columbia river basin - international joint commission · 2013-05-10 · river basin economic...

APPENDIX V I

Report ta the >

International Joint Commission

UNITED STATES a n d CANADA

WATER

Columbia

t

RESOURCES

the ;

River Basin

ECONOMIC STUDIES

Engineering Board v

L V T

APPENDIX VI - ECONOMIC STUDIES TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

1 I PURPOSE ......................................................................................................

I I PROCEDURE ........... .:. ....................................................................................

111 STUDIES ......................................................................................................

Power ........................................................................................

Flood Control.. ......................................................................

.............................................................................. Irrigation

.............................................................................. Navigation

Other Bene fits ......................................................................

LIST OF TABLES

Preliminary Plans of Development - Cost Data .............................. Sequence VII - Summary of Results .................................................... Sequence VIII - Summary of Results.. ................................................ Sequence IX - Summary of Results ...................................................... Sequence IXa - Summary of Results ....................................................

Distribution .of Power Output - Sequence VII ................................ .............................. Distribution of Power Output - Sequence VIII

Distribution of Power Output - Sequence IX. ................................

Distribution of Power Output - Sequence IXa ................................

Evaluation of Power Outputs - Sequence VII .................................. Evaluation of Power Outputs - Sequence VIII ................................ Evaluation of Power Outputs - Sequence IX.. ............................ .:.. .. Evaluation of Power Outputs - Sequence IXa .................................. Summary - Power Benefit Distribution .............................................. Flood-Control Benefits ..........................................................................

Summary of Project Benefits and Costs ............................................

APPENDIX VI

ECONOMIC STUDIES

I. PURPOSE

1 . The economic studies made for this report were carried out to demonstrate that all the elements included in the selected international plans of development are worthy of consideration for construction. These studies included determination of costs and consideration of power and flood-control benefits.

I I . PROCEDURE

2 . Limited feasibility studies were required to give some indication that each ~roject included in the selected plans of develorment was worthy of consideration as a potentially economic project. Because the determination of specific benefit -cost ratios involved considerations be - yond the scope of this report, it was decided that in order to demonstrate economic feasibility it would be sufficient to show that the estimated costs for each project would be exceeded by some or all of the tangible benefits. Of the total benefits that could be credited to each ~roject, the power benefit is the largest; therefore as a first s t e ~ only the power benefit was assigned to each project. Where the power benefit exceeded the annual cost of the project, it was assumed that potential justification was indicated. For each project not justified on assigned Fower benefit alone, a further test was a ~ ~ l i e d to include flood-control benefits. If the ~roject was still not justified, it was eliminated unless it had been previously recommended for construction by a water resource agency.

3. In order to keer the studies as sim~le as possible and within the limits of time and personnel available, it was necessary to make many as- sumptions which are discussed in the following secticn. As pointed out,the studies do not determine benefit-cost ratios but only indicate that probable annual benefits for each project included in the selected plans will exceed the estimated annual cost. In order to assign power benefits to each project, it is necessary that the power outruts be rrorated between storage and head r.lants. This has been accomrlished by ado~~ting an arbitrary method, which is described beginning in paragraph 11. It is stressed that this method was chosen for its simrlicity; it is not ~roposed or recommended as a basis for distributing power benefits between countries.

111. STUDIES

COSTS

4. Construction costs of most of the ~ r o ~ o s e d projects and of the additional installations required at existing developments have been obtained from the federal agency having the latest available data. In some instances in the 'united States, when the project has been licensed for construction by a non-federal agency, the latest available estimate prerared by that agency was used.

5 . These construction costs in dollars (with United States and Canadian dollars at par) have been put on a cornrarable time basis - - that of July 1957. The construction costs include those for the dam and power- house; for necessary lands, easements and rights-of-way; for reloca- tion of railroads, highways, bridges and utilities; and for engineering design, construction su~?ervision, alid contingencies. Interest at 3 p~ercent

1 for one-half ofthe construction period was added tothe construction cost to obtain the investment cost. Annual costs, including an interim replacement item, and operation and maintenance, are based on interest at 3 percent and an amortization period of 50 years. Investment costs and annual costs for all projects and the additional installations required at existing developments are shown in Table 1 at the end of this ap~endix.

6. The interim replacement item is to provide for replacing those project features which have a life of less than the amortization period of 50 years. This item, estimated at 0.15 percent annually applied to the total construction cost, has been derived as follcws:

It is estimated that 9 percent of the total construction cost represents features with a useful life of 30 years and the remainder of the cost represents features with a useful life of at least 50 years. If 'A' represents the total construction cost, then the interim replacement item is: 0.09 A x 0.412 x 0.0389 = 0.00144 A or 0.0015 A in round numbers; where $0.412 is the present worth of $1.00 due in 30 years at 3 percent interest and 0.0389 is interest and amortization at 3 percent for 50 years. For projects such as Libby, where flowageandrelocation costs are unusually high relative to the total cost of the project, the interim re~lacement item was judiciously reduced.

1 7. Annual operation and maintenance costs here estimated as follows:

a. $80,000 for each generating unit. b. $15,000 for each spillway gate. c. $8,000 for each sluice gate. d. 0.2 percent for projects costing less than $50,000,000 for

general and miscellaneous items such as debris dis~osal, guards, plant supervision, and administration; 0.1 percent for those items for projects costing over $250,000,000 and linearly prorated for projects in between these two costs.

BEREF ITS

8. Power. - Power benefits are based on the power produced by the elements of the plans of development when operated as an interconnected system with cooperative use of storage to meet the estimated 1985 load. The individual elements of the rlans were designed to permit maximum useful out~ut under a coordinated plan of operation. Thus the load-carrying ability of the system of power plants would be increased by pooling the demand to take advantage of the load diversity of a large area and by con- serving energy in the form of stored water through most effective use of flows at the power plants. The estimated 1985 Pacific Northwest load in the United States, averaging 22,750,000 kilowatts, was increased by an average Canadian load of 5,000,000 kilowatts. The assumed Canadian load was adjusted tothe same shape as the United States forecasted load, resulting in an estimated international load of 27,750,000 kilowatts. This was reduced by the amount of the load-carrying ability of the 'Minor IJnited States Resources' which had been determined for the hydro-electric generation on the Snake River upstream from Brownlee dam and streams either trib- utary to the .Columbia River below John Day dam or flowing into Puget Sound. The studies were carried out to meet the estimated 1985 load on the assump- tion that 1985 represented the mid-point in the economic life of the projects in the plans of development. Also, substantial amounts of thermal generation would be required in addition to hydro-electric generation to meet the load.

9. For the purpose of determining benefits, the unit value of the hydro power produced was assumed equal to the cost of production by the cheapest alternative means, which is thermal generation. The values of energy and capacity which were used and the basis upon which they were computed are shown in paragraph 16. The results of these evaluations give a measure of the hydro-electric power benefits that could be obtained when projects are operated as part of a combined hydro-thermal power system.

10. Tables 2, 3, 4 and 5 summarize the power output of the system power studies for Sequences VII, VIII, IX and IXa for the critical period, August 1928 through March 1932, and for the average generation during the 20-year period, July 1928 through June 1948. These tables also show the average spills expressed in megawatts. .

11. The total system output for each of the four sequences studied was distributed to the various elements on an arbitrary basis. This distribution was based upon the following criteria:

a. No order of development was assumed. b. All proposed projects were assumed to be constructed and

operated in 1985 as a fully coordinated and interconnected system. c. The system of hydro-electric plants was operated to meet the

1985 estimated energy load with a minimum amount of thermal installation and generation.

d. Each element of the various studies was assigned a rroy~or- tionate part of the total system power outputs (energy and capacity) based upon the estimated contribution of each element in meeting the total load requirements.

It can be seen that thismethod differs from an incremental-analysis method, which requires that a specific order of development be assumed. Since no order of development was assumed in this study, proportionate sharing was selected as a fair and equitable means of assigning power benefits.

12. The method selected for distributing the energy outputs 'to the elements of the seauences is designated the 'zero delta-storage' method. This method requires that each sequence be run twice. One run was made with the unregulated flows routed through the system of power plants, at maximum pool elevations, without any changes in storage. This gave an average outr:utateach ~lant which was credited to that plant onan annual basis. In the second run, the flows were routed through the plants on a regulated basis to produce anoutput which required a minimum amount of thermal energy to meet the estimated load. The difference in average system outputs between these two runs was assumed to be the effect of storage in the system. This difference in average annual energy was distributed to each of the storage plants in proportion to the product of its average storage release and the total head through which this release passed. In the interest of simplicity, the average 'K value' (power in kilowatts per cubic foot per second of water) for each plant was used as a measure of the head.

