HomeMy WebLinkAboutFinancial Analysis for King Cove Hydroelectric Project, May 1984Financial Analysis for
KING COVE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
Submitted by
DOWL ENGINEERS
ANCHORAGE, ALASKA
In Association with
TUDOR ENGINEERING COMPANY
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA
DRYDEN & LARUE
ANCHORAGE, ALASKA
MAY 1984
...._____ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY -----l
,....
,....
,....
-
Mr. Robert Loefler
Project Manager
Alaska Power Authority
334 West 5th Ave.
Anchorage, AK 99501
May 21, 1984
Subject: King Cove Hydroelectric Project
Finanical Study
Dear Mr. Loefler:
4040 "8" Street Anchorage, Alaska 99503
Telephone (907) 562-2000
Transmitted herewith is a report which present the results of an
analysis of alternative methods of financing the 575 KW King Cove Hydro-
electric Project. The project is located on Delta Creek, about five miles
from the town of King Cove, near the western end of the Alaskan
Peninsula. A previous report for this project titled Feasibility Study for
Kin Cove H droelectric Pro·ect, was presented to the Alaska Power Autho-
rity APA) by DOWL Engineers, August 1982. This detailed report showed the
project to be economically feas i b 1 e and a recent analysis, using newer
costs and energy consumption data, has indicated that the project is still
economically viable.
The project is a run-of-the-river type consisting of a low weir,
about 5 feet high, a 36-inch penstock extending 5,300 feet, and a small
powerhouse. No significant environmental impacts, including effects to
fisheries, are expected. Both the town of King Cove, and the 1 arge Peter
Pan Cannery, currently rely totally on diesel generation to meet their
power needs. The energy from this hydroelectric project would be fully
utilized by King Cove and the cannery and would supply more than 85 percent
of the electrical needs of King Cove in 1986 and 90 more than 65 percent in
2002. The remainder of required energy for King Cove would be supplied by
supplemental diesel generation.
The general · methodology used for the study consisted of first
establishing the financial cost of the "base-case," a continuation of the
existing diesel system, and then comparing this cost to the cost of the
hydroelectric project using eight APA specified financial plans. The
hydroelectric project costs developed for this comparison are the sum of
the costs of the hydroelectric system and the costs for the required
supplemental disel generation. The analyses were conducted for conditions
assuming projected prices with fuel escalation and without fuel
escalation. The projections with fuel escalation will be discussed here as
this is felt to be the most realistic assumption for future conditions.
•
May 21, 1984
Page 2
The following alternative financial plans were used in the
analyses to finance the hydroelectric facilities:
Alt. 1-A:
Alt. I-8:
Alt. II-A:
Alt. II-B:
Alt. II-C:
Alt. III-A:
Alt. III-B:
Alt. IV:
Tax-exempt revenue bonds.
Tax-Exempt revenue bonds with a graduated repayment
schedule.
50 % tax-exempt revenue bonds and 50 % state grant.
40 % tax-exempt revenue bonds and 60 % state grant.
43.1 %tax-exempt revenue bonds and 56.9% state grant.
State loan at 5.0 %.
State loan at 5.0 % with payments deferred for
10 years.
State equity financing with 5.0 % return.
Due to differences in the monthly generation pattern and the
monthly demand pattern for King Cove, surplus hydroenergy will exist in
some months. The owners of the local Peter Pan cannery have formally indi-
cated a willingness to pay up to 25¢/KWh for any hydropower energy that is
available in excess of the village needs. An analyses was therefore made
using a range of initial sales prices to the cannery of excess energy of
15¢/KWh to 25¢/KWh, and the mid-range selling price of 20¢/KWh was selected
as a reasonable value for discussion purposes. The revenue from such
energy sales to the cannery can be applied as a credit to decrease the
average unit cost of energy to the King Cover users.
Costs for the base case were estimated as of the first year of
analysis, 1983, and projected through the 50 year life of the hydroelectric
projects extends from 1986 through 2035. Growth and price escalation for
both the base case and the hydro project were 1 imited to the 20 year
planning period of 1983 through 2002, after which both factors were assumed
level until the end of the period of study in 2035.
The following table, comparing the cost of hydro power at King
Cove with the base case, has been selected from the study results using the
assumptions and conditions mentioned above, including sales of excess
energy to the cannery at 20¢/KWh. The four examples shown are
representative of the eight alternatives studied.
I-A: 100% II-A: II I-A: 100% State
Base Tax Exempt 50-50 Tax State Loan Equity
Case Bonds Ex./Grant @ 5% Int. w/5%
Year (¢/kWh) (¢/kWh) (¢/kWh) (¢/kWh) Return
1986 20 28 15 15 11
1991 26 29 17 18 14
1996 36 30 20 20 17
2002 60 41 32 33 30
fNGIN!·ERS
May 21, 1984
Page 3
In analyzing these results, the following general observations can
be made:
1. The estimated base case cost of 20 ¢/KWH for 1986 is relatively
low compared to a large majority of remote Alaska small diesel
systems. This is apparently due to local efficiencies in
operation of the King Cove system and low current financing
costs. The 1982 AVEC village costs, for example, were estimated
to average 43¢/KWh by the Alaska Power Administration.
2. All hydro plans studied eventually result in substantially lower
costs than the base case.
3. Alternative I-A (100 percent tax-exempt financing), would take
about seven years before the hydro project cost wou 1 d be 1 ess
then the base case cost.
4. Alternatives II-A (50% tax-exempt bonds and 50% state grant) and
III-A (state loan at 5%) would result in about a 25 percent
savings in electricity costs in the first year and the savings
increase significantly over 15 years because of the
inflation-proofing provided by hydro.
5. It will be noted from the study results that Alternative II-8
{40% tax-exempt bonds and 50% state grant) and Alternative II-C
(43.1% tax-exempt bonds and 56.9% state grant) are very similar,
but somewhat reduced in cost to Alternative II-A (50% tax-exempt
bonds and 50% state grant).
6. Alternative IV (state equity financing with 5% return) results in
a substantial reduction in cost because a portion of the 5%
return is used to cover annual operating costs.
We have enjoyed working on this challenging project and it is our
hope that the data provided by this report will help the Alaska Power
Authority in their policy and decision making processes.
GEL:05150098.21
Very truly yours,
OOWL ENGINEERS
~. tz__f\W2)o
Melvin R. Nichols, P.E.
Partner
t)Q_\Y!) ENGINHRS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
..
SF:IEB:AD1:2-C
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
KING COVE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
SUMMARY. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • i
I. INTRODUCTION............................................. I-1
A. GENERAL............................................. I-1
B. DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND.......................... I-1
C. OVERVIEW............................................ I-2
0. REPORT FORMAT....................................... I-3
II. GENERAL CRITERIA......................................... Il-l
A. GENERAL............................................. Il-l
B. FINANCIAL CRITERIA .••••..•.•.....•.. ~............... Il-l
C. ENERGY DEMAND AND SUPPLY •.•....••• :................. II-2
D. DIESEL COSTS........................................ 11-4
E. HYDROELECTRIC COSTS................................. II-5
F. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS..................... II-6
G. CANNERY............................................. II-7
III. FINANCIAL ALTERNATIVES
A. GENERAL.............................................. III-1
B • BASE CASE • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • I I I-1
C. SUPPLEMENTAL DIESEL................................. III-2
D. CANNERY............................................. III-2
E. FINANCIAL PLANS..................................... III-3
1. ALTERNATIVE I-A: 100% REVENUE BONOS........... III-4
2. ALTERNATIVE 1-B: 100% REVENUE BONDS WITH
GRADUATED PAYMENTS........................... III-5
SF:IEB:A01:2-TC
3. ALTERNATIVE II-A: 50% REVENUE BONDS/
50% STATE GRANT.............................. III-5
4. ALTERNATIVE II-B: 40% REVENUE BONDS/
60% STATE GRANT.............................. III-5
5. ALTERNATIVE II-C: 43.1% REVENUE BONOS/
56.9% STATE GRANT............................ III-6
6. ALTERNATIVE III-A: STATE LOAN................. III-6
7. ALTERNATIVE III-8: STATE LOAN WITH
DEFERRED PAYMENT............................. III-6
8. ALTERNATIVE IV: STATE EQUITY FINANCING........ III-7
F. DISCUSSION OF ANALYSIS.............................. III-7
APPENDIX A: PROJECT DRAWINGS
APPENDIX 8: APA ANALYSIS PARAMETERS
APPENDIX C: ECONOMIC ANALYSIS UPDATE LETTER
APPENDIX D: DIESEL ANALYSES
APPENDIX E: HYDROELECTRIC ANALYSES
APPENDIX F: CANNERY ANALYSES
APPENDIX G: FINANCIAL SUMMARIES WITHOUT REAL FUEL ESCALATION
SF:IEB:A01:2-TC
SU*ARY
SF:IEB:AD1:2-C
··~
SUMMARY
This report presents the results of an analysis of various alternative
possible methods of financing the King Cove Hydroelectric Project (Project).
A detailed report for this project titled Feasibility Study for King Cove
Hydroelectric Project, was presented to the Alaska Power Authority (APA) by
DOWL Engineers, August 1982. This report showed the project to be economi-
cally feasible and a recent economic analysis, updated using newer costs and
energy consumption data, has indicated that the project is still economically
viable.
Various methods considered for financing the project include tax-exempt
revenue bonds, state grants, state loans at five percent interest, and a state
equity investment yielding a five percent annual return. The alternatives are
addressed in detail in Section III of this report. The average cost of energy
to consumers was calculated on an annual basis for each alternative.
The cost of power to the users will vary depending on the type of financ-
ing chosen, which could include various uses of state grants, loans, or equity
financing. The actual cost of power may be slightly greater or less than the
costs presented in this report. Variables that may influence the cost of
power include a conservative, and therefore potentially high, cost estimate;
potentially low initial energy sales; and potentially high load growth. The
APA estimate of the actual cost of power is slightly less than the cost of
power presented in this report.
No attempt will be made here to select the best method of financing the
Project, as this is a policy decision and as such is beyond the scope of this
report. The intent of this report is to present data and the results of the
various analyses so that the information is available for the policy and
decision making processes.
i
SF:IEB:AD1:2-S
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The recommended project has an installed capacity of 575 kW and is
located on Delta Creek, a small stream about five miles from the town of King
Cove, near the western end of the Alaskan Peninsula. The project is a run-of-
the-river type consisting of a low weir, about 5 feet high, which diverts the
stream into a 36-inch penstock which then extends 5,300 feet to a small power-
house 235 feet lower in elevation where the 575 kW turbine generator is
located. The diverted flows are then returned to Delta Creek. No significant
environmental impact, including damage to fisheries, is expected. Both the
town of King Cove, and the large Peter Pan Cannery, currently rely totally on
diesel generation to meet their electrical needs. This hydroelectric project
would be capable of supplying approximately 89 percent of the e.lectrical needs
of King Cove in 1986 and 67 percent in 2002. Some supp 1 ementa I d i ese 1
generation would, however, still be necessary. All surplus hydroelectric
energy not used by King Cove could be sold to the cannery and a firm interest
by the cannery has been expressed in this regard.
STUDY METHODOLOGY
The general methodology of the study consisted of first establishing the
financial cost of the ~base-case" alternative for King Cove and then comparing
this cost to the cost of the hydroelectric project using eight specified
financial alternatives. The purpose of this comparison of the base case to
the financial alternatives was to demonstrate how each of the financial alter-
native plans studied compared with the actual avoided financial cost of the
base case.
STUDY ASSUMPTIONS
The planning period for the project begins with January 1983 and extends
20 years, including 1983 and 2002. The hydroelectric project was assumed to
be on-1 i ne by January 1986 and the avera 11 analysis extends 50 years beyond
this time (1983-2035). The analysis was conducted assuming a general infla-
tion rate of 6.5 percent for all costs for the 20-year planning period and a
zero inflation rate thereafter. Since most economists predict a long-term
i i
SF:IEB:A01:2-S
.....
additional escalation in the cost of fuel above the general inflation rate,
the analysis was a 1 so conducted both with and without an add it i ana 1 fue 1
escalation of 3.0 percent applied over the period 1989-2002.
The proposed hydroelectric project will sometimes produce more power than
King Cove can use and the financial impact on the unit energy cost to King
Cove of se 11 i ng this excess energy to the cannery at sever a 1 a 1 tern at i ve
selling prices was also analyzed.
In allocating the use of the hydroelectric energy, it was assumed that
the first use would be to meet the electrical demands of King Cove. If excess
energy then remained, it would be sold to the cannery. All energy generated
by the hydroelectric project can be used by these two demands.
FINANCIAL ALTERNATIVES
As specified by the APA, four basic alternative methods of financing the
project were considered. These were (1) 10 percent tax-exempt revenue bonds
alone, (2) state grants in conjunction with 10 percent tax-exempt revenue
bonds, (3) direct state financing at 5 percent interest and (4) state equity
financing with a 5 percent annual return.
bonds and state loans would be 35 years.
The repayment peri ad of revenue
Two different repayment schedules
were considered for the tax-exempt revenue bonds alone, three different
combinations of the state grants in conjunction with the tax-exempt revenue
bonds were considered, and two different payback schemes for the direct state
financing were considered. This resulted in a total of eight different
alternative plans, each of which was analyzed both with three percent real
fuel escalation and without real fuel escalation. The results of the analysis
are shown in the summary Tables S-1 (with fuel escalation) and S-2 (without
fuel escalation). A summary description of the plans is presented below.
1. Alternative I-A. Tax-exempt Revenue Bonds with a levelized repay-
ment schedule.
i i i
SF:IEB:AD1:2-S
2. Alternative I-8. Tax-Exempt Revenue Bonds with a graduated repay-
ment schedule. This plan allows initial annual payments that result
in an overall average unit energy cost equal to the base case for
the first year of hydro generation and then calls for increases in
annual payments at a maximum rate of 9.5 percent until a levelized
payment can be made by fully amortizing the outstanding principal
over the remainder of the 35-year financing period without exceeding
the maximum rate of increase. Lower rates of maximum annual
increase were considered and found to be infeasible.
3. Alternative II-A. 50 percent tax-exempt revenue bonds and 50 per-
cent state grant.
4. A 1 ternat i ve II-B. 40 percent tax-exempt revenue bonds and 60 per-
cent state grant.
5. Alternative II-C. 43.1
56.9 percent state grant.
percent tax-exempt revenue bonds and
For this plan the tax-exempt revenue bond
portion was established by solving for the amount of debt service
that would yield an average unit cost of energy equal to the base-
case unit cost of energy in 1986.
6. Alternative III-A -State loan for 35 years at five percent.
7. Alternative III-B -State loan at five percent with principal and
interest payments deferred for 10 years. Payments for the first
10 years would be O&M only, and the principal and deferred interest
of the loan would be fully amortized over the remaining 25 years of
the 35-year financing period.
8. Alternative IV -State equity financing with return to the state on
investment equal to five percent of capital cost. The operation and
maintenance expenses of the hydroelectric project would be paid from
the return to the state.
iv
SF:IEB:AD1:2-S
DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
Summary results of the financial analyses in terms of the unit cost of
energy in cents per kilowatt hour are presented in Table S-1 (three percent
real fuel escalation) and Table S-2 (no real fuel escalation). The two base-
case costs are shown on Figure S-1 to show the marked effect of fuel escala-
tion on the cost of the avoided diesel system and to show a general comparison
of the cost of two hydro financial alternatives with these base cases. More
details are presented in the body of the report.
The most realistic basis for evaluation of the various alternatives
studied to finance the King Cove Hydroelectric Project is a comparison of the
energy costs of the base case with the costs of the hydroe 1 ectri c project,
using the alternative financial plans studied. The most logical hydro devel-
opment plan would assume that the historical inflation levels would persist
and that credits to the hydro plan should also be included for sales of excess
village hydropower to the cannery, since the owners of the cannery have indi-
cated a willingness to pay up to 25 cents per kilowatt-hour for this energy.
A sensitivity analysis was conducted, testing initial energy sales prices to
the cannery ranging from 15¢/KWh to 25¢/KWh. The mid-range se 11 i ng price of
20¢/KWh was selected as a reasonably conservative value for discussion
purposes in this executive summary. Sensitivity analyses were also conducted
to test the effects of excluding real fuel escalation and the elimination of
cannery credits on the price of electricity at King Cove. The latter is not a
true representation of future conditions as the surplus hydropower energy
would have some economic value even if it was not sold to the cannery, such as
displacing heating oils for space heating, which was demonstrated as a viable
economic option in the feasibility study.
For use in this comparative analysis, developing the cost of the base
case was given careful attention. Through cooperative efforts of the King
Cove City Manager and his staff, local Alaska consultants and APA personnel,
representative existing diesel electricity costs were estimated for the first
year of analysis, 1983, and projected through the 50 year life of the
hydroelectric project extending from 1986 through 2035. Growth and price
escalation were limited to the 20 year period of 1983 through 2002, after
v
SF:IEB:A01:2-S
which both factors were assumed to be zero until the end of the period of
study in 2035. The estimated base case cost of 20 cents per kilowatt-hour for
1986, the projected first year when the hydro project is assumed on-line, is a
very important benchmark for comparative analysis. It should be noted that
this cost is relatively low compared to a large majority of remote Alaska
small diesel systems due to local efficiencies in operation of the King Cover
system and low financing costs. In the sixth hydro year (1991}, base case
costs would rise to 26¢/KWh, in the 11th year {1996) to about 36¢/KWh, (almost
double the current rate) and in the 17th year {2002) to 60¢/KWh {about triple
the current rate). Thus, for comparison with the hydro project, base case
diesel costs increase from 20¢/KWh to 60¢/KWh in 17 years. (It is noteworthy
that average AVEC village diesel costs were estimated to average 43¢/KWh in
1982 by the DOE Alaska Power Administration.)
If the summary Table S-1 of 24 possible combinations {i.e. eight basic
alternatives with three cannery alternatives for each) is condensed to some of
the most significant findings for several selected financial alternatives, the
following table can be derived. Also, Figure S-1 presents the same data
graphically for the base case, and hydro alternatives 1-A and III-A. As can
be noted, alternatives II-A and III-A are very similar and II-A was therefore
not included.
With 20¢/kWh Cannert Credit
I II -A: 100% State Equity
I-A: 100% Tax II-A: 50-50 State Loan with 5%
Base Case Exemp., Level Tax Ex./Grant @ 5% Int. , Leve 1 Return
Year {¢/kWh) (¢/kWh) (¢/kWh) (¢/kWh) (¢/kWh)
1986 20 28 15 15 11
1991 26 29 17 18 14
1996 36 30 20 20 17
2002 60 41 32 33 30
vi
SF:IEB:AD1:2-S
made:
In analyzing these results9 the following general observations can be
1. With 100 percent tax-exempt financing and levelized payments (I-A)
it would take about seven years before local interests would be able
to take advantage of savings created by the hydro project.
2. The plan reflecting a 50/50 tax-exempt financing/state grant {II-A),
and the plan with a 100 percent state loan at 5 percent interest and
levelized payments (III-A) would both produce essentially the same
cost of power. These p 1 ans wou 1 d . resu 1 t in about a 25 percent
savings in electricity costs in the first year and increase signifi-
cantly over 15 years because of the inflation-proofing provided by
hydro.
3. Other apparent observations from an analysis of the summary
Table S-1 indicated:
a. Financial alternatives II-A, II-B, II-C, III-A and IV have very
similar results.
b. The graduated payment approach applied to the 100 percent tax-
exempt financing (I-B) would bring the base case and hydro case
costs to approximate equality in the 11th year, providing some
savings in prior and subsequent years. There could be a number
of ways graduated payments could be derived other than the
assumed use of the APA price inflation rates.
c. There is very little difference between the 40/60 tax-
exempt/State grant financing (II-B), and the financial plan
that derives the 43/57 percent combination that will just equal
the base case diesel costs (II-C). However, both plans
increase the savings over the base case to some 40 percent in
the first year.
vii
SF:IEB:AD1:2-S
d. The five percent State equity plan (IV) increases the savings a
small percentage over the two plans discussed in c. above.
e. The 10-year deferral on the State loan (III-B) produces savings
of over 90 percent when compared to the base case in 1986, but
increases in the 11th year by about 25 times from the starting
point, which seems impractical. Nevertheless, the 11th year
rate is some 15 percent to 20 percent below the base case.
Sensitivity analyses excluding real fuel escalation and cannery credits,
as shown on summary Table S-2, suggests that it would generally require a
40/60 tax-exempt/grant relationship (II-B) to produce costs comparable to the
base case in the first year. Savings at about 25-30 percent over base costs
would accrue in the 11th year. Since by the study ground rules. rea.l fuel
escalation does not begin until several years into the hydro analysis (1988),
the affect on savings is not importantly felt until about year 11 and
thereafter. For example, the base case would show costs to be some 15 percent
less when fuel escalation is removed. Since these sensitivity tests produce
an additional possible 24 hydro combinations, various other combinations can
be reviewed by reference to Table S-2.
viii
SF:IEB:A01:2-S
TABLE S-1
S!MtARY Of All FINANCIAL PLANs.!/
(With Real Fuel Escalation)
Combinations of Tax-Exempt
100% Tax-Exempt Bonds!/ Bonds and State Grants 21 State loans 2/
1-A 1-B II-A 11-B 11-C lil-A
Base Level Graduated 50/5o.?1 40/60~1 43/57?./ Level
Hydro CaseY Payments~/ PaymentsY Payments~/
Year Year (f/KW!J) Jf/KWh) (f/KWh) <fll<Wh) (f/KWh) <fiKWh) (f/KWh)
1986 19.87 34.99 19.87 21.70 19.04 19.87 22.11
6 1991 25.93 34.99 29.31 23.65 21.38 22.08 24.00
11 1996 35.51 34.85 39.69 25.19 23.26 23.86 25.49
17 2002 59.74 44.74 50.14 36.82 35.24 35,72 37.07
36 2021 65.03 34.19 34.19 34.19 34.19 34.19 34.19
50 2035 65,03 34.19 34.19 34.19 34.19 34.19 34.19
~/ See Table D-1. Cost of continued existing diesel system, with real fuel escalation.
?I Costs of financial plans are the sum of supplemental diesel and hydroelectric costs,
3/ See Table E-1,
4! See Table E-2,
~/ See Table E-3,
~/ See Table E-4.
71 See Table E-5.
8/ See Table E-6.
9/ See rable E-7.
10/ See Table E-8.
11/ See Table F-1,
SF: IE8:AD1 :2-S-1 ix
111-B
Deferred
Payments2/
(f/KWh)
8.41
12.30
34.37
44.35
34.19
34.19
Potential
State EguitxlQI!/ Price Reduction for Cannerx 111!/
IV Initial Initial Initial
Price= Price= Price
15fll<Wh 20f/KWh 25f/KWh
(f/KWh) <f/KWh l (f/KWh l Jf/KWhl
18.30 5.30 7,07 8.83
20.61 4.66 6.21 7.76
22.46 3.94 5.26 6.57
34.36 3.03 4.04 5.05
39.65 3.30 4.40 5.50
39.65 3.30 4.40 5.50
Base
Hydro CaseY
Year Year Jf/KWh)
1986 19,87
6 1991 24,65
1996 30,48
17 2002 45,72
36 2021 51,01
50 2035 51,01
1/ See Table D-2, Cost
2! Costs of financial p
Set< Table G-1,
4/ See Table G-2,
)/ See Table G-3.
6/ See Table G-4.
7; See Table G-:>,
tl/ See Table G-6,
See lable G-7,
l Se"' Table G-8,
II! See Table F-2,
: 1E~'· " ;2-!' "
lABl£ S-2
SlM4ARY Of A.Ll FINANCIAl PLANsJ_/
(Without Real Fuel Escalation)
Combinations of Tax-Exempt
100% Tax-Exem~t Bonds!1 Bonds and State Grants 2/ State Loans 21
1-A 1-B II-A 11-8 11-C lil-A 111-B
Level Graduated 50/50~1 40/60~1 43/57:?/ Level Deferred
Payments~/ PaymentsY Payments!!/ Payments21
lf/KWh) \fLK_Whl Cf/I(Wh) (f/KWh) (f/KWh) (f/KWh) (f/KWh)
34,99 19,87 21.70 19,04 19,87 22,11 8,41
34.77 29,08 23,42 21.15 21,86 23,71 12.07
33,61 38,46 23,96 22,03 22,63 24.26 33,14
40,16 45,55 32,24 30,65 31 ,14 32,48 39,11
29,60 29,60 29,60 29,60 29,60 29,60 29,60
29,60 29,60 29,60 29,60 29,60 29,60 29.60
of continued existing diesel system, without real fuel escalation,
ans are the sum of supplemental diesel and hydroelectric costs,
)(
Potential
State EguittlQ/!1 Price Reduction for Cannert!l1!1
IV Initial Initial Initial
Price.: Price= Price
15f/KWh 20f/KWh 25f/KWh
(f/KWh) (f/KWh) (f/KWh) (f/KWh)
18,30 5,30 1,07 8,83
20,39 4,43 5,90 7,38
21,23 3,39 4,51 5,64
29,78 2.32 3,09 3,87
35,06 2,59 3,45 4,31
35,06 2,59 3,45 4,31
"' .s::.
