Laserfiche WebLink
<br />301.;- fIDOOm~u <br /> <br />requi red repayment. A repayment period of 50 years and an interest <br />rate of 8.5 percent are assumed. <br /> <br />It does not appear that the Narrows powerp1 ant wou1 d be financially <br /> <br />feasible. Capacity and energy wou1 d have to be marketed at an average <br /> <br />of 53.3 mills/kWh. The benefit analysis showed that only about <br /> <br /> <br />40 percent of the energy generated would be firm and could be marketed <br /> <br />at approximately that rate. <br />S3,OOO per kilowatt. <br /> <br />Initial project investment exceeds <br /> <br />The short duration during which firm capacity and energy would be <br />available (June, July, and August) wou1 d seriously reduce the desir- <br /> <br />ability of this unit. <br /> <br />Table 3.--Financia1 analysis <br />Narrows powerp1ant addition <br /> <br />$I ,000 <br /> <br />Construction cost <br />Interest during construction (8.5 percent) <br />Net project investment ($3,046/kW) <br /> <br />$6,241 <br />796 <br />$7,037 <br /> <br />Annual costs: <br />Equivalent of investment (50 years) <br />Annual OM&R <br />Total annual repayment obligation <br /> <br />$ 608 <br />35 <br />$ 643 <br /> <br />(per kW) <br />(per kWh) <br /> <br />($278) <br />(53.3 mi 11 s) <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 />