Laserfiche WebLink
<br />( <br /> <br />( <br /> <br />24 <br /> <br />Juniper-Cross Mountain may be a cheaper source of capacity. Given <br /> <br />Colorado-Ute's inclusion of Southwest (but not Juniper-Cross <br /> <br />,... <br />...., <br /> <br />Mountain) in its resource plan, and Southwest's importance as a <br /> <br />1- <br />-' <br /> <br />source of energy as well as capacity (~section VI below), <br /> <br />c:' <br /> <br />Colorado-ute itself appears to rank Southwest above Juniper-Cross <br /> <br />Mountain. <br /> <br />Table 6 sets out what might be called a "Preferred Alternative" <br /> <br />to Juniper-Cross Mountain. It combines the committed resources <br /> <br />from Table 1 with some of the preferred alternatives discussed <br /> <br />above to show a resource plan sufficient to meet Colorado-Ute's <br /> <br />needs through 1994 with no reliance on Juniper-Cross Mountain. <br /> <br />It does not include any gas turbines or future WAPA purchases, <br /> <br />since they are unnecessary as well as uncertain. It includes only <br /> <br />one coal plant instead of the three planned by Colorado-Ute by <br /> <br />1994, and even that one is far larger than necessary. <br /> <br />The last adjustment made in Table 6 is that 15 percent is <br /> <br />added to the adjusted demand forecast for each year as a reserve <br /> <br />margin. This allows for the fact that at the time of peak demand <br /> <br />some of Colorado-Ute's plants may be incapable of operating. A <br /> <br />15 percent reserve margin is consistent ~ith WSCC reliability cri- <br /> <br />teria, <br /> <br />and is the margin used in Colorado-Ute's own planning. <br /> <br />Table 6 shows that Colorado-Ute does not need new capacity, <br /> <br />from Juniper-Cross Mountain or any other source, prior to 1993. <br /> <br />Other resource plans are certainly possible--future ones may <br /> <br />include much more conservation, for example--but this one shows <br />