::t
~
' U)
1-z w u ...,
1-
U)
0 u
>-l7 a:: w z w
BB
?B
60
50
40
38
20
10
0
1980
BASE CASE\
f ~
II
7 (HYDR p ALTER~ ATIVE I A
,---~
~--.1 \ _,.l __ / I
\
/I --t
r r--1
i/I-' \ ,-7-/
-cHYDR
... ,
I I I I p ALTER!I flTIVE I I-A I/ /
~ / \ 1-
L
1990 2000 2810
YEAR
2020 2838
1. Costs include general inflation and real fuel escalation.
2. Hydro alternatives include cost of supplemental diesel.
I
I
2840
3. Hydro alternatives include adjustment for energy sold to cannery.
4. Hydro Alternative I-A is 100% tax-exempt revenue bonds, 35 years @ 10%.
5. Hydro Alternative III-A is State Loan, 35 years @ 5%.
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
KING COVE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
W/ FUEL ESCALATION,W/ CANNERY
CANNERY CREDIT @ 20 c/kWh FOR 1986
xi
FIGURE
S-I
SF:IEB:AD1:2-C
SECTION I
INTRODUCTION
A. GENERAL
SECTION I
INTRODUCTION
The Alaska Power Authority (APA) is considering a hydroelectric
development at the village of King Cove. Previous studies have shown the
project to be economically feasi b 1 e and the purpose of this report is to
present alternative methods of financing the project.
B. DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
King Cove is located at the western end of the Alaska Peninsula, near
the beginning of the A 1 eut ian Is 1 and Chain. The hydroe 1 ectri c Project
would be located on Delta Creek, about 5 miles north of town. The project
would include a low diversion weir, a 36-inch diameter penstock about one
mi1e in length and a 575-kilowatt powerhouse which would produce 2.28 mil-
lion kilowatt hours of electrical energy in an average year. The total
construction cost for the project at January 1983 price levels would be
approximately $3,817,000. The Project was studied by DOWL Engineers in
1981 and 1982 and was found to be economically feasible with only minor
environmental effects. The results of this study were presented in a
report titled Feasibility Study for King Cove Hydroelectric Project, OOWL
Engineers, August 1982. The project drawings from the feasibility report
are presented as Appendix A.
The economic analysis for the project was updated in early Apri 1,
1984, using current cost and energy consumption data. A copy of the letter
describing this economic analysis is included as Appendix B.
Using the standard APA economic criteria with an inflation-free dis-
count rate of 3.5 percent, a benefit/cost ratio was derived of 1.3. This
analysis included the cannery benefits expressed in terms of savings in
variable diesel operating costs as a benefit to the hydro project. Since
these benefits were assumed to be the same as the village avoided diesel
I-1
SF:IEB:A01:2-I
costs, this approach was cons ide red to be conservative. s i nee these costs
amounted to slightly less than 12¢/kWh and the cannery has expressed
interest in purchasing the power at prices up to 25¢/KWh. The 1.3 B/C
ratio roughly compares to 1.8 8/C ratio appearing in the feasibility
report, which c;tl so included simi 1 ar cannery benefits. The difference l s
due to a combination of the higher interest rate, the reduced current and
projected fuel prices recently experienced, and a reduction in the cannery
benefits claimed which was restricted to the savings in variable operating
costs.
C. OVERVIEW
The main objective of an economic analysis is to determine the inher-
ent economic viability; that is. how do the economic benefits of the proj-
ect compare to the economic costs. This comparison is independent of the
method of financing, taxes, and any other costs that may be peculiar to the
enterprise owning the project. As mentioned above, the economic analyses
have indicated that this project is viable.
The objective of a financial analysis, which is the subject of this
report. is to determine how the costs associ a ted with a project wi 11 be
paid, and the cash flows that would result from various alternative courses
of action. Interest rates, amortization payment periods, inflation, and
taxes are factors that must be considered by a financial analysis that are
often not considered in an economic analysis. The financial analyses for
this project were conducted according to the general criteria set forth by
the APA, "Analysis Parameters for the 1984 Fiscal Year." A copy of these
criteria is included as Appendix C. The alternative financial plans
studied are described in Section III of this report. In addition to the
alternative financial analyses, a financial analysis for the base case has
also been included for comparison purposes. The base case is an estimate
of the configuration and costs that would occur in King Cove if the exist-
ing diesel generator system continues and is expanded as necessary to meet
the projected demand over the study period.
I-2
SF:IEB:AD1:2-I
The costs associated with the proposed project include both hydroelec-
tric costs and supplemental diesel costs. Even with the hydroe 1 ectri c
project~ it is necessary to maintain sufficient diesel capacity at King
Cove to meet maximum demands because the hydroelectric project may not meet
the full King Cove demands. The electrical demand satisfied by the system
would include the village electrical demand~ and the use of excess electri-
city by the cannery. Inasmuch as the cannery can uti 1 i ze a 11 excess
energy, benefits possible from waste heat recovery were not included. This
analysis describes the forecasted unit cost of power for the base case and
the hydroelectric projects for the various financial alternative studied.
In allocating this excess energy, it was assumed that the village
electrical ne.eds would be met first, andt if excess hydroelectric energy
remained and sufficient demand existed at the cannery, then the excess
electricity would be sold to the cannery. The portion of the cannery
energy demand that could be satisfied by the hydroelectric project was
included as supplemental revenues from the sale of this power at alterna-
tive sales prices. This supplemental revenue can then be applied to
decrease the cost of power for King Cove.
D. REPORT FORMAT
The report is presented with a summary, three chapters of text with
figures and selected tables, and seven appendices. An effort has been made
to make the report more readable by including only key tables with the
report text and placing the majority of the tables for the diesel analyses,
hydroelectric analyses, and cannery analyses in the respective appendices.
Two summary tables for each alternative financial plan studied (one
for with fuel escalation and one for without fuel escalation) were prepared
and the eight with fuel escalation tables (considered to represent the most
realistic case) were included with Section III. The eight without fuel
escalation summaries were placed in Appendix G.
I-3
SF:IEB:A01:2-I
Appendix A, "Project Drawings'' Appendix 8 9 "APA Analysis Parameters",
and Appendix C, "Economic Analysis Update letter'', were included to provide
background material and criteria.
I-4
SF:IEB:AD1:2-I
SF:IEB:A01:2-C
SECTION II
GENERAL CRITERIA
.-,
A. GENERAL
SECTION II
GENERAL CRITERIA
The King Cove Hydroelectric Project was assessed in order to determine
the cost of power production for alternative energy supply systems and
alternative methods of financing. The financial alternatives studied were
specified in the APA and are described in Section III of this report. The
alternative energy systems considered include diesel generation alone (Base
Case) and hydroelectric generation supplemented by diesel generation
(Hydroelect~ic Case). Both the Base Case and Hydroelectric Case were for-
mulated to meet the same energy needs for King Cove, as projected over the
study period.
B. FINANCIAL CRITERIA
The assumptions that form the basis for this analysis are founded to
as great an extent as possible on the APA standard criteria. Additional
criteria utilized are described below.
In accordance with APA criteria, the planning period for the project
is 20 years and begins in January 1983 and extends through 2002. The
hydroelectric project was assumed to be on-line by January 1986, and the
analysis extends 50 years beyond this time through 2035, for a total eval-
uation period of 53 years. Assumptions for energy demand projections
together with general inflation and real fuel escalation were applied over
the 20 year planning period and were then assumed as level over the
remaining 33 years of the study period.
The analyses for the study were conducted both with and without real
fuel escalation. As per APA criteria, a general inflation rate of 6.5 per-
cent was assumed for all costs. The prices of fuel oil and lubrication oil
were increased at the general 6.5 percent inflation rate from January 1983
through the end of 1988. These prices were then esc a 1 a ted at an annua 1
II-1
SF: IEB:AOl :2-II
rate of 9.5 percent for the with real fuel escalation case from January
1989 to the end of the planning period in order to reflect a real fuel cost
escalation of three percent annually. For the without real fuel escalation
case the inflation rate used was 6.5 percent as for all other costs. All
costs for both the with and without real fuel escalation cases were then
assumed to remain constant after the last cost escalation occurs in 2002,
the last year of the planning period. The costs were then held constant at
the 2002 value for the remainder of the period of economic evaluation
through 2035.
The interest rate for bond sales and sinking funds was assumed to be
10 percent, representing an average for current market rates. The interest
rate for state loans was assumed to be five percent.
The economic life of the hydroelectric project facilities was assumed
to be 50 years. The economic project life for diesel engines was assumed
to be 15 years for the existing equipment and 20 years for capacity addi-
tions; the added machinery was assumed to have a greater capacity and was
given a longer life according to APA criteria.
All costs, including operation, maintenance costs and capital costs
were assigned to the year in which they would occur. Capital costs were
assumed to be equal to the sum of the construction costs and interest
during construction, financing charges, and reserve funds, as applicable.
The first debt service payment ·.-~as shown in the year following the capital
cost. Replacement costs were handled by the use of a sinking fund and were
assumed to occur over the project study period.
C. ENERGY DEMAND AND SUPPLY
The energy demand and supply for the village of King Cove were deter-
mined from records and analysis of the existing system. This determination
was made by the consultants in cooperation with APA and the village of King
Cove. The current and projected cannery demands were obta; ned by the APA
from the Peter Pan cannery. The historical generation records for December
1982 through November 1983 were used as a base period to determine the
II-2
SF: IEB:AD1:2-II
pattern of monthly demands as percentages of annual demand. The demand for
December 1983 was synthesized by escalating the December 1982 demand of 3.7
percent. The demands for 1983 were then used to determine the pattern of
demand. The monthly demand data was obtained from the King Cove City Clerk
in December 1983. The actual data for December 1982 through April 1983 is
not accurate due to inadequate meters on the electrical supply system and
was adjusted to reflect the increase in consumption indicated by the repair
and installation of meters in May 1983.
The annual energy demands for residential, commercial, school
consumers and the cannery are shown on Table II-1. The village metered
demand as reflected in the records was increased by 26 percent to include
losses and nonmetered demand. The village demands were escalated as shown
over the 20 year planning period and then assumed to remain level and the
cannery demands were escalated over a 5 year period and then assumed to
remain level. The village demand is the sum of residential, commercial,
and school demands. The residential demand was increased to meet demands
associated with work currently under construction or currently planned for
1984 and 1985. Following 1985, the residential demand was escalated at 3.7
percent annually for the remainder of the planning period. The commercial
load growth was assumed to be 3.7 percent for the entire planning period.
The school will be expanded by 40 percent by January 1986; this was the
only increase in school demand considered. The load growth at the cannery
was based on data supp 1 i ed by APA and reflects a constant 1 oad over the
entire period of analysis for May through August and an increase in monthly
energy consumption from 134.4 MWh/month in 1983 to 250.0 MWh/month for 1987
for the months September through April.
The annual supply and distribution of energy over the study period to
meet these demands is shown on Table II-2, indicating the hydroelectric and
diesel requirements of the village system and the amount of excess hydro-
electric energy available for sale to the cannery. This data is also pre-
sented graphically on a monthly basis in Figure II-1 for 1986, the first
II-3
SF:IEB:A01:2-II
year of hydroelectricity generation and for 2002, the last year of the
20-year planning period. These figures illustrate that as the village
demand increases over time, less excess energy is available for the
cannery.
D. DIESEL COSTS
The costs of diesel generation were taken from the King Cove Feasibi-
lity Report and modified according to new information as available. The
costs of diesel generation were assumed to include debt service, insurance,
operation and maintenance, lubrication oil, and fuel oil.
The cost of the existing diesel system was assumed to be approximately
$700 per kilowatt of installed capacity. Debt service for the existing
diesel system was assumed to be equivalent to a loan at five percent
interest for 15 years which is comparable to the data provided by King
Cove. The existing engines would be replaced every 15 years with future
replacements being financed at 10 percent annual interest. A capacity
addition would be made in 1988. This addition would be replaced every
20 years and would also be financed at 10 percent interest.
The existing system consists of two 300 kW machines that provide the
major portion of power used in the village and the 250 kW machine serves
primarily as a standby system. The APA criteria specifies a 10 year econo-
mic life for diesel machines less than 300 kW and 20 years for machines
greater than 300 kW. An average 1 ife of 15 years was assumed for the
300 kW machines. The capacity expansion for 1988 was assumed to be one
530 kW machine and was assigned a useful life of 20 years.
No added life was assumed for the diesel engines for the hydroelectric
case. The machines would operate for significantly less time under the
with hydro case and should have longer lives; however, because of the
uncertainty associated with the availability of parts and maintenance, this
credit was not considered.
II-4
SF:IEB:AD1:2-II
The cost of insuring the diesel power plant was assumed to be $0.80
per $100 of replacement value. This rate represents current insurance rates
for Alaska. The existing plant was assumed to have a replacement value of
$595,000. This replacement cost was assumed to be subject to inflation at
6.5 percent annually. Insurance costs were based on the cost of equipment
at the time of purchase and were only escalated at the time of replacement.
The cost of oil is the sum of the cost of fuel oil and lubrication
oil. The existing system produces 11.5 kWh of electricity per gallon of
fuel; this average rate will increase to 13.75 kWh per gallon with the
capacity expansion in 1988. This increase in generation is due to the
greater efficiency of the machine being considered for the expansion, which
produces about 15 kWh/gallon by itself. The rate of consumption of lubri-
cation oil was assumed as 0.55 percent of the fuel oil consumption rate.
The cost of fuel oil was established as $1.13/gallon and of lubrica-
tion oil as $3.80/gallon, at January 1983 price levels. This cost was
escalated at 6.5 percent annually through 1988, followed by escalation
through year 2002 at 9.5 percent annually for the with fuel escalation case
and 6.5 percent for the without fuel escalation case.
E. HYDROELECTRIC COSTS
Costs associ a ted with the hydroelectric project were taken from the
feasibility report and updated. These costs include amortization, opera-
tion and maintenance, and a replacement sinking fund. All hydroelectric
costs were escalated from January 1982 to January 1984 using the indices
for hydroelectric construction published in 11 Engineering News and Record 11
(ENR). This resulted in a 2.0% increase for 1982 and a 1.3% increase for
1983. The January 1984 costs were then escalated at 6.5 percent interest,
in accordance with APA criteria to January 1985, the assumed bid date for
the project.
A construction cost estimate summary from the Feasibility Report is
included as Table II-3. The construction cost from the feasibility study,
at January 1982 price levels, was estimated as $3,743,900. This cost would
II-5
SF: IEB:AD1:2-II
escalate as described above to $4,118,000 by January 1985. The cost of
debt service for each financial alternative is addressed in Section III.
Two rep 1 acement costs were considered for the hydroe 1 ectri c project:
the cost of replacing the turbine runner after 25 years of operation, and
the cost of replacing the transmission line that would tie the plant to the
village distribution system every 30 years. The 30-year economic life of
the transmission lines is based on observation of existing lines. The cost
of replacing the runner was estimated as $95,000 at January 1983 price
levels, and the cost of replacing the lines was estimated as $619,600 at
January 1983 price levels. The ENR cost indices indicate a decrease of
0.7 percent in the cost of transmission lines from January 1982 to
January 1983. Sinking funds were estab 1 i shed to meet these costs. The
costs were escalated to their actual date of occurrence at 6.5 percent
annual inflation.
F. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS
The operation of the existing diesel system (base cost) for King Cove
for 1983 has been taken as $30,000 per year p 1 us a vari ab 1 e expense of
$11.75 per megawatt hour of generation. The $30,000 was derived by esti-
mating that 25 percent or $25,000 of the approximately $100,000 annual King
Cove labor cost for sewer, water, diesel generated electrical distribution
system (the same crew operates all facilities) could be allocated to the
generation system. An additional $5,000 was then added for plant miscel-
laneous consumables, a general "all other expenses 11 estimate, for a total
fixed cost of $30,000 per year. The variable cost of $11.75 per MWhr was
derived from manufacturer's data for average minor and major overhauls and
emergency maintenance costs for a given number of hours of operation of the
units.
S i nee the same crew wou 1 d operate the hydroe 1 ectri c project, which
would be composed of the hydroelectric facilities and the same supplemental
diesel system as the base case, the same $30,000 annual fixed cost was used
for the hydroelectric project and an additional $5,000 per year was allowed
for "all other expenses" for the hydroelectric facilities, for a total
II-6
SF:IEB:A01:2-II
initial fixed cost for 1983 of $35,000 per year. The same $11.75 per MWhr
was then also applied for the supplemental diesel generation.
The O&M costs for both the base case and hydroe 1 ectri c project case
were allowed to inflate at 6.5 percent per year over the planning period of
1983 through 2002.
G. CANNERY
The proposed hydroelectric project will produce significantly more
electrical energy than can be used in the village. This energy could be
sold to the cannery and the revenue could be used to offset the cost of
energy to the village. This cannery cost reduction was considered for a
range of prices and for both the cases of with rea 1 fue 1 esc a 1 at ion and
without real fuel escalation.
II-7
SF:IEB:AD1:2-II
TABLE II-1
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
KING COVE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
ANNUAL ENERGY DEMAND
APRIL 1984
YEAR RESID. COMMER. SCHOOL VILLAGE VILLAGE
ACTUAL
DEMAND
<MWh)
(5)
CANNERY
DEMAND
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2035
DEMAND DEMAND DEMAND METERED
DE~1AND
<1'1Wh) 01Wh) ( MWh) < MWh)
(1) (2) (3) (4)
616.34
754.73
893.14
926.31
960.71
996.39
1033.39
1071.76
1111.57
1152.85
1195.66
1240.06
1286.13
1333.88
1383.42
1434.80
1488.08
1543.34
1600.67
1660.10
1660.10
289.41
300.16
311.31
322.87
334.86
347.29
360.19
373.57
387.44
401.83
416.75
432.23
448.28
464.93
482.20
500.10
518.68
537.94
557.91
578.63
578.63
150.00
150.00
150.00
210.00
210.00
210.00
210.00
210.00
210.00
210.00
210.00
210.00
210.00
210.00
210.00
210.00
210.00
210.00
210.00
210.00
210.00
1055.74
1204.89
1354.44
1459.17
1505.57
1553.68
1603.58
1655.33
1709.02
1764.69
1822.41
1882.28
1944.40
2008.81
2075.63
2144.89
2216.77
2291.28
2368.56
2448.74
2448.74
1328.34
1516.00
1704.17
1835.94
1894.30
1954.84
2017.61
2082.75
2150.28
2220.33
2292.97
2368.30
2446.45
2527.48
2611.55
2698.69
2789.14
2882.90
2980.12
3080.99
3080.99
(MWh)
(6)
3763.20
3943. 67
41!54.41
4400.56
4688.00
4688.00
4688.00
4688.00
4638.00
4688.00
46:38. 00
4638.00
4688.00
4638.00
4638.00
4638.00
4688.00
4638.00
4638.00
46:38.00
4638.00
TOTAL
DEt1AHD
01Wh)
(7)
5091.54
5459.66
5858.59
6236.50
6582.31
6642.84
6705.61
6770. 75
68:38. 2:3
6908 .. :33
6980.97
7056.30
7134.45
7215.47
7299.55
7386.69
7477.14
7570.90
7668.12
7768.99
7768. 9'3
(l)Add 4 hom~s in 1984,6 hom~s in 1985,then increas~ at 3.7~ annually.
(2)Annual i ncr~as~=3. 7%.
(3)School capacit~ expanded in 1986.
C4)Sum of met~red r~sidential,commercial,and school demands.
(5)126% of metered demand for non-meter~d demand and losses.
(6)Total cannery demand.
(7)Total system demand including cannery.
II-8
TABLE 11-2
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
KING COVE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
ANNUAL ENERGY DEMAND AND SUPPLY
APRIL 1984
YEAR VILLAGE HYDRO HYDRO DIESEL SURPLUS CANNERY HYDRO SURPLUS
ELECTRIC SUPPLY USED BY USED BY HYDRO ELECTRIC IJSED BY H'r'DRO
DEMAND VILLAGE VILLAGE WITHOUT DEMAND (:ANNERY WITH
CANNERY CANNERY
<MWh) <MWh) <MWh) <MWh) <MWh) <MWh) <MWh) <MWh>
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)
----------------------------------------------------------------
1983 1328.34 0.00 0.00 1328.34 0.00 3763.20 0.00 0.00
1984 1516.00 0.00 0.00 1516.00 0.00 3943.67 0.00 0.00
1985 1704.17 0.00 0.00 1704.17 0.00 4154.41 0.00 0.00
1986 1835.94 2280.00 1631.23 204.71 648.78 4400.56 648.78 0.00
1987 1894.30 2280.00 1659.60 234.71 620.41 4688.00 620.41 0.00
1988 1954.84 2280.00 1685.37 269.47 594.63 4688.00 594.63 0.00
1989 2017.61 2280.00 1712.10 305.52 567.90 4688.00 567.90 0.00
1990 2082.75 2280.00 1739.83 ·342.91 540.17 4688.00 540.17 0.00
1991 2150.28 2280.00 1768.60 381.69 511.41 4688.00 511.41 0.00
1992 2220.33 2280.00 1798.42 421.91 481.59 4688.00 481.59 0.00
1993 2292.97 2280.00 1827.96 465.00 452.04 4688.00 452.04 0.00
1994 2368.30 2280.00 1853.72 514.58 426.28 4688.00 426.28 0.00
1995 2446.45 2280.00 1880.44 566.00 399.56 4688.00 399.56 0.00
1996 2527.48 2280.00 1908.14 619.33 371.86 4688.00 371.86 0.00
1997 2611.55 2280.00 1936.88 674.66 343.11 4688.00 343. 11 0.00
1998 2698.69 2280.00 1966.68 732.01 313.31 4688.00 313.31 0.00
1999 2789.14 2280.00 1997.61 791. 53 282.40 4688.00 282.40 0.00
2000 2882.90 2280.00 2023.05 859.84 256.95 4688.00 256.95 0.00
2001 2980.12 2280.00 2047.50 932.63 232.50 4688.00 232.50 0.00
2002 3080.99 2280.00 2072.87 1008.12 207.13 4688.00 207.13 0.00
2035 3080.99 2280.00 2072.87 1008.12 207.13 4688.00 207.13 0.00
< 1) See Tab 1 e II-1
(2)Average annual generation
<3>Annual village demand supplied by hydro
<4>Annual village demand supplied by diesel
<5>Hydro available for sale to the cannery
<6>Total cannery demand.
<7 >Actual hydro sold to cannery
(8)Excess hydro after sales to cannery
II-9
Item
TABLE II-3
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
KING COVE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
CONSTRUCTION COST SUMMARY
(JANUARY 1982 PRICE LEVELS)
Mobilization and Demobilization
Diversion Dam
Intake
Penstock
Powerhouse
Access Road
Transmission Line
Contingencies
Contract Cost
Engineering
Owner's Legal and Administrative
TOTAL PROJECT COST (January 1982)
TOTAL PROJECT COST (January 1983)
TOTAL PROJECT COST (January 1984)
TOTAL PROJECT COST (Janaury 1985)
Amount
$ 326,820
62,010
64,860
842t870
863.180
127,210
619 ,940·11
353,000
$3,259,900
325,000
109,000
$3,743,900
$3,817,000~/
$3,866,6001/
$4,118,000~/
1/ The ENR Index for January 1983 indicates a 0. 7% decrease in
transmission line costs, resulting in a January 1983 transmission line
cost of $615,600.
~I
11
~I
ENR Composite Index for Hydroelectric Projects indicates an increase
of 2.0% (January 1982-January 1983).
ENR Composite Index for Hydroe 1 ectri c Projects indicates an increase
of 1.3% (January 1983-January 1984).
Escalated at 6.5% annually (January 1984 -January 1985) according to
APA recommended criteria. January 1985 is the proposed bid date.
SF:IEB:AD1:2-II-1 II-10
r::t z a:
r::t z a:
l: w r::t
>-(,!) a:: w z w
1. Village demand includes residential, commercial, and school demands for
1986.
2. Supplemental diesel is portion of village demand in excess of available
hydro generation.
3. Hydro used by cannery is portion of hydro generation in excess of village
demand.
4. Values shown are for 1986.
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
KING COVE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
ENERGY DEMAND AND SUPPLY FOR 1986
II-11
FIGURE
II-1
>-
..J a. a. => U)
c;::) z a:.
c;::) z a:.
l: w p
>-
(!J a::: w z w
1. Village demand includes residential, commercial, and school demands for
2002.
2. Supplemental diesel is portion of village demand in excess of available
hydro generation.
3. Hydro used by cannery is portion of hydro generation in excess of village
demand.
4. Values shown are for 2002.
ALASKA POWER AUTHOR!TY
KING COVE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
ENERGY DEMAND AND SUPPLY FOR 2002
II-12
FIGURE "T''T'-2 .I. .I.
SF:IEB:AD1:2:..C
SECTION III
FINANCIAL ALTERNATIVES
A. GENERAL
SECTION III
FINANCIAL ALTERNATIVES
The financial alternatives analyzed for the the King Cove Hydroelectric
Project include revenue bonds, state loans, state equity financing, and
combinations of revenue bonds and state grants. These alternatives apply
only to the financing of the hydroelectric facilities and not to the sup-
plemental diesel. The financing of the supplemental diesel costs and the
base case was considered separately, considering both the current cost of
power and the APA recommended analysis parameters for 1984. In addition to
the various schemes for financing the hydroe 1 ectri c project, a base case
alternative, was considered to provide a comparison to the existing situa-
tion. The base case, supplemental diesel, and hydroelectric financial
alternatives and analysis results are presented below.
B. BASE CASE
The base case analysis assumes that the hydroelectric project would not
be built and that the existing diesel system, expanded for future demand as
necessary, would continue to serve as the sole source of electrical
energy. The existing system consists of one 250 kW and two 300 kW diesel
generators, providing a current firm capacity of 550 kW (firm capacity is
the system capacity with the largest unit not operable). This capacity was
assumed to be increased by the addition of one 530 kW diesel generator in
1968.
The current debt service on the existing diesel system at King Cove can
be considered as equivalent to a loan at five percent interest for
15 years. The existing capacity was assumed to be replaced every fifteen
years with these future replacements financed at an interest rate of
10 percent for 15 years. The low rate assumed for the cost of existing
debt service was based on the apparent current low cost of energy at King
I II-1
SF:IEB:AD1:2-III
Cove. The 530 kW addition planned for 1988 was assumed to be financed at
10 percent interest for 20 years.