13. A s~ecific example of this method as applied to Sequence VIII follows. In this sequence the total system output without storage regulation was 13,481 megawatts, and the total system output under regulated con- ditions was 16,927 megawatts. The difference, 3,446 megawatts, is the assumed effect of the storage regulation in this power system. This was prorated to the various storage plants in proportion to the product of the annual average storage release and the respective total average 'K value' at site and downstream. Since the sum (totalling 4,576) of the products of the average storage releases and the respective 'K's was greater than the assumed effect of storage, it was necessary to com~ute a utilization factor, which in Sequence VIII was computed as follows: 3,446/4,576 = 0.7530. This factor was used to reduce the product of the average storage release and the 'K value' toa total equal to the assumed effect of storage. Thus, storage plants were givenanenergy assignment equal tothe outputwhich they produced without storage release plus all of the assumed effect of storage. The run-of-river projects were assigned only those energy values they produced without storage release. The full development of this distribution for each of the four sequences is contained in columns (4) through (9), Tables 6, 7, 8 and 9.

14. As pointed out in Chapter VI, the total system capacity benefit was limited to the system peaking capability available in January 1932. However, this capability was distributed to the individual elements in proportion to their average peaking capability during the critical ~eriod instead of using their actual January 1932 capabilities. This distribution method gave the storage projects credit for some peaking capability that they did not actually provide, or would not have been able to provide, at the time of the critical requirement. This method was used because it did not seem reasonable to limit the capacity benefits of the storage projects to their low capabilities in January 1932, which were a result of their

operation for the benefit of the system as a whole. The capacity distribution is shown in columns (2) and (3) of Tables 6, 7, 8 and 9 for each power study. Column (2)shows theaverage peaking capability of each element during the critical period (August 1928 through March 1932), as taken from the power studies. Column (3) is column (2) multiplied by the ratio of the January 1932 system peaking capability to the average system peaking capability during the critical period. The adjusted capability, column (3), was used as the capacity to be credited to each proposed project.

15. The assigned power benefits that result from using the Srbitrary methods outlined do not represent actual power benefits. The additional energy benefits resulting from storage releases obtained by the pro- cedures used are assigned to the storage projects without any credit to the downstream run-of-river plants which helped produce them. Capacity benefits, on the other hand, are assigned solely on the basis of peaking capability. This gives the storage projects no credit for the increased downstream prime power, which reduces steam plant requirement and produces capacity benefit. Run-of-river projects are assigned capacity benefits which the storage projects actually helred to produce. The arbitrary method used in this report would seem to be adequate for the purpose of giving an indication of the benefits accruing to each project over an assumed 50-year economic life, thus serving as a basis upon which comparisons can be made.

16. The capacity and energy distributions in Tables 6, 7, 8 and 9 have been evaluated in dollars, are shown in Tables 10, 11, 12 and 13, and are summarized in Table 14. These values are based upon estimates by the United States Federal Power Commission of the cost of alternative steam-electric power financed at 3 percent interest, without taxes, using July 1957 price levels. A weighted average of costs for seven representa- tive areas in the United States portion of the Pacific Northwest has been used. They are $14.45 per kilowatt of peaking capability and 3.30 mills per kilowatt-hour of energy at 115,000 volts within 30 miles of the load center. The corresponding values at the power sites follow:

Capacity. - The thermal rate was reduced 4.5 percent for transmission losses, resulting in a hydro-electric power value of $13.80 per kilowatt.

1 Energy. -The thermal rate was reduced 3.35 percent fortrans-

mission losses, resulting in a net value of 3.19 mills per kilowatt-hour (or $27.94 per kilowatt-year) to apply to hydro-electric energy.

A cost of $3.48 per kilowatt of peaking capability (overload rating) was deducted from these capacity and energy values to cover the cost of transmission.

17. The transmission cost figures used in evaluatingthepower outputs were prepared by Bonneville Power Administration for the Pacific Northwest area, exclusive of Canada, by making studies of the transmission network that would be capable of moving the power from points of generation to the '

load centers as efficiently and as economically as possible for hydro- electric systems of 10,000,000 kilowatts, .17,500,000' kilowatts, and 25,000,000 kilowatts. The average annual costs for the three studies based on interest at 2.5 percent, useful life averaging about 35 years, and operation and maintenance costs comparable to that of the existing network are $3.21, $3.84 and $3.39 per kilowatt of overload capacity, respectively. The average of these amounts, $3.48, was used in this report as the transmission cost from the high-voltage bus at the generating plants through the high-voltage grid system and major grid substations to the 115-kilovolt busat the major loadcenters. The distribution costs beyond the major substation would be the same whether hydro- or thermal-electrical power is used to serve the loads, and therefore cancel out in any hydro- value determination based on alternate thermal costs.

18. With the useofan integrated transmission grid system, the exist- ence of a number of circuits supplying power to an area provides a valuable

amount of reserve transmission caracity and lessens the dependence placed on each circuit. This inherent reliability of an integrated grid makes it possible to eliminate many lines otherwise required for reliability and to use less expensive construction for new individual lines. As the principal load centers are inthe coastal area and the power sites are in the Columbia River basin on the eastern side of the Coast and the Cascade Ranges, long transmission lines are required. Since the number of circuits is limited by the narrow passes through the mountains, it has been necessary to develop high-voltage transmission to reduce the number of transmission lines. In the Canadian part of the basin the projects are located at greater distances from the probable load centers than are projects in the United States.

19. Flood Control. - Flood-control benefits are primarily derived from crevention of flood damage to the Columbia River area below Bonne- ville- dam. Significant locai flood-control benefits, such as for the Kootenay Flats area in Idaho and British Columbia, have been evaluated also. Detailed flood-routing studies for several typical floods, including the 1894 flood,.have been made by the North Pacific Division office of the Corps of Engineers. These routings have been made for a system of reservoirs that closely approximates the storage provided by the selected rlans of development. They show that any of the plans could be o~erated to give comrlete protection in combination with the existing Columbia levee system from all floods of record. The following tabulation summarizes the distribution of preventable damages by levees and reservoir storage, based on July 1957 prices and predictedcultural development+ in the flood plain by 1985 :

Total average annual damage ..................................................... $38,300,000 Reduction credited to:

a. Existing levees and levee improvement .............. $'14,300,000 b. Reservoir storage for basic flood-control

objective J/ ................................................................. $22, 100,000 c. Reservoir storage for augmenting the basic

flood-control plan 2/ .............................................. $ 1 , 500, 000 Remaining damages w.. ................................................................ $ 400,000

lJ Existing storage plus that required to control the 1894 flood to 800,000 cubic feet per second at The Dalles, Oregon.

2/ Storage requiredto provide additional flood control, in the increment - between600,OOO and 800,000 cubic feet per second for the 1894 flood. Residual damages occurring from control below 600,000 cubic feet per second for the 1894 flood.

20. In gddition to direct benefits resulting from flood damage pre- vention, there are benefits creditable to reservoir storage for land enhancement and reduction in cost of operation and maintenance of levees. The amounts of these benefits are as follows:

Degree of Reservoir Control, 1894 Flood

Land enhancement.. ...................................... $1 ,200, 000 $100,000

Reduction in cost of operation and maintenance of levees .............................. 450,000 50,000

Total .................................................... $1,650,000 $150,000

The total benefit creditable to upstream reservoirs for the amount of storage that will control the 1894 flood to 800,000 cubic feet rer second is $23,750,000. This benefit is available for distribution to the storage projects that will fulfill the basic flood-control objective. Storage reservoirs added after the basic flood-control objective has been met would augment the flood-control plan for protection of the lower river. The benefit from such storage is considerably less than for storage in the

basic plan, and it is comy~uted for the increment of control between 600,000 and 800,000 cubic feet per second for the 1894 flood. The total benefit for control in this range is $1,650,000. This amount may be ~rorated to that volume of upstream storage which provides control of the 1894 flood below 800,000 cubic feet per second.

