My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PROJ00509
CWCB
>
Loan Projects
>
Backfile
>
1-1000
>
PROJ00509
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/19/2009 11:43:27 AM
Creation date
10/5/2006 11:58:53 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Loan Projects
Contract/PO #
C153500
Contractor Name
San Miguel Water Conservancy District
Contract Type
Loan
Water District
0
County
San Miguel
Bill Number
XB 99-999
Loan Projects - Doc Type
Feasibility Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
76
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
<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 />San Miguel Canyon Pumped Storage Hydropower Project is an optional addition to Alternatives G, H, or W, The <br /> <br />San Miguel Canyon site is located northwest of Norwood and would include a reservoir on the San Miguel River <br /> <br /> <br />and a smaller reservoir located on the rim of the canyon. <br /> <br />Evaluation of Alternatives <br /> <br />The four alternatives and the San Miguel Canyon hydropower project were evaluated at a reconnaissance <br />(preliminary) level of detail using the estimated water yield of each alternative and estimated costs. The estimated <br />capital costs for Alternatives G and L are $2.9 million and $4.1 million, respectively. When these two alternatives <br />are combined in Alternative H, the capital costs increase to a total of $8.1 million. In Alternative W, the capital <br />costs increase to a total of $18.2 million due to the inclusion of additional improvements. <br /> <br />The annual cost and the cost per acre-foot for each alternative were estimated using six different financial <br /> <br /> <br />scenarios which were selected to show the impact of various financing arrangements. The six financing scenarios <br /> <br /> <br />are: <br /> <br />Scenario <br /> <br />Descriotion <br /> <br />A <br /> <br />One-half 5 percent loan and one-half 10 percent bonds. <br /> <br />B <br /> <br />One-half 5 percent loan and one-half 8 percent bonds. <br /> <br />C <br /> <br />All financing at 5 percent. <br /> <br />D <br /> <br />One-half 5 percent loan and one-half interest-free loan. <br /> <br />E <br /> <br />One-half 5 percent loan and one-half grant. <br /> <br />F <br /> <br />One-half 5 percent loan and one-half bonds paid by power revenues. <br /> <br />The annual cost was calculated as the annual debt service for each alternative under each financing scenario plus <br /> <br /> <br />the annual cost of operation, maintenance and replacement. The unit cost per acre-foot was calculated by <br /> <br />dividing the annual cost for each alternative by the improved water yield. Table S-l displays the potential service <br /> <br />vii <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.