The base case analysis is presented in Tables B-1 and B-2 of Appendix B
for the cases of with and without real fuel escalation respectively and is
presented in summary form on Tables III-1 through III-3. The cost for 1986
is 19.87¢/KWh for either the with or without fuel escalation case and
increases to 65. 03¢/KWh for the with real fue 1 esc a 1 at ion by the end of
the planning period in 2002. The corresponding unit value for 2002 without
fuel escalation is 51.01¢/KWh.
C. SUPPLEMENTAL DIESEL
The supplemental diesel costs were assumed to be the same as the base
case diesel costs except that the energy demand and associated variable
fuel oil and maintenance costs would apply only to the portion of village
energy demand not met by the hydroelectric project. These diesel costs
were discussed in Section II of this report.
The detailed supplemental diesel analysis, which is the same to all
financial plans, is presented in Appendix 0 as Tables D-3 and D-4 for the
cases of with and without fuel escalation, respectively. The summarized
cost is then presented in Tables III-1 through III-8 for each of the
individual financial alternatives studied. The unit cost of supplemental
diesel for 1986, averaged over the annual village demand and assuming real
fuel escalation, would be 7.09¢/kWh; this cost escalates to 27.68¢/kWh by
2002. If the effects of fuel escalation are neglected, the cost of power
for 1986 would be 7.09¢/kWh, escalating to 23.09¢/kWh by 2002. The cost of
supplemental diesel is the component of the total cost not included in the
hydroelectric financing.
D. CANNERY
The Peter Pan Cannery 1 ocated at King Cove, has expressed interest in
purchasing all hydroelectric energy generated by the project that would be
in excess of the village needs at prices up to 25¢/kWh. The approach that
III-2
SF:IEB:AD1:2-rii
has been utilized for this analysis is to assume that all hydroelectric
costs would be paid by the village, utilizing the various financial alter-
natives studied, and that the revenues from excess power sold to the can-
nery would then be used to decrease the net payments on the hydroelectric
debt. This would effectively result in a decrease of the average unit cost
of energy for King Cove. In as much as the selling price to the cannery of
the excess power has not as yet been estab 1 i shed, a range of pass i b 1 e
selling prices was considered to analyze the net effect on the King Cove
unit energy cost. For all cases studied, 1986 prices of 15¢/kWh, 20¢/kWh,
and 25¢/kWh were considered for sales of excess energy to the cannery.
These unit energy values were then escalated at an annual rate equal to the
percentage increase in the overall cost of base case energy. The resulting
revenues from sales of excess energy to the cannery are presented in
Tables F-1 and F-2 for the cases of with and without real fuel escala-
tion and are also summarized in the last four columns of Tables III-9
and III-10. In all cases, the cannery sales would reduce costs to the
village from 5.30¢/kWh to 8.83¢/kWh in 1986. Since the availability of the
excess electricity for cannery use would be reduced over time the potential
credit would also be reduced to 3.30¢/kWh to 5.50¢/kWh in 2002.
E. FINANCIAL PLANS
Using the criteria and assumptions previously presented, alternative
financial plans were analyzed. A description and results of the analysis
for each alternative studied are presented below.
Complete analyses are presented in this report for each alternative
with and without real fuel escalation. In addition, the results of each of
these analyses may be modified for the inclusion of excess energy sales to
the cannery at selling prices of 15¢/kWh, 20¢/kWh, and 25¢/kWh. A total of
six separate results for each of the eight financial alternatives studied
then results.
To simplify the following discussion of results, the with real fuel
escalation and with cannery conditions are used for discussion examples
since this combination is considered to be the most probable future
I II-3
SF:I£B:A01:2-III
:
scenario. This is because most economists foresee long term real fuel
escalation occurring in excess of general inflation and since the Peter Pan
Cannery has expressed firm interest in purchasing the excess project
power. A 1 so, the a 1 ternat i ve of 20¢/kWh has been used for the cannery
sales since this is the average of the 15¢/kWh, 20¢/kWh, and 25¢/kWh
selling prices considered. Nevertheless, data is
tables for the without real fuel escalation case
cannery selling prices (15¢/kWh and 25¢/kWh)
alternatives are desired.
presented in the various
and the other potentia 1
if results for these
Financial summaries for each of the alternatives studied are included
at the end of this section as Table III-1 through III-8 (with real fuel
escalation) and in Appendix G as Tables G-1 through G-9 (without real fuel
escalation). All alternatives are summarized in Table III-9 (with real
fuel escalation) and Table III-10 (without real fuel escalation). Both
Table III-9 and Table III-10 also include cannery credits at 15¢/kWh,
20¢/kWh and 25¢/kWh.
1. ALTERNATIVE I-A: 100% REVENUE BONOS·
Under this alternative, the entire hydroelectric cost would be paid
from the sale of tax-exempt revenue bonds bearing an interest rate of
10 percent for 35 years. The total bond sale would include the direct
construction costs, an allowance of 10 percent for interest during con-
struction, an allowance of 3.75 percent for financing fees, and a reserve
fund equal to 110 percent of one year 1 s debt service. The resulting total
bond size would be $5,287,200. Table III-1 shows the total annual unit
cost of this alternative, including both supplemental diesel and hydroelec-
tric costs. As shown in Table III-1, the unit energy cast of Alterna-
tive I-A for 1986 would be 34.99¢/kWh and would escalate to 44.74¢/kWh by
the year 2002. Cannery credits at 20¢/kWh would decrease these prices to
27 .92¢/kWh and 41.65¢/kWh respectively. The cost of power for Alternative
I-A (with 20¢ cannery credits) would be greater than the cost of Base Case
power until 1993.
III-4
SF:IEB:AD1:2-III
2. ALTERNATIVE I-B: 100% REVENUE BONOS WITH GRADUATED PAYMENTS
Under this alternative, the project would be funded 100% by revenue
bonds, as for Alternative I-A; however, the debt service payments would be
made on a graduated basis. The debt service for 1986 would be reduced to a
level that would make the unit cost of energy for that year the same for
the base case and the hydroelectric plus supplemental diesel case. The
debt service would then be increased at a maximum rate of 9.5 percent (the
same rate of increase of fuel with inflation and escalation), until a uni-
form payment could be made for the remainder of the 35 years without
exceeding the 9.5 percent increase. This alternative is shown on
Table III-2. The total cost of energy for 1986 would be 19.87¢/kWh (equal
to the base case cost) with or without fuel escalation, but consideration
of the cannery credit at 20¢/kWh would decrease this figure by 7.07¢/kWh to
12.08¢/kWh.
3. ALTERNATIVE II-A: 50% REVENUE BONDS/50% STATE GRANT
This alternative is similar to Alternative I-A, but only 50 percent of
the direct construction cost would be borne by the power users. The
results of the analyses of this Alternative are presented as Table III-3.
The remaining 50 percent of the project cost would be paid by State assis-
tance. The cost of power for this alternative in 1986 would be 21.70¢/kWh
or 14.63¢/kWh with the cannery sales at 20¢/kWh. The cost would increase
to 36.82¢/kWh or 33.94¢/kWh with the cannery sales at 20¢/kWh in 2002.
4. ALTERNATIVE II-B: 40% REVENUE BONDS/60% STATE GRANT
The project would be financed using tax-exempt revenue bonds for
40 percent of the construction cost and a state grant for the remaining
60 percent. The results of this analysis are shown in Tables III-4. The
1986 cost of power for this alternative would be 19.04¢/kWh or 11.97¢/kWh
with cannery credits for 20¢/kWh sales, increasing in 2002 to to 35.24¢/kWh
or 32.15¢/kWh with 20¢/kWh cannery sales.
II I-5
SF:IEB:A01:2-III
5. ALTERNATIVE II-C: 43.1% REVENUE BONOS/56.9% STATE GRANT
The project would be financed using a combination of tax-exempt revenue
bonds and a state grant. The bond sale would be sized in such a manner
that the unit cost of power in 1986 would be the same for the base case and
the hydroelectric plus supplemental diesel case, assuming fuel
escalation. The remainder of the capital cost (not included in the bond
sale) would be paid by a state grant. The results of this analysis are
shown in Table III-5. The unit cost of power for 1986 would be 19.87¢/kWh
or 12.80¢/kWh with 20¢/kWh cannery sales, increasing to 35.73¢/kWh or
32.64¢/kWh for 20¢/kWh cannery sales.
6. ALTERNATIVE III-A: STATE LOAN
Under this alternative, the project would be financed by a state loan
bearing an interest rate of five percent for 35 years. Interest during
construction and a reserve fund would not be considered for this alterna-
tive. The results of this analysis are shown on Table III-6. The 1986
. cost of power for this alternative would be 22.11¢/kWh or 15.04¢/kWh with
cannery sales at 20¢/kWh, increasing to 37.07¢/kWh or 33.97¢/kWh for
20¢/kWh cannery sales.
7. ALTERNATIVE III-B: STATE LOAN WITH DEFERRED PAYMENT
The project would be financed by a state loan at an interest rate of
five percent as above; however, principal and interest payments would be
deferred on the debt for 10 years, follows by 25 years of fully amortized
debt service. This alternative is shown in Table III-7. The 1986 unit
cost of power for this alternative would be 8.41¢/KWh or 1.34¢/kWh with
20¢/kWh cannery sales, increasing to 14.68¢/KWh in 1995 (or 9.89¢/kWh with
cannery)~ and more than doubling to 34.37¢/kWh (or 29.86 with cannery
credit) in the following year, 1966, when the 10-year deferral period ends.
I II-6
SF:IEB:AD1:2-III
-
B. ALTERNATIVE IV: STATE EQUITY FINANCING
The state would pay the entire capital cost of the project and would
receive an annual payment equal to five percent of the capital cost. The
costs of operation, maintenance, and replacement would be paid from this
five percent payment and the remainder of the five percent would be the
return on investment to the state. The cash flow for this situation is
shown in Table III-B. The 19B6 unit cost of energy, including fuel
escalation, would be 18.30¢/kWh, or 11.23¢/kWh with cannery, increasing in
2002 to 34.36¢/kWh or 31.27¢/kWh with 20¢/kWh cannery sales.
F. DISCUSSION OF ANALYSES
The King Cove Hydroelectric Project appears to be financially feasible
using any one of the eight alternative plans presented in this report,
since they all result in lower ultimate and total costs than the base
case. Financing alternatives that are assisted by the
lower unit costs of power than alternatives that are
state, and the cost reduction will be greater
state will result in
not assisted by the
as the assistance
increases. The alternatives examined during this analysis include assis-
tance in the form of state grants, state loans at a low interest rate, and
a state equity investment with a low rate of return on the investment. The
selection of the method used to finance the project is dependent on numer-
ous policy factors which are beyond the scope of this report and no recom-
mendation will therefore be made regarding the best method of financing.
However, some comments are appropriate regarding the most realistic
financial conditions upon which to base the final selection. All alterna-
tives have been analyzed for a with real fuel escalation assumption and
without real fuel escalation assumption. This is appropriate for a sensi-
tivity analysis to gauge the effect of this alternative assumption on the
results and Figure III-3 has been included to provide a graphical portrayal
of the effect of this assumption. As shown, the base case has been plotted
for with fuel escalation and without fuel escalation. Financial Alterna-
tive III-A has also be included as an example for both with and without
real fuel escalation. As could be expected, the with fuel escalation
III-7
SF:IEB:AD1:2-III
results are higher than the without fuel escalation. The difference is
higher for the base case, which is entirely diesel generation, than for the
hydro alternative. which is primarily hydro but which also includes some
supplemental diesel.
However, most economists predict the occurrence of a long term real
fuel escalation, in spite of the current worldwide oil surplus (which is
expected to cease in several years), and this is therefore considered to
represent a more realistic condition upon which to make financial
evaluations.
Selling the surplus hydroelectric energy to the Peter Pan cannery is
also considered to be more realistic than assuming no cannery sales. since
the cannery has written a letter to the Alaska Power Authority firmly
expressing interest in purchasing such energy at prices up to 25¢/kWh.
Since the price at which this energy would be sold has not yet been deter-
mined, a range of prices from 15¢/kWh to 25¢/kWh was investigated for the
analysis. This would result in a decrease for all plans (with fuel escala-
tion) in the 1986 unit cost of power of 5.3¢/kWh for 15¢/kWh cannery
credits, 7.07¢/kWh for 20¢/kWh cannery credits, and 8.83¢/kWh for 25¢/kWh
cannery credits. The 2002 year decrease would be 2.32¢/kWh for 15¢/kWh
cannery credits, 3.09¢/kWh for 20¢/kWh cannery credits, and 3.87¢/kWh for
25¢/kWh cannery credits. The price decrease in the King Cove unit energy
prices is less over time since more energy is utilized by King Cove as the
demand increases and less surplus energy is available for the cannery,
resulting in less total cannery revenues and less income to apply to the
King Cove net generation cost.
To illustrate the effect of the inclusion of the cannery sales,
Figure III has been included. As shown, Alternative III-A has been plotted
both with no cannery credits and with 20¢/kWh cannery credit. While this
alternative would be viable without the inclusion of cannery sales, it is
considerably less costly with cannery sales.
Figures III-1 and III-2 have been included to provide a comparison of
all the financial plans studied with the base case and with each other.
III-8
SF:IEB:A01:2-III
....
Figure III-1 shows hydro alternative financial plans II-A, II-C, II-B,
III-A and the base case. This figure includes cannery credits at 20¢/kWh
and real fuel escalation. As can be seen, here and in Table III-9 and
Table III-10, all five of these plans are fairly similar, and plot very
close together on the graph. Alternative III-A has therefore been selected
as representative of these five cases and has been plotted in Figure III-2
along with the other three financial plans, Alternatives I-A, I-8, and
III-8, to provide a less cluttered comparison of all eight plans and the
base case •
III-9
SF:IEB:AD1:2-III
TABLE 111-1
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
FINANCIAL SUMMARY FOR KING COVE HYDROELECTRIC ALTERNATIVE I-A
WITH REAL FUEL ESCALATION
YEAR BASE
CASE
(c/kWh)
SUPPL. HYDRO.
DIESEL
(c/kWh) (c/kWh)
(2) (3)
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2018
2019
2020
2021
2035
18.99
19.02
19.28
19.87
20.77
22.07
23.23
24.51
25.93
27.50
29.22
31' 12
33.21
35.51
3S.04
46.41
49.27
52.43
55.91
59.74
59.74
59.74
59.74
59.74
59.74
62.46
62.46
62.46
62.46
62.46
65.03
65.03
65.03
65.03
65.03
(l)See Table D-1
(2)See Table D-3
(3)See Table E-1
18.99
19.02
19.28
7.09
7.35
10.06
10.33
10.65
11. 04
11.49
12.02
12.69
13.45
14.31
15.29
22.01
23.08
24.40
25.93
27.68
27.68
27.68
27.68
27.68
27.68
30.40
30.40
30.40
30.40
30.40
32.96
32.96
32.96
32.96
32.96
0.00
0.00
0.00
27.90
27.07
26.26
25.47
24.70
23.96
23.23
22.53
21.84
21. 18
20.53
19.91
19.30
18.72
18. 15
17.60
17.06
17.06
17.06
17.06
17.06
17.06
17.06
17.06
17.06
17.06
17.06
17.06
8.25
8.25
1. 22
1. 22
APRIL 1984
TOTAL
VILLAGE
(C/kWh)
(4)
18.99
19.02
19.28
34.99
34.41
36.32
35.80
35.36
34.99
34.72
34.55
34.53
34.63
34.85
35.20
41.32
41.80
42.54
43.53
44.74
44.74
44.74
44.74
44.74
44.74
47.46
47.46
47.46
47.46
47.46
50.03
41.22
41.22
34. 19
34.19
CANNER'!'
CREDIT
( c /kWh)
15c
(5)
0.00
0.00
0.00
5.30
5. 13
5.07
4.94
4.80
4.66
4.50
4.35
4.23
4' 10
3.94
3.77
4.07
3.77
3.53
3.29
3.03
3.03
3.03
3.03
3.03
3.03
3. 17
:3. 17
3. 17
3. 17
3. 17
3.30
3.30
3.30
3.30
3.30
(4)Sum of hydro and supplemental diesel costs.
(5)Cannery credit for 1986 cost=15c/kWh.See Table F-1
(6)Cannery credit for 1986 cost=20c/kWh.See Table F-1
C7)Cannery credit for 1986 cost=25c/kWh.See Table F-1
II I-10
CANNER'(
CREDIT
(c/kWh)
20c
(6)
0.00
0.00
0.00
7.07
6.85
6.76
6.58
6.40
6.21
6.00
5.80
5.64
5.46
5.26
5.03
5.42
5.02
4.70
4.39
4.04
4.04
4.04
4.04
4.04
4.04
4.23
4.23
4.23
4.23
4.23
4.40
4.40
4.40
4.40
4.40
CAt..f~lERY
CREDIT
(C/kWh)
25c
(7)
0.00
0.00
0.00
8.83
8e56
8.45
8.23
8.00
7.25
7,05
6.83
6.57
6.29
6.78
6.28
5.88
5.49
5.05
5.05
5.05
5.05
5.05
5.05
5.28
5.2:3
5.28
5.28
5.50
5.50
5.50
5.50
5.50
TABLE III-2
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
FINANCIAL SUMMARY FOR KING COVE HYDROELECTRIC ALTERNATIVE I-B
WITH RERL FUEL ESCALATION
APRIL 1984
YEAR BASE SUPPL. HYDRO. TOTAL CANNERY CANNERY CANNERY
CASE DIESEL VILLAGE CREDIT CREDIT CREDIT
(c/kWh) (c/kWh> (c/kWh> (C/kWh> (c/kWh> (c/kWh) (c/kWh)
15c 20c 25c
(1) <2> (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)
---------------------------------------------------------------
1983 18.99 18.99 e.ee 18.99 e.ee 0.00 e.ee
1984 19.02 19.02 e.ee 19.02 e.ee e.ee 0.00
1985 19.28 19.28 e.ee 19.28 0.00 e.ee e.ee
1986 19.87 7.09 12.78 19.87 5.30 7.07 8.83
1987 20.77 7.35 13.77 21. 12 5. 13 6.85 8.56
1988 22.07 10.06 14.81 24.87 5.07 6.76 8.45
1989 23.23 10.33 15.91 26.24 4.94 6.58 8.23
1990 24.51 10.65 17.06 27.71 4.80 6.40 8.00
...... 1991 25.93 11.04 18.27 29.31 4.66 6.21 . 7. 76
1992 27.50 11.49 19.55 31.04 4.50 6.00 7.50
1993 29.22 12.02 20.89 32.92 4.35 5.80 7.25
1994 31.12 12.69 22.31 35.00 4.23 5.64 7.05
1995 33.21 13.45 23.81 37.25 4. 10 5.46 6.83
1996 35.51 14.31 25.38 39.69 3.94 5.26 6.57
1997 38.04 15.29 26.28 41.57 3.77 5.03 6.29
1998 46.41 22.01 25.46 47.48 4.07 5.42 6.78 ,-1999 49.27 23.08 24.68 47.76 3.77 5.02 6.28
2000 52.43 24.40 23.91 48.31 3.53 4.70 5.88
2001 55.91 25.93 23.17 49.11 3.29 4.39 5.49
2002 59.74 27.68 22.46 50.14 3.03 4.04 5.05
2003 59.74 27.68 22.46 50.14 3.03 4.04 5.05
2004 59.74 27.68 22.46 50.14 3.03 4.04 5.05
2005 59.74 27.68 22.46 50.14 3.03 4.04 5.05 ..... 2006 59.74 27.68 22.46 50. 14 3.03 4.04 5.05
2007 59.74 27.68 22.46 50.14 3.03 4.04 5.05
2008 62.46 30.40 22.46 52.86 3.17 4.23 5.28
2009 62.46 30.40 22.46 52.86 3.17 4.23 5.28
2010 62.46 30.40 22.46 52.86 3. 17 4.23 5.28
2011 62.46 30.40 22.46 52.86 3. 17 4.23 5.28
2012 62.46 30.40 22.46 52.86 3' 17 4.23 5.28
2018 65.03 32.96 17.24 50.20 3.30 4.40 5.50
2019 65.03 32.96 17.24 50.20 3.30 4.40 5.50
2020 65.03 32.96 17.24 50.20 3.30 4.40 5.50
,-<if''' 2021 65.03 32.96 1. 22 34.19 3.30 4.40 5.50
2035 65.03 32.96 1. 22 34.19 3.30 4.40 5.50
(1)Si'e Table D-1
<2)See Table D-3
<3>See Table E-2
<4>Sum of hydro and supplemental diesel costs.
(5)Canni'ry credit for 1986 cost=15c/kWh.See Table F-1
(6)Cannery credit for 1986 cost=20c/kWh.See Table F-1
<7>Cannery credit for 1986 cost=25c/kWh.See Table F-1
III-11
TABLE 111-3
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
FINANCIAL SUMMARY FOR KING COVE HYDROELECTRIC ALTERNATIVE II-A
WITH REAL FUEL ESCALATION
YEAR BASE SUPPL.
CASE DIESEL
(c/kWh) (c/kWh)
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2018
2019
2020
2021
2035
(1) (2)
18.99
19.02
19.28
19.87
20.77
22.07
23.23
24.51
25.93
27.50
29.22
31. 12
33.21
35.51
38.04
46.41
49.27
52.43
55.91
59.74
59.74
59.74
59.74
59.74
59.74
62.46
62.46
62.46
62.46
62.46
65.03
65.03
65.03
65.03
65.03
<USe-e Table-D-1
(2)See-Table D-3
(3)See Table E-3
18.99
19.02
19.28
7.09
7.35
10.06
10.33
10.65
11. 04
11.49
12.02
12.69
13.45
14.31
15.29
22.01
23.08
24.40
25.93
27.68
27.68
27.68
27.68
27.68
27.68
30.40
30.40
30.40
30.40
30.40
32.96
32.96
32.96
32.96
32.96
APRIL 1984
HYDRO. TOTAL
VILLAGE
(c/kWh) (C/kWh>
(3) (4)
0.00
0.00
0.00
14.61
14. 19
13.78
13.38
12.99
12.61
12.24
11.89
11.54
11. 21
10.88
10.57
10.26
9.97
9.68
9.41
9. 14
9. 14
9. 14
9. 14
9. 14
9.14
9. 14
9. 14
9. 14
9. 14
9. 14
9. 14
4.74
4.74
1. 22
1. 22
18.99
19.02
19.28
21.70
21.53
23.84
23.71
23.64
23.65
23.73
23.91
24"23
24.65
25.19
25.86
32.27
33.05
34.08
35.34
36.82
36.82
36.82
36.82
36.82
36.82
39.54
39.54
39.54
39.54
39.54
42. 11
37.70
37.70
34.19
34. 19
CANNERY
CREDIT
< c /kWh)
15c
(5)
0.00
0.00
0.00
5.30
5. 13
5.07
4.94
4.80
4.66
4.50
4.35
4.23
4' 10
3.94
3.77
4.07
3.77
3.53
3.29
3.03
3.03
3.03
3.03
3.03
3.03
3. 17
3. 17
3. 17
3. 17
3. 17
3.30
3.30
3.30
3.30
3.30
(4)Sum of hydro and supplemental diesel costs.
(5)Canne-ry credit for 1986 cost=15c/kWh.See Table F-1
(6)Cannery credit for 1986 cost=20c/kWh.See Table F-1
(?)Cannery credit for 1986 cost=25c/kWh.See Table F-1
III-12
CANNERY
CREDIT
( c /ld .. Jh)
20c
(6)
0.00
0.00
0.00
7.07
6.85
6.76
6.58
6.40
6.21
6.00
5.80
5.64
5.46
5.26
5.03
5.42
5.02
4.70
4.39
4.04
4.04
4.04
4.04
4.04
4.04
4. 2:3
4.23
4.23
4.23
4.23
4.40
4.40
4.40
4.40
4.40
CANNER'/
CREDIT
(c/kWh)
25c
(7)
0.00
0.00
0.00
8.83
8.56
8.45
8.23
8.00
7.76
7.50
7.25
7.05
6.83
6.57
6.29
6.78
6.28
5.88
5.49
5.05
5.05
5.05
5.05
5.05
5.05
5.28
5.28
5.28
5.28
5.28
5.50
5.50
5.50
5.50
5.50
r-
TABLE III-4
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
FINANCIAL SUMMARY FOR KING COVE HYDROELECTRIC ALTERNATIVE II-B
WITH REAL FUEL ESCALATION
APRIL 1984
YEAR BASE SUPPL. HYDRO. TOTAL CANNERY CANNERY CANNERY
CASE DIESEL VILLAGE CREDIT CREDIT CREDIT
(c/kWh) (c/kWh) (c/kWh) (C/kWh) (c/kWh) (c/kWh) (c/kWh)
15c 20c 25c
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) <ED (7)
---------------------------------------------------------------
1983 18.99 18.99 0.00 18.99 0.00 0.00 0.00
1984 19.02 19.02 0.00 19.02 0.00 0.00 0.00
1985 19.28 19.28 0.00 19.28 0.00 0.00 0.00
1986 19.87 7.09 11.95 19.04 5.30 7.07 8.83
1987 20.77 7.35 11.61 18.96 5. 13 6.85 8.56
1988 22.07 10.06 11.28 21.34 5.07 6.76 8.45
1989 23.23 10.33 10.96 21.29 4.94 6.58 8.23
1990 24.51 10.65 10.64 21.30 4.80 6.40 8.00
1991 25.93 11.04 10.34 21.38 4.66 6.21 7.76
1992 27.50 11.49 10.04 21.53 4.50 6.00 7.50
1993 29.22 12.02 9.76 21.78 4.35 5.80 7.25
1994 31. 12 12.69 9.48 22.17 4.23 5.64 7.05
1995 33.21 13.45 9.21 22.66 4. 10 5.46 6.83
1996 35.51 14.31 8.95 23.26 3.94 5.26 6.57
1997 38.04 15.29 8.70 23.99 3.77 5.03 6.29 .. -1998 46.41 22.01 8.46 30.47 4.07 5.42 6.78
1999 49,27 23.08 8.22 31.30 3.77 5.02 6.28
2000 52.43 24.40 7.99 32.39 3.53 4.70 5.88
2001 55.91 25.93 7.77 33.71 3.29 4.39 5.49
2002 59.74 27.68 7.56 35.24 3.03 4.04 5.05
200.3 59.74 27.68 7.56 35.24 3.03 4.04 5.05
2004 59.74 27.68 7.56 35.24 3.03 4.04 5.05
2005 59.74 27.68 7.56 35.24 3.03 4.04 5.05
~-2006 59.74 27.68 7.56 35.24 3.03 4.04 5.05
2007 59.74 27.68 7.56 35.24 3.03 4.04 5.05
2008 62.46 30.40 7.56 37.96 3. 17 4.23 5.28
2009 62.46 30.40 7.56 37.96 3. 17 4.23 5.28
2010 62.46 30.40 7.56 37.96 3. 17 4.23 5.28
2011 62.46 30.40 7.56 37.96 3. 17 4.23 5.28
2012 62.46 30.40 7.56 37.96 3. 17 4.23 5.28
2018 65.03 32.96 7.56 40.52 3.30 4.40 5.50
2019 65.03 32.96 4.04 37.00 3.30 4.40 5.50
2020 65.03 32.96 4.04 37.00 3.30 4.40 5.50
2021 65.03 32.96 1. 22 34.19 3.30 4.40 5.50
2035 65.03 32.96 1. 22 34.19 3.30 4.40 5.50
(1)See Tab 1E' D-1
(2)See Table D-3
<3)See Table E-4
(4)Sum of hydro and supplemental diesel costs.
