Laserfiche WebLink
<br />" <br /> <br />-, <br /> <br />Curecanti Unit <br /> <br />(Cost Comparisons (consideration given to possible irrigation <br />allocations) ) <br /> <br />The attached tables show results of preliminary incremental <br />analyses of Colorado River Storage Project units with and without <br />assumptions of cost allocations to irrigation (holdover storage or <br />river regulation). It can be seen that ~ven with a $30,300,000 <br />(43%) allocation of joint costs of a large dam and reservoir at the <br />Curecanti site to irrigation a rate of 8.4 mills per k.w.h. would <br />be required to payout remaining costs within the specifieo 5~-year <br />period. This is in excess of the cost of energy produced by an <br />alternate st,eam development under Federal financing. With an <br />assumed salvd.ge cof "p12,000,000 in addition to the irrigation alloca- <br /> <br />ti0;1 the benefit -c'nt ::atio of the large clevelopmem: is dpproximate- <br /> <br />ly unity. <br /> <br />An analysis based on all costs allocated to power with si'llvage <br />limited to the present value of the eQl'i valent ce.pi tell cost.s of an <br />alterna te st<3am development would rp. :ml t in a benefit -co,:;-I: ratio far <br /> <br />below unity (.59 for large Curecanti). <br /> <br />It can be seen from the Preceding pages that a large irrigction <br /> <br /> <br />.allocation i:3 required to show feasibility of e.ny development C'.t the <br /> <br />Curecanti site. In the case of a large .:eservoir a definite net <br /> <br />contribution to the flow at Lee Fe~ry can be shown as the basis for <br /> <br />:laiming an Elllocation. However, ...ith a sma~.' reservoir at Curecanti, <br /> <br />as ,'ith the :.imited storage at th8 ';fhitel\'at,"!r site, th0 n€t C:"J"tri- <br /> <br />bution over successive 10-year ;:J"riods is negl:;.ail:Jle. <br /> <br />- 3 - <br />