Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I.'? <br />r-'": <br />l"' <br />- <br /> <br />c <br /> <br />Company (IECO) remain reasonable,i/ that the costs for all com- <br /> <br />ponents are proportional to the costs of the dams, that the <br /> <br /> <br />operating costs per unit of output do not change~/, that the <br /> <br />construction period remains the same, that the one darn option <br /> <br />would generate l75,000 kwh/yr~/, and that the interest rates and <br /> <br /> <br />repayment period used by Smith Barney, Harris Upham & Co.l/ are <br /> <br />appropriate. Based on IECO's estimates, the one darn option would <br /> <br />have a construction cost of approximately $99.7 million. Using <br /> <br />Smith Barney's interest rates and repayment period the bond issue <br /> <br />would have to be $153.2 million (See Table 1). (See Table 2 for <br /> <br />a flow of funds during construction.) Such a bond issue results <br /> <br />in an annual debt service of $l9.7 million in each year following <br /> <br />completion of construction. If the debt service reserve fund <br /> <br />generated $2.76 million each year then the net debt service would <br /> <br />be almost $l7.0 mi.llion. <br /> <br />Since I have assumed that the Juniper Dam power plant would <br />generate 175,000 kwh/yr, the debt service per kwh is approxi- <br /> <br />mately 97 mills. Using IECO's estimate that operating costs <br /> <br />would be 9.l mills per kwh, the total cost of electricity would <br /> <br />be 106.l mills per kwh. <br /> <br />These costs are quite high. Moreover, given that Juniper <br /> <br />Darn would have a capacity of only 42 mw it's usefullness as a <br /> <br />peaking facility would be impaired and, thus, its output could <br /> <br />not command a premium price. From a financial point of view, <br /> <br />retiring bonds through power sales makes the single darn option <br /> <br />even less attractive than the two darn configuration first pro- <br /> <br />2 <br />