<5)Cannery credit for 1986 cost=15c/kWh.See Table F-1
(6)Cannery credit for 1986 cost=20c/kWh.See Table F-1
(?)Cannery credit for 1986 cost=25c/kWh.See Table F-1
III-13
TABLE III-5
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
FINANCIAL SUMMARY FOR KING COVE HYDROELECTRIC ALTERNATIVE 11-C
WITH REAL FUEL ESCALATION
YEAR BASE
CASE
(c/kWh)
SUPPL. HYDRO.
DIESEL
(c/kWh) (c/kWh)
(1) (2) (3)
1'983
1'984
1'985
1986
1'987
1988
1'989
1'9'90
1'9'91
1'992
1'9'93
1'9'94
1'9'95
1'9'96
19'97
1'9'98
19'9'9
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
200'9
2010
2011
2012
2018
201'9
2020
2021
2035
18.'99
1'9.02
19.28
1'9.87
20.77
22.07
23.23
24.51
25.'93
27.50
2'9.22
31. 12
33.21
35.51
38.04
46.41
4'9.27
52.43
55.91
5'9.74
5'9.74
5'9.74
59.74
5'9.74
5'9.74
62.46
62.46
62.46
62.46
62.46
65.03
65.03
65.03
65.03
65.03
<1)See Table D-1
<:~D See Tab 1 e D-3
(3)See Table E-5
18.'9'9
1'9.02
1'9.28
7.09
7.35
10.06
10.33
10.65
11.04
11.4'9
12.02
12,6'9
13.45
14.31
15.2'9
22.01
23.08
24.40
25.'93
27.68
27.68
27.68
27.68
27.68
27.68
30.40
30.40
30.40
30.40
30.40
32.96
32.'96
32.'96
32.'96
32.'96
0.00
0.00
0.00
12.78
12.41
12.06
11.71
11.37
11.04
10.73
10.42
10. 12
9.83
'9.55
'9.28
'9.02
8.76
8.52
8.28
8.05
8.05
8.05
8.05
8.05
8.05
8.05
8.05
8.05
8.05
8.05
8.05
4.25
4.25
1. 22
1. 22
APRIL 1'984
TOTAL
VILLAGE
(C/kWh)
(4)
18.'9'9
1'9.02
19.28
1'9.87
19.76
22.12
22.04
22.03
22.08
22.22
22.44
22.81
23.28
23.86
24.57
31.03
31.84
32.'92
34.21
35.73
35.73
35.73
35.73
35.73
35.73
38.45
38.45
38.45
38.45
38.45
41. 01
37.22
37.22
34.1'9
34.1'9
CANNERY
CREDIT
(c/k~lh)
15c
(5)
0.00
0.00
0.00
5.30
5. 13
5.07
4.'94
4.80
4.66
4,50
4.35
4.23
4.10
3.94
3.77
4.07
3.77
3.53
3.29
3.03
3.03
3.03
3.03
3.03
3.03
3.17
.3" 17
3. 17
3. 17
3. 17
3.30
3.30
3.30
3.30
3.30
(4)Sum of hydro and supplemental diesel costs.
<5)Cannery credit for 1986 cost=15c/kWh.See Table F-1
(6)Cannery credit for 1986 cost=20c/kWh.See Table F-1
C7)Cannery credit for 1'986 cost=25c/kWh.See Table F-1
I II-14
CANNERY
CREDIT
(c/kWh)
20c
(6)
0.00
0.00
0.00
7.07
6.85
6.76
6.58
6.40
6.21
6.00
5.80
5.64
5.46
5. 26 .
5.03
5.42
5.02
4.70
4.39
4.04
4.04
4.04
4.04
4.04
4.04
4.23
4.23
4.23
4.,23
4. 2:3
4.40
4.40
4.40
4.40
4.40
CANNERY
CREDIT
<c kWh)
25c
(7)
0.00
0.00
0.00
8.83
8.56
8.45
8. 2:3
8.00
7.76
7.50
7.25
7,05
6 < 8:3
6.57
6.2'9
6.78
6.28
5.88
5.49
5.05
5.05
5.05
5.05
5.05
5.05
5.28
5.28
5.28
5.28
5.28
5. 5€1
5.50
5.50
5.50
5.50
TABLE II I-6
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
FINANCIAL SUMMARY FOR KING COVE HYDROELECTRIC ALTERNATIVE III-A
WITH REAL FUEL ESCALATION
YEAR BASE SUPPL. HYDRO.
CASE DIESEL
(c/kWh> (c/kWh) (c/kWh)
(1) <2> (3)
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
20113
2011
2012
2018
2019
2020
2021
2035
18.99
19.02
19.28
19.87
20.77
22.07
23.23
24.51
25.93
27.50
29.22
31. 12
33.21
35.51
38.04
46.41
49.27
52.43
55.91
59.74
59.74
59.74
59.74
59.74
59.74
62.46
62.46
62.46
62.46
62.46
65.03
65,03
65.03
65.03
65.03
<USee Table D-1
<2>See Table D-3
<3>See Table E-6
18.99
19.02
19.28
7.09
7.35
10.06
10.33
10.65
11.04
11.49
12.02
12.69
13.45
14.31
15.29
22.01
23.08
24.40
25.93
27.68
27.68
27.68
27.68
27.68
27.68
30.40
30.40
30.40
30.40
30.40
32.96
32.96
32.96
32.96
32.96
0.00
0.00
0.00
15.02
14.59
14. 16
13.75
13.35
12.96
12.58
12.21
11.86
11.51
11. 18
10.86
10.54
10.24
9.95
9.66
9.39
9,39
9.39
9.39
9.39
9.39
9.39
9.39
9.39
9.39
9.39
9.39
9.39
9.39
1.22
1. 22
APRIL 1984
TOTAL
VILLAGE
(C/kWh>
(4)
18.99
19.02
19.28
22. 11
21.93
24.22
24.08
24.00
24.00
24.07
24.24
24.55
24.96
25.49
26.15
32.55
33.32
34.34
35.60
37.07
37.07
37.07
37.07
37.07
37.07
39.79
39.79
39.79
39.79
39.79
42.35
42.35
42.35
34. 19
34. 19
CANNERY
CREDIT
(c/kWh)
15c
(5)
0.00
0.00
0.00
5.30
5. 13
5.07
4.94
4.80
4.66
4.50
4.35
4.23
4. 10
3.94
3.77
4.07
3.77
3.53
3.29
3.03
3.03
3.03
3.03
3.03
3.03
. 3. 17
3. 17
3.17
3.17
3. 17
3.30
3.30
3.30
3.30
3.30
<4)Sum of hydro and supplemental diesel costs.
<5>Cannery credit for 1986 cost=15c/kWh.See Table F-1
(6>Cannery credit for 1986 cost=20c/kWh.See Table F-1
<?)Cannery credit for 1986 cost=25c/kWh.See Table F-1
III-15
CANNERY
CREDIT
(c/kWh>
20c
<6>
0.00
0.00
0.00
7.07
6.85
6.76
6.58
6.40
6.21
6.00
5.80
5.64
5.46
5.26
5.03
5.42
5.02
4.70
4.39
4.04
4.04
4.04
4.04
4.04
4.04
4.23
4.23
4.23
4.23
4.23
4.40
4.40
4.40
4.40
4.40
CANNERY
CREDIT
(c/kWh>
25c
(7)
0.00
0.00
0.00
8.83
8.56
8.45
8.23
8.00
7.76
7.50
7.25
7.05
6.83
6.57
6.29
6.78
6.28
5.88
5.49
5.05
5.05
5.05
5.05
5.05
5.05
5.28
5.28
5.28
5.28
5.28
5.50
5.50
5.50
5.50
5.50
TABLE III-7
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
FINANCIAL SUMMARY FOR KING COVE HYDROELECTRIC ALTERNATIVE III-B
WITH REAL FUEL ESCALATION
YEAR BASE
CASE
(c/kWh)
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2018
2019
2020
2021
2035
18.99
19.02
19.28
19.87
20.77
22.07
23.23
24.51
25.93
27.50
29.22
31. 12
33.21
35.51
38.04
46.41
49.27
52.43
55.91
59.74
59.74
59.74
!59.74
!59.74
!59.74
62.46
62.46
62.46
62.46
62.46
65.03
6!5.03
65.03
6!5.03
6!5.03
SUPPL.
DIESEL
(c/kWh)
(2)
18.99
19.02
19.28
7.09
7.3!5
10.06
10.33
10.6!5
11.04
11.49
12.02
12.69
13.4!5
14.31
15.29
22.01
23.08
24.40
2!5.93
27.68
27.68
27.68
27.68
27.68
27.68
30.40
30.40
30.40
30.40
30.40
32.96
32.96
32.96
32.96
32.96
< 1) See Tab 1 e D -1
(2)See Table D-3
(3)See Table E-7
HYDRO.
(3)
0.00
0.00
0.00
1. 32
1. 31
1. 30
1. 28
1. 27
1. 26
1. 2!5
1. 25
1. 24
1. 23
20.06
19.45
18.86
18.29
17.73
17. 19
16.67
16.67
16.67
16.67
16.67
16.67
16.67
16.67
16.67
16.67
16.67
16.67
16.67
16.67
1. 22
1. 22
APRIL 1984
TOTAL
VILLAGE
(C/kWh)
(4)
18.99
19.02
19.28
8.41
8.66
11.36
11.61
11.93
12.30
12.74
13.27
13.93
14.68
34.37
34.74
40.87
41.37
42.13
43.13
44.35
44.35
44.35
44.35
44.35
44.35
47.07
47.07
47.07
47.07
47.07
49.64
49.64
49.64
34.19
34. 19
CANNERY
CREDIT
(c/kWh)
15c
(5)
0.00
0.00
0.00
5.30
5. 13
5.07
4.94
4.80
4.66
4.50
4.35
4.23
4" 10
3.94
3.77
4.07
3.77
3.53
3.29
3.03
3.03
3.03
3.03
3.03
3.03
3.17
3. 17
3. 17
3. 17
3. 17
3.30
3.30
3.30
3.30
3.30
C4)Sum of hydro and supplemental diesel costs.
C5)Cannery credit for 1986 cost=15c/kWh.See Table F-1
C6)Cannery credit for 1986 cost=20c/kWh.See Table F-1
<?>Cannery credit for 1986 cost=25c/kWh.See Table F-1
I II-16
CANNER','
CREDIT
< c /kWh)
20c
(6)
0.00
0.00
0.00
7.07
6.85
6.76
6.58
6.40
6.21
6.00
5.80
5·. 64
5.46
5 .. 26
5.03
5.42
5.02
4.70
4.39
4.04
4.04
4.04
4.04
4.04
4.04
4.23
4.23
4.23
4.23
4.23
4.40
4.40
4.40
4.40
4.40
CANNERY
CREDIT
( •: /k L4h)
25c
(7)
0.00
0.00
0.00
8.83
8.56
8.45
8.23
8.00
7.76
7.50
7a25
7.05
6.83
6.57
6, 2'3
6.78
6.28
5.88
5.49
5.05
5.05
5.05
5.05
5.05
5.05
5.28
5.28
5.28
5.28
5.28
5.50
5.50
5.50
5.50
5.50
TABLE III-8
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
FINANCIAL SUMMARY FOR KING COVE HYDROELECTRIC ALTERNATIVE IV
WITH REAL FUEL ESCALAT I or~
APRIL 1984
YEAR BASE SUPPL. HYDRO. TOTAL CAN~~ERY CANt-IER~' CAt-INER','
CASE DIESEL VILLAGE CREDIT CREDIT CREDIT
(c/kWh) (c/kWh) (c/kWh) (C/kWh) (c/kWh) (c..-·kWh) (c/kWh)
15c 20c 25c
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) ( 7)
------------------ ---------------------------------------------
1983 18.99 18.99 0.00 18.99 0.00 0.00 0.00
1984 19.02 19.02 0.00 19.02 0.00 0.00 0.00
1985 19.28 19.28 0.00 19.28 0.00 0.00 0.00
1986 19.87 7.09 11.22 18.30 5.30 7.07 8.83
1987 20.77 7.35 10.87 18.22 5. 13 6.85 8.56
1988 22.07 10.06 10.53 20.59 5.07 6.76 8.45
1989 23.23 10.33 10.21 20.54 4.94 6.58 8.23
1990 24.51 10.65 9.89 20.54 4.80 6.40 8.00
1991 25.93 11.04 9.58 20.61 4.66 6.21 7.76
1992 27.50 11. 49 9.27 20.76 4.50 6.00 7.50
1993 29.22 12.02 8.98 21.00 4.35 5.80 7.25
1994 31. 12 12.69 8.69 21.38 4.23 5.64 7.05
1995 33.21 13.45 8.42 21.86 4. 10 5.46 6.83
1996 35.51 14.31 8. 15 22.46 3.94 5.26 6.57
1997 38.04 15.29 7.88 23. 18 3.77 5.03 6. 2'3
1998 46.41 22.01 7.63 29.64 4.07 5.42 6.78
1999 49.27 23.08 7.38 30.46 3.77 5.02 6.28
2000 52.43 24.40 7. 14 31.54 3.53 4.70 5.88
2001 55.91 25.93 6.91 32.84 3.29 4.39 5.49
2002 59.74 27.68 6.68 34.36 3.03 4.04 5.05
2003 59.74 27.68 6.68 34.36 3.03 4.04 5.05
2004 59.74 27.68 6.68 34.36 3.03 4.04 5.05
2005 59.74 27.68 6.68 34.36 3.03 4.04 5.05
2006 59.74 27.68 6.68 34.36 3.03 4.04 5.05
2007 59.74 27.68 6.68 34.36 3.03 4.04 5.05
2008 62.46 30.40 6.68 37.08 3. 17 4.23 5.28
2009 62.46 30.40 6.68 37.08 3. 17 4.23 5.28
2010 62.46 30.40 6.68 37.08 3. 17 4.23 5.28
2011 62.46 30.40 6.68 37.08 3. 17 4.23 5.28
2012 62.46 30.40 6.68 37.08 3. 17 4.23 5.28 ...
2018 65.03 32.96 6.68 39.65 3.30 4.40 5.50
2019 65.03 32.96 6.68 39.65 3.30 4.40 5.50
2020 65.03 32.96 6.68 39.65 3.30 4.40 5.50
2021 65.03 32.96 6.68 39.65 3.30 4.40 5.50 ...
2035 65.03 32.96 6.68 39.65 3.30 4.40 5.50
<t>See-Table D-1
(2)See Table D-3
(3)See Table E-8
(4)Sum of hydro and supplemental diesel costs.
(5)Cannery credit, for 1986 cost=15c/kWh.See Table F-1
(6)Cannery credit for 1986 cost=20c/kWh.See Table F-1
(7)Cannery credit for 1986 cost=25c/kWh.See Tab 1 e F-1
Ill-17
TABLE 111-9
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS SUMMARY FOR KING COVE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
UNIT COSTS OF ENERGY! ~L FUEL ESCALATION
APRIL 1984
100% REVENUE REVENUE BONDS AND STATE LOANS STATE SAVINGS FROM ENERGY
BONDS STATE GRANTS EQUITY SALES TO CANNERY
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------~-------~-------
YEAR IBASE I-A I-B II-A li-B II-C III-A IIII-B IV 15c 20c 25c
CASE 100% 100l: 50~/50~ 40%/60% 43lV57:', -
(C/kWh) (c/kWh> (c/kWh> <crkWh> < c /I< Wh > ( c /kWh> (c/&<Wh> (c/kWh) (c/klolt,) (c/kWh) (c/kWh> (c/klolh)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) ( 10) ( 11> ( 12)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1983 18.99 18.99 18.99 18.99 18.99 18.99 IS. 99 18.99 18.99 0.00 0.00 0.00
1984 19.02 19,02 19.02 19.02 19.02 19.02 19.02 19.02 19.02 0.00 0.00 0.00
1985 19.28 19.28 19.28 19.28 19.28 19.28 1..,, 28 19.28 19.28 0.00 0.00 0.00
1986 19.87 34.99 19.87 21.70 19.04 19.87 22. 11 8.41 18.30 5,30 7.07 8.83
1987 20.77 34.41 21. 12 21.53 18.96 19.76 21.93 8.66 18.22 5. 13 6.85 8.56
1988 22.07 36.32 24.87 23.84 21.34 22. 12 24.22 II. 36 20.59 5.07 6.76 8,45
1989 23.23 35.80 26.24 23.71 21.29 22.04 24.08 11.61 20.54 4.94 6.58 8,23
1990 24.51 35.36 27.71 23.64 21.30 22.03 24.00 11.93 20.54 4.80 6,40 8.00
I 9'.ill 25.93 34.99 29.31 23.65 21.38 22.08 24.00 12.30 20.61 4.66 6.21 7.76
1992 27.50 34.72 31.04 23.73 21.53 22.22 24.07 12.74 20.76 4.50 6.00 7.50
1993 29.22 34.55 32.92 23.91 21.78 22.44 24.24 13.27 21.00 4.35 5,80 7.25
1994 31. 12 34.53 35.00 24.23 22. 17 22.81 24.55 13.93 21. 36 4.23 5.64 7.05
1995 33.21 34.63 37.25 24.65 22.66 23.28 24.96 14.68 21.86 4. 10 5.46 6.83
1996 35.51 34.85 39,69 25.19 23.26 23.86 25.49 34.')7 22.46 3.94 5.26 6.57
...... 1997 38.04 35.20 41.57 25.86 23.99 24.57 26.15 34,74 23. 18 3. 77 5.03 6.29
...... 1998 46.41 41.32 47.48 32.27 30.47 31.03 32.55 40.87 29.64 4.07 5.42 6.78
...... 1999 49.27 41.80 47.76 33.05 31.30 31.84 33.32 41.37 30.46 3. 77 5.02 6.28
I ...... 2000 52.43 42.54 48.31 34.08 32.39 32.92 34.34 42.13 31.54 3.53 4.70 s.88
(X) 2001 55.91 43.53 49. 11 35.34 33.71 34.21 35.60 43.13 32.84 3.29 4.39 5.49
2002 59.74 44,74 50.14 36.82 35.24 35.73 37.07 44.35 34.36 3.03 4.04 5.05
2003 59.74 44.74 50.14 36.82 35.24 35.73 37.07 44.35 34.36 3.03 4.04 5.05
2004 59.74 44.74 50.14 36.82 35.24 35.73 37.07 44.35 34.36 3.03 4.04 5.05
2005 59.74 44.74 50.14 36.82 35.24 35.73 37.07 44.35 34.36 3.03 4.04 5.05
2006 59.74 44.74 50.14 36.82 35.24 35.73 37.07 44.35 34,36 3.03 4.04 5.05
2007 59.74 44,74 50.14 36.82 35.24 35.73 37.07 44.35 34.36 3.03 4. 04 5.05
2008 62.46 47.46 52.86 39.54 37.96 38.45 3'9. 79 47.07 37,08 3. 17 4.23 5.28
2009 62.46 47.46 52.86 39.54 37.96 38.45 3'9.79 47.07 37.08 3. 17 4,23 5.28
2010 62.46 47.46 52.86 39.54 37.96 38.45 39.79 47.07 37.08 3. 17 4.23 5.28
2011 62.46 47.46 52.66 39.54 37.96 38.45 3'9.79 47.07 37.08 3. 17 4.23 5.28
2012 62.46 47.46 52.86 39.54 37,96 38.45 3'9,79 47.07 37.08 3. 17 4.23 5.28
2013 65.03 50.03 55.42 42. 11 40.52 41.01 42.35 49,64 39.65 3.30 4.40 5.50 . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . .. . .
2016 65.03 50.03 50.20 42. 11 40.52 41.01 42.35 49.64 39.65 3.30 4.40 5.50
2019 65.03 41.22 50.20 37.70 37.00 37.22 42.35 49.64 39.65 3.30 4.40 5.50
2020 65.03 41.22 50.20 37.70 37.00 37.22 42.35 49.64 39.65 3.30 4.40 5.50
2021 65.03 34.19 34.19 34.19 34. 19 34. 19 34. 19 34. 19 39.65 3.30 4.40 5.50 . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . ...
2035 65.03 34.19 34. 19 34. 19 34. 19 34.19 34.19 34. 19 39.651 3.301 4,401 5.50
<I>Se41 T&b141 D-1
(2)S4141 Table D-3 and E-1.Sum of hydro and supplemental dies41l costs.
<3>54141 Table D-3 and E-2.Sum of hydro and supplem~ntal di e;;;~l costs.
(4lSee Table D-3 and E-3.Sum of hydro and supplem41ntal diesel costs.
(5)See Tabl41 D-3 and E-4.Sum of hydro and supplemental du:=-El costs.
<6lS41e Table D-3 and E-5.Sum of hydro and supplemental dit'sel costs.
<?)See Table D-3 and E-6.Sum of hydro and supplemental di e:=.e·l costt.
<8 St'e Table D-3 and E-7.Sum of hydro and supplemental die:=el c o:=.t ; .•
<':IJSee Table D-3 and E-B.Sum of h~dro and supplemental dte:sel C O:St S.
<10)15 c'kWh for l986,escalates at s.au1E" r·.51tE it.E· the· b~:: t:: Cis.:: • St:·e T .;,.b 1 F !.
(11 28 c/kWh for 1986,esc.;,.l.;,.tes at ;.ame ratE as ti·,~ ba:.::.l:i-Cil.....: • ~;e e T.;,.b F· 1.
( 12)25 c/kWh for· 1986,~scalate$ at same::-r··ate· a:: t bt tLS:,E.: c.a:.:: • St:-~ T20bl F -1.
TABLE I II-10
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS SUMMARY FOR KING COVE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
UNIT COSTS OF ENERGY:W/0 REAL FUEL ESCALATION 1 W/O CANNERY
APRIL 1984
100% REVENUE REVENUE BONDS AND STATE LOANS STATE SAVINGS FROM ENERGY
BONDS STATE GRANTS EQUIT'f SALES TO CANNERY
---------------------------------------------------------------------------_______ , _______ , _______
YEAR I BASE I -A I -B II-A II-B II-C III-A III-B IV 15c 20c 2~c
CASE 100% 100% 50%/50% 40%/60% 43::v57% -
(C /kWh) (c/kWh) (c/kWh> (c/kWh> (c/kWh) ((;:/kWh) <c ,;kWh) (c/kWh) (C/kWh) (c/kWh> (c/kWh) (c/kWh>
(1) (2) (3) (4) (~) (6) (7) <8> (9) <10) ( 11) ( 12>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1983 18.99 18.99 18.99 18.99 18.99 18.99 18.99 18.99 18.99 0.00 0.00 0.00
1984 19.02 19.02 19.02 19.02 19.02 19.02 1'9.02 19.02 19.02 0,00 0.00 0.00
1985 19.28 19.28 19.28 19.28 19.28 19.28 1'9.28 19.28 19.28 0.00 0.00 0.00
1986 19.87 34.99 19.87 21.70 19.04 19.87 22. 11 8.41 18.30 ~.30 7.07 8.83
1987 20.77 34,41 21. 12 21.53 18.96 19.76 21.93 8.66 18.22 5.13 6.85 8.~6
1988 22.07 36.32 24.87 23.84 21.34 22. 12 24.22 11.36 20.~9 5.07 6.76 8.4~
1989 22.86 35.74 26. 18 23.65 21.23 21.98 24.02 11.56 20.48 4.86 6,48 8.10
1990 23.72 35.22 27.58 23.51 21.17 21.90 23.87 11.80 20.41 4.64 6.19 7. 74
1991 24.65 3J4, 77 29.08 23.42 21. 15 21.86 23.77 12.07 20.:39 4.43 5.90 7.38
1992 25.65 34.37 30.69 23.38 21. 18 21.86 23.72 12.39 20.41 4.20 5.60 7.00
1993 26.73 34.04 32.41 23.40 21.28 21.94 23.73 12,76 20.50 3.98 5.30 6.63
1994 27.89 33.83 34.30 23.53 21.47 22.10 23.84 13.22 20.68 3.79 5.05 6.32
1995 29.14 33.68 36.31 23.71 21.72 22.34 24.02 13.74 20.92 3.59 4.79 5.99
1996 30.48 33,61 38.46 23.96 22.03 22.63 24.26 33.14 21.23 3.39 4.51 5.64
1997 31.92 33.62 39.99 24.28 22,41 22.99 24.57 33.16 21.60 3.17 4.22 5.28
1998 39.07 39.32 45.48 30.28 28.48 29.04 310.56 38.88 27.65 3.42 4.57 5.71 ...... 1999 40.54 39.32 45.28 30.57 28.82 29.37 310.84 38.89 27.98 3,10 4.13 5.16 ....... ....... 2000 42.14 39.48 45.24 31.01 29.32 29.85 31.27 39.06 28.47 2.84 3.78 4. 73
I 2001 43.86 39.76 45.34 31.57 29.94 30.44 31.83 39.36 29.07 2.58 3.44 4,31 .....
