WSP02386

• File Number: 8221.110.J
• Description: Juniper-Cross Mountain Project
• State: CO
• Basin: Yampa/White
• Water Division: 6
• Date: 6/30/1982
• Title: An Economic & Technical Review of a Comprehensive Alternative to the Juniper-Cross Mountain Project
• Water Supply Pro - Doc Type: Report/Study

i
N
C

~...~<

:-;.t,

.'<
.,

improvements only, there are no changes in lifestyles assumed

in the analysis. It estimates energy s~vings, identi~ies
pertinent costs, and tests for cost-effectiveness.

The assumptions underlying. our analysis of CUEA system

energy conservation potential are conservative. Where possible,

data arp taken from the CUEA Power Requirements Study (PRS). We

rely on CUEA's 1980 PRS as a primary source of information.
However the CUEA.1980 does not include the Intermoutain Rural

Electric Association (IREA), a new CUEA member. Therefore, from

time to time we utilize the IREA PRS as a supplemental source

of information. In addition differing demographic and usage

assumptions within the two PRSs require us to distinguish between

CUEA and IREA in some parts of the analysis. Whenevpr we make

reference to the entire service area we label it CUEA system.

Data sources which augment the information in the PRSs

are identified in the text. Whenever data are not available,

we use conservative estimates. In several' sections we offer

subjective evaluation of information for which there are no

direct measures. In particular, we develop a series of adoption

rates for the implementation of the various conservation measures.

For those measures with low costs, a higher adoption rate is

.
chosen. Conversely, for more e~pensive energy conservation
options, a lower adoption rate is used. In all cases a range

of adoption rates is selected in order to illustrate probable

levels of savings. In some cases we assume that adopation rates

are zero,l.~., we ignore certain energy conservation measures.

For example, when considering the potential for conservation

ii