Laserfiche WebLink
<br />fm;~1~ <br /> <br />, :~,:: /::, <br />:'.:.:":.;::',>? <br />. -\:~:.\J.~::i <br /> <br />001541 <br /> <br />Public Scoping Comments, Gunnison River Contract, conI. <br /> <br />20b. HINCHMAN; #1. When considering loss of power generation or peaking power from changes <br />in river flows the EIS should list not only traditional power replacement options - such as coal, gas, oil <br />or nuclear - but also newer power technologies such as conservation (also called demand side <br />management), solar thermal, solar photovoltaic" wind (Colorado is one of the premier wind rich states <br />in the Western U.S.) and geothermal, and ? power exchanges with utilities needing power during our <br />spring run-off. <br /> <br />17. HINCHMAN; #2. If CREDA complains about increased costs due to changes in power <br />production, the increased should be compared to current fair-market value of that power (not CREDA's <br />preferred customer rates) and to the very low cost of power that would be gained if CREDA <br />implemented a systemwide demand side management and .coDseTVat~on progmm. <br /> <br />20b.' HINCHMAN; #3. If cbanges in power production caused by changes in river flows reduce'the <br />repayment schedule for the Aspinall Unit the difference could be made up by increasing fuel price of <br />that power to reflect current market value (both for energy and capacity costs, and for power provided <br />during peak times). <br /> <br />63 <br />