U. S. Maritime Commission design, detail by vessel design—United States-flag merchant fleet as of June 30, 1948-Seagoing vessels 1,000 gross tons and overContinued U. S. Maritime Commission design, detail by vessel design-United States-flag merchant fleet as of June 30, 1948—seagoing vessels 1,000 gross tons and overContinued [Tonnage in thousands] U. S. Maritime Commission design, detail by vessel design—United States-flag merchant fleet as of June 30, 1948—seagoing vessels 1,000 gross tons and over— Continued. NOTE.-Tonnage figures are not additive since detail figures have been rounded to the nearest thousand. 5. REPORT of the FedERAL POWER COMMISSION Letter from Acting Chairman Harrington Wimberly to the Honorable Alexander Enclosure 1. Cost of energy-Barnhart Island project, St. Lawrence River. Enclosure 3. Cost of power at load centers from Barnhart Island project, Enclosure 1 (a). Estimate of cost of combined navigation-power development, Engineering report on St. Lawrence River International Rapids project pro- Hon. ALEXANDER WILEY, FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR SENATOR WILEY: Reference is made to your letter dated July 14, 1948, and the conference held in your office on July 15, 1948, to discuss the St. Lawrence seaway power development. At the conference representatives of the Commission were handed a list of 16 questions and asked specifically to prepare discussion concerning questions Nos. 14, 15, and 16. Question No. 14 requests: "An analysis of alternative arrangements for construction of the power project separately by the Federal Government, or otherwise, and the estimates of the cost of construction on the basis of each alternative." There are three possible combinations for arrangement of construction: (a) Construction of the seaway and power project concurrently; (b) Construction initially of a power project with the seaway to be constructed later; (c) Construction initially of a navigation project with a power project to be constructed later. The third alternative is The first two alternatives are feasible. infeasible since in any scheme for the development of power the powerhouse itself would be an integral part of the main dam and must be included in the initial construction. The Chief of Engineers in letter dated December 7, 1948, to you has included detailed estimates of the cost of a combined seaway and power project which he shows in enclosure No. 1a to his letter. Copy of this enclosure is attached hereto for convenience of reference. There is also attached copy of enclosure No. 4 to the Chief of Engineers letter which gives detailed estimates of cost for a separate power project. In his estimate for the combined project the Chief of Engineers has divided the cost of the project in three parts: (1) The cost of works solely for navigation; (2) cost of works primarily for power; and (3) cost of works common to navigation and power. The cost of works solely for navigation varies in accordance with the assumed project depth of waterway being $77,200,000 for a 27-foot project depth, $79,561,000 for a 30-foot project depth, and $94,387,000 for a project of 35-foot depth. The cost of works primarily for power is estimated at $269,591,000, and is the same regardless of navigation project depth. The cost of works common to power and navigation varies in the Chief of Engineers' estimates in accordance with the assumed depth of the project being $241,822,000 for the 27-foot project depth, $250,557,000 for the 30-foot project depth, and $264,224,000 for the 35-foot project depth. The total cost of the combined project is estimated by the Chief of Engineers at $588,613,000 for a 27-foot project depth, $599,709,000 for a 30-foot project depth, and $628,202,000 for a 35-foot project depth. For the comparisons which follow the 27-foot project depth, which has previously been before Congress, has been chosen. Similar comparisons can be made readily for the 30- or 35-foot depth. However, it should be noted that the operation of the power plant does not require specific depth of navigation channel. Therefore, in any allocation, the joint costs considered should not exceed the 27-foot project channel with respect to allocation to project of joint costs. The Chief of Engineers estimates the cost for a separate power project at $451,615,000 and the combined project at $588,613,000 (27-foot project depth). The separate power project could be constructed initially with the navigation facilities constructed at a later date without any physical difficulty whatsoever, and at practically the same total cost as would be incurred should the project be built as a combined project initially, assuming no change in price level. From a cost standpoint there are two important differences in the estimate of the Chief of Engineers for the combined project and the separate power project. In the combined project there has been included a figure of approximately $30,000,000 for construction of the so-called Iroquois Dam and dikes and approximately $10,000,000 for the Massena Canal intake and attached dike. In the cost estimate for the separate power project no allowance is included for the cost of the Iroquois Dam and dikes, and the cost of the Massena Canal intake and dike is taken at a little over $4,000,000. The Iroquois Dam and dikes are not required for the operation of the power plant-their need in the navigation project is a matter for decision by the Chief of Engineers in event that the reservoir level at Barnhart Island is to be operated initially for navigation purposes at less than the ultimate project depth. The difference in estimated cost of the Massena intake is due to the inclusion in the higher figure of intake capacity sufficient to permit operation of the Aluminum Company's Massena power plant. In the hearings before the Federal Power Commission, held in connection with the application by the Power Authority of the State of New York for construction of a separate power project, the chief hydraulic engineer for the Aluminum Co. testified that provision could be made for the operation of the Massena power plant at a figure of approximately $1,000,000. It would appear that the estimates of cost of the Massena Canal and intake might be reduced in either case. No attempt is made here to settle the question as to who should bear the cost of the Massena canal intake. |