Laserfiche WebLink
<br />003414 <br /> <br />The five coal-fi~ed plants listed a~e fai~ly new. Olde~ plants would have <br />lower capital costs and hi&her operatin& costs. Since capital costs are a <br />la~&er part of total costs than ener&y costs, the inclusion of older plants <br />would make total costs appear lower than they are in today's te~ms. (Note <br />that the cost attributable to capital in the total averages about 2.13 cents <br />fo~ the existing plants.) <br /> <br />To represent an extreme, a special-purpose peaking fecility is included. <br />Va1mont is a gas-fi~ed turbine owned by PSCo that could be used fo~ peaking <br />power unde~ some ci~cumstances, but its energy costs alone are 12 cents per <br />kwh. Capital costs are not included because the unit was const~ucted in the <br />1960s. Inflation has distorted what it would now cost to build a simila~ <br />unit. and no Colorado utilities plan to build units of this type in the <br />future. <br /> <br />Also included are the costs of pumped storage. The energy costs to produce <br />pumped storage are the kwh that do the pumping, generally two kwh for every <br />kwh produced. The figure shown, 8 cents per kwh, is an estimate provided by <br />the PUC staff. We have shown no capital costs for pumped sto~age because <br />these facilities usually accompany other p~ojects and thei~ costs cannot be <br />easily isolated. If one set out to build a pumped storage facility all by <br />itself, the capital costs would be much highe~ than for any of the other <br />facilities. Obviously, a utility would p~efe~ to get peak-pe~iod ene~gy <br />f~om pumped 8to~age than f~om a unit like Va1mont. <br /> <br />10 <br />