Laserfiche WebLink
<br />001584 <br /> <br />Alternatives, Including Proposed Action <br /> <br />2-14 <br /> <br />The economics of smaller projects were re-evaluated by the sponsors in light of these <br />changed conditions, As a result, the smallest-sized facility that appears financeable and <br />feasible has been reduced to 750-cfs. Below that level, projects are either uneconomic, or <br />show profit margins that are too small to warrant the investment risk. That is, they are <br />too sensitive to varying construction costs and interest rate volatility, and include <br />insufficient revenues to justify the risks inherent in building and operating the facility. <br />Bank coverage levels would also decline to levels making financing dubious. As such, <br />projects below 750-cfs capacity do not represent viable alternatives. <br /> <br />r <br /> <br />2.2.2 <br /> <br />South Canal Sites (FEIS Alternative G) <br /> <br />The PElS assessed a series of smaller projects along the South Canal. These projects <br />were dismissed as uneconomic, and remain so under current market conditions. Even if it <br />could be financed, this alternative offers few advantages over the AB Lateral. Gunnison <br />and Uncompahgre River flows would be the same as the Proposed Alternative (E-l). The <br />only significant difference is that between the South Canal outfall and Montrose, <br />Uncompahgre River flows would be substantially increased under the South Canal <br />option, While higher summer flows may be a benefit, higher winter flows would require <br />bank stabilization on nearly 8 miles of additional river length. Predicted adverse wetland <br />impacts would potentially increase by 30% over the AB Lateral option (E-!). Since the <br />AB Lateral is clearly a "practicable" alternative to the South Canal, yet offers less <br />wetland impact, the South Canal option may not be permitable under Section 404 of the <br />Clean Water Act. <br /> <br />2.2.3 <br /> <br />Other Power Generating Sources <br /> <br />Other methods of producing power, such as renewable and non-renewable resources <br />located elsewhere, would not fulfill the project purpose cited in Section 1.3, would only <br />meet one (power supply) of four major project needs identified in Section 1.4, and are <br />therefore not realistic alternatives to the proposed action. They also would not fit within <br />the authorizing legislation for the facility, PL 75-698. <br /> <br />Hydropower plants offer many advantages over other power supply options, including <br />long life, high reliability, low maintenance, no emissions, and black start capability. <br />Utilities, state regulatory commissions, and federal agency planners generally agree that a <br />diverse mix of energy sources furthers the goal of national security, and is in the public <br />interest. Other (non-hydro) renewable options, such as wind, biomass, solar and demand- <br />side resources such as conservation, will be installed when they become commercially <br />and economically feasible. The AB Lateral is not large enough to affect regional market <br />value for power, and therefore does not affect the commercial viability of these resources. <br />Power values are largely determined by forecast costs of gas-fired generation, and to a <br />lesser degree, the value of ancillary services, and intangibles such as fuel diversity. <br />Whether or not AB Lateral is built will not materially affect the potential for or <br />development of other renewable resources. Moreover, they are not alternatives that meet <br />the stated purpose and need. <br /> <br />AS Lateral Hydropower Project <br /> <br />July 2000 <br /> <br />,;,; ~ ',," ,,>> <br /> <br />'. ,:'~ <br />\LJ <br />