The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutFinancial Analysis for King Cove Hydroelectric Project, June 1983'l,ol Financial Analysis for KING COVE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT obs~-~)(A Ln-.-:, 8 ~ u-:;~ Submitted by DOWL ENGINEERS ANCHORAGE, ALASKA In Association with w~'?~~ ~~~}~ tt-,._ ~~. TUDOR ENGINEERING COMPANY SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA DRYDEN & LARUE ANCHORAGE, ALASKA JUNE 1983 .__ __ ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY __ ....J ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY 334 WEST 5th AVENUE· ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501 To: Ray Benish Date: Director of Jin9nce Project: From: Patti DeJong q\J Subject: Director of Project Evaluation August 31, Four Small King Cove Phone: (901) 2n·7641 (901) 276-0001 1983 Hydro Draft Financial Analysis -Review Attached is a copy of the draft, King Cove financial analysis as well as a letter agreeing to the scope of work for the financial analyses for the four projects. The original scope of work was expanded to meet new Alaska Power Authority needs. Your review and comments upon the contents of this report would be appreciated. Let us meet at 9:00A.M., September 8, Thursday in the upstairs conference room, to approve or revise the report. Enclosures as stated cc: Heinz Noonan Gwen Obenni 11 er Toby Lesniak Merlyn Paine PD/cb 10007/055 D ___ O_W_L_E_ngineers 4040 "B" Street Anchorage, Alaska 99503 Telephone (9071 562-2000 Ms. Merlyn Paine Alaska Power Authority 334 West 5th Avenue Anchoraoe, Alaska 99501 Auqust 24, 1983 W.O. #013470 Re: Four Small ::ydropower Projects Dear Merlyn: This letter is a follow-up to our conversation of last Tuesday, Auqust 9th in your office. I would like to formal- ize in writinq the commitments that I made to you at that time. First, DOWL and Tudor will complete the Plans of Finance Reports for Kinq Cove, Larsen Bay, Old Harbor, and Scammon Bay as outlined in Contract Amendment Number 3, Tudor's let- ter dated May 12, 1983, and Tudor's supplemental letter dated June 27, 1983 within the current total contract amount of $981,954. We also will complete all other items required under our current contract within this amou11t. As long as we are not asked to do any other items outside of our current scope of work and the work on the Plans of Finance outlined in the above referenced letter, we will not request a con- tract amendment for additional funds. Now, I believe that it is acknowledoed by all parties that the work we will do on the Plans of Finance includes items clearly outside of the oriqinal scope of work in Contract Amendment Number 3. We aqree that the scope of work has chanqed to include the items listed below. Revised Financial Analyses Scope 1. Tax exempt revenue bonds. 2. Direct State financinq of all capital costs. -\ 3. ~. State equity contributions at five (5) percent return on investment. State loan at five (5) percent per years with repayment of principal deferred for the first ten years. year for 35 and interest Ms. Merlyn Paine Auqust 24, 1983 Page 2 \ 5. 6. r '7. "- 8. 9. Combination State revenue bonds and State qrants. a. Break even (89 -11 percent) combination. " b. 40 -60 percent combination. c. 50 -50 combination. State loan'!.· Above, but with cannery demand and space heatinq. A finance plan as oriqinally described but with the real oil escalation ratio held to zero percent. A levelized financinq plan option -allowing the price of the existing thermal option to rise at four percent per a sensitivity analysis that allows the hydroelectric rates to rise at approximately four percent per annum -utilizing cash flow from the reserve bonds (10 percent for 35 years) to sub- sidize the electric rates during the earlier years of the project when hydroelectric costs are rela- tively hiqher when compared to the thermal option. As outlined in our last budget report dated June 1, 1983 we anticipate a budqet underrun on the scope of services out- 1 i ned through Cant r act Amendment Number 3 of about $6, 000. We will use these funds to do the extra work required for the Plans of Finance. If the underrun is smaller than antici- pated, or if the extra work requires more than $6,000, we will not bill you. You will not be billed more than $981,954 unless we are asked to do additional work beyond what has been referenced in this letter. Both DOWL and Tudor feel badly about how the scope of work has been handled for the Plans of Finance. There has been poor direction and miscommunication on both our part and on the part of APA. None of this has been deliberate. Quite the contrary, it arose out of a spirit of cooperation to get the job done and to be responsive to your needs. In the future we feel, as you do, that it is crucial that DOWL be kept promptly and fully informed of all discussions between APA personnel and Tudor personnel. I have· so di- rected Tudor and would appreciate it if you would formally do so with your people, particularly those in finance. It is now my understanding that with receipt of this letter, you will promptly proceed with your review and comments on the draft Financial Analysis for Kinq Cove, two copies of which are attached. Once this review is complete, Tudor will finalize this report and complete the other three reports. ~ENGINEERS Ms. Merlyn Paine August 24, 1983 Page 3 Once that process is done, a final site selection will be made and we can proceed with preparing a design amendment covering design of the selected site. This of course needs to move along to have any chance of meeting our original schedules. I would July 7, our May fused. also like to respond directly 19A3 concerning questions that and June budqet reports. You Some explanation is in order. to your letter dated you had in comparing are right to be con- We have an inteL~al, computerized cost accounting system that has proved for some time to be quite effective. However, we did a major upgrading of the system the first of the year. This necessitated changing our work codes. The work codes that had been established for this project could not be continued under our new system. Furthermore, th~ work codes originally established for this project do not have a great deal of bearing any longer because of the changes in the scope of work effected by the contract amend- ments. I believe you