21. The total flood-control benefit for the lower Columbia River area could be distributed to storage reservoirs by at least three different methods :

a. Incremental method, in which each storage is credited for the flood-control benefit it provides at the time the storage is made available. This method would apportion most of the benefits to the first storage projects constructed. An equal volume of storage added at a later time would receive a much smaller proportion of flood-control benefit. The greatest disadvantage of this method for use in this report is that an order of develo~ment would have to be assumed.

b. Equal-share method, in which the total flood-control benefit at any stage of development is distributed equally to each acre-foot of effective flood-control storage that is provided. Thus, as a new storage project is added to the system the benefit to existing storage developments would be reduced.

c. System-benefit-distribution method in which the total benefits from achieving a basic flood-control objective are prorated equally to each acre-foot of effective storage needed to reach that objective. Projects added after this degree of control has been achieved would only be credited' with minor benefits as a result of augmenting the basic control requirements. This method was devised by the Corps of Engineers and has been used in this report.

22. Fundamental to the apportionment of benefits is the concept of system flood-control oreration, whereby all projects share the benefits in proportion to their flood-reducing capability., This is true up to the point where storage development is sufficient to meet the basic flood- control objective, which is a definite goal to provide a truly effective flood-control plan. Development less than that for the basic flood-control objective cannot be relied upon to assure effective control; therefore, each segment of storage is considered to be equally.important in meeting the stated goal, regardless of the time of its construction. For this reason, benefits are apportionedona system basis until the basic objective has been met.

23. Beyond this immediate goal, the effect of additional storage is considered on an incremental basis. The increment of added reservoir storage that will control the 1894 flood between 800,000 and 600,000 cubic feet per second at The Dalles is used as the basis of benefit evaluation for augmented flood-control storage.

24. In considering the relative merits of storage for projects operated for system flood-control benefit, the volume of water withheld for effective control at The Dalles provides the most equitable basis for allotting flood-control benefits 'to individual projects. At some projects, particularly at 'headwater control' reservoirs above the major lakes, the water stored provides some reduction of flows at The Dalles outside of the control period. Such storage is ineffective because it does not reduce flows during the period of regulation. The amount of ineffective storage ranges from 5 to 45 percent of the total water stored for headwater reservoirs. The effective storage for each project was determined from flood-routing studies for control of the 1894 flood. Studies of other major floods in the Columbia Basin show fairly even distribution of flood runoff over the basin after corrections have been made for known depletions and storage. Unlike rain-flood areas, where the variability of rainfall causes irregular distribution of flood runoff from major storms, the uniform distribution of flood flows in the Columbia Basin rermits the use of the maximum flood in apportioning storage benefits. Irrigation depletions, 'factor of safety' storage, and all storage developments existing or under

construction were considered.to provide their proportionate share of the flood-control benefit. I

25. Local flood-control benefits have been determined for some of the projects. These are flood-control benefits that would be realized on the tributaries or on the main stem upstream from The Dalles.

26. Local and downstream flood-control benefits for the storage projects includedinthe preliminary plans of development are given in Table 15. Two values are shown for downstream benefits for each project: One is computed on the basis of the project being part of a plan to meet the basic flood-control objective; and the other is computed on the basis of the project augmenting the basic flood-control plan for the increment of control between 600,000 and 800,000 cubic feet per second.

27. Irrigation. - Irrigation benefits have not been evaluated as they were not a factor in establishing economic justification for the elements of the selected plans. All water estimated to be consumed by assumed 1985 irrigation develo~ments was subtracted from the basic flows before power outputs were computed.

28. Navigation. - The plans of develo~mentwould provide slackwater navigation for barge traffic from Bonneville dam to the head of McNary reservoir on the main stem, and to.Lewiston, Idaho, on the Snake River. Benefits from navigation on the Columbia River in the United States are large. Except for the incidental benefits from leveling out maximum and minimum flows by operation of the storage reservoirs, all navigation benefits result from existing developments or from projects authorized .for construction. Consequently, proposed elements in the plans of development have not been assigned any navigation benefits.

29. Other Benefits.. - No monetary determination of other benefits of the.proposed projects has been made for this report. Most of these benefits are intangible; determination of remaining tangible benefits was considered beyond the scope of this report.

JUSTIFICATION

30. As previously stated, justification studies for this report were limited to indicating that the proposed projects included in the plans of development were potentially justified. For this purpose, justification of a project was considered to be indicated if the assigned annual power benefit as derived previously was greater than the total annual cost. When justification was not indicated on this basis, consideration was given to the annual flood-control benefits creditable to the project.

31. Table 16 shows the assigned annual power value, assigned annual flood-control benefit, andannual cost of projects considered for the plans of development. Inspection of this table shows that justification is indicated for all projects except:

Kootenai Falls in Sequence VIII

Katka .................... in Sequences VII and VIII

Quirin .................... in all Sequences

.............. Enaville in all Sequences I \

Clarkston ............ in all Sequences

32. Although justification was not indicated for the Kootenai Falls project in Sequence VIII, the small difference between the annual cost and

the assigned annual benefit, as compared with the degree of refinement of these estimates, does not warrant its elimination. Therefore this project was retained in the Copper Creek Diversion plan.

33. Justification was not indicated for Katka, Quinn and Clarkston projects by the method of analysis followed in this report; hence these projects were not included in the international plans.

34. The remaining project listed in paragraph 31, Enaville, has been found justifiedbythe Corps of Engineers when included as part of a smaller s,ystem which has no added Canadian storage projects. Justification by the Corps of Engineers recognizes the effect of prime power on reducing thermal capacity requirements, andassumes expansions of installations at the Spokane River plants. Because this project has been included in the recommended plans of water resource development by this agency, it has been included in the international plans.

35. The economic studies used in this report do not definitely estab- lish the justification of all elements includedinthe plans of development, but they do indicate that the ones included should be considered in an ultimate plan of development.

TABLE 1

Preliminary Plans of Development - Cost Data

P R O J E C T

OR

D E V E L O P M E N T

BULL IZIVEd VII DOP\R (PUhfZYIIVG) IX lk IXa DORR (POWER) PX & LXa LIZDY VIl 3 .' 6 q 0 LIk3BY VIII KOOTENAI FALLS VII 3 j o s . 4

KOOTENAI FAALIAS VI I I / 1 7 "

LONG iiEKlOWS 7. 5 3

KATKA V I I KATKA VIII i)UI\;CAN LAKE IX & IXa Kootenay River Plants VII & V I I I ~ Kootenay River Plants IX & 1 ~ a 9 BULL RIVER-LUXOX IX & IXa COPPER CREEK - LUXOIZ V I I I CALAMITY CURVE VIII CALAYITY CURVE JX 8r IXa h4ICA VII MICA VIII MICA IX & IXa DOWNIE CREEK VII DOWNIE CREEK VIII DOWNIE C,REEK IX & IXa REVELSTOKE CANYOK VII REVELSTOKE CARYON VIII REVELSTOKE CANYON IX & IXa ARROW LAJSES VII, VIII & IX MURPHY CREEK VII, VIII & IX MURPHY CREEK IXa SPIZUCE PARK ShIOKY RANGE BUFFALO RAPIDS # 4 NINEFAILE PRAIRIE QUARTZ CREEK QUIhW BOrn?)ARY SEVEN M LE Waneta f / ENAVILLE Grand Coulee 2 Chief Joseph 1/ WELLS WANAPUM HELLS CANYOK PLEASAKT VALLEY MOUNTAIN SHEEP CHINA GARDENS WEN AHA ASOTIN CLARKSTON PENNY CLIFFS BRUCES EDDY LOWER GRANITE LITTLE GOOSE LOWER MONUMENTAL Bonneville

l N V E S T M E N T

C O S T

$1,000

83,632 34,053

A N N U A L C O S T S I N $ 1 . 0 0 0

, I N T E R E S T & I N T E R I M O P E R A T I O N &

A M O R T I Z A T I O N

3,251 1,324

6 9 12,502 12,137 3,802 3,589 1,045 3,783 3,518 964

1,585 93

4,277 2,114 1,281 1,486 11,756 12,236 12,717 4,799 5,399 5,700 4,057 4,544 4,788 2,581 3,688 4,023 2,449 4,027 4,492 2,282 1,127 2,143 5,676 -

R E P L A C E M E N T

87 .3 9

9 2 513 250 147 139 40 146 136 28 61 4 92 4 6 3 7 45 358 376 395 178 201 2 12 149 168 178 5 2 130 143 95 156 174 88 43 83 219

-

T O T A L

3,743 I , 856 170

13,739 13,172 4,451 4,145 1,345 4,430 4,067 1,103 2,136 182

4,831 2,494 1,654 1,957 13,396 14,067 14,739 6,071 6,865 7,262 5,279 5,955 6,299 3,010 4,989 5,347 2,861 4,635 5,227 2,765 1,433 2,586 6,691 2,700 62 1

3,657 5,520 1,184 6,494 8,870 2,832 5,663 3,691 3,464 4,831 6,003 3,251 9,755 6,093 6,806 7,291 6,835 1.525

-1/ Additional ins tallation only. Notes: Existing developments in lower case and potential projects in capitals.

