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 />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 />