\0 2002 45,72 40.16 45.~5 32.24 30.65 31.14 32.48 39.77 29.7>3 2.32 3.09 3.87
2003 45.72 40. 16 45.55 32.24 30.65 31. 14 32.48 39,77 29.78 2.32 3.09 3.87
2004 45.72 40.16 45.55 32.24 30.65 31.14 3:2.48 39.77 29.7>3 2.32 3.09 3.87
2005 45.72 40.16 45.55 32.24 30.65 31. 14 32.48 39.77 29.78 2.32 3.09 3.87
2006 45.72 40.16 45.~5 32.24 30.65 31. 14 32.48 39.77 29.78 2.32 3.09 3.87
2007 45.72 40.16 45.55 32.24 39.65 31. 14 32.48 39.77 29.76 2.32 3.09 3.87
2008 48.44 42.87 48.27 34.95 33.37 33.86 35.20 42.48 32.49 2.46 3.28 4.10
2009 48.44 42.87 48.27 34.95 33.37 33.86 35.20 42.48 32.49 2.46 3.28 4,10
2010 48.44 42.87 48.27 34.95 33,37 33.86 35.20 42.48 32.49 2.46 3.28 4.10
2011 48.44 42.87 48.27 34.95 33.37 33.86 35.20 42.48 32.49 2.46 3.28 4.10
2012 48.44 42.87 48.27 34.95 33.37 33.86 35.20 42.48 32.49 2.46 3.28 4.10
2013 St. 01 45.44 50.83 37.52 35.94 36.43 37.76 45.05 35.06 2.59 3.45 4.31 . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . ..
2018 51.01 45.44 45.61 37.52 35.94 36.43 37.76 45.05 35.06 2.59 3.45 4,31
2019 51.01 36.63 45.61 33. 11 32.41 32.63 37.76 45.05 35.06 2.59 3.4~ 4.31
2020 51.01 36.63 45.61 33. 11 32.41 32.63 37.76 45.05 35.06 2.59 3.45 4. 31
2021 51.01 29.60 29.60 29.60 29.60 29.60 2'9.60 29.60 35.06 2.59 3.45 4.31 . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...
2035 51.01 29.60 29.60 29.60 29.60 29.60 2'9.60 29.60 35.06), 2.591 3.451 4.31
<I>SI'I' Tabll' D-2
<2>Su Tabll' D-4 and E-l.Sum of hydro and suppleml'ntal diesel costs,
<3>SI'I' Tabh D-4 and E-2.Sum of hydro and supplemental diesel costs.
<4>Sal' Tabll' D-4 and E-3.Sum of hydro and supplemental diesel costs.
(5)S•• Tabh D-4 and E-4.Sum of hydro and suppleml'ntal diesl'l costs.
<6>SI'I' Tabll' D-4 and E-5.Sum of hydro and supplemental diesel costs.
<?>Su Tabl.r D-4 and E-6.Sum of hydro and supplemental diesel costs.
<B>S•• Tabll' D-4 and E-?,Sum of hydro and supplemental diesel costs.
(9)$1'1' Tabll' D-4 anfi_E-8.Sum of hydro and supplemental die:sel costs.
<19)15 c/kWh for 1986,escalates at same rate· as the bas.e ca:;;e.See Table F-L
(11)20 c/kWh for 1986,escalates at same· rate-as thl' ba~ . .;-case.See Table F-1.
<12>25 c/kWh for 1986 1 4tscalate:s at same rate a:s the base ca:;;.,,See· Table· F-1.
.c.
3:
.X
' (J)
1-z w u
1-
(J)
0 u
>-
(,!) a:: w z w
1. Costs shown include general inflation and real fuel escalation.
2. Alternative II-A is 50% tax-exempt revenue bonds and 50% state grants.
3. Alternative II-8 is 40% tax-exempt revenue bonds and 60% state grant.
4. Alternative II-C is 43.1% tax-exempt revenue bonds and 56.9% state grant.
5. Alternative III-A is State loan at 5%.
6. Alternative IV is State Equity Financing with 5% return.
7. All hydro alternatives include cost of supplemental diesel and adjustment
for energy sold to cannery.
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY FIGURE
KING COVE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT III-1
W/ FUEL ESCALATION
W/ CANNERY CREDIT@ 20 c/kWh FOR 1988
I II-20
,...,
.r.
3:
.X
' Ul
t-z w
(.) ....,
t-
Ul
0
(.)
>-CI
0:: w z w
1. Costs shown include general inflation and real fuel escalation.
2. Alternative I-A is 100% tax-exempt revenue bonds.
3. Alternative I-B is 100% tax-exempt revenue bonds with graduated repayment
schedule.
4. Alternative III-A is State Loan, 35 years at 5%.
5. Alternat1ve III-B is State Loan at 5% with payments deferred for
10 years.
6. All hydro alternatives include cost of supplemental diesel and adjustment
for energy sold to cannery.
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
KING COVE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
W/ tUEL ESCALATION
FIGURE
III-2
W/ CANNERY CREDIT@ 20 c/kHh tOR 1986
I II-21
.c
3::
.$.
' en
1-z w u ....,
l-en
0 u
>-
(.!1
ct w z w
1990 2B!B
YEAR
1. Costs shown include general 1nflation.
2. Costs shown with and without real fuel escalation.
W/ F"lEt. ESC •
3. Hydro Alternative III-A is State Loan, 35 years at 5%.
4. Hydro alternative includes cost of supplemental diesel and adjustment for
energy sold to cannery.
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
KING COVE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
W/ AND W/0 FUEL ESCALATION
CANNERY CREDIT e 20 c/kWh FOR 1986
III-22
FIGURE
III-3
,...
.r.
X
~
' (J)
1-z w u
'"' 1-
(J)
0 u
>-1.!1
0:: w z w
1. Costs shown include general 1n,flat1on and real fuel escalation.
2. Hydro Alternative III-A is State Loan, 35 years at 5%.
3. Hydro alternative includes cost of supplemental diesel.
4. Hydro alternative shown with and without adjustment for energy sold to
cannery.
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
KING COVE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
W/ FUEL ESCALATION
W & W/0 CANNERY CREDIT @ 20 c/kWh
III-23
FIGURE
III-4
FOR 1986
SF:IEB:AD1:2-C
APPENDIX A
PROJECT DRAWINGS
475
450
425
400
375 -
350
325
~ 300 :::J
1--«
0 275
w
1--rn u; 250 "' >=
225 ::::;
1--0
w ~ w 200 lL z 0 c c
z 175 _iii 0 0 "' ;::: I1J ~ ::l' 150 > i5 w
...J w 125
0+00
STATIONING
TYPE Jll TYPE II
-I
--I
FEET
SEE ACCESS ROAD
AND PENSTOCK
CREEK CROSSING
DETAILS
PLAN
SCALE I 250
PROFILE OF PENSTOCK I ACCESS ROAD
SCALE 250 HORIZ
50 VERT
I
_L
ACCESS ROAD AND
TRANSMISSION LINE
TO KING COVE (5 MILES)
VIA AIRPORT ( 1/2 MILE)
..... ,
"-,~NATURAL GROUND (ROCK)
, SELECT ROADBED FILL
' ' ',
SECTION A
TYPE II
I
-1 -_I __
I
I
475 I
I
450 II
425
400l
1
375
I
350 II
325 I
(I
300
275
250
225 i
NQIT I
0
0
NO TERRAIN WAS ENCOUNTERED REQUIRING
THE TYPE I SECTION DURING THE FIELD RECONNAISSANCE
IT IS INCLUDED HERE IN CASE LATER MORE DETAILED
INVESTIGATIONS YIELD EVIDENCE 01! SUBSURFACE ROCK
It
4 8 12 161! 20 24
SCALE I 4 I[
200 ~ 250 50 100 150 300
SCALE I 250
TYPE I-SIDEHILL {ROCK)
--f-------12 ----~ SELECT ROADBED FILL
0
OD+2 0
(TYP)
TYPE ill-SIDE HILL {SOIL)
TYPE II[-FLOODPLAIN
TYPICAL PENSTOCK I ACCESS ROAD SECTIONS
SCALE I 4
STATE OF ALASKA
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
ANCHORAGE ALASKA
KING COVE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
PENSTOCK-PLAN PROFILE AND DETAILS
DOWL ENGINEERS
ANCHORAGE ALASKA
TUDOR ENGINEERING COMPANY
SAN FRANCl SCO CAUF ORNIA
PLATEm
EQUIPMENT
DOOR-------JI
-----""1/ffl/Nil T -
NATURAL GROUND_/
GENERAL PLAN
SCALE I 20
EQUIPMENT
MOUNTING SKID
TAILRACE
RETAINING WALL
-------SLOPE '!L---r---~~=-------~----~
TAILRACE
PROFILE-SECTION A
SCALE 3
i6 I 0
FENCE
TURBINE
SHUTOFF VALVE
RIP RAP
PROFILE-SECTION 8
SCALE 3 I 0 i6
TURBINE
0 5
0
10
SCALE
POWERHOUSE PLAN
SCALE ~ I 0 I 16
X 35-0 l:t,
11
~ I
I
15 20
11
25
3 I 0 i6
60 100
SCALE I 2D
30
120
STATE OF ALASKA
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
ANCHORAGE ALASKA
KING COVE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
POWERHOUSE-PLANS AND SECTIONS
DOWL ENGINEERS
ANCHORAGE ALASKA
TUDOR ENGINEERING COMPANY
SAN FRANCISCO CAUFORNIA
PLATE1ZI
SF:IEB:A01:2-C
APPENDIX 8
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
ANALYSIS PARAMETERS
SUMMARY OF REC0~1MENDATIONS
Analysis Parameters for the 1984 Fiscal Year
Economic Analysis
Inflation Rate -0%
Real Discount Rate -3.5%
Real Oil Distillate Escalation Rate
2.5% -First 20 years
0% -Thereafter
Cost of Power Analysis
Inflation Rate -6.5%
Project Debt to Equity Ratio -1:0
Cost of Debt.-10%
Economic life and Term of Financing
Gasification Equipment
Waste Heat Recapture Equipment
Under 5 MW
Over 5 MW
Solar, Wind Turbines, Geothermal
and Organic Rankine Cycle Turbines
Diesel Generation*
Units under 300 KW
Units over 300 KW
Gas Turbines
Combined Cycle Turbines
Steam Turbines (Includin9 Coal
and Wood-fired Boilers}
Under 10 MW
Over 10 ~~
Hydroelectric Projects
Economic life
Term of Financing
Transmission Systems
Transmission Lines w/ Wood Poles
Transmission lines w/ Steel Towers
Submarine Cables
Oil Fi 11ed
Solid Dielectric
10 years
10 years
20 years
15 years
10 years
20 years
20 years
30 years
20 years
30 years
50 years
35 years
30 years
40 years
30 years
20 years
*Diesel Reserve Units will have longer life depending on use. Also
this economic life is by unit and not total plant capacity.
9204/020 B-1
SF:IEB:AD1:2-C
APPENDIX C
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
UPDATE LETIER
...
LOUIS W RICGS
RO!It RT S I•'.SOPAuL
I' A[) I r POTH R
KIIIH U IlL II.
DOUGLAS I M."-SSrlfLD
ORAL I CON\lR$
DAVID C WILLER
MICHAH ll. HARRINGTON
TH! ODORE H. PURCHl
WAL HR f ANTON
ROilfRT W. MVROAL
Ms. Merlyn Paine
Project Manager
TUDOR ENGINEERING COMPANY
CONSULTING ENGINEERS AND PLANNERS
149 NEW MONTGOMERY STREET
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94105
HUe PHON~ (41'il 962-ll.!.\6 TWX 910 .l72 6063
CABL~ ··nNGCO"
April 6, 1984
Alaska Power Authority
334 West 5th Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Subject: King Cove Economic Analysis Update
Dear Merlyn:
RALPH A. TUDOR (1902·1%3)
ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS
STANLEY H. fROID
WilBERT A. PACHECO
DONALD C. ROSE
STEVEN R. ALTERS
JACK C. BIEDERMAN
HUGH M. BROWN
DONALD I CROFT
FRED B. ESTEP
RICHARD W. EVERETT
FRITS H. FENGER
ROBERT W. GANSE
GERALD V. GIBNEY
ROBERTO E. INIGUEZ
GRANT A. LARSEN
RAINER RUNGALDIER
As requested, we have conducted a brief update economic analysis for
the King Cove Hydroelectric Project. The results of this analysis show a
benefit/cost (B/C) ratio of 1.27 and a net present worth of $2,170,800, indi-
cating that the project is feasible. The computer output for the analysis and
a summary are attached.
The capacity required by the system, as well as the energy demands.
for both the village and the cannery, are based on updated information
obtained by the consultants and APA for use in the King Cove Financial Report,
currently under preparation •
Two situations were considered for the economic analysis. The Base
Case alternative consists of continued reliance on diesel engines as the so1e
source of electrical energy for the village. The Hydroelectric Alternative
would consist of the proposed hydroelectric facilities on Delta Creek, supple-
mented by diesel generation as necessary. The Hydroelectric Alternative was
a 1 so given an addition a 1 credit for energy in excess of the vi 11 age demand
that could be used by the cannery.
The costs associated with the Base Case are presented as Table I,
a.ttached. Co 1 umns one through three of this tab 1 e show the year, firm capa-
city, and vi 11 age energy demand. The capacity and energy demand wi 11 be
addressed in the King Cove financial report. Column four shows the debt
service for the diesel engines. The existing installed capacity of 850 KW was
assumed to cost $700/KW and to have been fully amortized at 3.5% interest over
a 15 year period in perpetuity, in accordance with APA analysis criteria. A
capacitJ expansion of 530 KW was assumed to be brought on-line in 1988 at a
cost of $310,000 amortized at 3.5% for 20 years, in perpetuity. These two
debt service streams are superimposed in column four. Column five shows
insurance, computed as $0.80/$100 on the cost of the new machinery. Column
six shows the operation and maintenance (O&M} costs for the project. This
cost consists of $30,000 per year for operator wages and fixed costs, plus
$11.75/MWh for extraordinary maintenance. The cost of oil is shown in column
seven. This cost is the sum of the costs of lubrication oil and fuel oil.
The current rate of consumption of fuel oil is about 11.5 KWh/gallon; this
figure is expected to decrease to about 13.75 KWh/gallon in 1988. The rate of
C-1
TUDOR ENGINEERING COMPANY
Ms. Merlyn Paine
Apri 1 6, 1984
Page 2
lubrication oil consumption was assumed as 0.55% of the rate of lubrication
oil consumption. The initial cost of fuel oil was taken as $1.13/gallon and
the initial cost of lubrication oil as $3.80/gallon. The costs were held
constant for 1983 through 1988, then escalated at 3.0% for the remainders of
the planning period (1989-2002) to account for real full escalation. The cost
of oil was then assumed constant for the remainder of the period of analysis
(2003-2035). The total cost shown in column eight is the sum of debt service,
insurance, O&M, and oil. The total costs were discounted to January 1983 at
3.5 percent interest, as shown in column nine. The total present worth of the
base case is $10,239,600.
The cost of supplemental diesel is shown on Table II. The calcula-
tion of this cost is the same as the calculation of the base case cost, except
that the energy demand on the diesel system is only the village demand not met
by the hydroelectric project. The total present worth of the cost of the base
case is $5,061,800.
The costs of the hydroe 1 ectri c project are presented as Tab 1 e I I I.
Column one of Table III shows the year, followed by the caital cost of the
hydroelectric project in column II. This cost was taken from the King Cove
feasibility report updated to January 1983 price levels. The debt service for
the hydroelectric project shown in column three is the capital cost amortized
at 3.5 percent for fifty years. The O&M cost was assumed as an increase of
20 percent in the fixed component of the diesel O&M. The replacement schedule
of investment shown in co 1 umn five, fo 11 owed by a sinking fund to prov; d2 for ,._.
the replacements in column six. The schedule allows for the replacement of
the runner every 25 years and replacement of transmission lines every
30 years. The sinking funds for these replacements are at 3.5 percent in per-
petuity and are shown superimposed. The annua 1 cost is the sum of debt
service, O&M, and the replacement sinking fund. These costs were discounted
to January 1983 at 3. 5 percent interest. The tot a 1 present worth of the
hydroelectric alternative is $3,841,700.
The cannery credit is shown on Table IV. This credit is the avoided
cost of excess energy provided to the cannery, assuming that the cost of die-
sel generation at the cannery is roughly equal to the village cost of diesel
generation. These costs include the oil costs and variable maintenance costs
as presented for the base case. The total present worth of the cannery energy
is $844,700.
A present worth and benefit cost summary is presented as Tab 1 e V.
The benefits associated with the project are the present worth at the Base
Case costs of $11,084,300. The costs associated with the project are the pre-
sent worth of the hydroelectric and supplemental diesel costs, totalling
$8,913,500. When the $844,660 present worth of the avoided cost of the excess
energy utilized by the cannery is deducted, the net project cost then
decreases to $8,068,800.
C-2
TUDOR ENGINEERING COMPANY
Ms. Merlyn Paine
April 6, 1984
p,age 3
As shown in Table V, the resulting 8/C ratios for the project are
1.15 without consideration of the cannery and 1.27 when the cannery credits
are included.
We were pleased to find that the project is still economically viable
using the updated data and still therefore recommend that project implementa-
tion proceed. Please call if you have any questions concerning our brief 8/C
analysis.
GEL:RDT:0420952.88
Very truly yours,
TUDOR ENGINEERING COMPANY
Gordon E. Little
Project Manager
C-3
TABLE I
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
KING COVE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT: BASE CASE
APRIL 1984
YEAR FIRM ENERGY DEBT INSUR. O&cM OIL TOTAL PRE SEtH
CAPAC ITV DEMAND SERVICE COST WORTH
( k W) <MWh) ($) ($) ($) ($) ($) ($)
-----------------____ _, ___ ------------------------__ _, __ ,_, ___ __ _,_....,. ___
1983 550 1328 51661 4760 45608 132943 234972 227026
1984 550 1516 51661 4760 47813 151724 255958 238940
1985 550 1704 51661 4760 50024 170557 277002 249840
1986 550 1836 51661 4760 51572 183745 291738 254233
1987 550 1894 51661 4760 52258 189586 298265 251131
1988 850 1955 73473 7240 52969 163629 297311 241863
1989 850 2018 73473 7240 53707 173951 308371 242377
1990 850 2083 73473 7240 54472 184954 320139 243117
1991 850 2150 73473 7240 55266 196679 332658 244081
1992 850 2220 73473 7240 56089 209178 345980 245272
1993 850 2293 73473 7240 56942 222503 360158 246689
1994 850 2368 73473 7240 57828 236708 375248 248333
1995 850 2446 73473 7240 58746 251854 391313 250207
1996 850 2527 73473 7240 59698 268001 408412 252309
1997 850 2612 73473 7240 60686 285223 426622 254647
1'398 850 2699 73473 7240 61710 303583 446005 257214
1999 850 2789 73473 7240 62772 323169 466654 260021
2000 850 2883 73473 7240 63874 344055 488642 263066
2001 850 2980 73473 7240 65016 366326 512055 266348
2002 850 3081 73473 7240 66202 390089 537003 269879
2003 850 3081 73473 7240 66202 390089 537003 260753
2004 850 3081 73473 7240 66202 390089 537003 251935
2005 850 3081 73473 7240 66202 390089 537003 243416
2006 850 3081 73473 7240 66202 390089 537003 235184
2007 850 3081 73473 7240 66202 390089 537003 227231
2008 850 3081 73473 7240 66202 390089 537003 219547
2009 850 3081 73473 7240 66202 390089 537003 212123
2010 850 3081 73473 7240 66202 390089 537003 204950
2011 850 3081 73473 7240 66202 390089 53n103 E•8019
2012 850 3081 73473 7240 66202 390089 53700:3 191323
2013 850 3081 73473 7240 66202 390089 537003 184853
2014 850 3081 73473 7240 66202 390089 537003 178602
2015 850 3081 73473 7240 66202 390089 537003 172562
2016 850 3081 73473 7240 66202 390089 537003 166727
2017 850 3081 73473 7240 66202 390089 537003 161088
2018 850 3081 73473 7240 66202 390089 537003 155641
2019 850 3081 73473 7240 66202 390089 537003 150378
2020 850 3081 73473 7240 66202 390089 537003 145293
2021 850 3081 73473 7240 66202 390089 537003 140379
2022 850 3081 73473 7240 66202 390089 537003 135632
2023 850 :3081 73473 7240 66202 39131389 537003 131046
2024 850 3081 73473 7240 66202 390089 537003 126614
2025 850 3081 7:34 73 7240 66202 39008'3 5:37003 1223:32
2026 850 3081 73473 7240 66202 :3'~0089 537003 1181';i6
2027 850 :3081 73473 7240 66202 390089 53700:3 1141 ·~9
2028 850 :3081 73473 7240 66202 :390089 53700:;: 11>!1:337
2029 850 :3081 73473 7240 66202 3'30089 53700::;: 106606
2030 :350 3081 7:3473 7240 66202 390089 5:3700:3 1033001
2031 850 3081 73473 7240 66202 390089 537003 99518
2032 850 3081 73473 7240 66202 3'30089 537003 96152
2033 850 3081 73473 7240 66202 390089 537003 92901
2034 850 :3081 7:34 73 7240 66202 3'30089 53700:3 •:•o.:l"")'C"o:j I
203$
._ .... 1 • ..; ...
