Electrical Power for Valdez and the Copper River Basin-1981

The following tables show the future use of diesel generation which wouldoccur if no Federal action is taken. Both tables reflect the addition of theSolomon Gulch hydroelectric project in 1981. Table 5 assumes additionalgeneration would come from diesel, Table 6 assumes tne PRT would beconstructed.Table 5Projected Energy Generation of CVEA Without PRTTotal Load Hydro DieselYear (gwh) (gwh) (gwh)1980 47.9 0 47.91985 77.5 38.6 38.91990 97.6 38.6 59.01995 123.0 38.6 84.42000 146.0 38.6 107.4Table 6Projected Energy Generation of CVEA With PRTTotal Load Hydro PRT DieselYear (gwh) (gwh) (gwl1) (gwh)1980 47.9 0 0 47.91985 77.5 38.6 38.9 01990 97.6 38.6 52.0 7.61995 123.0 38.6 * 52.0 32.42000 146.0 38.6 ** 52.0 55.4*This figure represents 80 percent of the total energy possible based ona flow of 1.5 million uarrels per day (the current flow is 1.5 MBD withno plans for increase to the 2 MBD capacity).**Based on known oil reserves, the useful life of the project may endbefore the year 2000; however, additional discoveries may be made,extending the life of the pipeline.The preceding tables correspond to Figures 2 and 3 on the section"Comparison of Detailed Plans."For purposes of simplification and more direct comparability to thehydropower alternatives, additional diesel generation, as evaluated bythe Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, is assumed. This alternativeis the economic standard against which each of the hydropower plans aretested. Tnat is, the power benefits of a given hydropower systemrepresent the cost of producing the same amount of power by constructingand operating a conventional state-of-the-art diesel generation system.The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission determined that the appropriate19