commented on this yourself. I was, therefore, forced to either totally revamp all the work codes, which at this late date in the project seemed to be a confusing and time consuming approach, or to continue the budget analysis by hand. I chose to do the latter. This, though, has been· difficult. I had a good feel for where we stood on the budget, but felt that needed to be verified. In May I did a thorough analysis which is reflect- ed in the June 1, 1983 budget analysis report. I feel the projected underrun of $6,000 is accurate (exclusive of the extra Plan of Finance items as previously discussed). How- ever, some detail above the bottom line of that report can be questioned if scrutinized closely, particularly when compared to previous reports since the first of the year. As we discussed in our August 9th meeting, in the future I will simply qive a budget summary with the billing and a progress report. I propose that when the design amendment is negotiated that we establish jointly a new set of work codes to use for budgeting purposes. Ay this Friday, August 9, 1983, I will provide you with our latest billing, progress report, budget report, and address the several other issues we discussed last week. ~ENGINEERS Ms. Merlyn Paine Auqust 24, 1983 Paqe 4 Thank you for your patience and willinqness to openly commun- icate with us in these matters. MRN:kf Very sincerely, DOWL ENGINEERS Melvin R. Nichols, P.E. Partner cc: Gordon Little-Tudor Enqineering ~ENGINEERS Section ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY KING COVE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FINANCIAL ANALYSIS TABLE OF CONTENTS SUMMARY •...••...•..•...•..••••.•.••••••••.••••••••.•.•... I. INTRODUCTION............................................. I-1 A. General ............................................. I-1 B. Overview ............................................ I-1 C. General Method...................................... I-2 I I. CRITERIA................................................. I I-1 A . Genera 1 • • • . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • I I -1 B. Financial Criteria.................................. Il-l C. Energy Demand....................................... II-3 D. Diesel Costs ........................................ II-3 E. Hydroelectric Costs................................. II-5 F. Space Heatino....................................... I I-6 SF:IEB:AD1:2-TC III. FINANCIAL ALTERNATIVES A. Genera 1 . . . • • . • . . . . • . .. . . . . . . . . • . . • . . . . • • • . . . . . . . . . . . . I I I -1 B. Base Case .......•.•...•••....••...•.....•........... III-1 C. Supp 1 ement a 1 Di ese 1 • • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I I I-2 D. Alternative I-A: 100% Revenue Bonds................ III-3 E. Alternative 1-B: 100% Revenue Bonds with Graduated Debt serv1ce............................ III-4 F. Alternative II-A: 50% Revenue Bonds/50% State Grant....................................... III-5 G. Alternative II-6: 40% Revenue Bonds/60% State Grant ............................. o••••c•••• III-5 H. Alternative II-C: 89% Revenue Bonds/11% State Grant III-5 I. Alternative F: State Loan.......................... III-6 J. Alternative G: State Equity Financing.............. III-6 K. Space Heating....................................... III-7 IV. DISCUSSION OF ANALYSIS APPENDIX A: FEASIBILITY STUDY SUMMARY APPENDIX B: APA ANALYSIS PARAMETERS APPENDIX C: TUDOR LETTER SUMMARIZING FINANCIAL CRITERIA SF:IEB:AD1:2-TC SUftfl1ARY This report presents the results of an analysis of various possible methods of financing the King Cove Hydroelectric Project (Project). A detailed report titled Feasibility Study for King Cove Hydroelectric Project, was presented to the Alaska Power Authority (APA) by DOWL Engineers, August 1982. A summary of this report is presented as Appendix A. This report aCJaresses the alternative financial plans with different levels of state assistance. Various methods considered for financing the J project include tax-exempt revenue bonds, state grants, a 5 percent state loan, and a state equity investment yielding a 5 percent rate of return ! The · ~ alternatives are addressed in detail in Section III of this report. The cost ~ · of power to the consumer was calculated on an annual basis for each alternative. All alternatives considered would yield a lower cost of power ( than the existing situation (base case) by the end of 1988. The Project QCJ appears to be financially attractive using any method of financing considered. The cost of power to the users would be reduced by the use of state grants, loans, or equity financing. These three instruments all amount to state assistance for the cost of power. The cost reduction would be greater as the assistance is increased. 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 the data and results for the various analyses so that the information is available for the policy and decision making processes. 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 strea~ water into a 36-inch penstock. The penstock extends some 5,300 feet to SF:IEB:AD1:2-S ~w a small powerhouse 235 feet lower in elevation where the 575 turbine qenerator ~ . is located. The diverted flows are then returned to Delta Creek. No significant environmental impact, including danger to fish, is expected. Both the town of King Cove, and the large Peter Pan Cannery, currently rely totally on diesel generation to meet their power needs. This hydroelectric project would be capable of supplying more then 90 percent of the electrical needs of King Cove and approximately one-third of the cannery needs. Some supplemental diesel generation would, however, still be necessary. 