Laserfiche WebLink
<br />( <br /> <br />( <br /> <br />4 <br /> <br />e: <br />CO <br />~ <br />- <br /> <br />unneeded or undesirable. Colorado-Ute also excludes conservation, <br /> <br />cogeneration, wind, solar, gas turbines, and new hydro projects. 13/ <br /> <br />The sections which follow address Colorado-Ute's actual needs and <br /> <br />( <br /> <br />options. <br /> <br />IV. Juniper-Cross Mountain as a Source of Capacity. <br /> <br />A. Colorado-Ute's Need for Capacity. <br />The most obvious potential use of Juniper-Cross Mountain <br /> <br />is a source of peak power, or capacity. Indeed, the two-darn design <br /> <br />is expressly intended to enable it to produce peaking power.14/ <br /> <br />The expected energy output corresponds to an annual capacity factor <br /> <br />of only 27%, another indication that its primary value would be as <br /> <br />a peaking project. <br /> <br />In order to calculate colorado-Ute's need for capacity, its <br /> <br />future resources and demand must be compared. Table 1 shows, for <br /> <br />1982 through 1994, Colorado Ute's current and "committed" resources. <br /> <br />Committed resources are those considered virtually certain to corne <br /> <br /> <br />on line, and consist solely of resources already under construction <br /> <br />or under contract. On the demand side, Table 1 shows growth rates <br /> <br />in demand as predicted by Colorado-Ute itself in its 1980 Power <br /> <br />Requirements Study (PRS). The 1981-94 growth in peak demand is <br /> <br />just under 10.5 percent per year. In Table 1, two adjustments are <br /> <br />made to colorado-Ute's PRS numbers. First, the absolute level is <br /> <br />reduced 8.1 percent in all years to reflect the fact that actual <br /> <br />1980 peak demand on the system was 8.1 percent below the level pre- <br />dicted in the 1980 PRS. This adjustment corrects the PRS data to <br /> <br />1980 actuals without changing the forecasted rate of growth. <br />