Colorado'w Water Supply Future Handout

• Board Meeting Date: 7/20/2010
• Description: Colorado's Water Supply Future
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Presentation

Reconnaissance Life Cycle Costs
CWCB also developed reconnaissance
level life cycle costs for all concepts. Life
cycle costs allow comparison of not only
the capital costs, but also the operational
costs associated with the concepts, all
brought back to present value in order to
evaluate the long range economic
feasibility of each concept. CWCB utilized
the following key assumptions for the life
cycle cost analysis:
• Planning period - 50 years after
completion of construction
• Present worth - capital and operating
costs brought based to 2009
• Capital costs expended in 2020, with
FIGURE 4. SUMMARY OF RECONNAISSANCE LIFE CYCLE
COSTS
$25
$20
m
$25
N
0
$20
s
$s
so
Yampa South Platte 2 South Platte 2
W0ptio 1:i00 = /yr 63.600AF'yrfor GrcP k1ourtan
FIGURE 5. SUMMARY OF
UNIT COSTS
$120,000
$100,000
$80.000
� sBB.GBB
Z
s<B4O0o
$20.000
so
Arkansasl Arkansas2 Flamingrsrarge Blue Mesa Green
Mountain
OP:on2:250.000AF/yf Single Phasc ■Oati 3 250.000AF/yr 2Phasm
RECONNAISSANCE LIFE CYCLE
Yampa South Platte l South Platte 2 Arkansasl Arkamas2 Flaming Gorge Blue Mesa Green
Mountain
■Uphon1:2u=Q F/yr 68.W0AF/yrfor GracnWuntan ■0P1C 2:2,000UAi /w Singlollhasa ■ U01113:�UMUAS /yr 219s:ses
operation and maintenance starting in
2021 for options 1 and 2
• Capital costs expended in 2020, with
operation and maintenance starting in
2021 for Phase 1 of Option 3 and 2040,
with operation and maintenance starting
in 2041 for Phase 2 of Option 3
at Discount rate, or cost of money -
6 percent
• Escalation - Capital items
(3 percent), annual operation and
maintenance (3 percent), and energy
(5 percent)
• 2009 energy costs ($ /kilowatt hour) -
$0.08
In addition to initial capital costs, CWCB
considered replacement costs for the
constructed facilities if the replacement
was required during the 50 years planning
period.
Figures 4 and 5 provide a summary of the
total life cycle costs and the total life cycle
costs per acre -foot of water developed by
each concept. These figures show that
the least expensive concept is Green
Mountain and most expensive is either
Arkansas concept. The Arkansas
concepts are most expensive due to the
annual treatment costs that would be
associated with them. The remaining
concepts generally have similar life cycle
costs.
For more information, please contact:
ERIC HECOX
1580 Logan St., Suite 200
Denver, CO 80203
Phone: [phone] x3217
Fax: [phone]
www.cwcb.state.co.us
eric.hecox @state.co.us