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 several specified financial alternatives. The purpose of this comparison of the base case to the financial alternatives was to demonstrate how each of the financial alternative plans studied compared with the actual avoided financial cost of the base case. STUDY ASSUMPTIONS The planning period for the project begins with Jan ury 1982. The hydro- electric evaluation period is assumed to be on line by January 1985 and the analysis extends 50 years beyond this time. The analysis assumes a general inflation rate of seven percent for all costs for 20 years and a zero inflation rate thereafter. Since most economists foresee a long-term additional escalation occurring to the cost of fuel over and above the qeneral inflation rate, the analysis was also conducted both with and without an additional fuel escalation of 2.5 percent applied over the 20-year period of inflation. The proposed hydroelectric project will sometimes produce more power than either the town of Kign Cove or the cannery can utilize. The positive finan- cial impact of using this excess energy for heating the King Cove residences using resistance base-board heaters was therefore also analyzed. i i SF:IEB:AD1:2-S i I . In allocating the use of the hydroelectric energy, the study assumed that the first use woulrl go to meet the electrical demands of King Cove. If excess energy then remained, it would be allocated to the cannery. The third priority, treated as a supplemental alternative, would then be space heating. FINANCIAL ALTERNATIVES 1 .( 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 s~.ate financing at 5 percent interest and (4) state equity i financing with a 5 percent return. The repayment period of revenue bonds and state loans was 35 years. In applying these financing methods, two different -....J repayment schedules were considered for the tax-exempt revenue bonds alone, and three different combination of the state qrants in conjunction with the tax-exempt revenue bonds were considered. This resulted in a total of ~ different alternative plans, each of which was also analyzed with 2 1/2 percent fuel escalation and with no fuel escalation . The results of the analysis are shown in the /. ummary Tables S-1 (with fuel escalation) and S-2 (without fuel escalation). ~A summary description of the plans is presented below. 3. I-A. Tax-exempt Revenue Bonds with levelized repayment Alternative I-B. Tax-Exempt Revenue Bonds with a graduated repay- ment schedule . This plan allows lower initial payments equal to the base case for the initial year and then increases at a maximum rate of 4 percent until a levelized payment can be made for the remainder of the 35-year financial period . Alternative II -A. 50 percent tax-exempt revenue bonds and 50 percent state grant. Alternative II-B. 40 percent tax-exempt revenue bonds and 60 grant. i i i 5. Alternative II-C. 85 percent tax-exempt revenue bonds and 11 percent state grant. For this plan the tax-exempt revenue bond portion (11%) was derived by solving the amount that would yield a levelized payment equal to the base-case cost of power in 1985. 6. Alternative III -State loan at 5 percent. 7. Alternative IV -State equity financing with return on investment equal to 5 percent of capital cost. DISCUSSION OF RESULTS Summary results of the financial analyses in terms of the cost in tlkWh are presented in Table S-1 (2 1/2 percent fuel escalation) and Table S-2 {no fuel escalation). Figure S-1 also shows the costs over the 50-year study period of the base case with and without fuel escalation and Alternative I-B (100% revenue bonds with graduated payment) and Alternative II-C (85% revenue bonds and 11% state grant). The two base-case costs are shown on Figure S-1 to show the marked effect of fuel escalation 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. Th~ various financial plans studied provide varying levels of financial assistance to the power uses. Alternatives I-A and I-B, which utilize 100 percent state revenue bonds, would be completely paid back by the power con- .sumer and no direct state assistance is therefore involved. For the Alternatives II-A, II-8 and II-C, which use a combination of revenue bonds and state grants, the cost of power decreases as the percent of state grant increases. Alternative III, which is a state loan at 5 percent interest, is directly lower in cost than the revenue bond cases at 10 percent interest. Lowest of all is Alternative IV which only requires a return on the investment .I and no payment on the principal, with operating costs included in the annual ... return. iv "I I SF:IEB:A01:2-S Also shown in Tables S-1 and S-2 are the effect of includinq the sale of excess power for space heating in the analyses. If the oower can be sold to the local residents at various degrees of the avoided cost (diesel heaters). the resulting revenues could be used to decrease the cost of electricity in the village . The base case, with fuel escalation, has an averaqe cost of electricity of 45.3~/KWh in 1985, which increases to 123 .R4/KWh by 2000. With too oercent tax exempt financing and graduated payments , the average cost of the hydro- electric project is the same for 19R5, but increases to only 57 .8 ~/KWh in 2000. By taking ad .. ~ntage of 50 percent of the savings possible from usinq r; · excess power for space heating, an additional savings of from 2 to 6 4/KWh could be realized. The other financial schemes considered could reduce the • 1985 cost of power by as much as 22~/KWh, depending on the degree. of state . ~ r ~ assistance provided. The exclusion of real fuel escalation from the analysis somewhat reduces the savings possible from building the hydro system. For this assumotion, the average cost of electricity for the base case would be 43.2~/KWh in 1985, and would increase to 91.2~/KWh by 2000. With 100 percent tax-exempt financing and graduated payments, the cost would be the same for 1985, but increases to only 56 .4~/KWh in 2000. By taking advantage of 50 oercent of the savinqs possible from using excess power for space heatinq, an additional savinqs of from 2 to 3~/KWh could be realized. The other financial schemes could reduce the 1985 cost of power by as much as 20~/KWh, depending on the degree of state assistance provided . For all financial plans considered, significant future savings can be real i zed by implementation of the King Cove Hydroelectric Proiect. v SF:IEB:AD1:2-S -~{ 100l Tax-Exe~t Bonds Alternative 1-A Alternative 1-B Hydro Year Year Bas; level Graduateg 1 Case _I Pa)lllents II Pa)lllents - WkWh) (4/kWh) WkWh) 1985 45.27 49.13 45 .27 6 19QO 59.17 48.40 49.21 11 1995 84 .51 51.62 52 .39 16 2000 123 .8 57 .01 57 .76 36 2020 53 .67 42.40 42.40 50 2034 153.67 25.83 25 .83 y See Table III-3(A). II See Table III-6(A). y See Table lll-8(A). i/ See Table III-10(A). 2! See Table lli-12(A). y See Table lll-14(A). 