Project or development in all sequences unless noted differently. -9-

TABLE 2

Sequence VII - Summary of Results --

PROJECT

OR

DEVELOPMENT

BULL RIVER LIBEY KOOTEP4AI FALLS LONG b!EADO\VS KATKA DUNCAN LAKE Kootenay Lake

1

Kootenay River Plants )

MICA DOWNIE CREEK REVELSTOKE CzWYON ARRO1tV LAKES ?YIC'XI'HY CREEK SPRUCE PARK Hungry Horse SMOKY RANGE &err BUFFALO RAPIDS #4 NINEhlILE PRAIRIE QUARTZ CREEK QUINN Thompson Falls Noxon Rapids Cabinet Gorge Albeni Falls Sox Canyon BOUNDARY

)

SEVEN MILE )

Waneta )

ENAVILLE )

Coeur d'Alene Lake Grand Coulee Chief Joseph WELLS Che 1 an Rocky Reach Rock Island WANAPUhl Priest Rapids Brownlee Oxbow HELLS CANYON

)

PLEASANT VALLEY )

MOUNTAIN SEEP CHINA GARDENS W E N M ASOTIN CLARKSTON PENhY CLIFFS BRUCES EDDY LOCII'ER GRANITE LITTLE GOOSE LOIYER MOWJIENTAL Ice Harbor McNa r y John Day The Dalles Bonnevil le

44-MONTH C R I T I C A L PERIOD 239-MONTH PER l OD

AVE.OUTPUT AVE.SPI L L P F AVE. OUTPUT AVE.SPILL

(MW) (MW) % 9 (MW) (MW)

63.1 0 47.1 67.0 0.2 233.8 0 68.0 229.9 14.5 121.2 0 50.5 121.8 4.2 5.4 0 32.3 6.3 .3 82.0 0 54.7 83.5 4.4

TOTALS 15,887.5 168.0 16,808.1 1,586.7

Plant factor based on nameplate ratings. Note: Existing developments in lower case and potential projects in

capitals.

TABLE 3

Sequence VIII - Summary of Results PROJECT 44-MONTH C R I T I C A L PERIOD 239-MONTH PER l OD

OR 4VE. OUTPUT AVE. SPILL PF AVE.OUTPUT AVE. S P I LL

DEVELOPMENT (MW) (MW) % 9 (MW) (MW)

LIBBY 146.6 KOOTENAI FALLS 82.2 LONG MEADOWS 5.2 K ATKA 57.9 DUNCAN LAKE 1

) Kootenay Lake - Kootenay River Plants 440.3 COPPER CREEK - LUXOR 19.8 CALAMITY CURVE 69.6 MICA 876.6 DO'AWIE CREEK 541.0 REVELSTOKE CANYON 377.5 AP\ROIV LAKES - MURPHY CREEK 227.4 SPRUCE PARK 33.2 Hungry Horse 111.5 SMOKY RANGE 52.0 Ker r 129.4 BUFFALO RAPIDS #4 114.2 NINEMILE PRAIRIE 18.9 QUARTZ CREEK 34.1 QUINN 40.2 Thompson Falls 39.7 Noxon Rapids 179.1 Cabinet Gorge 129.7 Albeni Falls 32.1 Box Canyon BOUNDARY

) ) 403.3

SEVEN MILE Wane ta

) ) 565.6

ENAV ILLE 20.3 Coeur d'Alene Lake - Grand Coulee 2,140.9 Chief Joseph 1,118.4 YELLS 404.0 Chelan 39.7 Rocky Reach 615.6 Rock Island 231.4 WANAF'UM 508.6 Priest Rapids 535.0 Brownlee 197.2 Oxbow HELLS CANYON

) 1 279.8

PLEASANT VALLEY 332.7 MOUNTAIN SHEEP CHINA GARDENS WENAHA ASOTIN CLARKSTON PENNY CLIFFS BRUCES EDDY LOWER GRANITE LITTLE GOOSE LOWER MONUMENTAL Ice Harbor McNa r y John Day The Dalles Bonneville

TOTALS 16,005.3 73.3 16.926.5 1.509.7

9 Plant factor based on nameplate ratings. Note: Existing developments in lower case and potential projects in

capitals.

TABLE 4

Sequence IX - Summary of Results PROJECT

OR

DEVELOPMENT

DORR ( PWVIPING) DO= (POWER) LONG MEADOWS DUNCAN LAKE Kootenay Lake Kootenay River Plan BULL RIVEX-LUXOR CALAMITY CURVE MICA DOWNIE CREEK REVELSTOKE CANYON myow LAKES W H Y CREEK SPRUCE PARK Hungry Horse SMOKY RANGE Kerr BUFFALO RAPIDS 3v4 NINEMILE PRAIRIE QUARTZ CREEK QUINN Thompson Falls Noxon Rapids Cabinet Corge Albeni Falls Box Canyon BOUNDARY SEVEN MILE Wane ta ENAVILLE Coeur d'Alene Lake Grand Coulee Chief Joseph WELLS Chelan Rocky Reach Rock Island WANAPUM - Priest Rapids Brownlee Oxbow HELLS CANYON

)

PLEASANT VALLEY )

MOUNTAIN SHEEP CHINA GARDENS WENAHA ASOT IN CLARKSTON PENNY CLIFFS BRUCES EDDY LOWER GRANITE LITTLE COOSE LOWER MONUMENTAL Ice Harbor McNa r y John Day The Dalles Bonneville

44-MONTH C R I T I C A L P E R I O D

AVE.OUTPUT AVE. S P I L L P F

(MW) (MW) % 9 ( -38.5) 0 69.0

8.0 0.4 66.9 5.2 0 30.6 - - -

265.5 44.1 91.5 30.0 4.5 42.9 107.1 .2 66.9

1,092.9 0 67.3 630.8 0 57.8 434.7 0 57.7 - - - 223.3 11.6 66.5 33.2 .7 75.5 111.5 0 39.1 52.0 0 47.3 129.5 0 . 71.9 114.2 0 51.0 18.9 0 33.2 34.1 1.7 42.6 40.2 3.5 45.7 39.7 28.2 99.3 179.4 .3 72.9 129.7 0 54.0 32.4 .1 75.3 57.0 .4 82.6 352.1 0 58.7

581.8 .3 81.0 20.3 .3 40.6 - - -

2,131.4 0 74.0 1,113.1 .4 87.0 402.4 0 82.1 39.7 .1 74.9 613.0 .1 87.6 231.5 11.6 98.1 506.3 1.2 88.8 532.6 .7 88.8 199.2 .6 55.3

279.8 0 59.5 332.7 0 57.8 148.3 0 52.6 128.5 .1 53.5 77.5 .6 34.9 158.8 .3 58.8 62.4 .9 69.3 172.9 0 59.2 129.7 0 54.0 187.5 .6 62.5 235.6 1.7 65.4 216.5 .8 60.1

. 223.4 1.2 62.1 707.5 0 72.2 977.1 2.9 81.4 842.0 1.3 77.1 575.7 2.4 83.0

239-MONTH P E R I O D

AVE. OUTPUT AVE. S P I L L

(MW) ( MW)

(-43.1) 0 8.1 4.9 6.3 .2 - -

273.3 153.6 31.4 6.6 111.7 .3

1,049.3 30.3 602.0 6.5 418.9 .5.0 - - 247.0 22.6 33.5 .8 116.2 1.7 54.8 1.1 127.1 10.9 116.6 3.0 19.2 1.0 38.7 9.8 46.0 14.5 39.2 39.7 181.5 29.9 139.6 11.1 31.3 9.2 56.2 14.1 395.5 44.5

590.4 147.8 25.0 4.4 - -

2,276.3 131.1 1,140.6 97.8 418.3 25.4 42.2 5.8 627.1 57.1 225.5 33.4 516.1 51.4 544.3 52.6 240.7 12.0.

314.7 14.7 376.7 18.0 168.3 5.2 149.0 16.1 90.6 2.1 181.2 20.6 68.7 10.3 191.1 19.5 153.1 18.1 214.9 25.0 268.0 35.2 255.1 26.4 261.7 30.0 782.6 56.9

1,060.5 109.1 926.6 76.9 621.9. 60.8

TOTALS 15,910.1 123.8 16,831.5 1,585.0

r/ Plant factor based on nameplate ratings. Note: Existing developments in lower case and potential projects in

capitals.

