My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Final Environmental Impact Statement Volume II Appendix K, Part 1
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
DayForward
>
5001-6000
>
Final Environmental Impact Statement Volume II Appendix K, Part 1
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/8/2013 3:47:00 PM
Creation date
2/27/2013 1:09:27 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
Description
related to the Platte River Endangered Species Partnership (aka Platte River Recovery Implementation Program or PRRIP)
State
NE
Basin
North Platte
Date
7/1/1998
Author
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Office of Hydropower Licensing
Title
Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) - Volume II, Appendix K, Part 1 - Kingsley Dam (FERC Project No. 1417) and North Platte/Keystone Dam (FERC Project No. 1835) Projects, Nebraska, FERC/FEIS-0063
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
EIS
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
551
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
COMMENTS OF CENTRAL NEBRASKA PUBLIC POWER AND <br />IRRIGATION DISTRICT <br />value of Project No. 1417 based upon the type of expansion <br />plan analysis FERC Staff conducted should have been <br />calculated to be negative $40.35 million. <br />CEN -201 iii. A "Net value" of zero or Lower is <br />erected Using Staff's Analytical <br />Techniaue <br />FERC Staff should have expected a <br />result near zero using the methodology it selected. <br />Typically, a utility considers replacing an aging, probably <br />inefficient, but fully depreciated unit with a more <br />efficient modern unit with higher capital costs. From a <br />system planner's point of view, the existing plant has <br />positive economic value if the fully allocated cost of <br />.replacing it is higher than the fully allocated costs of <br />�O <br />continued operation. The information provided by NPPD <br />clearly showed that the situation is entirely different <br />here: the production costs for the new coal fired <br />generation22' are substantially less than the average costs <br />of existing hydropower production.W So purely from an <br />electric utility planner's perspective, giving no <br />W NPPD, Comments on RDEIS Scooina at Attachment K, <br />Table A -5. <br />'—it RDEIS at 2 -46, 5 -40. FERC Staff itself acknowledges <br />that power production costs at these units are very high <br />compared with power from other sources used by NPPD, even <br />before the costs of environmental enhancement are included. <br />RDEIS at 2 -46. <br />- 47 - <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.