850 3081 73473 7240 66202 3'~0089 5370031 :36724
TOTAL PRESENT WORTH: 11<:123961 :3
C-4
TABLE II
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
ECOHOMIC AHALYSIS
KIHG COVE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT:SUPPLEMEHTAL DIESEL
APRIL 1984
YEAR FIRM EHERGY DEBT IHSUR. Ot.M OIL TOTAL PRESE~lT
CAPACITY DEMAHD SERVICE COST WORTH
<kW) <MWh) ($) ($) ($) ($) ($) ($)
----------------------------------------------------------------
1983 550 1328 51661 4760 45608 132943 234972 227026
1984 550 1516 51661 4760 47813 151724 255958 238940
1985 550 1704 51661 4760 50024 170557 277002 249840
1986 550 205 51661 4760 32405 20488 109314 95261
1987 550 235 51661 4760 32758 23490 112669 94864
1988 850 269 73473 7240 33166 22556 136435 110990
1989 850 306 73473 7240 33590 26340 140643 110544
1990 850 343 73473 7240 34029 30451 145193 110261
19':~ 1 850 382 73473 7240 34485 34912 150110 110140
1992 850 422 73473 7240 34957 39748 155418 110179
1993 850 465 73473 7240 35464 45122 161298 110480
1994 850 515 73473 7240 36046 51431 168190 111305
1995 850 566 73473 7240 36651 58268 175631 112299
1996 850 619 73473 7240 37277 65671 183661 113462
1997 850 675 73473 7240 37927 73684 192324 114796
1998 850 732 73473 7240 38601 82346 201660 116299
19':~9 850 792 73473 7240 39300 91712 211725 117974
2000 850 860 73473 7240 40103 102616 223432 120287
2001 850 933 73473 7240 40958 114642 236313 122920
2002 850 1008 73473 7240 41845 127640 250198 125741
2003 850 1008 73473 7240 41845 127640 250198 121489
2004 850 1008 73473 7240 41845 127640 250198 117381
2005 850 1008 73473 7240 41845 127640 250198 113411
2006 850 1008 73473 7240 41845 127640 250198 109576
2007 850 1008 73473 7240 41845 127640 250198 105871
2008 850 1008 73473 7240 41845 127640 250198 102290
2009 850 1008 73473 7240 41845 127640 250198 98831
2010 850 1008 73473 7240 41845 127640 250198 95489
2011 850 1008 73473 7240 41845 127640 250198 92260
2012 850 1008 73473 7240 41845 127640 250198 89140
2013 850 1008 73473 7240 41845 127640 250198 86126
2014 850 1008 73473 7240 41845 127640 250198 83213
2015 850 1008 73473 7240 41845 127640 250198 80399
2016 850 1008 73473 7240 41845 127640 250198 77681
2017 850 1008 73473 7240 41845 127640 250198 75054
2018 850 1008 73473 7240 41845 127640 250198 72516
2019 850 1008 73473 7240 41845 127640 250198 70063
·-2020 850 1008 73473 7240 41845 127640 250198 67694
2021 850 1008 73473 7240 41845 127640 250198 65405
2022 850 1008 73473 7240 41845 127640 250198 63193
2023 850 1008 73473 7240 41845 127640 250198 61056
2024 850 1008 73473 7240 41845 127640 250198 58992
2025 850 1008 73473 7240 41845 127640 250198 56997
2026 850 1008 73473 7240 41845 127640 250198 55069
2027 850 1008 73473 7240 41845 127640 250198 53207
2028 850 1008 73473 7240 41845 127640 250198 51408
2029 850 1008 73473 7240 41845 127640 250198 49669
2030 850 1008 73473 7240 41845 127640 2501'38 47990
2031 850 1008 73473 7240 41845 127640 250198 46367
2032 850 1008 73473 7240 41845 127640 250198 44799
2033 850 1008 73473 7240 41845 127640 250198 43284
2034 850 1008 73473 7240 41845 127640 250198 41820
2035 850 1008 73473 7240 41845 127640 25tH 98 40406
TOTAL PRESEHT WORTH: 5061753
C-5
TABLE I I I
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
KING COVE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT: HYDROELECTRIC COSTS
APRIL 1984
YEAR CAPITAL DEBT O&M REPLACE. REPLACE. ANNUAL PRESE~H
COSTS SERVICE SCHEDULE SINKH1G COST WORTH
FUND
($) ($) ($) ($) ($) ($) ($)
------------------------------------~..-----------------._.. ________
1983 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1984 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1985 3817000 0 0 0 0 0 0
1986 0 162733 6000 0 14364 183097 159558
1987 0 162733 6000 0 14364 183097 154163
1988 0 162733 6000 0 14364 183097 148'~50
1989 0 162733 6000 0 14364 183097 14391:3
1990 0 162733 6000 0 14364 183097 139046
1991 0 162733 6000 0 14364 183097 134344
1992 0 162733 6000 0 14364 183097 129801
1993 0 162733 6000 0 14364 1:33097 125412
1994 0 162733 6000 0 14364 1:33097 121171
1995 0 162733 6000 0 14364 1:33097 117073
1996 0 162733 6000 0 14364 1:33097 11:3114
1997 0 162733 6000 0 14364 1:33097 10928'~
1998 0 162733 6000 0 14364 183097 105593
1999 0 162733 6000 0 14364 183097 102022
2000 0 162733 6000 0 14364 1:33097 98572
2001 0 162733 6000 0 14364 1:33097 95239
2002 0 162733 6000 0 14364 1:33097 92018
2003 0 162733 6000 0 14364 1:33097 88907
2004 0 162733 6000 0 14364 1:33097 85900
2005 0 162733 6000 0 14364 1:33097 82':?195
2006 0 162733 6000 0 14364 1:33097 80189
2007 0 162733 6000 0 14364 1:33097 77477
2008 0 162733 6000 0 14364 1:33097 74857
2009 0 162733 6000 0 14364 1:33097 72326
2010 0 162733 6000 95000 14364 1:33097 69880
2011 0 162733 6000 0 14364 1:33097 67517
2012 0 162733 6000 0 14364 1:33097 65234
2013 0 162733 6000 0 14364 1:33097 63028
2014 0 162733 6000 0 14364 1:33097 60896
2015 0 162733 6000 615600 14364 1:33097 58837
2016 0 162733 6000 0 14364 1::33097 56847
2017 0 162733 6000 0 14364 1:33097 54925
2018 0 162733 6000 0 14364 1:33097 5:3068
2019 0 162733 6000 0 14364 183097 51273
2020 0 162733 6000 0 14364 1:33097 49539
2021 0 162733 6000 0 14364 1:33097 47864
2022 0 162733 6000 0 14364 1:33097 46245
2023 0 162733 6000 0 14364 1:33097 44681
2024 0 162733 6000 0 14364 1:33097 43170
2025 0 162733 6000 0 14364 1:33097 41711
2026 0 162733 6000 0 14364 1:33097 40300
2027 0 162733 6000 0 14:364 1:330':?17 38•31:;:7
2028 0 162733 6000 0 14364 1:330':;:.7 :37621
2029 0 162733 6000 0 14364 1:33097 :36348
2030 0 162733 6000 0 14364 1:330'517 35119
2031 0 162733 6000 0 14364 1:33097 33•3:32
2032 0 162733 6000 0 14364 1:?.:3097 32784
2033 0 162733 6000 0 14364 1:33097 31676
2034 0 162733 6000 0 14:364 1:33097 :30604
2035 0 162?33 6000 0 14364 1:3:3097 2'?56'?
TOTAL PRESEt-IT WORTH: 387:353:3
C-6
TABLE IV
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
KING COVE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT:CANNERY AVOIDED COSTS
APRIL 1984
YEAR CANNERY AVOIDED OIL TOTAL PRESENT
HYDRO MAINT. COST AVOIDED WORTH
ENERGY COST COST
<MWh) ($) ($) ($) ($)
--·------------------ ------------------------------ ----------1983 0 0 0 0 0
1984 0 0 0 0 0
1985 0 0 0 0 0
1986 649 7623 64931 72555 63227
1987 620 7290 62092 69382 58417
1988 595 6987 49773 56760 46175
1989 568 6673 48962 55635 43728
1990 540 6347 47968 54315 41248
1991 511 6009 46777 52786 38731
1992 482 5659 45370 51029 36176
1993 452 5311 43864 49176 33683
1994 426 5009 42606 47615 31511
1995 400 4695 41134 45829 29303
1996 372 4369 39430 43799 27058
1997 343 4032 37473 41505 24774
1998 313 3681 35246 38927 22449
1999 282 3318 32720 36039 20081
2000 257 3019 30666 33685 18135
2001 232 2732 28579 31311 16287
2002 207 2434 26225 28659 14403
2003 207 2434 26225 28659 13916
2004 207 2434 26225 28659 13445
2005 207 2434 26225 28659 12991
2006 207 2434 26225 28659 12551
2007 207 2434 26225 28659 12127
2008 207 2434 26225 28659 11717
2009 207 2434 26225 28659 11321
2010 207 2434 26225 28659 10938
2011 207 2434 26225 28659 10568
2012 207 2434 26225 28659 10211
2013 207 2434 26225 28659 9865
2014 207 2434 26225 28659 9532
2015 207 2434 26225 28659 9209
2016 207 2434 26225 28659 8898
2017 207 2434 26225 28659 8597
2018 207 2434 26225 28659 8306
2019 207 2434 26225 28659 8025
2020 207 2434 26225 28659 7754
2021 207 2434 26225 28659 7492
2022 207 2434 26225 28659 7238
2023 207 2434 26225 28659 6994
2024 207 2434 26225 28659 6757
2025 207 2434 26225 28659 6529
2026 207 2434 26225 28659 6308
2027 207 2434 26225 28659 6095
2028 207 2434 26225 28659 5888
2029 207 2434 26225 28659 5689
2030 207 2434 26225 28659 5497
2031 207 2434 26225 28659 5311
2032 207 2434 26225 28659 5131
2033 207 2434 26225 28659 4958
2034 207 2434 26225 28659 4790
2035 207 2434 26225 28659 4628
TOTAL PRESENT WORTH: 844660
C-7
TABLE V
PRESENT WORTH AND 8/C SUMMARY
KING COVE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
A. BASE CASE (Benefits}
Present Worth Base Case
B. RECOMMENDED HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT (Costs)
Present Worth Hydroelectric Costs
Present Worth Supplemental Diesel
Total Cost w/o Cannery
Less P.W. Cannery Credit
Total Net Cost w/ Cannery
C. BENEFIT COST RATIO
1. 8/C w/o Cannery Credit
B/C = 10,239,600 ~ 1 15 8,913,500 •
2. B/C w/ Cannery
RDT:0420952a
C-8
$10,239,600
$ 3,851,700
5,061,800
$ 8,913,500
844,700
$ 8,068,800
SF:IEB:AD1:2-C
APPENDIX D
DIESEL ANALYSES
TABLE D-1
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS:COST OF POWER
KING COVE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT:BASE CASE W/FUEL ESCALATION
APRIL 1984
YEAR FIRM VILLAGE DEBT INSUR. O&M OIL TOTAL UNIT
CAPACITY ENERGY SERVICE COST COST
DEMAND
CkW) <MWh> ($) ($) ($) ($) ($) (C/kWh)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) ---------------- -------- -------- --------------------------------
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2035
550
550
550
550
550
850
850
850
850
850
850
850
850
850
850
850
850
850
850
850
850
850
850
850
850
850
850
850
850
850
850
850
1328
1516
1704
1836'
1894
1955
2018
2083
2150
2220
2293
2368
2446
2527
2612
2699
2789
2883
2980
3081
3081
3081
308'1
3081
3081
3081
3081
3081
3081
3081
3081
3081
57324
57324
57324
5732'4
57324
107212
107212
107212
107212
107212
107212
107212
107212
107212
107212
251075
251075
251075
251075
251075
251075
251075
251075
251075
251075
329492
329492
329492
329492
329492
403949
403949
4760
4760
4760
4760
4760
8158
8158
8158
8158
8158
8158
8158
8158
8158
8158
15640
15640
15640
15640
15640
15640
15640
15640
15640
15640
20981
20981
20981
20981
20981
25511
25511
48573
54231
60427
66346
71598
77290
83460
90152
97410
105286
113836
123120
133205
144163
156074
169023
183110
198435
215113
233271
233271
233271
233271
233271
233271
233271
233271
233271
233271
233271
233271
233271
141584
172089
206024
236383
259749
238759
269836
305010
344815
389873
440877
498621
564006
638043
721895
816852
924430
1046280
1184310
1340720
1340720
1340720
1340720
1340720
1340720
1340720
1340720
1340720
1340720
1340720
1340720
1340720
252240
288403
328534
364813
393431
431419
468666
510532
557595
610529
670083
737111
812581
897576
993339
1252590
1374260
1511430
1666140
1840710
1840710
1840710
1840710
1840710
1840710
1924460
1924460
1924460
1924460
192'4460
2003450
2003450
18.99
19.02
19.28
19.87
20.77
22.07
23.23
24.51
25.9:3
27.50
29.22
31. 12
33.21
35.51
38.04
46.41
49.27
52.43
55.91
59.74
59.74
59.74
59.74
59.74
59.74
62.46
62.46
62.46
62.46
62.46
65.03
65.03
<1>Existing plant consists of 1-250 kW Detroit and 2-300 kW Cats.Add 1-530kW Cat
in 1988.
(2)See Table II-1.
<3>Existing equipment financed at 5%.Existing equipment replaced every 15 years
and financed at 10%.1988 replacement financed at 10% and replaced every 20
years.
(4)$,80/$100 replacement value.
(5)January 1983 fixed operating cost=$30,000.Maintenance cost=$11.75/MWh.Costs
escalate at 6.5% annually for planning period
<6>Fuel oil consumption rate=11.5 kWh/Gal. unti 1 1988,then decreases to 13.75kWh
/Gal.January 1983 fuel oil cost=$1.13/Gal .Lube, oil consumption=0.55% of fuel
oil consumption.January 1983 lube oil cost=$3.80/Gal.Oil costs escalate .
at 6.5% through 1988 and then at 9.5%.
<?>Sum of debt service,insurance,O&M,and oil costs.
(8)Total cost of village power.
0-1
TABLE D-2
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS: COST OF POWER
KING COVE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT: BASE CASE W/0 FUEL ESCALATIOH
APRIL 1984
YEAR FIRM VILLAGE DEBT INSUR. O&M OIL TOTAL I UtHT
CAPACITY Et~ERGY SERVICE COST COST
DEMAND
( k W) <MWh) ($) ($) ($) ($) ($) ( c ..... k l>lh)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)
-------------------------------- --------------------------------
1983 550 1328 57324 4760 48573 141584 252240 18. '39
1984 550 1516 57324 4760 54231 172089 288403 19. ~12
1985 550 1704 57324 4760 60427 206024 328534 1'3. 28
1986 550 1836 57324 4760 66346 236383 36481:=: 19.87
1987 550 1894 57324 4760 71598 25974'3 393431 20.77
1988 850 1955 107212 8158 77290 238759 431419 22.07
1989 850 2018 107212 8158 83460 262443 461273 22.86
1990 850 2083 107212 8158 90152 288527 494049 23.72
1991 850 2150 107212 8158 97410 317243 530023 24.65
1992 850 2220 107212 8158 105286 348871 569527 25.65
1993 850 2293 107212 8158 113836 383703 612909 26 .. 7:3
1994 850 2368 107212 8158 123120 422069 660559 27~89
1995 850 2446 107212 8158 133205 464336 712'H 1 29' 14
1996 850 2527 107212 8158 144163 5108'38 770431 .30. 4:::
1997 850 2612 107212 8158 156074 562204 833648 31. '32
1998 850 2699 251075 15640 169023 618725 1054460 :3'3. ~37
1999 850 2789 251075 15640 183110 681027 1130850 413. 54
2000 850 2883 251075 15640 198435 749676 1214830 42. 14
2001 850 2980 251075 15640 215113 825329 1307160 43.86
2002. 850 3081 251075 15640 233271 908727 1408710 45.72
2003 850 3081 251075 15640 233271 908727 1408710 45.72
2004 850 3081 251075 15640 233271 908727 1408710 45.72
2005 850 3081 251075 15640 233271 908727 1408710 45.72
2006 850 3081 251075 15640 233271 908727 1408710 45.72
2007 850 3081 251075 15640 233271 '308727 1408710 41:" / ..... • _l • 1 G.
2008 850 3081 329492 20981 233271 908727 1492470 48.44
2009 850 3081 329492 20981 2:33271 908727 14'32470 48.44
2010 850 3081 329492 20981 233271 908727 1492470 4:::. 44
2011 850 3081 329492 20981 233271 908727 14'32470 4E:. 44
2012 850 3081 329492 20981 233271 ·~08727 1492470 48.44
2013 850 3081 403949 25511 233271 908727 1571460 51.~11
2035 850 3081 403949 25511 233271 908727 1571460 51.01
(!)Existing plant consists of 1-250 kW Detroit Diesel and 2-300kW Cats.Add
1-530 kW Cat in 1988.
(2)See Table II-1.
(3)Existing equipment financed at 5%.Existing equipment replaced every 15 years
and financed at 18%.1988 replacement financed at 10% and replaced every 20
years
(4)$.80/$100 replacement value.
(5)$30000 fixed cost plus $11.75/MWh escalated at 6.5% annually.
< 6 ) F u e 1 •::O i 1 •: on s '.l m p t i on t' .:.. t ..:-= 11 • 5 k W h / G a 1 u n t,. i 1 1 9 8 8 , t. he t·, ,j e•: !'"· .::· .:..s e s ~-o 1 3 . 7 5
kWh/Gal.January 1983 fuel cost=$1. 13/Gal.Lube oil consumption=0.55% of
fuel oil consumption.Price escalates at 6.5% annually
<?>Total base case annual cost,
C8)Total unit cost of village power.
0-2
TABLE D-3
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS:COST OF POWER
KING COVE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT:SUPPLEMENTAL DIESEL W/FUEL ESCALATION
APRIL 1984
YEAR FIRM VILLAGE DEBT IHSUR. O&M OIL TOTAL UHIT
CAPACITY ENERGY SERVICE COST COST
DEMAND
<kW) <MWh) ($) ($) ($) ($) ($) (C/kWh)
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999.
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2035
550
550
550
550
550
850
850
850
850
850
850
850
850
850
850
850
850
850
850
850
850
850
850
850
850
850
850
850
850
850
850
850
1328
1516
1704
205
235
269
306
343
382
422
465
515
566
619
675
732
792
860
933
1008
1008
1008
1008
1008
1008
1008
1008
1008
1008
1008
1008
1008
57324
57324
57324
57324
57324
107212
107212
107212
107212
107212
107212
107212
107212
107212
107212
251075
251075
251075
251075
251075
251075
251075
251075
251075
251075
329492
329492
329492
329492
329492
403949
403949
4760
4760
4760
4760
4760
8158
8158
8158
8158
8158
8158
8158
8158
8158
8158
15640
15640
15640
15640
15640
15640
15640
15640
15640
15640
20981
20981
20981
20981
20981
25511
25511
48573
54231
60427
41689
44881
48394
52198
56318
60782
65620
70897
76746
83105
90020
97543
105729
114641
124587
135514
147448
147448
147448
147448
147448
147448
147448
147448
147448
147448
147448
147448
147448
141584
172089
206024
26357
32183
32912
40860
50218
61207
74084
8~406
108339
130487
156346
186493
221570
262343
312059
370630
438692
438692
438692
438692
438692
438692
438692
438692
438692
438692
438692
438692
438692
252240
288403
328534
130129
139148
196677
208428
221906
237359
255074
275674
300455
328962
361736
399406
594014
643699
703361
772859
852855
852855
852855
852855
852855
852855
936613
9366·13
936613
936613
936613
1015600
1015600
18.39
19.02
19.28
7.09
7.35
10.06
10.33
10.65
11.04
11.49
12.02
12.69
13.45
14.31
15.29
22.01
23.08
24.40
25.93
27.68
27.68
27.68
27.68
27.68
27.68
30.40
30.40
30.40
30.40
30.40
32.96
32.96
<!>Existing plant consists of 1-250kW Detroit Diesel and 2-300kW Cats.Add
1-530kW Cat. in 1988
<2>See Table II-1.
(3)Existing equipment financed at 5%.Existing equipment replaced every 15 years
and financed at 10%.1988 replacement finanaced at 10% and replaced every 20
years.
(4)$.80/1100 replacement value.
<5>January 1983 fixed operating cost=$30,000/year.Maintenance cost=$11.75/MWh.
Costs escalate at 6>5% annually for planning period.
<6>Fuel oil consumption rate=11.5 kWh/Gal until 1988,then d~creases to 13.75
kWh/Gal.January 1983 fuel oil cost=$1.13/Gal.Lube oil consumption rate=0.55%
of fueloil consumption.January 1983 lube oil cost=13.80/Gal.Oil costs
escalate at 6.5% through January 1988 and then at 9.5%
<?>Sum of debt service,insurance,and O&M.
<8>Supplementa1 diesel cost for hydro case.
D-3
TABLE D-4
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS:COST OF POWER
KING COYE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT:SUPPLEMENTAL DIESEL W/0 FUEL ESCALATION
APRIL 1984
YEAR FIRM VILLAGE DEBT INSUR. O&M OIL TOTAL UNIT
CAPACITY ENERGY SERVICE COST COST
DEMAND
CkW) CMWh) ($) C$) ($) ($) ($) (C/kWh)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)
-------------------------------- --------------------------------
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
20~4
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2035
550
550
550
550
550
850
850
850
850
850
850
850
850
850
850
850
850
850
850
850
850
850
850
850
850
850
850
850
850
850
850
850
1328
1516
1704
205
235
269
306
343
382
422
465
515
566
619
675
732
792
860
933
1008
1008
1008
1008
1008
1008
1008
1008
1008
1008
1008
1008
1008
57324
57324
57324
57324
57324
107212
107212
107212
107212
107212
107212
107212
107212
107212
107212
251075
251075
251075
251075
251075
251075
251075
251075
251075
251075
3294'32
:329492
329492
329492
329492
403949
403949
4760
4760
4760
4760
4760
8158
8158
8158
8158
8158
8158
8158
8158
8158
8158
15640
15640
15640
15640
15640
15640
15640
15640
15640
15640
20981
20981
20981
20981
20981
25511
25511
48573
54231
60427
41689
44881
48394
52198
56318
60782
65620
70897
76746
83105
90020
97543
105729
114641
124587
135514
147448
147448
147448
147448
147448
147448
147448
147448
147448
147448
147448
147448
147448
141584
172089
206024
26357
.32183
32912
39740
47504
56313
66293
77812
91706
107427
125190
145238
167828
193268
223595
258286
297342
297342
297342
297342
297342
297342
297342
297342
297342
297342
297342
297:342
297342
252240
288403
328534
1:30129
139148
196677
207:309
219192
232465
247283
264079
283822
305902
3:30580
358151
540272
574624
614897
660515
711505
711505
711505
711505
711505
711505
795263
7'35263
795263
795263
795263
874250
874250
18. 9•;.
19.02
19.28
7. 0·;.
7.35
10.06
10.28
10.52
10.81
11. 14
11~~52
11" '38
12.50
13.08
1:3.71
20.02
20.60
21.33
22. 16
23.09
23.09
23.09
23.09
23.09
2:3. 09
25.81
25.81
25.81
25.81
25.81
28.38
28.38
<!>Existing plant consists of 1-250kW Detroit Diesel and 2-300 kW Cats.Add
1-530k ~J Cat. in 1988.
<2>See Table II-2
(3)Existing eqyipment financed at 5%.Existing equipment replaced every 15 years
and financed at 10%.1988 replacement financed at 10% and replaced every 20
years.
(4)$.80/$100 replacement valye.
C5)January 1983 operation cost=$30,000.Maintenance cost= $11.75/MWh.Costs
escalate at 6.5% annually for planning period.
(6)Fuel oil consumption rate=11.5kWh/Gal until 1988,then decreases to 13.75kWh
/Gal.Lube oil consumption=0.55% of fuel oil consumption.Januarv 1983 fuel
oil cost=$1.13/Gal and lube oil cost=$3.80/Gal.Costs escalate ~t 6.5%.
(?)Total annual cost of supplemental diesel.
(8)Annual unit cost of supplemental diesel.
0-4
SF:IEB:AD1:2-C
APPENDIX E
HYDROELECTRIC ANALYSES
TABLE E-1
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
FINANCIAL ALTERNATIVE I-A:100% REVENUE BONDS WITH LEVEL PAYMENTS
KING COVE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT:HYDROELECTRIC COSTS
APRIL 1984
YEAR CAPITAL DEBT
COST SERVICE
($) ($)
(1) (2)
O&M
($)
(3)
REPLAC.
SCHED.
($)
(4)
REPLAC. RESERVE
SINKING FUND
FUND
($) ($)
(5) (6)
INT.
ON
RESERVE
($)
(7)
TOTAL
COST
($)
(8)
UNIT
COST
(c/kWh)
(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2035
0
0
5287200
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
548239
548239
548239
548239
548239
548239
548239
548239
548239
548239
548239
548239
548239
548239
548239
548239
548239
548239
548239
548239
548239
0
0
0
0
7719
8221
8755
9324
9930
10575
11263
11995
12775
13605
14489
15431
16434
17502
18640
19852
21142
21142
21142
21142
21142
21142
21142
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
16591
16591
16591
16591
16591
16591
16591
16591
16591
16591
16591
16591
16591
16591
16591
16591
16591
16591
16591
16591
16591
16591
16591
0
0
0
603063
603063
603063
603063
603063
603063
603063
603063
603063
603063
603063
603063
603063
603063
603063
603063
603063
603063
603063
301531
301531
0
0
0
0
60306
60306
60306
60306
60306
60306
60306
60306
60306
60306
60306
60306
60306
60306
60306
60306
60306
60306
60306
30153
30153
0
0
0
0
512242
512744
513278
513847
514453
515099
515786
516518
517298
518128
519012
519954
520957
522026
523163
524375
525665
525665
525665
254287
254287
37732
37732
0.00
0.00
0.00
27.90
27.07
26.26
25.47
24.70
23.96
23.23
22.53
21.84
21. 18
20.53
19.91
19.30
18.72
18.15
17.60
17.06
17.06
17.06
8.25
8.25
1. 22
1. 22
<l>Capital cost including 10% interest during construction,3.75% financing
charge,and reserve equal to 110% of one years debt service.
(2)Debt sservice for 35 years at 10%.
(3)$5,000 for 1983.
(4)Replace runner every 25 years.Replace transmission lines every 30 years.
(5)Sinking funds superimposed.
(6)110% of annual debt service.
<7> 10% annual interest on reserve fund.
(8)Total annual cost of hydro.
(9)Annual unit cost of hydro.
E-1
TABLE E-2
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
FINANCIAL ALTERNATIVE I-B:100% REVENUE BONDS WITH GRADUATED PAYMENTS
MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE RATE OF INCREASE IN ANNUAL DEBT SERVI~E:9.5%
KING COVE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT:HYDROELECTRIC COSTS
YEAR CAPITAL DEBT
COST SERVICE
($) ($)
(1) (2)
O&M
($)
(3)
APRIL 1984
REPLAC.
SCHED.
($)
(4)
REPLAC. RESERVE
SINKING FUND
FUND
($) ($)
(5) (6)
INT. TOTAL
ON COST
RESERVE
($) ($)
(7) (8)
------- -------------------------------------------------
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2035
0
0
5287200
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
270629
296339
324491
355318
389073
426035
466508
510826
559355
612493
670680
714490
714490
714490
714.490
714490
714490
714490
714490
714490
714490
0
0
0
0
0
7719
8221
8755
9324
9930
10575
11263
11995
12775
13605
14489
15431
16434
17502
18640
19852
21142
21142
21142
21142
21142
21142
21142
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
16591
16591
16591
16591
16591
16591
16591
16591
16591
16591
16591
16591
16591
16591
16591
16591
16591
16591
16591
16591
16591
16591
16591
0
0
0
603062
603062
603062
603062
603062
603062
603062
603062
603062
603062
603062
603062
603062
603062
603062
603062
603062
603062
201021
201021
201021
0
0
0
0
0
60306
60306
60306
60306
60306
60306
60306
60306
60306
60306
60306
60306
60306
60306
60:306
60306
60306
60306
20102
20102
20102
0
0
0
2:346:32
260844
289530
320926
355287
3928';.5
4:34055
479105
528414
582382
641454
686205
687208
688277
689414
690626
691916
691916
531099
5:310''9
531099
37732
Ut-H T
COST
(,:/kWh)
(';;.)