TABLE 5

Sequence IXa - Summary of Results P R O J E C T 44-MONTH C R I T I C A L P E R I O D 2 3 9 - M O N T H P E R l OD

0 R AVE. O U T P U T AVE. S P I LL PF AVE. O U T P U T AVE. S P I LL

D E V E L O P M E N T (MW) (MW) % 9 (MW) ( MW)

DORR (PUMPING) DORR (POWER) LONG MEADOWS DUNCAN LAKE Koo t enay Lake ) Kootenay River Plants) BULL RIVER-LUXOR CALAMITY W V E MICA DOWNIE CREEK REVELSTOKE CANYON ARROW LAKES hWRP1N CREEK SPRUCE PARK Hungry Horse SMOKY RANGE Kerr BUFFALO RAPIDS #4 NINEMILE PRAIRIE QUARTZ CREEK OUINN Thompson Falls Noxon Rapids Cabinet Gorge Albeni Falls Box Canyon BOUNDARY SEVEN MILE Wane ta ENAVI LLE Coeur d'Alene Grand Coulee Chief Joseph WELLS Che 1 an Rocky Reach Rock Island WANAPUM Priest Rapids Brownlee

) ) 582.2

20.3 Lake -

2,085.4 1,091.0 395.8 39.8 601.6 230.2

Oxbow HELLS CANYON PLEASANT VALLEY MOUNTAIN SHEEP CI-IINA GARDENS WENAHA ASOTIN CLARKSTON PENNY CLIFFS BRUCES EDDY LOWER GRANITE LITTLE GOOSE LOWEX MONUMENTAL Ice Harbor McNa r y John Day The Dalles Bonneville

TOTALS 15,719'. 5 119.2 16,635.2 1,752.9

L/ Plant factor based on nameplate ratings. Note: Existing developments in lower case and potential projects in

capitals.

TABLE 6

D i s t r i b u t i o n o f Power Output - Sequence VII

(1) PROJECT

0 R

AVERAGE' C ' R I T I C A L PER l OD PEAK l NG

CAPABILITY DEVELOPMENT

BULL RIVER L I BBY KOOTENAI FALLS LONG MEADOWS KATKA DUNCAN LAKE Koo t enay Lake

)

Kootenay Xiver P l a n t s )

MICA DOWNIE CREEK REVELSTOKE CANYON

I

? ARROW LAKES MURPHY CREEK SPRUCE PARK Hungry Horse SMOKY RANGE Kerr BUFFALO RAPIDS 7%4 NINEMILE PRAIRIE QUARTZ CREEK QUINN Thompson F a l l s Noxon Rapids C a b i n e t Gorge A l b e n i F a l l s Box Canyon BOUNDARY SEVEN MILE Wane ta ENAVILLE Coeur d 'Alene Lake

ADJUSTED 'PEAKI NG OUTPUT' W / N O CAPABILITY STORAGE (CAPACITY) RELEASE

RELEASE ' K " RELEASE (1000 A. F. ) (MW - MO. ) X "Kn

/MO. (1000 A. F. ) (MW)

PRORATED STORAGE EFFECT

( 7 ) ~ 0 . 7 4 9 9 3

(9) TOTAL

ASS l GNED ENERGY OUTPUT

( 4 ) t ( 8 ) (MW)

TABLE 6

Distribution of Power Output - Sequence VII (Continued)

Grand Coulee Chief Joseph WELLS Che lan Rocky Reach Rock Island WANAPUM Priest Rapids Brownlee Oxbow HELLS CANYON PLEASANT VALLEY MOUNTAIN SHEEP

I CHINA GARDENS CL m WENAHA I ASOTIN

CLARKSTON . PENNY CLIFFS BRUCES EDDY LOWER GRANITE LITTLE GOOSE LOWER MONUMENTAL Ice Harbor McNa r y John Day The Dalles Bonneville

TOTALS 24,329.4 22,951.0 13,373.6 4,580.0 3,434.5 16,808.1

!./ The difference be,tween the average system output without any storage release and the average output of the regulated power study is assumed to be the effect of storage. The sum of the products of average annual storage release and respective 'K's' is the theoretical effect of storage. The ratio of the assumed effect of storage and the theoretical effect may be called the 'utilization factor' which in Sequence VII is (16,808 - 13,374)/4,580 = 3,434/4,580 = 0.7499.

Note: Existing developments shorn in lower case letters and potential projects in capital letters.

TABLE 7

Distribution of Power Output - Sequence VIII (1)

P R O J E C T ( 2 )

A V E R 4 G E C R I T I C A L ( 3 )

A D J U S T E D P E A K I N G (4 )

O U T P U T W / N O ( 5 )

S T O R A G E (61 " K

( 7 ) STORAGE

(8) P R O R A T E D

( 9 ) T O T 4 L

OR P E R I O D P E A K I N G C A P A B I L I T Y STORAGE R E L E A S E (MW-MO . ) R E L E A S E STORAGE A S S I G N E D DEVELOPMENT C A P A B I L I T Y ( C A P A C I T Y ) ( 1 0 0 0 A. F.) ( 1 0 0 0 A.F. ) x " K " E F F E C T . ,, R E L E A S E ENERGY OUTPUT

(MW) (MW) ( M W ) / MO. (MW) (7)~0.7530)- (4 )+(8) (MW)

LIBBY KOOTENAI FALLS LONG MEADOWS KATKA DUNCAN LAKE Kootenay Lake

)


COPPER CREEK-LUXOR CALAMITY CURVE MICA

I C-r

DOWNIE CREEK

? REVELSTOKE CANYON ARROW LAKES MURPHY CREEK SPRUCE PARK Eungry Horse! SIIOXY RANGE f<e r r BUFFALO RAPIDS g4 NINEMILE PRAIRIE QUARTZ CREEK QUINN Thompson Falls Noxon Rapids Cabinet Gorge Albeni Falls Box Canyon BOUNDARY

)

SEVEN MILE )

Wane ta ENAVILLE Coeur d'Alene Lake

TABLE 7

Distribution of Power Output - Sequence VIII (Continued)

Grand Coulee 2,813.2 2,648.3 1,706.3 32.48 1.38 44.8 33.7 1,740.0 Chief Joseph 1,472.0 1,385.7 837.0 837.0 WELLS 564.0 530.9 328.2 328.2 Chelan 51.7 48.7 30.2 43.32 1.19 51.6 38.8 69.0 Rocky Reach 805.0 757.8 461.8 461.8 Rock Island 237.2 223.3 182.2 182.2 WANAPUM 620.0 583.7 382.1 382.1 Priest Rapids 641.0 603.4 406.3 406.3 Brownlee 345.4 325.2 255.2 58.27 2.42 141.0 106.2 361.4 oxbow HELLS CANYON

) ) 553.0 520.6 310.0 310.0

PLEASANT VALLEY 667.9 628.8 374.7 3.05 1.76 5.4 4 . 1 378.8 MOUNTAIN SHEEP 333.0 313.5 166.3 166.3

I c.

CHINA GARDENS 276.0 259.8 144.2 144.2 q NENAHA 243.8 229.5 91.4 50.38 1.49 75.1 56.6 148.0 I ASOTIN 310.0 291.8 170.3 170.3

CLARKSTON 104.0 97.9 64.1 64.1 PENNY CLIFFS 330.0 310.7 138.2 156.25 1.41 220.3 165.8 304.0 BRUCES EDDY 265.1 249.6 123.0 95.67 1.41 134.9 101.6 224.6 LOWER GRANITE 345.0 324.8 184.2 184.2 LITTLE GOOSE 414.0 389.7 228.6 228.6 LOWER MONUMENTAL 414.0 389.7 221.6 221.6 Ice Harbor 414.0 389.7 226.0 226.0 McNa r y 1,127.0 1,061.0 623.2 623.2 John Day 1,380.0 1,299.1 831.2 831.2 The Dalles 1,256.0 1,182.4 740.2 740.2 Bonneville 694.0 653.3 506.3 506.3

TOTALS 24,767.9 23,316.4 13,480.6 4,576.4 3 ,445,9 16,926.5

1 The difference between the average system output without any storage release and the average output of the regulated power study is assumed to be the effect of storage. The sum of the products of average annual storage release and respective 'K's' is the theoretical effect of storage. The ratio of the assumed effect of storage and the theoretical effect may be called the 'utilization factor' which in Sequence VIII is (16,927 - 13,481)/4,576 = 0.7530.

