Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />the installation of a combined-cycle unit. This capacity was added to the 189 MW <br />already committed by the utilities and it was assumed that the available capacity in the <br />state would be used before any new capacity is added, including capacity from QFs. <br /> <br />Pumped Storage Results <br /> <br />Following completion of the base case modeling, the model was allowed to select <br />generic pumped storage unit(s) as an alternative generation resource. Using the <br />medium load forecasts as projected by the utilities, four pumped storage units were <br />found to be potentially economically attractive: 150 MW in 2002 and 2005, and 75 <br />MW in 2006 and 2007, for a total of 450 MW. <br /> <br />Sensitivity Analyses <br /> <br />Sensitivity analyses were performed to reflect low and high load growth estimates. <br />The low peak forecasts for peak energy requirements were in the 1.9-percent growth <br />range, while the high peak forecasts were in the 2.5 percent growth range. <br /> <br />Under the low peak load forecast without pumped storage, very little new thermal <br />capacity (744 MW) was needed during the study period. In the high peak load <br />forecast without pumped storage, almost four times as much thermal power (about <br />2,802 MW) was needed. For the scenarios with pumped storage, the same amount of <br />capacity was added and of that 75 MW of pumped storage may be economically <br />attractive in the low load growth case. The high peak load growth forecast indicated <br />825 MW of pumped storage may be economically attractive. <br /> <br />Economic Comparisons <br /> <br />The economic analysis task determined the extent to which avoided system costs (or <br />benefits) related to the addition of pumped storage units may support the costs of the <br />pumped storage units and associated transmission investment. The economic <br />feasibility is reported in terms of the cost per kW of installed capacity (in 1988 prices) <br />that may be supported by avoided system costs (or benefits). Table E-1 shows the <br />amount of pumped storage added and the investment cost in 1988 dollars at which <br />pumped storage may be economically attractive. <br /> <br />E-5 <br />