Laserfiche WebLink
<br />r -, J i ") <br />uu tJVa_ <br /> <br />specified, the "with and without" approach to estimating project <br />effects will be used throughout. The non-monetary effects of <br />such projects will not be taken into account in these economic <br />evaluations. <br /> <br />It is recognized that techniques do exist for imputing <br />monetary values to certain classes of non-marketed effects. Such <br />techniques will not be Jsed because of budgetary limitations. <br />Similarly, techniques are available for estimating the indirect <br />benefits and costs of proposed projects. The costs of utilizing <br />the more reliable techniques of this kind also preclude their <br />use. <br /> <br />All benefits and costs shall be expressed in constant <br />January, 1982, price levels. <br /> <br />Project Costs <br /> <br />Project costs shall consist of all costs defined in Task 12, <br />activity b, and interest during construction (IDC). It is these <br />streams of costs wnich shall be discounted when benefit-cost <br />ratios and break-even values are computed. <br /> <br />Project Benefits <br /> <br />Estimates of the benefits accruing from pea~ing and <br />non-oeaking hvdrooower generation, new storage for municipal and <br />industrial use, new water supplies for supplemental irrigation, <br />and new storage space for the imoroved management of waters <br />already developed and used for irrigated agriculture shall be <br />made pursuant to the orocedures described below. Flood control <br />benefits shall not beL estimated. <br /> <br />Hydropower Benefits (Peaking). The alternative cost <br />approach to estimating peaking power benefits was used in Phase <br />I. While t~e informal canvas of utility load projections made <br />during Phase I is hel?ful, it does not constitute a credible test <br />of effective demand. There is reasonable doubt whether the <br />demand for peaking capacity will be sufficient to ensure that the <br />project would be used solely for that purpose. <br /> <br />This uncertainty stems from many possibilities, among them <br />that by 1989 WAPA may have contracted to market hydropower from <br />Reclamation projects as ?eak or intermediate power, thereby <br />adding greatly to available regional peaking capacity and that <br />the potential effects of load management and diversity exchange <br />policies upon future demand for peaking power may have been <br />underestimated in area utility forecasts. <br /> <br />The ?rice for peaking Dower is an obvious element in <br />determining how much of such power will be consumed. The utility <br />load orojections used in Phase I to confirm the existence of <br />effective demand did not include explicit consideration of this <br /> <br />-3- <br />