Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />fIDOOffi ~1J <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />required repayment. A repayment period of 50 years and an interest <br /> <br />rate of 8.5 percent are assumed. <br /> <br />It does not appear that the Narrows powerplant would be financially <br />feasible. Capacity and energy would have to be marketed at an average <br />of 53.3 mills/kWh. The benefit analysis showed that only about <br />40 percent of the energy generated woul d be fi rm and coul d be marketed <br />at approximately that rate. Initial project investment exceeds <br />$3,000 per kilowatt. <br /> <br />The short duration during which firm capacity and energy would be <br />avail able (June, July, and August) woul d seriously reduce the desir- <br />ability of this unit. <br /> <br />Table 3.--Financial analysis. <br />Narrows powerplant addition <br /> <br />$1,000 <br /> <br />Construction cost <br />Interest during construction (8.5 percent) <br />Net project investment ($3,046/kW) <br /> <br />Annual costs: <br />Equival ent of investment (50 years) <br />Annual OM&R <br />Total annual repayment obligation <br /> <br />$6,241 <br />796 <br />$7,037 <br /> <br />(per kW) <br />(per kWh) <br /> <br />$ 608 <br />35 <br />$ 643 <br />($278) <br />(53.3 mills) <br /> <br />Cost A 11 ocati on <br /> <br />Table 4 displays the allocation of project costs, interest during <br />construction, and OM&R costs among the various project purposes using <br />the separable costs-remaining benefits allocation method. Allocations <br /> <br />10 <br />