 1.000 ZPOO 3.000 ApOO SOUTHERN GROUP 5.000 6.000 — I r I TOTAL LIGHTING Residential and commercial lighting Municipal, I street and Other lighting Other lighting TOTAL POWER (exclusive of lighting) ^ Commercial and industrial power Agricultural power Municipal power Railway power Other pwer TOTAL SALES IPOO 2P00 3.000 A,000 ENTIRE STATE 5.000 6.000 TOTAL LIGHTING Residential and commercial lighting Municipal, street and other lighting Other lighting Commercial and industrial power TOTAL POWER (exclusive of lighting) Agricultural pOwer Railv/ay power Other power ' 1 ' I Municipal power ITOTAL SALES 1,000 2P00 3,000 4.000 5.000 Electric sales in millions of kilowatt hours 6,000 CLASSIFICATION OF ELECTRIC SALES IN CALIFORNIA 1927 58 KENNETT RESERVOIR DEVELOPMENT absorb Kennett output. If power were retailed, the State must obtain a load having characteristics similar to those indicated in Plate IX for the Pacific Gas and Electric Company, otherwise its cost of service would tend to be higher than the cost on the existing two main agencies serving the territory. Plate X, "Classification of Electric Sales in California, 1927," sets forth the relative amount of energy used for lighting and for power in the northern and southern districts of the State and in the entire State. The percentage of lighting requirements in the urban districts is much greater than in the rural districts. It is the combination of a balanced proportion of the lighting and power service that makes possible the relatively high load factor in effect on the large systems. BASIS OF PRESENT RATES. The electric rates in California at present in effect are fixed to return to the utilities after all reasonable operating costs and allowances for depreciation are made an amount representing from 7 to 7.5 per cent upon the reasonable cost of used and useful property. The return resulting is available for the payment of fixed charges such as bond interest and dividends on stock. The return also covers compensation for any hazard in the business in the way of heavy losses, general depreciation of business, etc. Uniform rates for the several classes of service have been fixed over the larger systems and at present the rates are practically the same over the entire northern portion of the state, except residential and commercial lighting rates. Rates for these latter services are lower in the cities than in rural districts. The rates in general have been fixed, however, to give the developing and rural districts (especially agricultural service) the major portion of the advantage of the diversity of load characteristics between rural and city service. This basis of rates has materially assisted in the develop- ment of rural and agricultural districts, and of the State as a whole. It has been made possible only through ownership and operation by a few agencies of the production, transmission and, especially, distribu- tion systems serving both districts. It has, however, resulted in some- what higher earnings on local investment in congested and developed districts than on the average. VARIATION IN COST OF ELECTRICITY. Plate XI, "Graphic Presentation of Source of Cost of Electricity," has been included to give a general visualization of the relative cost of electric energy at different points on the power system. This plate is based upon aii analysis of the costs in 1923 on one of the largest systems in California. The average costs per kilowatt hour are shown at differ- ent points on the production and transmission systems and for deliver- ies to different classes of service. Although the costs indicated are not directly applicable to the conditions in northern California in 1928, they are sufficiently close to present costs to be used for qualitative analysis. The average cost of 0.374 cent per kilowatt hour from hydro-electric plants is close to that existing on the main systems of northern Cali- fornia at the present time. Many of the hydro-electric plants are closer to the market than the Pit River or Kennett development, and this cost represents practically the equivalent value to Kennett power when weight is given to the diiference in location relative to the market. PLATE XI Lighting K.W.M, for I Cost per K.W.H I Cost per K.W.H. for le Power [for Reiail Power 'Combined Light 5: Power Cents i 1.568 Cents i 2.277 Cents umers / iNo of Consumeri.