1! See Table lli -16(A). y See Table lll-18(A). '# See Table 111-19(8), 50% Net Avoided Cost. SF :IEB:A01:1 -S -1 t \ I ~ ~t-~~ /)(\.,if TARLE S-1 /2_ SUMMARY OF All FINAN CIAl PLANS (REAL FUEl ESCALATION INCLUOEO) '~ ~-cJo tl6-f""C:::. f.omhinations of Tax-Exell"(lt Bonds and Grants Alt ernative II-A Alternative 11-8 Alternative 11-C 50/50 i/ 40/60 2! 8Q/11 !!../ (4/kWh) (4/kWh) 14/kWh) 31.32 27 .76 45 .27 32 .20 7.8.96 44.AQ 36 .03 32.Q1 48.24 41.98 38.97 53.75 42.40 42 .•0 42.40 25.83 25 .83 25.83 Alternative Ill Alternative IV Stat~/ State loan -Eqult v !J..I (4/kWh) (4/kWh) 37..07 2?.81i l2.fill 22.84 31i .li9 24.7R 42 "\? 28.10 42 :-10 42.80 ?.5.83 26 .23 Potential So ace Heat inq Adjustment Y (4/kWh) -2.11 -7. .70 -3.Ql -5.1i6 -5.1iA -5.68 100% Tax-Exe!et Bonds AI ternative 1-A Alternative 1-8 Hydro Bas' level Graduated Year Year Case _I Pa)lllents Y Pa)lllents 1/ (4/kWh) 14/kWh) (4/kWh) 1985 43.20 49 .10 43.20 6 1990 52 .23 48 .20 49.50 11 1995 68.42 51.04 57.82 16 2000 91 .23 55.63 56.37 36 2020 116 .53 40.68 40.68 50 2034 116.53 24.11 24.11 11 See Table 111-3(8). y See Table 111-6(8). 11 See Table 111-8(8). y See Table 111-10(8). 1_/ See Table 111-12(8). ~ See Table 111-14(8). l! Se e Table 111-16(8). ~ See Table III-18(A). '# See table 111-20(8). 50% Net Avoided Cost. SF:JEB :AOI :l-S-2 TABLE S-7 SUMMARY Of All fiNAN CIAl PLANS (REAl fUfl ESCALATION NOT INCLIJOEO) \ ~ ~:_ J o llc. r ) C~nbinations of Tax-fxempt Bonds and Grants Alternative II-A Alternative 11 -8 Alternative 50/50 y 40/60£1 89/11 E! (4/kWh) (4/kWh) 14/kWhl 31 .29 27 .73 43 .?.0 32 .00 2R .71i 4?..R3 35 .45 32 .31 45 .87 40 .60 l7 .~Q 50.fi4 40 .68 40 .fi8 40.68 24 .11 24 .11 24.11 11-C Po tential Alternative Ill Alternativ e IV Space Stat~ Loan _I State Equity !Y Heatinq Acljustment '# ((/kWh) ((/kWh) ((/kWh) 37.04 22 .R3 -1 .'10 32 .fiQ 2?..64 -7. I fi 36 .11 24.70 -?. 79 41.23 26 .71 -3 .58 40.68 4l.OR -3.37 ?.4 .11 24.51 -3 .37 TABLE S-3 _tJ_ ('~ KING COVE HYDROELECTRIC PROJEC~ ~ :> (> AVERAGE ANNUAL UNIT COST OF ENERGY SIJMMARY (REAL FUEL ESCALATION INCLUDED) oo(~ Combinations of Grants 10~ Tax-Ex~t Bonds and Tax-Ex~t Bonds State Loans State Equitl Base Alternative Alternative Alternative Alternative Alternative Alternative Alternative Case I-A I-8 I I-B II-A II-C III IV Unit Unit Unit Unit IJnit Unit Unit Unit Year Cost 11 Cost 11 Cost 1! Cost~ Cost 21 Cost 21 Cost 1! Cost jJ ~ !!/kWh) !!/kWh) !!/kWh) !!/kWh) (!/kWh) ! ¢/kWh) !VkWh) 1982 39 .69 39.69 39.69 39.69 39.69 39 .69 39.6Cl 39.6CI 1983 41.30 41.30 41.30 41.30 41.30 41.30 41.30 4l.3f) 1984 43.17 43 .17 43.17 43.17 43.17 43.17 43.17 43.17 1985 45.27 49.13 45.27 31.32 27.76 45.27 32.07 22.11 6 1986 47.43 48.84 46.48 31.38 27 .119 45.06 32.12 22.77 1987 49 .88 48.63 47.75 31.49 28.07 44.91 32 .22 22.73 1988 52 .63 48.40 49.10 31.67 28.31 44.1!4 32.38 22.72 1989 55.73 48.40 49.22 31.90 28.60 44.83 32 .60 '2.76 1990 59.17 48.40 49.21 32.20 28.96 44.ACI 32 .68 n.ll4 1991 63.40 48.89 49.69 32 .81 29 .59 45 .40 33.49 23 .12 1992 67.99 49.47 50 .26 33.52 30.33 46.01 34.19 23.48 1993 73.03 50.12 50.91 34.28 31.11 46.69 34 .95 23.36 1994 78 .53 50.81 51.5Cl 35.09 3l.CI5 47.40 35.76 24 .~6 1995 84.51 51.62 5?..3Cl 36 .03 32.91 48 .24 36.69 ~4.7 A 1996 91.07 5?..47 53.24 37.00 33.90 49.12 37.n5 ~s .~a 1997 98.22 53.46 54.22 38.10 35 .03 50.13 3A .75 25.90 1998 106.02 54 .50 55 .26 39.25 36.02 51.19 39 .90 26 .5~ 1999 114 .51 55.70 56 .45 40.56 37 .53 52 .41 41 .20 27 .27 2000 123.80 57 .01 57.75 41.98 38.97 53.75 42.62 28 .10 2001 133 .az 58 .53 59 .27 43 .66 40 .68 55.31 44 .29 ~·us 2002 153.67 55.21 55 .95 40.33 37 .35 51.98 40.96 25 .~5 2003 153 .67 55 .21 55.95 40 .33 37 .35 51.98 40.96 ~5 .8 5 2004 153 .67 55.21 55.95 40 .33 37 .35 51.98 40 .96 2 5 .A~ 2005 153.67 55 .21 55.95 40 .33 37 .35 51.98 4f).'l6 25 .AS 2006 153 .67 55 .21 55.95 40 .33 37 .~5 51.98 40.Clli 25 .13~ 2007 153.67 55.21 55 .95 40.33 37 .35 51.9A 40.'l6 25 .a5 200a 153.67 55 .21 55.95 40 .33 37.35 51.98 40 .96 25 .~~ 2009 153.67 55.21 55.95 40.33 37 .35 51.9a 40 .96 25 .a5 2010 153 .67 55.21 55 .95 40.33 37 .35 s1.qa 40.91i 25.115 2011 153.67 55.21 55.95 40.33 37 .35 51.98 40.96 25 .as 2012 153.67 72 .15 72 .89 57.27 54.30 68 .93 57 .90 42 .RO 2013 153 .67 72 .15 72.89 57.27 54.30 68.93 57.90 42 .ao 2014 153 .67 72 .15 72 .89 57.27 54 .30 68.93 57.90 42 .8 0 2015 153 .67 72 .15 72 .a9 57 .27 54 .30 6A.93 57.90 42 .80 2016 153.67 72.15 72 .89 57 .27 54 .30 68.93 57.90 42 .90 2017 153 .67 72 .15 72.89 57 .27 54 .30 6a.93 57.90 42 .RO 2018 153.67 72.15 72.89 57.27 54 .30 68 .93 57.90 42.80 2019 153 .67 35 .37 72 .a9 3A.a9 39 .59 36 .1 4 37.90 42.aO 2020 153.67 42 .40 42 .40 42.40 42 .40 42 .40 42.40 42.P.O 2021 153 .67 42.40 42 .40 42 .40 42.40 42.40 42.04 4?.AO 2022 153.67 42.40 42.40 42 .40 42.40 42.40 42 .40 42.80 2023 153.67 42.40 42.40 42.40 42.40 42.40 42 .40 42.al1 2024 153.67 42 .40 42 .40 42.40 42 .40 42.40 42.40 42 .llf'l 2025 153.67 42 .40 42 .40 42.40 42.40 42.40 42.40 42 .so 2026 153.67 42.40 42.40 42 .40 42 .40 42.40 42.40 42.30 2027 153.67 42.40 42 .40 42.40 42.40 42.40 42.40 42 .so 2028 153.67 42.40 42.40 42.40 42.40 42.40 4~.40 42.80 2029 153.67 42.40 42.40 42.40 42.40 42.40 4:2.40 42 .so 2030 153 .67 42 .40 42.40 42.40 42.40 42 .40 42.40 42 .so 2031 153 .67 42.40 42 .40 42.40 42.40 42 .40 42.40 42.af'l 2032 153.67 25.a3 25.83 25 .a3 25.A3 25.83 25 .83 26.23 2033 153 .6 7 25.a3 25 .a3 25 .a3 25 .83 25 .83 25 .a3 26 .23 2034 153.67 25.83 25.83 25.83 25.a3 25.83 25 .83 26.23 1/ See Tab 1 e I I I-3. 2/ See Table III-6 . J/ See Table III-a . 4/ See Table III-12. "'IJ/ See Table III-10 . F;t See Table III-14. I I See Table III-16. !! See Table III-18. SF : IEB:A01:1-S-3 TABLE S-4 /s ~ KIN G COVE HY DROELECTRIC PRO J ECT AVERA GE ANNUAL UN IT COST OF ENERGY SU~ARY (R EAL FUEL ESCALATI ON NOT INCLUDED ) C>o\\v-r<, Com binat i ons of r.rants 10~ Tax-Exempt Bonds an d Tax-Exemot Bonds State Loan State E~uit~ Ba se Alte rnat ive Alternat ive Alternative Alt ernative Alternati ve Alternative Alternative Ca se I-A 1-B I 1-8 II-A 11 -C III IV Unit Unit Unit Unit Un it Uni t Unit li n it Year Cost 11 Cost 1/ Cost 1! Cost!! Cost 2! Cost!! Cost l../ Co st £.1 ~ (~/kWh ) (~/kWhl (!/kWh l (~/k Wh ) (!/kWh) (~/k Wh ) ( d /kWh) 1982 39 .28 39.28 39.28 39 .28 39.28 39 .28 39.28 -~9 .29 1983 40.4 1 40.41 40.41 40 .41 41).41 41).4 1 40.41 40 .41 1984 41.74 41.74 41.74 41.74 41.74 41.74 41.74 41.74 1985 43.20 49 .10 43.20 31.29 27 .73 43 .2 0 32.04 22.~~ 1986 44.62 48.80 44.35 31.33 27 .8 4 43 .1)1 32 .07 ~2. 