Laserfiche WebLink
<br />!'T.J <br />C') <br />1- <br />-- <br /> <br />, <br /> <br />Summary Table 2 <br />Total Programs Costs of the <br />EDF Alternatives Plan for the CUEA System <br /> <br />Program Component <br /> <br />Performance standards and retrofits <br />residential <br />commercial <br /> <br />Total Costs (millions 1982 doll <br /> <br />Lighting efficiency <br />Appliance Efficiency <br />Hot water conservation <br />Energy audits <br /> <br />$62.5 <br />6.6 <br />8.1 <br />9.4 <br />2.1 <br />2.1 <br /> <br />TOTAL cost to CUEA <br /> <br />$90.8 <br /> <br />. , <br /> <br />The lefthand column lists the elements of the program and the <br /> <br />righthand column the cost estimates. The total cost to CUEA <br /> <br />(in present value terms and 1982 dollars) is roughly $90 million. <br /> <br />The cost of the Juniper-Cross project is expected to be $230 <br /> <br />million not including at least $45 million more for mitigation <br /> <br />of environmental damages attributable to the dams and their opera- <br /> <br />~j <br /> <br />tion. If the two sets of costs (project costs and conservation <br /> <br />program costs) are annualized at 14% over 20 years and divided <br />"j"- <br />uiby-the energy output or gavings of the project and conservation <br /> <br />~ <br />~ <br />" <br /> <br />alternative, then Juniper-Cross is an order of magnitude more expen- <br /> <br />;(" <br /> <br />sive than the demand growth reduction option we have outlined. <br /> <br />,:, <br /> <br />(See Summary Table 3). The impact of conservation measures on the <br /> <br />displacement of energy demand is both dramatic and costTeffective. <br /> <br />Financing conservation offers CUEA and its members an attrac- <br /> <br />tive option, too. The rural electric cooperatives (REC's) which <br /> <br />make up CUEA have Clvailable to them from the Rural Electric <br /> <br />viii <br />