Laserfiche WebLink
<br />.~:~ <br />/~e: <br />;~"" \ ~ <br /> <br />l- <br />_. <br />;,~~ <br /> <br />c <br /> <br /> <br />~"~ <br /> <br />~~ <br /> <br />" <br />':.:~ <br /> <br />'.' <br />~, <br /> <br />'--:' <br /> <br />So: <br /> <br />C <br />:'.~ <br />~. <br /> <br />,,", <br /> <br />i; <br /> <br />Adminstration (REA) low interest loans for conservation. The <br /> <br />rates vary between 2% and 5%. They present a very appealing <br /> <br />alternative to project construction financed at 14%. <br /> <br />Summary Table 3 <br /> <br />Annualized Costs and Cost per kWh for <br />Juniper-Cross and the Conservation Alternative <br /> <br />Annualized <br />Program Costs ($ million) <br /> <br />Energy (qWh) <br />350 <br /> <br />Cost ($)/kWh <br />$.12/kWh <br />$.ol/kWh <br /> <br />Juniper-Cross 42 <br /> <br />EDF Alternatives 14 <br /> <br />1000 <br /> <br />RECOMMENDATIONS <br /> <br />The clear recommendation from the results of this study is <br /> <br />that CUEA set aside its plan for new hydroelectric capacity and <br /> <br />replace it with a program which encourages and facilitates energy <br /> <br />conservation. Conservation offers the potential, even at modest <br /> <br />participation rates (the low conservation Scenario), to displace <br /> <br />twice the energy component represented by the average annual <br /> <br />output of the project, but it does take some time to put an effec- <br /> <br />tive program in place. The CUEA should begin now. <br /> <br />In the context of the FERC's statutory obligation to approve <br /> <br />only those projects which are in the "public interest," FERC <br /> <br />should not approve a project when the same energy needs can be <br /> <br />met by more cost effective alternatives which are reasonably <br /> <br />available to the project proponent, and thich inflict no harm <br /> <br />on the environment or public natural resources. <br /> <br />ix <br />