71 1987 46.24 48 .55 45.56 31.42 28.00 42 .87 32 .1~ 2?. .65 1998 48 .0 2 48.37 46.83 31.56 28 .20 42 .80 32.2 7 2?. .fi2 1989 50.0 3 48.26 48.16 31.76 28.45 42 .79 32.45 22.61 1990 52.23 48 .2 0 49 .50 32 .00 28 .76 42 .83 32 .6 ° 2?..6 4 1991 55.04 48.64 49 .44 32 .56 29.35 43.31 31 .2 4 ~2.q7 1992 58.04 49.15 49.94 33.20 30 .02 43.86 33.RR :03.17 1993 61.27 49.73 50.52 33 .90 31J.73 44 .48 34.57 <1 .47 1994 64 .73 50 .34 51.12 34.62 31.41l 45.13 3S.2o 2<.~n 199 5 68.42 51 .04 51.82 35 .45 32 .33 45 .87 1n .1 1 ?4 .~0 19 96 72.3 9 51.78 52.55 36.31 33 .2 1 4fi.65 36 .on 24 .60 1997 76.64 52 .63 53 .39 37.27 34 .19 47 .53 37 .CI?. ?5,1)6 19 98 81.19 53.52 54.28 38 .27 35 .22 4R.46 1Jl.02 25.54 1999 86.03 54.53 55.28 39.39 36 .3fi 49 .51 41).03 26.10 2000 91.23 55.63 56.37 40 .60 37 .SCI 50.64 41.23 2~. 71 200 1 . 96 .68 56 .8 2 57 .56 41.94 38 .96 51.89 42.57 27 .4fi 2002 116.53 53.49 54 .23 38.61 35 .fi3 4A .5 6 39.24 24.13 200 3 116 .53 53.49 54.23 38 .61 35.63 4A .56 39.24 24.13 2004 116.53 53.49 54 .2 3 38.61 35 .63 48.56 39.24 24 .13 200 5 11 6 .53 53.49 54.23 31l .61 35 .63 48 .5 6 39.24 24.13 200 6 116 .53 53.49 54.23 38 .61 35.63 48.5n 39.24 24 .13 20 07 116.53 53.49 54 .23 38.61 35.63 48.56 39.24 24.13 2008 116.53 53.49 54.23 38 .61 35.63 41!.56 39.24 24 .13 2009 116.53 53.49 54.23 38.61 35.63 48.56 3'l .2 4 24.13 201 0 116.53 53 .49 54 .2 3 38.61 35 .63 48 .56 3'l .24 24.13 20 11 116.53 53.49 54 .23 38.61 35.63 48.56 39.24 24.13 20 12 11 6 .5 3 70.44 71.18 55.56 52 .5 8 ,:;~.5o · 56.19 4l.fl'l 2013 116 .53 70.44 71.18 55 .56 52.5A ~5.50 56.10 41 .(\A 2014 11 6 .53 70.44 71.18 55 .56 52 .58 65.50 55.19 41.(113 201 5 116 .53 70.44 71 .18 55.56 52.58 65.50 56.1 <1 41 .0 R 20 16 116.53 70.44 71.1 8 55.56 52.5f! 65 .50 56 .19 41.1)~ 2017 116 '.53 70.44 71 .18 55.56 52.58 65.50 ~1;.1<1 4l.nR 20 18 116.53 70.44 71.18 55.56 52.58 fi5 .50 56.1 9 4l.OR 20 19 116.53 33.66 71.18 37:17 37.87 34 .A2 55 .1 'l 41.0A 202 0 116.53 40.68 40.68 40.68 40 .68 40 .68 40.6R 41 .1JR 2021 116.53 40.68 40 .68 40.68 40.68 40.68 40.68 41.('18 2022 116 .53 40 .68 40.68 40.68 40.68 40.68 40.68 41.08 20 23 116.53 40 .68 40.68 40.68 40 .68 40 .68 40.fiA 41.1)~ 202 4 116.53 40.68 40.68 40.68 40.68 40.68 40.6~ 41.08 2025 116 .53 40.68 40.68 40 .68 40.6f! 40 .fi8 40.6R 4t.0.8 20 26 116.53 40 .68 40.68 40.611 40.68 40.68 40.68 41 .08 2027 116.53 40.68 40.68 40.68 40.68 40.68 40.68 4l.OA 2028 116.53 40 .68 40.68 40 .68 40 .68 40.68 40.68 41.08 2029 116.53 40.68 40.68 40.68 40.68 40.68 40.68 41.08 2030 116.53 40.68 40 .68 40 .68 40 .6 f! 40.68 41).6f! 41.08 2031 116.53 40.68 40.68 40.68 40 .613 40.68 40.68 4l.f'l9 20 32 116.53 24.ll 24.ll 24 .ll 24.ll 24.ll 24 .ll 24 .5 1 20 33 116.53 24.11 24.11 24 .11 24 .11 24 .11 24.11 24 .51 2034 116 .53 24.ll 24.ll 24.11 24.11 24.ll 24 .11 24.51 1/ See Table III-3(A). !/ 3! See Table III-6(A). See Table I II-8(A). 4/ See Table III-12(A). ?J/ See Table III-10(A). 6/ See Table III-14(A). II See Table III-16(A). '§! See Table III-18(A). SF:IEB:A01:1-S-4 ~ ..:.1 -·, ~ .. i .ol I . I "I , l l l. i:'" -l ~ 3: ~ ' l ~ -..... 1 •t (/) 0 U s::> \ >-'S J 1.J (!) a:: ~ lJ w z w I t .. - I I ~ I I 210 I I~ ~HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT ON-LINE JANUARY 1985 180 I / ~BASE CASE WITH FUEL ESCALATION 150 120 I r / ~BASE CASE WITHOUT FUEL ESCALATION I I...L __ 1-----~------- I r 90 I I ( b"" ALTERNATIVE 1-B I i'-.. WITH FU~L ESCALATION I / 60 ~ ~)'~ .-, 1 ~ / ~ l I ""' t'--ALTERNATIVE 111-C WITH FUEL ESCALATION 30 I I I I \ 1980 1990 2000 2010 YEAR 2020 2030 2040 ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY KING COVE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT COST OF POWER ANALYSIS FIGURE S ~I A. GENERAL SECTION I INTRODUCTION The Alaska Power Authority (APA) is considering a hydroelectric development at King Cove. The project has been shown to be economically feasible by previous studies. This report addresses alternative methods of financing the project. B. OVERVIEW The King Cove Hydroelectric Project (Project) would be located on Delta Creek, near King Cove. King Cove is 1 ocated at the western end of the Alaska Peninsula, near the beginning of the Aleutian Island Chain. The Project would include a low diversion weir, a 36-inch diameter penstock consisting of steel and fiberglass sections, and a 575-kilowatt powerhouse. The oroject would produce 2.28 million kilowatt hours of electrical energy in an average year. The total construction cost for the project at January 1982 price levels would be approximately $3,743,900. The Project was studied by DOWL Engineers in 1981 and 1982 and was found to be feasible. The results of this study were presented as Feasibility Study for King Cove HydbAelectric Project, OOWL Engineers, August 1982. Portions of this report have been dup 1 i cated herein. An executive summary of the report is included }i 'H as Appendix A. The feasibility studies previously conducted for this project showed the project to be economically feasible. The purpose of this reoort is to present an analysis of the financial feasibility of the project. I-1 SF:IEB:AD1:2-I - 7 ( The main objective of economic analyses related to engineering projects is to determine the inherent economic viability; that is, how do the economic benefits of the project 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. Economic analysis is a valid method of making decisions regarding the allocation of ·resources and of comparing the net benefits of various projects to determine what project has the greatest value. The objective of financial analyses of engineering projects is to determine how the costs associated with a project will be paid, and the cash flows that would result from various courses of action. Interest rates, inflation, and taxes are factors that must be considered by a financial analysis that are often not considered in an economic analysis. The financial analysis for this project was conducted according to the general criteria set forth by the APA, "Analysis Parameters for the 1983 Fiscal Year." A copy of these criteria is included as Appendix B. In addition to the analyses described by this document, a base case analysis has been included. The base case is the "do nothing alternative." ::) B. ov*, ~ ~, ~~~ w ~u.. ~ o.. -1 w·,-J o-.1 C4.-n~ ~~If" ~~),.