Laserfiche WebLink
<br />SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS (Continued) <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Conclusions <br /> <br />The investigations were concluded since, based on the above discus- <br />sion of these two plans, it was not possible for Reclamation to recommend <br />either plan for construction. The investigations were concluded for the <br />following specific reasons. <br /> <br />1. The peaking power plan, initially thought to be the prefer- <br />able alternative, could not be constructed until the peak- <br />ing power became marketable or until more efficient peaking <br />power projects were investigated and there was a remaining <br />demand in the CRSP market area. A peaking power priori- <br />tization study conducted by Reclamation in June 1981 indi- <br />cated that several other projects in the market area could <br />provide peaking power at earlier dates and at lower in- <br />stalled costs per kWh than the Dominguez peaking power in- <br />crement. The study recommended investigations on these <br />other projects be completed first, and the Dominguez Proj- <br />ect peaking power plan not be implemented until the power <br />became marketable, or until it became more competitive in <br />terms of cost. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />2. The M&I water plan could not be constructed under existing <br />legislation and policy until letters of intent were re- <br />ceived from entities indicating a need for the water and a <br />commitment to contract for it when it became available. <br />Such commitments were not forthcoming either in connection <br />with energy development requirements north of the project <br />area or M&I needs in the Denver Metropolitan Area. Poten- <br />tial future M&I shortages for consumptive use in the im- <br />mediate project area could be satisfied by a project of <br />more limited scope. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />5-4 <br />