Note': Existing developments shown in lower case letters and potential projects in capital letters.

TABLE 8

Distribution of Power - Sequence IX (1) (2) (6) ( 7 )

AVERAGE C R I T I C A L (3

A D J U S T E D P E A K I N G (4)

O U T P U T W / N O (5 )

STORAGE STORAGE ( 8 )

PRORATED ( 9 )

T O T A L P R O J E C T P E R I O D P E A K 1 NG A P A B I L I TY S T O R A G E R E L E A S E " K " R E L E A S E S T O R A G E ASS1 GNED

0 R C A P A B I L I T Y R E L E A S E ( 1 0 0 0 A.F. ) (MW-MO. ) x " K n E F F E C T ENERGY OUTPUT D E V E L O P M E N T (MW) (MW) /MO. ( 1 0 0 0 A. F . ) (MW) ( 7 ) x o . 74819 ( 4 ) f ( 8 ) (MW)

DORR (PUMPING) DORR (POWER) LONG MEADOWS DUNCAN LAKE Kootenay Lake ) Kootenay River Plants ) BULL RIVER-LUXOR CALAMITY CURVE MICA

I DOWNIE CREEK F REVELSTOKE CANYON S* ARROW LAKES

MURPHY CREEK SPRUCE PARK Hungry Horse SMOKY RANGE Kerr BUFFALO RAPIDS #4 NINEMILE PRAIRIE QUARTZ CREEK QUINN Thompson Falls Noxon Rapids Cabinet Gorge Albeni Falls Box Canyon BOUNDARY SEVEN MILE Wane ta ENAVILLE Coeur dYAlene Lake

TABLE 8

Distribution of Power Output - Sequence IX (Continued)

(1) ( 2 ) (3 1 (4) ( 5 ) (6) (7 ) (8) ( 9 )

Grand Coulee 2,816.5 2,676.8 1,705.6 39.9 1.38 55.1 41.2 1,746.8 Chief Joseph 1,472.0 1,399.0 837.0 837.0 WELLS 564.0 536.0 328.2 328.2 Che lan 51.7 49.1 30.2 42.9 1.19 51.1 38.2 68.4 Rocky Reach 805.0 765.1 461.8 461.8 Rock Island 237.4 225.6 182.2 182.2 WAKAPUM 620.0 589.2 352.1 382.1 Priest Rapids 641.0 609.2 406.3 406.3 Brownlee 348.2 330.9 255.2 63.5 2.44 154.9 115.9 371.1 Oxbow HELLS CANYON

) ) 553.0 525.6 310.0 310.0

PLEASANT VALLEY 567.9 634.8 374.7 4 .3 1.76 7.6 5 .7 380.4 a MOUNTAIN SHEEP 333.0 316.5 166.3 166.3

8 CL

CIIINA GARDENS 276.0 262.3 144.2 144.2

'p WENAHA 242.4 230.4 91.4 53.2 1.49 79.3 59.3 150.7 ASOTIN 310.0 294.6 170.3 170.3 CLARKSTON 104.0 98.8 64.1 64.1 PENNY CLIFFS 329.9 313.5 138.2 157.9 1.41 222.6 166.5 304.7 BRUCE§ EDDY 264.7 251.6 122.7 97.6 1.41 137.6 102.9 225.6 LOVER CKAN ITE 345.0 327.9 184.2 184.2 LITTLE GOOSE 414.0 393.5 228.6 228.6 LOWER MONUMENTAL 414.0 393.5 221.6 221.6 Ice Har~or 414.0 393.5 226.0 226.0 hlcNa r y 1,127.0 1 ,071.1 633.2 633.2 John Day 1,380.0 1,311.6 831.2 831.2 The Dalles 1,256.0 1,193.7 740.2 740.2 Bonneville 694.0 659.6 506.3 506.3

TOTALS 24,456.8 23,244.0 13,399.3 4,587.9 3,432.2 16,831.5

9 The difference between the average system output without any storage release and the average output of the regulated power study is assumed to be the effect of storage. The sum of the products of average annual storage release and respective 'K's' is the theoretical effect of storage. The ratio of the..assumed effect of storage and the theoretical effect may be called the 'utilization factor' which in Sequence IX is (16,832 - 13,399)/4,588 = 3,432/4,588 = 0.7481.

Note: Existing developments shown in lower case letters and potential projects in capital letters.

TABLE 9

Distribution of Power Output - Sequence IXa - --

(1) (2) (6) ( 7 ) 4VERAGE C R I T I C A L

(3 ADJUSTED P E A K I N G

( 4 ) OUTPUT w/NO

( 5 ) STORAGE STORAGE

(8) PROR4TED

( 9 ) T O T A L

P R O J E C T P E R I O D P E A K I N G C A P A B I L I T Y STORAGE RELEASE " K " RELEA:E STORAGE ASS 1 GNED 0 R C 4 P A B I L I T Y ( C A P A C I T Y ) R E L E 4 S E ( 1 0 0 0 A. F. ) (MW-MO. ) X " K E F F E C T ENERGY OUTPUT

DEVELOPMENT (MW) (MW) (MW) /MO. ( 1 0 0 0 A. F. ) (MW) ( 7 ) XO. 7 3 0 7 9 ( 4 ) + ( 8 ) (MW)

DORR (PUMPING) DORR (POWER) LONG MEADOWS DUNCAN LAKE Kootenay Lake ) Kootenay River Plants ) BULL R I VER - LUXOR CALAMITY CURVE MICA DOWNIE CREEK REVELSTOKE CANYON MURPHY CREEK SPRUCE PARK Hungry Horse SMOKY RANGE Kerr BUFFALO RAPIDS #4 NINEMILE PRAIRIE QUARTZ CREEK QUINN Thompson Falls Noxon Rapids Cabinet Gorge Albeni Falls Box Canyon BOUNDARY SEVEN MILE Wane ta ENAVILLE Coeur d'Alene Lake

TABLE 9

Distribution of Power Output - Sequence IXa (Continued)

Grand Coulee 2,815.8 2,673.7 1,705.6 33.7 1.38 46.5 34.0 1,739.6 Chief Joseph 1,472.0 1,397.7 837.0 837.0 WELLS 564.0 535.5 328.2 328.2 Chelan 51.7 49.1 30.2 42.8 1.19 50.9 37.2 67.4 Rocky Reach 805.0 764.4 461.8 461.8 Rock Island 239.2 227.1 182.2 182.2 WANAPUM 620.0 588.7 382.1 382.1 Priest Rapids 641.0 608.6 406.3 406.3 Brownlee 337.9 320.9 255.2 70.8 2.44 172.8 126.3 381.5 Oxbow HELLS CANYON

) ) 553.0 525.1 310.0 310.0

PLEASANT VALLEY 667.9 634.2 374.7 4.9 1.76 8.6 6.3 381.0 MOUNTAIN SHEEP 333.0 316.2 166.3 166.3

I ta CHINA GARDENS 276.0 262.1 144.2 144.2 P I WENAHA 230.6 219.0 91.4 53.4 1.49 79.6 58.2 149.6

ASOTIN 310.0 294.4 170.3 170.3 CLARKSTON 104.0 98.8 64.1 64.1 PENNY CLIFFS 327.3 310.8 138.2 1.41 228.6 167.0 305.2 162.1 BRUCES EDDY 262.1 248.9 122.7 99.3 1.41 140.0 102.2 224.9 LOWER GRANITE 345.0 327.6 184.2 184.2 LITTLE GOOSE 414.0 393.1 228.6 228.6 LOWER MONUMENTAL 414.0 393.1 221.6 221.6 Ice Harbor 414.0 393.1 226.0 226.0 McNa r y 1,127.0 1,070.1 623.2 623.2 John Day 1,380.0 1,310.3 831.2 831.2 The Dalles 1,256.0 1,192.6. 740.2 740.2 Bomeville 694.0 659.0 506.3 506.3

TOTALS 24,408.9 23,177.0 13,390.9 4,440.0 3,244.3 16,635.2

The difference between the average system output without any storage release and the average output of the regulated power study is assumed to be the effect of storage. The sum of the products of average annual storage release and respective 'K's' is the theoretical effect of storage. The ratio of the assumed effect of storage and the theoretical effect may be called the 'utilization factor' which in Sequence IXa is (16,635-13,391)/4,440 = 3,244/4,440 = 0.7307.