---- GENERAL METHoo s. o ~ c:;.. , I--r-_) _ • , 7 ct _ -11 'l-' a,t~ ~-~\ . The general method of this study consisted of modifying the results of the previous economic analysis to include the effects of inflation and financing. These results were then used to develop the annual cost of power for each project for the period 1982-2034 . I-2 SF:IEB:AD1:2-I The costs associated with the project include both hydroelectric costs and supplemental diesel costs . I t would be necessary to maintain diesel capac ity at King Cove because the hydroelectric project would not always operate. The electrical demand satisfied by the system would include the village electrical demand, use of some excess electricity by the cannery, and the possible use of the remaining excess electricity for space heating. Costs only were considered for this analysis, and no credit was allowed for enef i ts possible from waste heat recovery were also neglected. This analysis describes the actual forecasted cost of power. The portion of the cannery energy demand that could be satisfied by the hydroelectric project was i ncluded in the village electrical demand for the analysis of the hydroe l ectr i c case. In allocating th i s excess enerqy, it was assumed that the village electrical needs would be met first, and, if excess hydroelectric energy remained and sufficient demand existed at the cannery, then the excess electricity ·would be used by the cannery. This analysis i ncludes the assumption that the cost of energy production at the cannery is roughly equivalent to the cost of e ne rgy production in th e vil - lage system. The cost of capital is probably lower for the village than it is for the cannery; however, because of maintenance considerations, the cannery operat i on i s probably more eff i cient, and this assumption should be valid. I -3 SF :IEB:AD1:2-I \S ~ 't- R{s r, -CJu.-~ <P c.---~ '/'1'-1 ( ( J 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 are presented in Section III of this report . The alternative energy systems considered include diesel engines alone (Base Case) and hydroelectric generation supplemented by diesel generation {Hydroelectric Case). Additional benefits from using excess hydroelectric energy for space heating were also considered as an additional application of the hydroelectric case . B. FINANCIAL CRITERIA The assumptions that form the basis for this analysis are founded to as t gr eat an ex t ent as pass ib l e on th e APA standard criteria. A copy of these " criteria is included as Appendix 8. Additional criteria are covered in a letter from Mr . Edmund Babour to the APA dated March 17,1983. A copy of this letter is included as Appendix C. Wherever necessary, addi- tional assumptions were based on the best available information and on experience. The planning period and the economic evaluation period both begin with January 1982. The f i nanc i al evaluat i on period is the same as the economic eva a ion period. The hydroelectric project is assumed to be on-line by II-1 SF:IEB:AD1:2-II January 1985, and the analysis extends 50 years beyond this time. The last year of the analysis is 2034 and the total length of the evaluation oeriod is 53 years. The planning period for meetinq future demands assumes genera 1 i nfl at ion and esc a 1 at ion for 20 years, and it inc 1 udes the year 2001. After the year 2001, it was assumed that there would be zero inflation and escalation. For purposes of this analysis, a general inflation rate of seven percent was assumed. The values of diesel fuel and lubricating oil were escalated at 9.5 percent annually to account for the escalation of oil prices at a rate greater than inflation. The analysis was conducted both with and without real fuel escalation at a rate greater than inflation. The values were escalated for the duration of the planning period, with the last escalation occurring in the year 2001. The costs were held constant at the 2001 value for the remainder of the period of economic evaluation through 2034. The interest rate for bond sales and sinkin~ funds was assumed to be 10 percent. This represents current market rates. The interest rate for state loans was assumed to be five percent. The economic 1 ife of the hydroelectric project was assumed to be 50 years. The economic project life for diesel engines was assumed to be 20 years for the base case and 30 years for the hydroelectric alternative; the diesels were given a longer life for the hydroelectric alternative because they would operate significantly less than they would for the base case. Operation and maintenance costs were assiqned to the year during which they would occur. II-2 SF:IEB:A01:2-II Capital costs were assigned to the year in which they would occur . They were assumed to be equal to the sum of the construction costs and interest during construction, financing charges, and reserve funds, as applicable. The various alternatives are described in Section III. The first debt service payment was shown in the year following the capital cost. All costs were assumed to occur at the end of the year and were shown in the year that th,.~· actually occurred. Replaceme11t costs were handled by the use of a sinkinq fund. Replacement sinking funds were assumed to occur in perpetuity. C. ENERGY DEMAND The energy demand for the project was taken from the King Cove feas i- bility report. The derivation of energy demand is addressed in Chapter VII of the feasibility report. h For purposes of this analysis, the cannery demand that could be met by hydro and the direct electrical demand were lumped together and considered as one demand. The effect of space heating on the over a 11 cost of power was a 1 so considered. The effects of waste heat recovery and wind enerqy were not considered. The energy demands used for this analysis are shown on Tab 1 e II I -1. D. DIESEL COSTS The costs of diesel generation were taken from the King Cove Feasibility Report and modified according to new information as avail- II-3 SF:IEB:AD1:2-II able. The costs of diesel generation were assumed to include debt service, insurance, operation and maintenance, lubrication oil, and fuel oil. The costs of lubrication and fuel oil were escalated from January 1982 at 9.5 percent annual escalation; all other costs were escalated at seven percent annual inflation. The cost of the existino diesel system was assumed to be approximately $1000 per kilowatt