WSP10999

• File Number: 8221.110.J
• Description: Juniper-Cross Mountain Project
• State: CO
• Basin: Yampa/White
• Date: 5/14/1982
• Title: The Juniper-Cross Mountain Project: A Preliminary Technical Review of Needs and Alternatives
• Water Supply Pro - Doc Type: Report/Study

(

(

19

-

c.

available to Colorado-Ute for any year from 1985 on. They are also

r--
-

C'

available in many sizes, so Colorado-Ute could probably order just

c

150 Mw worth if it was looking for an alternative to Juniper-Cross

Mountain and no more.

7. Coal plants.

It is well recognized that

"[c]oal is not normally
32/
cost advantage "- and

the fuel of choice unless it offers a large

ties' best interest they are not necessarily

clearly in the utili-
in societY's."E/

that ". . . while large central stations are

Indeed, the best available data strongly suggest a severe economic
penalty for ratepayers associated with coal-fired generation. 34/

However, colorado-Ute's own plans for 1982-94 include three

400 Mw coal plants beyond the already-under-construction Craig 3.

The Southwest Project is intended to comprise at least two units,

in 1987 and 1989, with a third unit following in 1994 at either
. . 35/ f ., 1
Cra~g or the Southwest s~te.- All 0 these un~ts w~ 1 have to

undergo thorough economic and environmental review before the CPUC.

In view of Colorado-Ute's high demand forecast and its large com-

mitted resources (~Table 1), as well as its difficult financial

position,

lengthy delays are likely. For ~urposes of this

analysis, a six-year delay has been assumed, delaying Southwest

Unit 1 to October 1993 and Unit 2 to January 1995.

Pushing

Unit 2 beyond the 1994 scope of the analysis means only 400 Mw

from the Southwest Project can be considered as a possible alter-

native td Juniper-Cross Mountain. Of course, any success by

Colorado-Ute in building the Southwest Project less than six years

behind schedule would just mean 400 Mw less need for Juniper-

Cross Mountain capacity.