The comparable composite values on Federal financing of a similar modern steamplant are $13.90 per kilowatt for capacity and 3 mills per kilowatt-hour for energy, based on the current Federal rate of 3 percent interest. B. NUCLEAR POWER The Atomic Energy Commission supplied cost estimates for nuclear powerplants which could provide power roughly equivalent to that which would be generated by the Passamaquoddy-Dickey project. The comparison recognized the fact that nuclear powerplants, as in the case of thermal powerplants using conventional fuels, are essentially baseload plants. Thus, when operating as a peaking powerplant such as is envisioned from the Passamaquoddy-upper St. John project, the full economic potential for nuclear energy generation is not realized. However, with this recognition, the capacity and energy costs were furnished by the Atomic Energy Commission for units of 625-, 430-, and 300-megawatt capacity using light water reactors. To these costs which are noted on the following table the costs of the step-up substation were added to provide costs at the high-voltage bus. Thus, the costs are comparable to the estimates by the Federal Power Commission for fossil fuel plants. Capacity and energy cost of nuclear power light water reactor The Passamaquoddy-Dickey project contemplates delivery of peaking power to meet a peak of 2 hours' duration in the Boston, Mass., area. Studies were made to determine the cost of providing peaking power in this area by construction of pumped storage plants and the necessary transmission facilities, under both private financing and Federal financing. The Federal Power Commission supplied information on several pumped storage sites. The Bureau of Reclamation prepared estimates of the cost of pumped storage developments at these sites. The results of the studies are shown on the attached table for the following possible plants: Rowe pumped storage powerplant (Maine) This powerplant site is located near Bingham, Maine. It would utilize the Rowe Pond for a forebay and the Kennebec River as an afterbay. The average static head is 775 feet. Installed capacities of 250 and 500 megawatts were considered. Based on 85-percent efficiency, it would be necessary to use 4,500 cubic feet per second with a 250-megawatt plant and 9,000 cubic feet per second for a 500-megawatt plant. To provide for 2 hours of peaking, 750 acre-feet of storage would be required for the 250-megawatt plant and 1,500 acre-feet for the 500-megawatt plant. The cost estimates include the cost of a forebay structure. Woodstock pumped storage powerplant (New Hampshire) This pumped storage powerplant would be located near Woodstock, N.H. The information submitted by the Federal Power Commission indicated that this plant would have a head of 960 feet and an installed capacity of 800 megawatts. Examination of the quadrangle sheet in the vicinity of Elbow Pond indicated that it would not be possible to develop enough storage to provide that head. Estimates were therefore made by proportionately reducing the installed capacity from 800 to 670 megawatts and the ratio of a head of 960 feet to a head of 800 feet. A flow of 11,600 cubic feet per second and storage capacity of approximately 2,000 acre-feet would be required to meet a 2-hour peak. The estimates include a dam on Elbow Pond and a dam on the Pemigewasset River for an afterbay structure. The estimates provide for relocations that would be required in the afterbay structure. Mountain Tom pumped storage powerplant (Massachusetts) This site is located on the Connecticut River near Holyoke, Mass. The head on this powerplant is estimated to be 490 feet for an installed capacity of 400 megawatts. The flow required would be 1,400 cubic feet per second and about 1,900 acre-feet of storage would be required to provide 2 hours of peaking. The cost estimates for this plant include an afterbay structure on the Connecticut River. Pumped storage operation It must be recognized that pumped storage is an energy-conversion device and not an energy-creating device. It acts much the same as a storage battery. Electric energy must be supplied for pumping water from a lower level to a higher level during periods of excess energy on the transmission system. In fact, it requires 3 kilowatt-hours of energy to produce 2 kilowatt-hours by pump storage. Thus, power is generated during peaking periods by releasing water through generators from the higher level to the lower level. The operation of pumped storage presupposes a source of low-cost dependable power or selfcontained energy for pumping during off-peak periods. In the case of alternative pumped storage projects in New England and in specific comparison to the Passamaquoddy-upper St. John project, the availability of other sources of low-cost off-peak power or self-contained power is a definite consideration. None of the three alternate pumped storage projects have the advantage of Passamaquoddy's self-contained source of off-peak, low-cost dependable power. Furthermore, pumping at this project will be necessary only for very short periods during any given month when minimum tides occur, rather than daily, thus requiring only nominal amounts of energy. Pumped storage: Selected sites in New England-Reconnaissance estimates NOTE.