of installed capacity. This cost, and future replace- ment of the diesel "'"lgines, were assumed to be financed by loans from the APA to King Cove at five percent interest for 20 years. The costs of interest during construction, financing charges, and reserve funds were not considered for this financing. The cost of insuring the diesel power plant was assumed to be $0.83 per $100 of replacement value. This rate represents current insurance rates for Alaska. The existing plant was assumed to have a replacement value of $700,000. This replacement cost was assumed to be subject to inflation at seven percent annually. The costs of operation and maintenance reflect experience and were assumed to be, at January 1982 price levels, the sum of the maintenance cost, calculated as $17 per megawatt-hour of energy produced, and the cost of an oeprator, which was taken as $60,000 per year. These costs were escalated at seven percent annually. The total cost of lubrication oil was calculated from the unit cost of lubrication oil and the amount of lubrication oil required. The lubrica- tion oil rate of use was assumed to be 0.60 qallons per megawatt-hour and the cost of lubrication oil was assumed to be $3.95 per gallon for January II-4 SF:IEB:AD1:2-II 1982. The cost of lubrication oil was esclated at 9.5 percent annually for the duration of the planning period to be consistent with treatment of all petroleum products. The analysis was also· conducted assuming the oil escalation rate as 7.0 percent (no fuel escalation). The total cost of fuel oi 1 was calculated from the cost per gallon of fuel oil and the anticipated rate of fuel oil consumption. The average energy va 1 ue of fue 1 oi 1 was taken as 138,000 Btu/ ga 11 on and the average overall efficiency of the diesel generators was assumed to be 22 percent; usinq these criteria, one ~allan of oil will produce 9.0 kilowatt-hours of electricity. The fuel oil cost for King Cove was established at $1.45 per gallon for January 1982 and escalated according to the previously mentioned criteria. E. HYDROELECTRIC COSTS Costs associated with the hydroe 1 ectri c project were taken from the feasibility report and include amortization, operation and maintenance, and a replacement sinkinq fund. All hydroelectric costs were escalated from January 1982 to the year of their occurrence at 7 percent annual interest. The construction cost estimate from the Feasibility Report is included as Table II-1. The construction cost, at January 1982 price levels, is estimated as $3,743,900. The cost of debt service for each financial alternative is addressed in Section III. The cost.of ooeration and maintenance (O&M) for January 1982 was assumed as 1.5 percent of contract cost; this is in accordance with U.S. Bureau of Reclamation practice. The O&M costs were escalated at seven percent annually for the duration of the planninq period. II-5 SF:;EB:A01:2-II Two replacement costs were considered for the hydroelectric 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 1982 price levels, and the cost of replacing the lines was estimated as $619,900 at January 1982 price levels. Sinking funds were established to meet these costs. The costs were escalated to their actual date of occurrence at seven percent annual inflation. For a more detailed description of costs associated with this project, see Section IX of the 1982 King Cove Feasibility Report. F. SPACE HEATING The proposed hydroelectric project will sometimes produce more power than either King Cove or the cannery can utilize. The positive financial impact of using this excess energy for heating the King Cove residences using resistance base-bqard heaters was also analyzed. These heaters would be automatically switched on when excess energy was available. This electric energy used for heating could be sold to Kinq Cove and the resulting revenues used to effectively lower the cost of the generated power used for conventional electric uses. The actual economic value of this power would be the cost of the diesel fuel normally used for heating that the electrical heat would displace less the cost of the resistance heaters and switching gear. The financial value of the energy, however, would be whatever price the energy could actually be sold for. Since it is II-6 SF : I EB : AOl : 2-II doubtful that the full 100 percent avoided could be obtained, the net financial value of this excess energy used for space heating was computed at 100 percent, 75 percent, 50 percent and 25 percent of avoided cost. The results of the analysis are presented in Tables III-19 and III-20. r The analysis indicates that such use of the excess electrical energy would be a very attractive investment alternative since the actual produc- tion cost of the space heating energy would be less than 1~/KWh and the 100 percent avoided ~""'C3t in this initial year of hydro generation would be $0.0563 per kWh. To demonstrate the effect this revenue would potentially have on the cost of electrical power sold to the village and cannery, the resulting revenues were then divided by the village and energy demand supplied by the hydro project. The resultinq values indicate the incremental cost per kilowatt hour that could potentially be used to lower the unit cost of hydro energy. II-7 SF: I EB: AOl: 2-I I ;, TABLE II-1 ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY KING COVE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT CONSTRUCTION COST (JANUARY 1982 PRICE LEVELS) Unit Item Quantity Unit Price Amount Mobilization and Demobilization LS $ 326,820 Diversion Dam Steel Structures 5,300 LB 3.58 18,990 Concrete 40 CY 877 35,080 Reinforcement 4,600 LB 1. 73 7,940 $ 62,010 Intake Offtake Structure 3,500 LB 3.58 $ 12,540 Sediment Structure 8,000 LB 3.58 28,660 Concrete 22 CY 877 19,300 Reinforcement 2,530 LB 1. 73 4,360 $ 64,860 Penstock Steel, 36-inch-diameter 300 LF 173 $ 51,780 Fiberglas, 36-inch-diameter 5,100 LF 120 610,020 Concrete Pads 36 ,CY 1,075 38,710 Creek Crossing Piers 5 EA 9,324 46,620 Excavation 3,750 CY 17.25 64,690 Backfi 11 3,375 CY 9.20 31,050 $ 842,870 Powerhouse Prefab Building LS $ 47,330 Turbine and Generator LS 544,920 Auxiliary systems LS 120,400 Concrete 140 CY 877 122,760 Reinforcing Steel 16,100 LB 1. 