0.00
0.00
0.00
12.78
13.77
14.81
15.91
17.06
1 l~ ... ,...,
....... ,:.,t
1 '3. 55
20.89
22~31
23.81
25.38
26.28
25.46
24.68
23. '? 1
23.17
22.46
22.46
17.24
17.24
17.24
1. 22
1. 22
(!)Capital cost including 10% interest during construction~3.75% financing
charge,and reserve equal to 110% of one years debt service.
(2)Debt service required to make 1986 unit energy cost the same as base case.
Maximum allowable annual rate of incease in energy cost=~.5%.Capital
costs fully amortized over remainder of 35 year financin9 period when
amortization exceeds maxi•um allowable payment.
(3)$5,000 for 1983.Escalates at 6.5% annually.
<4)Replace runner every 25 years.Replace tra~smission lines every 30 years.
(5)Sinking funds are superimposed.
(6)110% of annual debt service.
(7)10~·: anmlal interest eat'n>?d on r·eser•.;e.
(8)Total annual cost of hydro.
(9)Annual unit cost of hydro.
E-2
TABLE E-3
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
FINANCIAL ALTERNATIVE II-A:50% REVENUE BONDS & 50% STATE GRANT
KING COVE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT:HYDROELECTRIC COSTS
APRIL 1984
YEAR CAPITAL DEBT
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2035
COST SERVICE
($) ($)
(1) (2)
0
0
2643600
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
274114
274114
274114
274114
274114
274114
274114
274114
274114
274114
274114
274114
274114
274114
274114
274114
274114
0 274114
0 274114
0 274114
0 274114
0 0
0 0
O&M
($)
(3)
0
0
0
7719
8221
8755
9324
9930
10575
11263
11995
12775
13605
14489
15431
16434
17502
i8640
19852
21142
21142
21142
21142
21142
21142
21142
REPLAC.
SCHED.
($)
(4)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
REPLAC.
SINKING
FUND
($)
(5)
0
0
0
16591
16591
16591
16591
16591
16591
16591
16591
16591
16591
16591
16591
16591
16591
16591
16591
16591
16591
16591
16591
16591
16591
16591
RESERVE INT.
FUND ON
RESERVE
($) ($)
(6) (7)
0
0
0
301525
301525
301525
301525
301525
301525
301525
301525
301525
301525
301525
301525
301525
301525
301525
301525
301525
301525
301525
150763
150763
0
0
0
0
30153
30153
30153
30153
30153
30153
30153
30153
30153
30153
30153
30153
30153
30153
30153
30153
30153
30153
30153
15076
15076
0
TOTAL
COST
($)
(8)
0
0
0
268271
268773
269307
269876
270482
271127
271815
272547
273327
274157
275041
275983
276986
278054
279192
280404
281694
281694
281694
146007
146007
37732
37732
UNIT
COST
(c/kWh)
(9)
0.00
0.00
0.00
14.61
14. 19
13.78
13.38
12.99
12.61
12.24
11.89
11.54
11.21
10.88
10.57
10.26
9.97
9.68
9.41
9. 14
9. 14
9. 14
4.74
4.74
1. 22
1. 22
<l)Capital cost for 50% of construction cost.Includes interEst during
construction,financing fee,and reserve fund.Balance of construction paid
by state grant
(2) 10% for 35 years.
(3)$5,000 for 1983, escalated at 6.5% annually.
C4)Replace runner every 25 years.Replace transmission lines every 30 years.
C5)Sinking funds are superimposed.
(6)110% of annual debt sevice.
(7)10% annual interest earned on reserve.
(8)Total annual cost of hydro.
(9)Annual unit cost of hydro.
E-3
TABLE E-4
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
FINANCIAL ALTERNATIVE II-B:40% REVENUE BONDS L 60% STATE GRANT
KING COVE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT:HYDROELECTRIC COSTS
APRIL 1984
YEAR CAPITAL DEBT OLM
COST SERVICE
REPLAC. REPLAC. RESERVE INT. TOTAL
SCHED. SINKING FUND ON COST
UNIT
COST
FUND RESERVE
($) ($) ($) ($) ($) ($) ($) ($) (c/kWh)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) -------------- ----------------------------------------~~ -------
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2035
0
0
2114900
0
0
0
0
0
a
0
0
0
a
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
a
0
219293
219293
219293
219293
219293
219293
219293
219293
219293
219293
219293
219293
219293
219293
219293
219293
219293
219293
219293
219293
219293
0
0
0
0
7719
8221
8755
9324
9930
10575
11263
11995
12775
13605
14489
15431
16434
17502
18640
19852
21142
21142
21142
21142
21142
21142
21142
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
16591
16591
16591
16591
16591
16591
16591
16591
16591
16591
16591
16591
16591
16591
16591
16591
16591
16591
16591
16591
16591
16591
16591
0
0
0
241222
241222
241222
241222
241222
241222
241222
241222
241222
241222
241222
241222
241222
241222
241222
241222
241222
241222
241222
120611
120611
0
13
13
13
2412:2
2412:2
2412:2
2412:2
2412:2
2412:2
2412:2
2412:2
2412:2
2412:2
24122
24122
24122
2412:2
24122
24122
24122
2412:2
24122
12061
12061
13
0
0
0
219480
219982
220516
221085
221691
222337
223024
223756
224536
225366
226251
227192
228195
229264
230401
231613
232903
232903
232903
124353
12435:3
37732
3 ...,??--· ( I •,;;;l.::,
0.00
0.00
0.00
11.95
11.61
11.28
10.96
10.64
10.34
10.04
'3. 76
9.48
·~. 21
8.95
8.70
8.46
8.22
7.99
7.77
7.56
7.56
7.56
4.04
4.04
1. 22
1. 22
Cl)Capital cost for 40% of construction cost.Includes interest during
construction,financing fee,and reserve fund.Balance of construction paid
by state grant
C2) 10% for 35 years.
(3)$5,000 for 1983, escalated at 6.5% annually.
C4)Replace runner every 25 years.Replace transmission lines every 30 years.
(5)Sinking funds are superimposed.
(6)110% of annual debt sevice.
(7)10% annual interest earned on reserve.
C8)Total annual cost of hydro.
(9)Annual unit cost of hydro.
E-4
TABLE E-5
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
FINANCIAL ALTERNATIVE II-C:43.1% REVENUE BONDS & 56.9% STATE GRANT
KING COVE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT:HYDROELECTRIC COSTS
YEAR CAPITAL DEBT
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
199a
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2aaa
2a01
2a02
2a17
2a18
2a19
2a20
2a21
2a35
COST SERVICE
($) ($)
(1) <2>
a
0
22791a0
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
0
0
0
0
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
0
a
236319
236319
236319
236319
236319
236319
236319
236319
236319
236319
236319
236319
236319
236319
236319
236319
286319
236319
236319
236319
236319
a
0
O&M
($)
(3)
0
a
0
7719
8221
8755
9324
993a
10575
11263
11995
12775
13605
14489
15431
16434
17502
18640
19852
21142
21142
21142
21142
21142
21142
21142
APRIL 1984
REPLAC.
SCHED.
($)
(4)
0
a
0
0
a
0
a
a
a
0
a
a
0
0
0
0
0
a
0
0
0
a
0
0
0
REPLAC.
SINKING
FUND
($)
(5)
0
a
0
16591
16591
16591
16591
16591
16591
16591
16591
16591
16591
16591
16591
16591
16591
16591
16591
16591
16591
16591
16591
16591
16591
16591
RESERVE INT.
FUND ON
RESERVE
($) ($)
(6) (7)
0
0
0
259951
259951
259951
259951
259951
259951
259951
259951
259951
259951
259951
259951
259951
259951
259951
259951
259951
259951
259951
129975
129975
0
0
0
0
25995
25995
25995
25995
25995
25995
25995
25995
25995
25995
25995
25995
25995
25995
25995
25995
25995
25995
25995
12998
12998
0
0
TOTAL
COST
($)
(8)
a
0
0
234633
235135
235669
236238
236844
237490
238177
238909
239689
24a519
241404
242345
243349
244417
245554
246766
248a56
248056
248056
131079
131079
37732
37732
UNIT
COST
(c/kWh>
(9)
0.a0
0.00
0.00
12.78
12.41
12.06
11.71
11.37
11.04
10.73
10.42
10. 12
9.83
9.55
9.28
9.02
8.76
8.52
8.28
8.05
8.05
8.05
4.25
4.25
1. 22
1. 22
<l>Capital cost for 43.1% of construction cost.Includes interest during
construction,financing fee,and reserve fund.Balance ,~f construction paid
by state grant.First year total cost of energy equal to base case.
<2> 10% for 35 years.
(3)$5,000 for 1983, escalated at 6.5% annually.
(4)Replace runner every 25 years.Replace transmission lines every 30 years.
(5)Sinking funds are superimposed.
(6)110% of annual debt sevice.
(7)10% annual interest earned on reserve.
(8)Total annual cost of hydro.
<9>Annual unit cost of hydro.
E-5
TABLE E-6
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
FINANCIAL ALTERNATIVE III-A:STATE LOAN WITH 35 YEAR PAYBACK
KING COVE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT:HYDROELECTRIC COSTS
APRIL 1984
YEAR CAPITAL DEBT
COST SERVICE
($) ($)
(1) (2)
O&M
($)
(3)
REPLAC.
SCHED.
($)
(4)
REPLAC.
SINKING
FUND
($)
(5)
RESERVE INT.
FUND ON
RESERVE
($) ($)
(6) (7)
TOTAL
COST
($)
(8)
UNIT
COST
<•:/kWh)
(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2020
2021
2035
0
0
4118000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
251493
251493
251493
251493
251493
251493
251493
251493
251493
251493
251493
251493
251493
251493
251493
251493
251493
251493
0
0
0
0
7719
8221
8755
9324
9930
10575
11263
11995
12775
13605
14489
15431
16434
17502
18640
19852
21142
21142
21142
21142
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
16591
16591
16591
16591
16591
16591
16591
16591
16'591
16591
16591
16591
16591
16591
16591
16591
16591
16591
16591
16591
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
275802
276304
276838
277407
278013
27865''
279346
280078
280858
281688
282573
283515
284518
285586
286723
287935
289225
28SI225
37732
37732
0.00
0.00
0.00
15.02
14.59
14. 16
13.75
13.35
12.96
12.58
12.21
11,86
1 L 51
11. 18
10.86
10.54
10.24
9.95
9.66
·:;., :39
9.39
1. 22
1. 22
(!)Capital cost with no allowance for interest during construction,finance fees
or reserve fund.
<2>Debt service for 35 years at 5%.
(3)$5,000 for 1983,escalate at 6.5% annually.
(4)Replace runner every 25 years.Replace transmission lines every 30 years.
(5)Sinking funds superimposed.
<6>No reserve required.
<7>No reserve required.
<8>Annual total hydro cost.
<9>Annual unit hydro cost.
E-6
TABLE E-7
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
FINANCIAL ALTERNATIVE III-B:STATE LOAN WITH DEFERRED PAYMENT
KING COVE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT:HYDROELECTRIC COSTS
APRIL 1984
YEAR CAPITAL DEBT OIS:M REPLAC. REPLAC. RESERVE INT. TOTAL UNIT
COST SERVICE SCHED. SINKING FUND ON COST COST
FUND RESERVE
($) ($) ($) ($) ($) ($) ($) ($) (c/kWh)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)
I ------- ------- -------------------------------------------------
-·' 1983 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00
1984 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00
1985 4118000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00
1986 0 0 7719 0 16591 0 0 24309 1. 32
1987 0 0 8221 0 16591 0 0 24811 1. 31
1988 0 0 8755 0 16591 0 0 25345 1. 30
1989 0 0 9324 0 16591 0 0 25914 1.28
1990 0 0 9930 0 16591 0 0 26521 1. 27
1991 0 0 10575 0 16591 0 0 27166 1. 26
1992 0 0 11263 0 16591 0 0 27853 1. 25
1993' 0 0 11995 0 16591 0 0 28585 1. 25
1994 0 0 12775 0 16591 0 0 29365 1. 24
1995 0 0 13605 0 16591 0 0 30195 1. 23
1996 0 475934 14489 0 16591 0 0 507014 20.06
1997 0 475934 15431 0 16591 0 0 507956 19.45
1998 0 475934 16434 0 16591 0 0 508959 18.86
1999 0 475934 17502 0 16591 0 0 510027 18.29
2000 0 475934 18640 0 16591 0 0 511164 17.73
2001 0 475934 19852 0 16591 0 0 512376 17. 19 ,_ ..
2002 0 475934 21142 0 16591 0 0 513666 16.67
2020 0 475934 21142 0 16591 0 0 513666 16.67
2021 0 0 21142 0 16591 0 0 37732 1. 22
2035 0 0 21142 0 16591 0 0 37732 1. 22
< 1) Capita 1 cost without interest during construction,financ~ charge,or re-::.er--1 • .Je-.
(2)Payment deferred for 10 years then amortized over 25 years at 5'-~.
(3)$5,000 for 1983.Escalates at 6. 5% annually.
(4)Replace runner every 25 years.Replace transmission lines every 30 )-•ears.
<5>Sinking funds superimposed.
<6>No reserve fund required.
<7>No reserve fund required.
(8) Annual hydro cost.
(8)Annual hydro unit cost.
E-7
TABLE E-8
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
FINANCIAL ALTERNATIVE IV: STATE EQUITY INVESTMEtH
KING COVE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT:HYDROELECTRIC COSTS
APRIL 1984
YEAR CAPITAL TOTAL O&M REPLACEt'1EHT REPLACEI'1ENT RETURN ON mnT
COST ANNUAL SCHEDULE OF SINKING INVESTt1EHT COST I COST INVESTMENT FUND
($) ($) ($) ($) ($) ($) (c/1-::Wh) ,~
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) '
----------------------------------------------------------------~~~~ ~
1983 0 e e e e e
1984 e e e e e a 0.~01
1985 4118000 0 0 e e 0 0.1;1(11
1986 0 205900 7719 0 165'31 181591 11. ;;;·21
1987 0 205900 8221 0 16591 18108'3 10. :37 .,.
1988 0 205900 8755 0 16591 180555 10.5:3
1989 e 205900 9324 0 16591 179986 10.211
1990 0 205900 9930 0 16591 179380 9.89
1991 0 205900 10575 0 16591 178734 9 g 58 t''
1992 0 205900 11263 0 16591 178047 ·~ .-1...,
1993 a 205900 11995 0 16591 177315 8. ~~ l • "OJ
1994 0 205900 12775 0 16591 176535 ·-q 8. t;l ... ":
1995 0 205900 13605 0 16591 175705 :::.42.
1996 0 205900 14489 0 16591 174820 8. 15l
1997 0 205900 15431 0 16591 173879 ~ ~-.,-,
i • ·=-•;:i
1998 0 205900 16434 0 16591 172875 7 II ("l:3 '
1999 0 205900 17502 0 16591 171807 7 • :;:::;I
2000 0 205900 18640 0 16591 170670 7. l4l
20€.H 0 205900 19852 0 16591 169458 ~ q 1 . ... "i ~·
2002 0 205900 21142 0 16591 168168 6. 68 ""
I
2035 0 205900 21142 0 16591 168168 6.681
(!)Capital cost without interest during construction,finance charge,or reserv€.
(2) 5% of project capital cost return to state annually.
(3) $5000 for 1983,e5ca1ated at 6.5% annually.
( 4) Rep 1 ace runner every 25 ye·ar5. Rep 1 ace t. ran:sm i 55 ion 1 i nes e•..Jer~,.' 30 ~,,•e·ar·:s.
(5)Sinking funds :superimposed.
C6)Net return to state after paying O&M and sinking fund.
(7)Unit cost to consumers.
E-8
SF:IEB:AD1:2-C
APPENDIX F
CANNERY ANAlYSES
TABLE F-1
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS:CANNERY W/FUEL ESCALATION
KING COVE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT:CANNERY
APRIL 1984
YEAR CANNERY VILLAGE ENERGY SAVINGS ENERGY SAVINGS ENERGY SAVINGS
ENERGY ENERGY VALUE VALUE VALUE
DEMAND DEMAND
<MWh> <MWh) c/kWh c/kWh c/kWh C/kWh c/kWh c/kWh
(1) (1) (2) (3) (4) (3) (5) (3)
-------------------------------- --------------------------------
1983 0.00 1328.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1984 0.00 1516.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1985 0.00 1704.17 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1986 648.78 1835.94 15.00 5.30 20.00 7.07 25.00 8.83
1987 620.41 1894.30 15.68 5. 13 20.90 6.85 26.13 8.56
1988 594.63 1954.84 16.66 5.07 22.21 6.76 27.77 8.45
1989 567.90 2017.61 17.54 4.94 23.38 6.58 29.23 8.23
1990 540.17 2082.75 18.50 4.80 24.67 6.40 30.84 8.00
1991 511.41 2150.28 19.58 4.66 26.10 6.21 32.63 7.76
1992 481.59 2220.33 20.76 4.50 27.68 6.00 34.60 7.50
1993 452.04 2292.97 22.06 4.35 29.41 5.80 36.77 7.25
1994 426.28 2368.30 23.50 4.23 31.33 5.64 39.16 7.05
1995 399.56 2446.45 25.07 4. 10 33.43 5.46 41.79 6.83
1996 371.86 2527.48 26.81 3.94 35.74 5.26 44.68 6.57
1997 343.11 2611.55 28.71 3.77 38.28 5.03 47.86 6.29
1998 313.31 2698.69 35.04 4.07 46.72 5.42 58.40 6.78
1999 282.40 2789.14 37. 19 3.77 49.59 5.02 61.99 6.28
2000 256.95 2882.90 39.58 3.53 52.77 4.70 65.96 5.88
2001 232.50 2980.12 42.20 3.29 56.27 4.39 70.34 5.49
2002 207.13 3080.99 45.10 3.03 60. 13 . 4.04 75. 17 5.05
2003 207.13 3080.99 45.10 3.03 60.13 4.04 75.17 5.05
2004 207.13 3080.99 45.10 3.03 60.13 4.04 75.17 5.05
2005 207.13 3080.99 45.10 3.03 60.13 4.04 75.17 5.05
2006 207.13 3080.99 45.10 3.03 60.13 4.04 75. 17 5.05
2007 207.13 3080.99 45.10 3.03 60.13 4.04 75.17 5.05
2008 207.13 3080.99 47.15 3. 17 62.87 4.23 78.59 5.28
2009 207.13 3080.99 47.15 3. 17 62.87 4.23 78.59 5.28
2010 207.13 3080.99 47.15 3. 17 62.87 4.23 78.59 5.28
2011 207.13 3080.99 47.15 3.17 62.87 4.23 78.59 5.28
2012 207.13 3080.99 47.15 3. 17 62.87 4.23 78.59 5.28
2013 207.13 3080.99 49.09 3.30 65.45 4.40 81. 81 5.50
2035 207.13 3080.99 49.09 3.30 65.45 4.40 81.81 5.50
(l)See Table II-2
<2)15 c/kWh for 1986,escalates at same rate as the base c asoe ..
(3)Potent i al cost reduction to vi 1 1 age system.
(4)20 c/kWh for 1986,escalates at same rate as the base c asoe.
(5)25 c/kWh for 1986,escalates at same rate as the base c asoe.
F-1
TABLE F-2
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS: CANNERY W/0 FUEL ESCALATION
KING COVE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT: CANNER'1'
APRIL 1984
YEAR CANNERY VILLAGE ENERGY SAVINGS ENERGY SAVINGS ENERG'1' I SA'·/ I t~GS
ENERGY ENERGY VALUE VALUE VALUE
DEMAND DEMAND
(MWh) <MWh) c/kWh c/kWh c/kWh c/kWh •: /kWh c/ld·lh
(1) (1) (2) (3) (4) (3) (5) (3)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
1983 0.00 1328.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1984 0.00 1516.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1985 0.00 1704. 17 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1986 648.78 1835.94 15.00 5.30 20.00 7.07 25.00 8.83
1987 620.41 1894.30 15.68 5. 13 20.90 6.85 26. 13 :::.56
1988 594.63 1954.84 16.66 5.07 22.21 6.76 27.77 8.45
1989 567.90 2017.61 17.26 4.86 23.01 6.48 28.76 8. 10
1990 540.17 2082.75 17.91 4.64 23.88 6. 19 29.84 7.74
1991 511.41 2150.28 18.61 4.43 24.81 5.90 31.01 .., .-,1'":)
I • ~~~
1992 481.59 2220.33 19.36 4.20 25.82 5.60 32.27 7.00
1993 452.04 2292.97 20.18 3.98 26.90 5.30 3:3. 6:3 6. 6:3
1994 426.28 2368:30 21.06 3.79 28.07 5.05 35.09 6.::::2
1995 399.56 2446.45 22.00 3.59 29,33 4.79 36.66 s. '39
1996 371.86 2527.48 23.01 3.39 30.68 4.51 38.35 5.64
1997 343. 11 2611.55 24. 10 3.17 32.13 4.22 40. 16 5.28
1998 313.31 2698.69 29.50 3.42 39.33 4.57 49.16 5.71
1999 282.40 2789.14 30.61 3. 10 40.81 4.13 51.01 5. 16
2000 256.95 2882.90 31.81 2.84 42.41 3.78 53.02 4.73
2001 232.50 2980.12 33' 11 2.58 44.15 3.44 55.19 4.31
2002 207.13 3080.99 34.52 2.32 46.02 3.09 57.53 3.87
2003 207.13 3080.99 34.52 2.32 46.02 3.09 57.53 :3.87
2004 207.13 3080.99 34.52 2.32 46.02 3.09 57.53 :3. 87
2-005 207.13 3080.99 34.52 2.32 46.02 3.09 57.53 3 .. 87
2006 207.13 3080.99 34.52 2.32 46.02 3.09 57.53 :3. :37
2007 207.13 3080.99 34.52 2.32 46.02 3.09 57.53 :3.87
2008 207.13 3080.99 36.57 2.46 48.76 :3.28 60.95 4.10
2009 207.13 3080.99 36.57 2.46 48.76 3.28 60.95 4. 10
2010 207.13 3080.99 36.57 2.46 48.76 3.28 60.95 4. 10
2011 207.13 3080.99 36.57 2.46 48.76 3.28 60.95 4. 1 e
2012 207.13 3080.99 36.57 2.46 48.76 3.28 60.95 4. 10
2013 207.13 3080.99 38.50 2.59 51.34 3.45 64. 17 4.31
2035 207.13 3080.99 38.50 2.59 51.34 3.45 64. 17 4. :31
(!)See Table II-2
(2) 15 c/kWh for 1986,escalates at same rat,.;:-as base c a:s.e.
(3)Potent i al cost, reduction to \) i 1 1 age system.
(4) 20 c/kWh for 1986,escalat,es at same r~ate as ba:::.e ~:ase.
(5) 25 C/kWh f•:.r 1':;186,escalates at s.ame rate .as ba.s.e c .ase-.
F-2
SF:IEB:AD1:2-C
APPENDIX G
FINANCIAL SUMMARIES
WITHOUT REAL FUEL ESCALATION
TABLE G-1
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
FINANCIAL SUMMARY FOR KING COVE HYDROELECTRIC ALTERNATIVE I-A
WITHOUT REAL FUEL ESCALATION
APRIL 1984
YEAR BASE SUPPL. HYDRO. TOTAL CANNERY CANNERY CANNERY
CASE DIESEL VILLAGE CREDIT CREDIT CREDIT
(c/kWh) (c/kWh> (c/kWh) (C/kWh) (c/kWh) (c/kWh) (c/kWh>
15c 20c 25c
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)
--------------------------------------------- ------------------
1983 18.99 18.99 0.00 18.99 0.00 0.00 0.00
1984 19.02 19.02 0.00 19.02 0.00 0.00 0.00
1985 19.28 19.28 0.00 19.28 0.00 0.00 0.00
1986 19.87 7.09 27.90 34.99 5.30 7.07 8.83
1987 20,77 7.35 27.07 34.41 5. 13 6.85 8.56
1988 22.07 10.06 26.26 36.32 5.07 6.76 8.45
1989 22.86 10.28 25.47 35.74 4.86 6.48 8. 10
1990 23.72 10.52 24.70 35.22 4.64 6. 19 7.74
1991 24.65 10.81 23.96 34.77 4.43 5.90 7.38
1992 25.65 11. 14 23.23 34.37 4.20 5.60 7.00
1993 26.73 11.52 22.53 34.04 3.98 5.30 6.63
1994 27.89 11.98 21.84 33.83 3.79 5.05 6.32
1995 29. 14 12.50 21. 18 33.68 3.59 4.79 5.99
1996 30.48 13.08 20.53 33.61 3.39 4.51 5.64
1997 31,92 13.71 19.91 33.62 3. 17 4.22 5.28
1998 39.07 20.02 19.30 39.32 3.42 4.57 5.71
1999 40.54 20.60 18.72 39.32 3. 10 4. 13 5. 16
2000 42.14 21.33 18. 15 39.48 2.84 3.78 4.73
2001 43.86 22. 16 17.60 39. 7.6 2.58 3.44 4.31
2002 45.72 23.09 17.06 40.16 2.32 3.09 3.87
2003 . 45. 72 23.09 17.06 40.16 2.32 3.09 3.87
2004 45.72 23.09 17.06 40.16 2.32 3.09 3.87
2005 45.72 23.09 17.06 40.16 2.32 3.09 3.87
2006 45.72 23.09 17.06 40.16 2.32 3.09 3.87
2007 45.72 23.09 17.06 40.16 2.32 3.09 3.87
2008 48.44 25.81 17.06 42.87 2.46 3.28 4. 10
2009 48.44 25.81 17.06 42.87 2.46 3.28 4. 10
2010 48.44 25.81 17.06 42.87 2.46 3.28 4. 10
2011 48.44 25.81 17.06 42.87 2.46 3.28 4. 10
2012 48.44 25.81 17.06 42.87 2.46 3.28 4. 10
2018 51.01 28.38 17.06 45.44 2.59 3.45 4.31
2019 51.01 28.38 8.25 36.63 2.59 3.45 4.31
2020 51.01 28.38 8.25 36.63 2.59 3.45 4.31
2021 51.01 28.38 1. 22 29.60 2.59 3.45 4.31
2035 51.01 28.38 1. 22 29.60 2.59 3.45 4.31
<1>See Table D-2
<2>See Table D-4
<3>See Table E-1
(4)Sum of hydro and supplemental diesel costs.
