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

(

I
(.

22

~

The next question is whether, given the availability of

resources sufficient to meet Colorado-Ute's needs through 1994

f'-

.- without Juniper-Cross Mountain, those resources are also preferable

c

to Juniper-Cross Mountain. Conservation is certainly preferable

to the Project, due to its lower environmental impacts. with

cogeneration, the choice is not up to Colorado-Ute, but rather

to the oil shale developers. If the C-b tract is developed at all,

there has already been sworn testimony in a Colorado-Ute certifi-

cate proceeding that a cogeneration project is planned. Thus,

Colorado-Ute should expect cogeneration from C-b (unless it expects

the whole project to stay suspended indefinitely, in which case it

should be deleted from the demand forecasts). Diversity exchanges

are part of Colorado-Ute's own resource plan, and they are a

way to sell Colorado-Ute's excess summer capacity and efficiently

use other utilities' excess winter capacity. They are consistent

with the Colorado PUC's policy encouraging greater pooling.]]!

Unlike Juniper-Cross Mountain, they do not require construction of

new facilities. Certainly diversity exchanges must be considered

preferable to Juniper-Cross Mountain.
Federal purchases mayor may not be preferable,to Juniper-

Cross Mountain, but they are so uncertain in the 1980s (note

Table 5) that they cannot be relied upon. Hydro projects are

virtually as uncertain, and because their impacts are site specific

they are hard to compare. In general, however, projects at exist-

ing sites are preferable to new dams. Both the hydro projects

with identified feasible operating dates in the 1980s, Tacoma and

Blue Mesa, are at existing dams. Both have another advantage over