-2-hour daily peak, 5 days per week. Energy assumed to be available at 4 mills per kilowatt-hour. Analysis of alternatives Economic analysis alone precludes all privately financed fossil fuel, nuclear, or pumped storage projects as an alternative to the Passamaquoddy-upper St. John River project. In no instance of feasible alternatives can privately financed electric generation provide an equivalent amount of power at a lower cost. The economic alternatives are as follows: A. FEDERAL STEAMPLANTS The charges of $13.90 for capacity and 3 mills for energy are less than the equivalent cost for the Passamaquoddy-upper St. John River project. However, no legislative authority exists for the Corps of Engineers or the Department of the Interior to construct or operate conventional steamplants in the continental United States; nor has the Congress elected to adopt such a policy. In any event, this alternative offers no development of regional water resources as specified in Senate Document 97, 87th Congress; nor does it provide any significant area redevelopment or outdoor recreational benefits comparable to the Passamaquoddy-upper St. John River project. And, in the analysis, a Federal steamplant so operated would be inefficient in providing power such as that available from the Passamaquoddy-upper St. John project. B. FEDERAL NUCLEAR POWER A federally financed and operated nuclear powerplant could again under certain conditions supply power of the same magnitude at a lower cost. However, legislative history provides conclusively that the Congress does not envision wholly financed and wholly operated Federal nuclear plants. Furthermore, a Federal nuclear plant would not result in any water resource development, flood control, river regulation, area redevelopment, or outdoor recreational benefits. Again, as in the case of a Federal steamplant operating on fossil fuels, a federally owned and operated nuclear powerplant would have to be operated uneconomically to provide equivalent power. C. PUMPED STORAGE Federally constructed and operated pumped storage projects could produce equivalent peaking power at a lower cost than the Passamaquoddy-upper St. John River project. Furthermore, under the Flood Control Act of 1944, and under subsequent interpretation and practice, the Federal Government could conceivably construct such projects upon congressional authorization. This alternative suffers in that none of the three alternate pumped storage sites have a source of dependable low-cost power available from an independent entity nor do they have the capability of self-contained power for pumping. Also, a pumped storage project would need outside power daily while Passamaquoddy is dependent upon off-peak generation for pumping for only a few days each month. Nor does pumped storage offer equivalent benefits in water resource development, flood control, river regulation, area redevelopment, and outdoor recreation. Summary of alternatives None of the three economic alternatives-Federal steam, Federal nuclear, or Federal pumped storage-offers the equivalent in new employment and sustained economic opportunity. Also, intrinsic in the Passamaquoddy-upper St. John River project is the concept of an international intertie between the United States and Canada in the Northeast whereby the full economic potential of each nation could be fully realized to mutual maximum benefit. Ignoring the other inherent limitations of alternatives, the full development of water resources-a national goal-would be retarded through adoption of other economic alternatives. There is no alternative to Passamaquoddy to conserve the ever-wasting energy of the tides and putting it to beneficial use. In the ensuing years, the Department of the Interior is convinced that, in New England, the development of pumped storage, conventional hydroelectric power, modern steam generation, and nuclear plants-whether public or private— will be required. New capital investment by private industry in baseload plants will be absolutely essential. We are equally convinced that the Passamaquoddy-upper St. John River project is a first and necessary step toward vitally needed economic rejuvenation for people whose ancestors did so much to help frame our national heritage. |