(5)Cannery credit for 1986 cost=15c/kWh.See Table F-2
<6>Cannery credit for 1986 cost=20c/kWh.See Table F-2
(7 )Cannery credit for 1986 cost=25c/kWh.See Table F-2
G-1
TABLE G-2
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
FINANCIAL SUMMARY FOR KING COVE HYDROELECTRIC ALTERNATIVE I-B
WITHOUT REAL FUEL ESCALATION
YEAR BASE
CASE
(c/kWh)
SUPPL. HYDRO.
DIESEL
(c/kWh) (c/kWh)
(1) (2) (3)
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2018
2019
2020
2021
2035
18.99
19.02
19.28
19.87
20.77
22.07
22.86
23.72
24.65
25.65
26.73
27.89
29.14
30.48
31.92
39.07
40.54
42.14
43.86
45.72
45.72
45.72
45.72
45.72
45.72
48.44
48.44
48.44
48.44
48.44
51.01
51.01
51.01
51.01
51.01
Cl)See Table D-2
< 2 ) See Tab le-D-4
(3)See Table E-2
18.99
19.02
19.28
7.09
7.35
10.06
10.28
10.52
10.81
11 . 14
11.52
11.98
12.50
13.08
13.71
20.02
20.60
21.33
22. 16
23.09
23.09
23.09
23.09
23.09
23.09
25.81
25.81
25.81
25.81
25.81
28.38
28.38
28.38
28.38
28.38
0.00
0.00
0.00
12.78
13.77
14.81
15.91
17.06
18.27
19.55
20.89
22.31
23.81
25.38
26.28
25.46
24.68
23.91
23.17
22.46
22.46
22.46
22.46
22.46
22.46
22.46
22.46
22.46
22.46
22.46
17.24
17.24
17.24
1. 22
1. 22
APRIL 1984
TOTAL CANNERY
VILLAGE CREDIT
(C/kWh) (c/kWh)
15c
(4) (5)
18.99
19.02
19.28
19.87
21.12
24.87
26.18
27.58
29.08
30.69
32.41
34.30
36.31
38.46
39.99
45.48
45.28
45.24
45.34
45.55
45.55
45.55
45.55
45.55
45.55
48.27
48.27
48.27
48.27
48.27
45.61
45.61
45.61
29.60
29.60
0.00
0.00
0.00
5.30
5. 13
5.07
4.86
4.64
4.43
4.20
3.98
3.79
3.59
3.39
3. 17
3.42
3. 10
2.84
2.58
2.32
2.32
2.32
2.32
2.32
2.32
2.46
2.46
2.46
2.46
2.46
2.59
2.59
2.59
2.59
2.59
(4)Sum of hydro and supplemental diesel costs.
C5)Cannery credit for 1986 cost=15c/kWh.See Table F-2
(6)Cannery credit for 1986 cost=20c/kWh.See Table F-2
<?>Cannery credit for 1986 cost=25c/kWh.See Table F-2
G-2
CANNERY
CREDIT
(c;/ki>Jh)
20c
(6)
0.00
0.00
0.00
7.07
6.85
6.76
6.48
6. 19
5.90
5.60
5.30
5.05
4.79
4.51
4.22
4.57
4. 13
3.78
3.44
3.09
3.09
3.09
3.09
3.09
3.09
3.28
3.28
3.28
3.28
3.28
3.45
3.45
3.45
3.45
3.45
CANNERY
CREDIT
(c/kWh)
25c
(7)
0.00
0.00
0.00
8.83
8.56
8.45
8. 10
7.74
7.38
7.00
6 .. 63
6.32
5.99
5"64
5.28
5.71
5. 16
4.73
4.31
3.87
:3.87
3.87
3.87
3.87
3.87
4. 10
4. 10
4. 1t1
4' 10
4. 10
4.31
4. :31
4.31
4.31
4.31
TABLE G-3
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
FINANCIAL SUMMARY FOR KING COVE HYDROELECTRIC ALTERNATIVE I I -A
WITHOUT REAL FUEL ESCALATION
APRIL 1984
YEAR BASE SUPPL. HYDRO. TOTAL CANNERY CANNERY CANNERY
CASE DIESEL VILLAGE CREDIT CREDIT CREDIT
(c/kWh) (c/kWh> (c/kWh) (C/kWh) (c/kWh) (c/kl.oJh) (C/kWh)
15c 20c 25c
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)
------------------ ---------
------------------------------------
1983 18.99 18.99 0.00 18.99 0.00 0.00 0.00
1984 19.02 19.02 0.00 19.02 0.00 0.00 0.00
1985 19.28 19.28 0.00 19.28 0.00 0.00 0.00
1986 19.87 7.09 14.61 21.70 5.30 7.07 8.83
1987 20.77 7.35 14. 19 21.53 5.13 6.85 8.56
1988 22.07 10.06 13.78 23.84 5.07 6.76 8.45
1989 22.86 10.28 13.38 23.65 4.86 6.48 a. 10
1990 23.72 10.52 12.99 23.51 4.64 6.19 7.74
1991 24.65 10.81 12.61 23.42 4.43 5.90 7.38
1992 25.65 11. 14 12.24 23.38 4.20 5.60 7.00
1993 26.73 11.52 11.89 23.40 3.98 5.30 6.63
1994 27.89 11.98 11.54 23.53 3.79 5.05 6.32
1995 29.14 12.50 11.21 23.71 3.59 4.79 5.99
1996 30.48 13.08 10.88 23.96 3.39 4.51 5.64
1997 31.92 13.71 10.57 24.28 3.17 4.22 5.28
1998 39.07 20.02 10.26 30.28 3.42 4.57 5.71
1999 40.54 20.60 9.97 30.57 3.10 4. 13 5. 16
2000 42.14 21.33 9.68 31.01 2.84 3.78 4.73
2001 43.86 22.16 9.41 31.57 2.58 3.44 4.31
2002 45.72 23.09 9. 14 32.24 2.32 3.09 3.87
2003 45.72 23.09 9.14 32.24 2.32 3.09 3.87
2004 45.72 23.09 9. 14 32.24 2.32 3.09 3.87
2005 45.72 23.09 9. 14 32.24 2.32 3.09 3.87
2006 45.72 23.09 9. 14 32.24 2.32 3.09 3.87
2007 45.72 23.09 9. 14 32.24 2.32 3.09 3.87
2008 48.44 25.81 9. 14 34.95 2.46 3.28 4. HI
2009 48.44 25.81 9. 14 34.95 2.46 3.28 4. 10
2010 48.44 25.81 9. 14 34.95 2.46 3.28 4.10
2011 48.44 25.81 9. 14 34.95 2.46 3.28 4. 10
2012 48.44 25.81 9.14 34.95 2.46 3.28 4.10
2018 51.01 28.38 9. 14 37.52 2.59 3.45 4.31
2019 51.01 28.38 4.74 33.11 2.59 3.45 4.31
2020 51.01 28.38 4.74 33 0 11 2.59 3.45 4.31
2021 51.01 28.38 1. 22 29.60 2.59 3.45 4.31
2035 51.01 28.38 1. 22 29.60 2.59 3.45 4.31
<l>See Table D-2
<2>See Table D-4
<3>See Table E-3
(4)SYm of hydro and sYpplemental diesel costs.
(5)Cannery credit for 1986 cost=15c/kWh.See Table F-2
(6)Cannery credit for 1986 cost=20c/kWh.See Table F-2
(7)Cannery credit for 1986 cost=25c/kWh.See Table F-2
G-3
TABLE G-4
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
FINANCIAL SUMMARY FOR KING COVE HYDROELECTRIC ALTERNATIVE II-B
WITHOUT REAL FUEL ESCALATION
YEAR BASE
CASE
(c:/kWh)
SUPPL. HYDRO.
DIESEL
(c/kWh) (c:/kWh)
(2) (3)
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2018
2019
2020
2021
2035
18.99
19.02
19.28
19.87
20.77
22.07
22.86
23.72
24.65
25.65
26.73
27.89
29. 14
30.48
31.92
39.07
40,54
42. 14
43.86
45.72
45.72
45.72
45.72
45.72
45.72
48.44
48.44
48.44
48.44
48.44
51.01
51.01
51.01
51.01
51.01
(l)See Table D-2
(2)See Table D-4
(3)See Table E-4
18.99
19.02
19.28
7.09
7.35
10.06
10.28
10.52
10.81
11. 14
11.52
11.98
12.50
13.08
13.71
20.02
20.60
21.33
22.16
23.09
23.09
23.09
23.09
23.09
23.09
25.81
25.81
25.81
25.81
25.81
28.38
28. :38
28.38
28.38
28.:38
0.00
0.00
0.00
11.95
11. 61
11.28
10.96
10.64
10.34
10.04
9.76
9.48
9.21
8.95
8.70
8.46
8.22
7.99
7.77
7.56
7.56
7.56
7.56
7,56
7.56
7.56
7.56
7.56
7.56
7.56
7.56
4.04
4.04
1. 22
1. 22
APRIL 1984
TOTAL
VILLAGE
CC/kWh)
(4)
18.99
19.02
19.28
19.04
18.96
21.34
21.23
21. 17
21.15
21. 18
21.28
21.47
21.72
22.03
22.41
28.48
28.82
29.32
29.94
30.65
30.65
30.65
30.65
30.65
30.65
33.37
33.37
33.37
33.37
33.37
35.94
32.41
32.41
29.60
29.60
CANNERY
CREDIT
(c/kWh)
15c:
(5)
0.00
0.00
0.00
5.30
5.13
5.07
4.86
4.64
4.43
4.20
3.98
3.79
3.59
3.39
3. 17
3.42
3.10
2.84
2.58
2,32
2.32
2.32
2.32
2.32
2.32
2.46
2.46
2.46
2.46
2.46
2.59
2.59
2.59
2.59
2.59
C4>Sum of hydro and supplemental diesel costs.
(5)Cannery credit for 1986 c:ost=15c:/kWh.See Table F-2
C6)Cannery credit for 1986 c:ost=20c/kWh.See Table F-2
C7)Cannery credit for 1986 c:ost=25c/kWh.See Table F-2
G-4
CANNER'!'
CREDIT
(c/kl4h)
20c
(6)
0.00
0.00
0.00
7.07
6.85
6.76
6.48
6. 19
5.90
5.60
5.30
5.05
4.79
4.51
4.22
4.57
4. 13
3.78
3.44
3.09
3.09
3.09
3.09
3.09
3.09
3.28
3.28
3.28
3.28
3.28
3.45
3.45
3.45
3.45
3.45
CANNER'\"
CREDIT
(c/k~·~h)
25c:
(7)
0.00
0.00
0.00
8.83
8.56
8.45
8 0 10
7.74
7.38
7.00
6.63
6.32
5.99
5.64
5.28
5.71
5. 16
4.73
4.31
:3.87
3.87
.3. :37
:3.87
3.87
:3.87
4. 10
4. 10
4. 10
4. 10
4. 10
4.31
4.31
4.31
4.31
4.31
TABLE G-5
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
FINANCIAL SUMMARY FOR KING COVE HYDROELECTRIC ALTERNATIVE II-C
WITHOUT REAL FUEL ESCALATION
YEAR BASE
CASE
<c/kWh>
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2018
2019
2020
2021
2035
(1)
18.99
19.02
19.28
19.87
20.77
22.07
22.86
23.72
24.65
25.65
26.73
27.89
29.14
30.48
31.92
39.07
40.54
42.14
43.86
45.72
45.72
45.72
45.72
45.72
45.72
48.44
48.44
48.44
48.44
48.44
51.01
51.01
51.01
51.01
51.01
SUPPL.
DIESEL
(c/kWh>
(2)
18.99
19.02
19.28
7.09
7.35
10.06
10.28
10.52
10.81
11. 14
11.52
11.98
12.50
13.08
13.71
20.02
20.60
21.33
22. 16
23.09
23.09
23.09
23.09
23.09
23.09
25.81
25.81
25.81
25.81
25.81
28.38
28.38
28.38
28.38
28.38
< 1> See Tab 1e D-2
<2>See Table D-4
<3>See Table E-5
HYDRO.
(3)
0.00
0.00
0.00
12.78
12.41
12.06
11.71
11.37
11.04
10.73
10.42
10. 12
9.83
9,55
9.28
9.02
8.76
8.52
8.28
8.05
8,05
8.05
8,05
8.05
8.05
8.05
8.05
8.05
8.05
8,05
8.05
4.25
4.25
1. 22
1. 22
APRIL 1984
TOTAL
VILLAGE
(C/kWh)
(4)
18.99
19.02
19.28
19.87
19.76
22.12
21.98
21.90
21.86
21.86
21.94
22.10
22.34
22.63
22.99
29.04
29.37
29.85
30.44
31. 14
31.14
31. 14
31. 14
31. 14
31. 14
33.86
33.86
33.86
33.86
33.86
36.43
32.63
32.63
29.60
29.60
CANNERY
CREDIT
<c /kWh)
15c
(5)
0.00
0.00
0.00
5.30
5. 13
5.07
4.86
4.64
4.43
4.20
3.98
3.79
3.59
3.39
3. 17
3.42
3. 10
2.84
2.58
2.32
2.32
2.32
2.32
2.32
2.32
2.46
2.46
2.46
2.46
2.46
2.59
2.59
2.59
2.59
2.59
<4>Sum of hydro and supplemental diesel costs.
<5>Cannery credit for 1986 cost=15c/kWh.See Table F-2
(6)Cannery credit for 1986 cost=20c/kWh.See Table F-2
<?>Cannery credit for 1986 cost=25c/kWh.See Table F-2
G-5
CANNERY
CREDIT
(c/kWh>
20c
(6)
0.00
0.00
0.00
7.07
6.85
6.76
6.48
6. 19
5.90
5.60
5.30
5.05
4.79
4.51
4.22
4.57
4.13
3.78
3.44
3.09
3.09
3.09
3.09
3.09
3.09
3.28
3.28
3.28
3.28
3.28
3.45
3.45
3.45
3.45
3.45
CANNERY
CREDIT
(c/kWh>
25c
(7)
0.00
0.00
0.00
8.83
8.56
8.45
8. 10
7.74
7.38
7.00
6.63
6.32
5.99
5.64
5.28
5.71
5. 16
4.73
4.31
3.87
3.87
3.87
3.87
3.87
3.87
4.10
4. 1 a
4.10
4. 10
4. 10
4.31
4.31
4.31
4.31
4.31
TABLE G-6
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
FINANCIAL SUMMARY FOR KING COVE HYDROELECTRIC ALTERNATIVE III-A
WITHOUT REAL FUEL ESCALATION
APRIL 1984
YEAR BASE SUPPL. HYDRO. TOTAL CANNERY CANNER'r' CANNEl':'!'
CASE DIESEL VILLAGE CREDIT CREDIT CREDIT
(c/kWh) (c/kWh) (c/kWh) <C/kWh) (c/kWh) (c/kl<Jh) (c/kWh)
15c 20c 25c
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)
---------------------------------------------------------------
1983 18.99 18.99 0.00 18.99 0.00 0.00 0.00
1984 19.02 19.02 0.00 19.02 0.00 0.00 0.00
1985 19.28 19.28 0.00 19.28 0.00 0.00 0.00
1986 19.87 7.09 15.02 22. 11 5.30 7.07 8.83
1987 20.77 7.35 14.59 21.93 5. 13 6.85 8.56
1988 22.07 10.06 14. 16 24.22 5.07 6.76 8.45
1989 22.86 10.28 13.75 24.02 4.86 6.48 8. 10
1990 23.72 10.52 13.35 23.87 4.64 6. 19 7.74
1991 24.65 10.81 12.96 23.77 4.43 5.90 7.38
1992 25.65 11. 14 12.58 23.72 4.20 5.60 7.00
1993 26.73 11.52 12.21 23.73 3.98 5.30 6.63
1994 27.89 11.98 11. 86 23.84 3,79 5.05 6.3~
1995 29. 14 12.50 11.51 24.02 3.59 4.79 5.99
1996 30.48 13.08 11. 18 24.26 3.39 4.51 5.64
1997 31.92 13.71 10.86 24.57 3.17 4.22 5.28
1998 39.07 20.02 10.54 30.56 3.42 4.57 5.71
1999 40.54 20.60 10.24 30.84 3. 10 4. 13 5. 16
2000 42.14 21.33 9.95 31.27 2.84 3.78 4.73
2001 43.86 22. 16 9.66 31.83 2.58 3.44 4.31
2002 45.72 23.09 9.39 32.48 2.32 3.09 3.87
2003 45.72 23.09 9.39 32.48 2.32 3,09 3.87
2004 45.72 23.09 9.39 32.48 2.32 3.09 3.87
2005 45.72 23.09 9.39 32.48 2.32 3.09 3.87
2006 45.72 23.09 9.39 32.48 2.32 3.09 3.87
2007 45.72 23.09 9.39 32.48 2.32 3.09 :3. 87
2008 48.44 25.81 9.39 35.20 2.46 3.28 4. 10
2009 48.44 25.81 9.39 35.20 2.46 3.28 4. 10
2010 48.44 25.81 9.39 35.20 2.46 3.28 4. 10
2011 48.44 25.81 9.39 35.20 2.46 3.28 4. 10
2012 48.44 25.81 9.39 35.20 2.46 3.28 4. 10
2018 51.01 28.38 9.39 37.76 2.59 3.45 4.31
2019 51.01 28.38 9.39 37.76 2.59 3.45 4.31
2020 51.01 28.38 9.39 37.76 2.59 3.45 4.31
2021 51.01 28.38 1. 22 29.60 2.59 3.45 4.31
2035 51.01 28.38 1. 22 29.60 2.59 3.45 4.31
(l)See Table D-2
(2)See Table D-4
<3)See Table E-6
(4)Sum of' hydro and SL1pp 1 ement a 1 diesel costs.
(5)Cannery credit, for 1986 cost=15c/kWh.See Table F-2
(6)Cannery credit for 1986 cost=20c/kWh.See Table F-2
(?)Cannery credit for 1986 cost=25c/kWh.See Table F-2
G-6
' ' ... -----~ . -
TAIILE G-7
ALASKA POWER AUTHORI:rY
FINANCIAL SUMMARY FOR KING COVE HYDROELECTRIC ALTERNATIVE I II-B
WITHOUT REAL FUEL ESCALATION
APRIL 1984
YEAR BASE SUPPL. HYDRO. TOTAL CANNERY CANNERY CANNERY
CASE DIESEL VILLAGE CREDIT CREDIT CREDIT
(c/klrJh) (C/kWh) (c/kWh) (C/klolh) (C/klrJh) (c/klolh) (<:/kWh>
1~c 20c 25c
(1) (2) (3) (4) (~) (6) <7>
------------------ ---------------------------------------------
1983 18.99 18.99 0.00 18.99 0.00 0.00 0.00
1984 19.02 19.02 0.00 19.02 0.00 0.00 0.00
198~ 19.28 19.28 0.00 19.28 0.00 0.00 0.00
1986 19.87 7.09 1. 32 8.41 5.30 7.07 8.83
1987 20.77 7.35 1. 31 8.66 5.13 6.85 8.56
1988 22.07 10.06 1. 30 11.36 5.07 6.76 8.45
1989 22.86 10.28 1. 28 11.56 4.86 6.48 8.10
1990 23.72 10.52 1.27 11.80 4.64 6. 19 7.74
1991 24.65 10.81 1. 26 12.07 4.43 5.90 7.38 -1992 25.65 11. 14 1. 25 12.39 4.20 5.60 7.00 I
1993 26.73 11. ~2 1. 25 .12.76 3.98 5.30 6.63
1994 27.89 i 1. 98 1. 24 13.22 3.79 5.05 6.32
1995 29.14 12.50 1. 23 13.74 3.59 4.79 5.99
1996 30.48 13.08 20.06 33.14 3.39 4.51 5.64
1997 31.92 13.71 19.45 33.16 3.17 4.22 5.28
1998 39.07 20.02 18.86 38.88 3.42 4.57 5.71
1999 40.54 20.60 18.29 38.89 3. 10 4. 13 5.16
2000 42.14 21.33 17.73 39.06 2.84 3.78 4.73
2001 43.86 22.16 17.19 39.36 2.58 3.44 4.31
2002 45.72 23.09 16.67 39.77 2.32 3.09 3.87
2003 45.72 23.09 16.67 39.77 2.32 3.09 3.87
2004 45.72 23.09 16.67 39.77 2.32 3.09 3.87
2005 45.72 23.09 16.67 39.77 2.32 3.09 3.87
2006 45.72 23.09 16.67 39.77 2.32 3.09 3.87
2007 45.72 23.09 16.67 39.77 2.32 3.09 3.87
2008 48.44 25.81 16.67 42.48 2.46 3.28 4. 10
2009 48.44 25.81 16.67 42.48 2.46 3.28 4.10
2010 48.44 25.81 16.67 42.48 2.46 3.28 4. 10
2011 48,44 25.81 16.67 42.48 2.46 3.28 4.10
2012 48.44 25.81 16.67 42.48 2.46 3.28 4. 10
1
2018 51.01 28.38 16.67 45.05 2.59 3.45 4.31
2019 51.01 28.38 16.67 45.05 2.59 3.45 4.31
2020 51.01 28.38 16.67 45.05 2.59 3.45 4.31
2021 51.01 28.38 1. 22 29.60 2.59 3.45 4.31
203~ 51.01 28.38 t. 22 29.60 2.59 3.45 4.31
<1>S•• Table-D-2
<2>Su· Table-D-4
<3>Su Tablet E-7
<4>Sum of hydro and supplemental diesel costs.
(5)Cannery crctdit for 1986 cost=15c/kWh.See Table F-2
<6)Canne-ry credit for 1986 cost=20c/klolh.See Table F-2
(7)Cannery cre-dit for 1986 cost=25c/kWh.See Table F-2
G-7
TABLE G-8
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
FINANCIAL SUMMARY FOR KING COVE HYDROELECTRIC ALTERNATIVE IV
WITHOUT REAL FUEL ESCALATION
YEAR BASE SUPPL.
CASE DIESEL
(c/kWh) (c/kWh)
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2018
2019
2020
2021
2035
18.99
19.02
19.28
19.87
20.77
22.07
22.86
23.72
24.65
25.65
26.73
27.89
29. 14
30.48
31.92
39.07
40,54
42. 14
43.86
45.72
45.72
45.72
45.72
45.72
45.72
48.44
48.44
48.44
48.44
48.44
51.01
51.01
51.01
51.01
51.01
<USee Table D-2
(2)See Table D-4
(3)See Table E-8
18.99
19.02
19.28
7.09
7.35
10.06
10.28
10.52
10.81
11. 14
11. 52
11.98
12.50
13.08
13.71
20.02
20.60
21.33
22.16
23.09
23.09
23.09
23.09
23.09
23.09
25.81
25.81
25.81
25.81
25.81
28.38
28.38
28.38
28.38
28.38
HYDRO.
(3)
0.00
0.00
0.00
11. 22
10.87
10.53
10.21
9.89
9.58
9.27
8.98
8.69
8.42
8. 15
7.88
7.63
7.38
7. 14
6.91
6.68
6.68
6.68
6.68
6.68
6.68
6.68
6.68
6.68
6.68
6.68
6.68
6.68
6.68
6.68
6.68
APRIL 1984
TOTAL
VILLAGE
(C/kWh)
(4)
18.99
19.02
19.28
18.30
18.22
20.59
20.48
20.41
20.39
20.41
20.50
20.68
20.92
21.23
21.60
27.65
27.98
28.47
29.07
29.78
29.78
29.78
29.78
29.78
29.78
32.49
32.49
32.49
32.49
32.49
35.06
35.06
35.06
35.06
35.06
CAtiNERY
CREDIT
(C/kWh)
15c
(5)
0.00
0.00
0.00
5.30
5.13
5.07
4.86
4.64
4.43
4.20
3.98
3.79
3.59
3.39
3. 17
3.42
3. 10
2.84
2.58
2.32
2.32
2.32
2.32
2.32
2.32
2.46
2.46
2.46
2.46
2.46
2.59
2.59
2.59
2.59
2.59
(4)Sum of hydro and supplemental diesel costs.
C5)Cannery credit for 1986 cost=15c/kWh.See Table F-2
(6)Cannery credit for 1986 cost=20c/kWh.See Table F-2
(7)Cannery credit for 1986 cost=25c/kWh.See Table F-2
G-8
CAN~~ER'l'
CREDIT
(c/kl-Jh)
20c
(6)
0.00
0.00
0.00
7.07
6.85
6.76
6.48
6. 19
5.90
5.60
5.30
5.05
4.79
4.51
4.22
4.57
4. 13
3.78
3.44
3.09
3.09
3.09
3.09
3.09
3 09
3.28
3.28
3.28
3.28
3.45
3.45
3.45
3.45
3.45
CANNERY
CREDIT
( c /k ~Jh)
2Sc
(7)
0.00
0.00
0.00
8.83
8.56
8.45
8. 10
7.74
7.:38
7.00
6.63
6.32
5.99
5.64
5.28
5.71
5. 16
4.73
4.31
3.87
:3.87
:3.87
:;: . 87
3.87
4' 10
4. 10
4. 10
4. 10
4. 10
4.31
4.31
4.31
4.31
4.31