Laserfiche WebLink
<br />( <br />, <br /> <br />( <br /> <br />32 <br /> <br />Conservation is assumed to save energy at Colorado-Ute's average <br />. 42/ <br />load factor of about 59%,-- with 5% added to reflect reduced <br /> <br />..... <br /> <br />1I''''.'' <br /> <br />{_ transmission losses due to end-use conservation. Oil shale <br /> <br />...' <br /> <br />c <br /> <br />cogeneration is expected to have a 60% capacity factor, matching <br />the load factor for oil shale demands.ilI <br /> <br />Table 9 shows Colorado-Ute energy resources larger than its <br /> <br />requirements for every year through 1994. In reality, of course, <br /> <br />"excess" energy cannot be produced. This just means that Colorado- <br /> <br />Ute either would not have to use its resources to their full <br /> <br />capability, or could sell surplus energy as it has historically <br /> <br />done. In any case, the 350 gwh from Juniper-Cross Mountain are <br /> <br />certainly not required to meet Colorado-Ute's energy needs. <br /> <br />Conclusion <br /> <br />The finding of this report is that Colorado-Ute has no need <br /> <br />for the capacity and energy from the proposed Juniper-Cross <br /> <br />Mountain hydro-electric project. The public interest would be <br /> <br />better served if Colorado-Ute develops environmentally and econ- <br /> <br />omically preferred alternatives which are available in the same <br /> <br />time frame. <br /> <br />This conclusion is of particular significance due to the <br /> <br />serious impact of the proposed project on the Yampa River. Since <br /> <br />these impacts can be avoided without the environmental and <br /> <br />economic risk of Juniper-Cross Mountain, licensing of the project <br /> <br />is not in the public interest. <br />