TABLE 10

Evaluation of Power Output-s - Sequence VII ( 1 ) (2 (3 (4) (5 ) (6) ( 7 )

CAPACl TY ENERGY TRANSMISSION ( 8 )

NET ANNUAL PROJECT ADJUSTED BENEFIT ASS1 GNED BENEF l T OVERLOAD COST BENEFIT

0 R $1000 ENERGY $1000 RAT1 NG $1000 $1000 DEVELOPMENT (2)x$13.80 (MW-YEARS) ( 4 ) x $ 2 7 . 9 4 (MW) ( 6 ) ~ $ 3 . 4 8 (3)+ (5)-(7)

BULL RIVER LIBBY KOOTENAI FALLS LONG MEADOWS KATI<A DUNCAN LAKE Kootenay Lake

)


MICA DOWNIE CREEK

I h)

REVELSTOKE CANYON N AXROW LAKES I MURPHY CREEK

SPRUCE PARK Hungry Horse SMOKY RANGE Ker r BUFFALO RAPIDS #4 NIKEMILE PRAIRIE QUARTZ CREEK QUINN Thompson Falls Moxon Rapids Cabinet 'Gorge APbeni Falls Box Canyon BOUNDARY SEVEN MILE Wane ta ENAVILLE Coeur d'Alene Lake

TABLE 10

Evaluation of Power Outputs - Sequence VII (Continued)

Grand Coulee Chief Joseph WELLS Chelan Rocky Reach Rock Island WANAPUM Priest Rapids Brownlee Oxbow HELLS CANYON PLEASANT VALLEY

I t~ MOUNTAIN SHEEP t" CHINA GARDENS

WENAHA ASOTIN CLARKSTON PENNY CLIFFS BRUCES EDDY LOWER GRANITE LITTLE GOOSE LOWER MONUMENTAL Ice Harbor McNa r y John Day The Dalles Bonneville


TABLE 11

Evaluation of Power Outputs - Sequence VIII (1) (2) (3) (4 ) (5) (6 (7)

CAPACITY ENERGY TR4NSMISSION (8 )

NET ANNUAL PROJECT ADJUSTED BENEF l T ASS IGNED BENEFIT OVERL04D COST

f 1000 BENEF l T

OR C4PABI LITY ENERGY $1000 RAT1 NG $1000 f 1000 DEVELOPMENT (MW) (2)x$13.80 (MW-YEARS) (4) ~ $ 2 7.94 (MW) (6)x%3.48 (3)$(5)-(7)

LIBBY KOOTENAI FALLS LONG MEADOWS KATKA DUNCAN LAKE Kootenay Lake

1 Koot e m y Rive r Plants

)

COPPER CREEK-LUXOR CALAMITY CURVE MICA DOWNIE CREEK

I ta P

REVELSTOKE CANYON I ARROW LAKES

MURPHY CREEK SPRUCE PARK Hungry Horse SMOKY RANGE Kerr BUFFALO RAPIDS #4 NINEMILE PRAIRIE QUARTZ CREEK QUINN Thompson Falls Noxon Rapids Cabinet Gorge Albeni Falls Box Canyon BOUNDARY SEVEN MILE Wane t a ENAVILLE Coeur d'Alene Lake

TABLE 11

Evaluation of Power Outputs - Sequence VIII (Continued)

(1) (2 (3) (4 1 (5) (6) (7) (8)

Grand Coulee 2,648.3 $36,547 1,740.0 $48,616 2,880 $10,022 $75,141 Chief Joseph 1,385.7 19,123 837.0 23,386 1,472 5,123 37,386 WELLS 530.9 7,326 328.2 9,170 564 1,963 14,533 Chelan 48.7 672 69.0 1,928 54 188 2,412 Rocky Reach 757.8 10,458 461.8 12,903 805 2,801 20,560 Rock Island 223.3 3,082 182.2 5,091 249 867 7,306 WANAPUM 583.7 8,055 382.1 10,676 620 2,158 16,573 Priest Rapids 603.4 8,327 406.3 - 11,352 64 1 2,231 17,488 Brownlee 325.2 4,488 361.4 10,098 414 1,441 13,145 Oxbow HELLS CANYON PLEASANT VALLEY

I N MOUNTAIN SHEEP 'Jl I CHINA GARDENS



TABLE 12

Evaluation of Power Outputs - Sequence IX (1) ( 2 ) (3 ( 4 ) ( 5 ) (6) (7 )

CAPAC ITY ENERGY TRANSMI SS I ON ( 8 )

PROJECT NET 4NNUAL

ADJUSTED BENEFI T ASS IGNED BENEFIT OVERLOAD COST OR CAPABILITY $1000 ENERGY $1000 RAT1 NG $1000 $1000

BENEFIT

DEVELOPMENT (MW) (2 )x$ l3 .80 (MW-YEARS) (4)x$27.94 (MW) (6 ) ~ $ 3 . 4 8 (3)+(5)- (7)

DORR (PUMPING) DORR (POWER) LONG MEADOWS DUNCAN LAKE Kootenay Lake ~ootena; River Plants BULL .RIVER -LUXOR CALAMITY CURVE MICA DOWNIE CREEK REVELSTOKE CANYON ARROW LAKES MURPHY CREEK SPRUCE PARK Hungry Horse SMOKY RANGE Kerr BUFFALO. RAPIDS #4 NINEMILE PRAIRIE QUARTZ CREEK QUINN Thompson Falls Noxon Rapids Cabinet Gorge Albeni Falls Box Canyon BOUNDARY SEVEN MILE Wane t a ENAVILLE Coeur d' Alene Lake

TABLE 12

Evaluation of Power Outputs - Sequence IX (Continued)

Grand Coulee Chief Joseph WELLS Chelan Rocky Reach Rock Island WANAPUM Priest Rapids Brownlee Oxbow HELLS CANYON PLEASANT VALLEY

I N MOUNTAIN SHEEP 4J I CHINA GARDENS



TABLE 13

Evaluation of Power Outputs - Sequence IXa (1) (2) (3) (6) (7)

CAPAC ITY (4)

ASS I GNED (5)

ENERGY TRANSMISSION (8)

NET ANNUAL PROJECT ADJUSTED BENEFIT ENERGY BENEFIT OVERLOAD COST BENEFIT

o R CAPAB I LITY S ~ O O O (MW-Y EARS) $ l o 0 0 R A T I NG SIOOO $1000 DEVELOPMENT (MW) (2)x$13.80 (4)x$27.94 (MW) (6) ~ $ 3 . 4 8 (3)+(5)-(7)

DORR (PUMPING) DORR (POWER) LONG MEADOWS DUNCAN LAKE Kootenay Lake Koot ena y River Plants BULL RIVER-LUXOR CALAMITY CURVE MICA DOWNIE CREEK REVELSTOKE CANYON

I IQ MURPHY CREEK '? SPRUCE PARK

Hungry Horse SMOKY RANGE Kerr BUFFALO RAPIDS #4 NINEMILE PRAIRIE QUARTZ CREEK QUINN Thompson Falls Noxon Rapids Cabinet Gorge Albeni Falls Box Canyon BOUNDARY SEVEN MILE Wane t a ENAVILLE Coeur d'Alene Lake

TABLE 13

Zvaluation of Fower Outputs - Sequence IXa (Continued)

Grand Coulee Chief Joseph 'NELLS Chelan Xocky Reach Rock Island WANAPUM Priest Rapids Brownlee Oxbow IiELLS CANYOIV PLEASANT VALLEY

I

t4 MOUNTAIN SIIEEP ‘P CIIINA GARDERS

WENAHA ASOT IN CLARKSTON PENNY CLIFFS BRUCES EDDY LOWER GRANITE LITTLE GOOSE LOWER MONUMENTAL Ice Harbor McNa r y John Day The Dalles Bonneville

Kote: Existing developments shown in lower case letters and potential projects in capital letters.

TABLE 14

Summary I - Power' Benefit Distribution - .