|g^OOO| mer |KW1"1 per Consumer , .87.000,000 IP-' Vri. . ^4 200 Cost per K.W.li. for General Lighting 5.30 CENT6 Nun;h:r of CDncumer5...j33_900 KWH per Consumer un Yeor 475 PLATE XI. Cost per K.VJ.H at Deliverv of Water at Penstock 0.193 Cents Cost per K.V/.H at Delivery of Hydroelectric Power Houses 0.374 Cents Cost per K.W.tl. at i Cost per K.W.H at Standby Steam Plants llntal. Ot CALIFORNIA Caribou Hydro-electric 54 Bucks Creek Hydro-electric 55 Las Plumas Hydro-electric 56 North Beach Steam-electric 57 Phelan Steam-electric 58 Bush Steam-electric 59 Oakland Steam-electric 60 64 KENNETT RESERVOIR DEVELOPMENT Oroup System Southern Il-b Southern Il-b Southern Il-b Southern II— b Southern III Southern III Southern III Southern IV Southern IV Company and plant Classification SAN JOAQUIN LIGHT AND POWER CORPORATION Kittridge Hydro-electric Mountain King Hydro-electric Merced Falls Hydro-electric Crane Valley Hydro-electric San Joaquin No. 1 Hydro-electric San Joaquin No. 1-A Hydro-electric San Joaquin No. 2 Hydro-electric San Joaquin No. 3 Hydro-electric Kerckhoff Hydro-electric Balch Hydro-electric Tule River Hydro-electric Kern Canyon Hydro-electric Bakersfleld Steam-electric Midway Steam-electric Betteravia Steam-electric MERCED IRRIGATION DISTRICT Exchequer Hydro-electric TURLOCK AND MODESTO IRRIGATION DISTRICTS Don Pedro Hydro-electric La Grange Hydro-electric Modesto Steam-electric UNITED STATES NATIONAL PARK SERVICE Yosemite Park Hydro-electric SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON CO. Big Creek No. 1 Hydro-electric Big Creek No. 2 Hydro-electric Big Creek No. 2-A Hydro-electric Big Creek No. 3 Hydro-electric Big Creek No. 8 Hydro-electric Kaweah No. 1 Hydro-electric Kaweah No. 2 Hydro-electric Kaweah No. 3 Hydro-electric Visalia Steam-electric Tule River Hydro-electric Kern River No. 3 Hydro-electric Borel . Hydro-electric Kern River No. 1 Hydro-electric Azusa Hydro-electric Sierra Hydro-electric Lvtle Creek Hydro-electric Fontana Hydro-electric Santa Ana No. 1 Hydro-electric Santa Ana No. 2 Hydro-electric Santa Ana No. 3 Hydro-electric Mill Creek No. 1 Hydro-electric Mill Creek No. 2-3 Hydro-electric Redondo Steam-electric Long Beach Steam-electric San Antonio Creek No. 1 Hydro-electric San Antonio Creek No. 2 Hydro-electric San Antonio Creek No. 3 Hydro-electric CITY OF LOS ANGELES Big Pine No. 3 Hydro-electric Division Creek No. 1 Hydro-electric Division Creek No. 2 Hydro-electric Cottonwood No. 1 Hydro-electric Haiwee Hydro-electric San Francisquito No. 1 Hydro-electric San Francisquito No. 2 Hydro-electric San Fernando — Hydro-electric River Power Hydro-electric Franklin Canyon Hydro-electric CITY OF PASADENA Pasadena Steam-electric LOS ANGELES GAS AND ELECTRIC CORPORATION Alameda Street Steam-electric Seal Beach Steam-electric SOUTHERN SIERRAS POWER CO. Mill Creek Hydro-electric Poole (Leevining Creek No. 1) Hydro-electric Leevining Creek No. 3 Hydro-electric Rush Creek Hydro-electric Adams auxiliary Hydro-electric Adams main Hydro-electric Bishop Creek No. 2 Hydro-electric BishoD Creek No. 3 Hydro-eleotric Index number 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 WATER RESOURCES OF CALIFORNIA 65 Group System Southern IV Southern IV Southern IV Southern IV Company and plant Classification SOUTHERN SIERRAS POWER CO. — Continued. Bishop Creek No. 4 Hydro-electric Bishop Creep No. 5 Hydro-electric Bishop Creek No. 6 Hydro-electric San Bernardino Steam-electric San Gorgonio No. 1 Hydro-electric San Gorgonio No. 2 Hydro-electric Blythe Gas-electric El Centro Steam-electric SAN DIEGO CONSOLIDATED GAS AND ELECTRIC CO. Station "A" Steam-electric Station "B" Steam-electric ESCONDIDO MUTUAL WATER CO. Rincon Hydro-electric Bear Valley Hydro-electric UNITED STATES RECLAMATION SERVICE Yuma Hydro-electric Index number 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 LIST OF SUBSTATIONS. DELINEATED ON PLATE I Index Group System Company and substation letters Northern I PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC CO. Vaca-Dixon A Contra Costa B Newark C Northern Il-a GREAT WESTERN POWER CO. OP CALIFORNIA Antioch D Golden Gate E Brighton F Southern Il-b SAN JOAQUIN LIGHT AND POWER CORPORATION Wilson G Southern III SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON CO. Vestal H Eagle Rock I Laguna Bell J Lighthipe K 62689 4-29 2500 i^s»> THIS BOOK IS DUE ON THE LAST DATE STAMPED BELOW BOOKS REQUESTED BY ANOTHER BORROWER ARE SUBJECT TO RECALL AFTER ONE WEEK. RENEWED BOOKS ARE SUBJECT TO IMMEDIATE RECALL JAN 7 RECEIVED LsoWly JAN 18 1980, ,'. Jr»HYS SCI LIBRARY! FEB ii , J^ifs sc, u»„«,,r JftN 7 1981 RECEIVE'-' JUL 1 5 '^"'^ f REFILED PSL MW0 7 ISSl l^' C ! V h U T 13,1992 HY3CCI Lltoi-.^^HT mi^ LIBRARY, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, DAVIS VHyjS OCi U&BAfiY Book Slip-Series 458 PHYSiCAL SCIENCES UBRARY A2- LIBRAKT ONIVEKSITY OF CAUFOBKfil DAVIS 11 1587 7431 3 1175 00465 3955