PROJECT X N N U A L POWER V A L U E S SHOWN I N T A B L E S 10 , '11, 1 2 AND 13

0 R ( I N $ 1 , 0 0 0 )

DEVELOPMENT SEQUENCE V I I SEQUENCE V I I I SEQUENCE I X SEQUENCE I X ~

BIJLL RIVER DORR (PUMPING) DORR (POWER) LIBBY KOOTENAI FALLS LONG MEADOWS KATKA DUNCAPJ LAKE Kootenay Lake

)


BULL RIVER-LUXOR COPPER CREEK-LUXOR CALAMITY CURVE MICA DOWNIE CREEK REVELSTOKE CANYON ARROW LAKES MURPHY CREEK SPRUCE PARK Hungry Horse SMOI<Y RANGE Kerr BUFFALO RAPIDS # 4 NINEMILE PRAIRIE QITARTZ CREEK QUINN Thompson Falls Noxon Rapids Cabinet Gorge Albeni Falls Box Canyon BOUNDARY

)

SEVEN 'MILE )

Waneta 1

E NAV I LLE )

Coeur d'Alene Lake Grand Coulee Chief Joseph WELLS Chelan Rocky Reach Rock Island WANAPUM Priest Rapids Brownlee Oxbow WELLS CANYON

)

PLEASANT VALLEY )

MOUNTAIN SHEEP CHINA GARDENS WENAHA ASOTIN CLARKSTON PENNY CLIFFS BRUCES EDDY LOWER GRANITE LITTLE GOOSE LOWER MONUMENTAL Ice Harbor McNa ry John Day The Dalles Bonneville

Note: Existing developments shown in lower case letters and potential projects in capital letters.

-30 -

TABLE 15 Flood Control Benefits

PROJECT

BULL RIVER DORR ( W I N G ) LIBBY LONG MEADOWS DUNCAN LAKE COPPER CREEK-LUXOR BULL RIVER-LUXOR MICA ARROW LAKES (High Arrow) MURPHY CREEK (Low Arrow)

I (u

SPRUCE PARK P SI'LOI(Y RANGE

I

BUFFALO RAPIDS No. 4 NINEMILE PRAIRIE ENAVILLE PLEASANT VALLEY WENAHA FXMY CLIFFS BRUCES EDDY

Each project considered As part of system for providing the increment of control of the 1894 flood between 800,000 and 600,000 c.f.s., at The Dalles.

4/ Preliminary--subject to revision. With Mica controlling inflow, 1,166,000 acre-feet of natural lake storage would be made - usable and result in additional flood-control benefits.

5/ Includes additional 50,000 (80,000 in augmented plan) acre-feet of storage in Hungry Horse Reservoir made effective by tunnel. - Preliminary - - subject to revision.

2/ Preliminary - - subject to revision. With Mica controlling inflow, about 1,500,000 acre-feet of natural lake storage would be made usable and result in additional flood-control benefits.

Note: Projects constructed after the basic flood-control objective has been met will be entitled only to the sum of local benefits ---- and benefits under the augmented flood-control plan; projects constructed after both the basic and augmented flood-control objectives have been met will be entitled to local flood-control benefits only. Inclusion of two or more projects providing control of the same runoff would result in slightly different benefits.

STORAGE

1 ,000 AC.

FT.

2,794 881

4,045 40 0

1,400 2,275 4,032 11,685 7,999 3,100 30 o

1,510 668 885 700 530

1,500 2,300 1,433

individually;

LOCAL FLOOD

CONTROL

BENEFIT

$1000

2/ - 146 81 5 126 2 / - 2/

66g 2 / - 2/ 2( 24 7 1 32 7 8 35 0 0

649 397

figures

-- Data for Projects

not additive. 2/ Not determined.

Constructed as Part of;

l,J

LOWER

$ 1 ~ 0 ~

2,690 85 0

4,180 29 0

1,170 2,190 3,900 5;830 6,200u

0 340

1,459 646 570 600 730

1,390 3,015 1,880

Basic

TOTAL USABLE

STORAGE 1.000

Ac. F t .

2,794 881

4,045 37 0

1,300 2,275 4,032 7,068 4,900 &/ 0 350 5 ,

1,510 668 610 600 530

1,120 2,300 1,430

Augmented

TOTAL USABLE

STORAGE

1 .000 AC. FT.

2,794 881

4,045 400

1,400 2,275 4,032 10,996 6,0001/

o I / 380 5/

1,510 668 80 0 680 530

1,150 2,300 1,433

Flood Control

EFFECTIVE-

NESS

PERCENT

70 7 0 7 5 5 7 6 5 75 7 0 5 5 90 6/ 2/ -

rT, 70 70 6 7 72.5 100 90 95 95

Flood

EFFECTIVE- . NESS

PERCENT

90 9 0 90 90 80 90 90 80 2 / 9 9 0 90 90 90 90 100 95 100 100

Plan

EFFECT 1 VE

STORAGE

1 ,000 AC.FT.

1,954 61 7

3,034 211 845

1,706 2,822 4,217 4,410 5,

0 4_/ 245

1,057 46 7 409 435 530

1,008 2,185 1,358

Control Plan

EFFECTIVE

STORAGE

1 .000 AC.Ft.

2,510 790

3,630 360

1,100 - 2,056 3,630 8,800 - 2/ 2/

343 1,360 600 720 612 530

1,090 2,300 1,433

1, BENEFIT TO

LOWER COLUMBIA

21 $1000

2 90 90 41 9 4 1 120 23 0 500

1,000 680 6/ 03 3 9 155 6 9 82 7 1 5 7 120 262 155

TABLE 1 6

Summary o f P r o j e c t B e n e f i t s and C o s t s

L/ AVERAGE ASSIGNED ANNUAL - PROJECT

ANNUAL POWER FLOOD-CONTROL ANNUAL

BENEFIT BENEFIT COST

$1,000 $1,000 $1,000

BULL RIVER V I I 11,394 2,690 3,743 DORR (PUMPING) I X & IXa 2,193 996 1,856 DORR (POWER) I X & IXa 2 99 0 170 LIBBY V I I 11,629 4,995 13,739 LIBBY V I I I 14,736 4,995 13,172 KOOTENAI FALLS V I I 5,459 0 4,451 KOOTENAI FALLS V I I I 4,038 0 4,145 LONG MEADOWS 998 41 6 1,345 KATKA V I I 3,533 0 4,430 KATKA VIII 2,433 0 4,067 DUNCAN LAKE IX & IXa 4,163 1,170 1,103 BULL RIVER-LUXOR IX & IXa 15,405 4,569 4,831 COPPER CREEK-LUXOR V I I I 9,391 2,190 2,494 CALAMITY CURVE V I I I 2,825 0 1,654 CALAMITY CURVE I X & IXa 3,773 0 1,957 MICA V I I 49,269 5,830 13,396 !MICA V I I I 50,384 5,830 14,067 MICA I X 54,308 5,830 14,739 MICA IXa 58,500 5,830 14,739 DOWNIE CREEK V I I 19,943 0 6,071 DOWNIE CREEK V I I I 23,373 0 6,865 DOWNIE CREEK IX & IXa 25,914 0 7,262 REVELSTOKE CANYON V I I 13,842 0 5,279 REVELSTOKE CANYON V I I I 16,094 0 5,955 - REVELSTOKE CANYON I X & IXa 17,594 0 6,299 ARROW LAKES V I I , V I I I & I X 9,507 6,200 3,010 MURPHY CREEK V I I , V I I I & I X 11,826 0 4,989 MURPHY CREEK IXa 11,060 0 5,347 SPRUCE PARK 2,623 364 2,861 SMOKY RANGE 7,474 1,530 4,635 BUFFALO RAPIDS $44 5,033 678 5,227 NINEMILE PRAIRIE 2,528 648 2,765 QUARTZ CREEK 1,887 0 1,433 QUINN 2,169 0 2,586 BOUNDARY 14,311 0 6,691 SEVEN MILE 9,342 0 2,700 ENAVILLE 2,456 3/ 635 3,657 WELLS 14,571 0 6,494 WAMAPUM 16,614 0 8,870 HELLS CANYON 8,793 4/ 0 -2,832 PLEASANT VALLEY 16,993 730 5,663 MOUNTAIN SHEEP 7,835 0 3,691 CHINA GARDENS 6,673 0 3,464 WENAHA 6,301 1,390 4,831 ASOTIN 7,727 0 6; 003 CLARKSTON 2,787 0 3,251 PENNY CLIFFS 11,592 3,664 9,755 BRUCES EDDY 8,754 2,277 6,093 LOWER GRANITE 8,451 0 6,806 LITTLE GOOSE 10,352 0 7,291 LOWER MONUMENTAL 10,157 0 6,835

I n b a s i c f l o o d - c o n t r o l p l a n , i n c l u d i n g l o c a l b e n e f i t s . Assumed h a l f of (Seven Mile p l u s Waneta). I n c l u d e s $430,000 b e n e f i t from Spokane R i v e r p l a n t s .

4 / Assumed 63% of (Oxbow p l u s H e l l s Canyon). - Note: P r o j e c t i n a l l sequences u n l e s s n o t e d d i f f e r e n t l y .

-32 -

columbia river basin - international joint commission · 2013-05-10 · river basin economic...

Documents