73 27' 770 $ 863,180 Access Road Excavation and Backfi 11 1,323 CY 40 $ 53,250 Gravel Fill 2,561 CY 20 52,210 Culvert 320 LF 68 21,750 $ 127,210 Subtotal $2,286,950 SF:IEB:AD1:2-II-1 Ff2~U/\/' iNArZ'f "b~t::--r @ l/<I:SG".eT) <91'-1 PG;.. r:r -/ (!) f- [2_EPCW2.. r ~·----· • ··~ •• --· -· ~ -___ , ___ _._., ---.,.._, •••-#•• ""--• ~ •--·--~ r.-....... --~ --··-·---·-~-··~-- Transmission Line (Subcontract} Contingencies -15% TABLE II-1 (Concluded} (Excluding Subcontract Portion of Transmission Line) Contract Cost Engineering Right-of-Way and Geology DesiQn Construction Management Owner's Legal and Administrative TOTAL PROJECT COST * January 1982. SF:IEB:AD1:2-Il-l Amount $ 619,940 353,000 $3,259,900 $ 50,000 175,000 150,000 109,000 $3' 743, 900* . A. GENERAL SECTION III FINANCIAL ALTERNATIVES The financial alternatives for the the King Cove Hydroelectric develop- ment include revenue bonds, state loans, state equity financing, and combinations of revenue bonds and state grants. The alternatives con- sidered here include only the financing of the hydroelectric alternative. The financing of supplemental diesel costs was considered separately, and five percent loans for 20 years were assumed for the diesel financing. In addition to the various schemes for financing the hydroelectric project, a base case, or "do nothing .. alternative, was considered to provide a com- parison to the existing situation. The use of excess electricity for space heating was also considered. 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 diesel system would continue to serve as the sole source of electrical energy. The diesel costs were taken from Section IX of the 1982 King Cove Feasibility Report (see pages IX-3 through IX-7 and Tables IX-1 through IX-7) and modified according to the criteria presented in Section II of this report. I II-1 SF: IEB :AOl: 2-III Financing for the base case was assumed to be by loans from the APA for .,, 20 years bearing five percent\interest rates. No interest durinq construe- tion, financing fees, or reserve funds were required. The cost of the base case is shown on Tables III-3(A) and III-3(8). The total unit cost of the base case, including the effects of fuel escalation, for 1985 is 45.27 ¢/kWh; this cost escalates to 133.82 ¢/kWh by 2001. If fuel escalation is neglected, the cost of the base case for 1985 is 43.20 ¢/kWh, escalating to 96.68 ¢/kWh by 2001. The cost of base case power is shown graphically in Figures III-1 and II-2. Figure III-1 shows the cost of base case energy for the period 1982- 2034 including fuel escalation; Figure III-2 shows the cost of base case enerqy for the same period neglecting the effects of fuel escalation. The sudden increase in the cost of power in the year 2002 is due to the replacement of the existing diesel plant. C. SUPPLEMENTAL DIESEL The supplemental diesel costs were assumed to be the same as the base case diesel costs, with the following exceptions: the energy demand and associated oil and maintenance costs would apply only to the portion of village direct electrical demand not met by the hydroelectric project, and the useful lives of the diesel engines would be extended from 20 to 30 years. This extension of useful life is due to the fact that the engines would not operate as often for the with hydro case as for the base case. The supolemental diesel costs for the economic analysis are presented as Tables IX-8 through IX-11 of the 1982 King Cove Feasibility Report. These costs have been modified according to the inflation and escalation criteria III-2 SF:IEB:A01:2-III presented in Section II of this report and the diesel engine cost and financing assumptions stated for the base case. The supplemental diesel analysis is presented as Tables III-4(A} and III-4(B} for the cases of with and without inflation, respectively. The unit cost of supplemental diesel for 1985, including fuel escalation, would be 7.66 ¢/kWh; this cost escalates to 13.15 ¢/kWh by 2001. If the effects of fuel escalation are neglected, the cost of power for 1985 would be 7.63 ¢/kWh, escalating to 14.77 ¢/kWh by 2001. The cost of supplemental diesel is the component of the total cost not included in the hydroelectric financing. D. ALTERNATIVE 1-A: 100% REVENUE BONDS 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 2.5 percent for financing fees, and a reserve fund equal to 110 percent of one year•s debt service. The total capital cost is $5,443,100 and is summarized on Table 111-2. The annual cost of hydroelectric energy for this alternative is presented as Table 111-5. The cost of hydroelectric power for 1985 would be 41.47 ~/kWh and this cost would escalate to 42.05 ¢/kWh by 2001. Table III-6(A} shows the annual unit cost of the alternative, including the effects of fuel escalation. This includes the cost of supplemental diesel. The cost of Alternative A for 1985 would be 49.13 ¢/kWh. The cost would escalate to 58.53 ¢/kWh the year 2001. As shown on Table III-6(A}, the credit from potential space II 1-3 SF:IEB:AD1:2-III heating could reduce the cost of energy by 2.11 ¢/kWh in 1985 and 6.07 ¢/kWh by 2001. Table III-6(B) shows the cost of power for this alternative~ neqlectinq fuel escalation. This calculation assumes that fuel will escalate at the same rate as general inflation. For this assumption, the 1985 cost of power would be 49.10 ¢/kWh, escalating to 56.80 ¢/kWh in 2001. The cost of power for Alternative I-A would be greater than the cost of Base Case power for the first two years of plant operation, including fuel escalation. This is shown on Figure III-1. As shown on Figure III-2, neglecting fuel escalation lowers the Base Case cost significantly~ and it would be the fifth year of operation before Alternative I-A would have a lower cost of power than the base case for this assumption. E. ALTERNATIVE I-B: 100% REVENUE BONDS WITH GRADUATED PAYMENTS Under this alternative, the project would be funded 100% by revenue bonds, as for Alternataive I-A; however, the debt service payments would be made on a graduated basis. The debt service for 1985 would be reduced to a level that would make the cost of power for that year the same for the base case and the hydro case. The debt service would then be increased at a maximum rate of four percent unti 1 a uniform payment could be made for the remainder of the 35 years without exceeding the four percent increase. This alternative is shown on Tables III-7(A), III-7(B), III-B(A)~ and III- B(B). The cost of power for 1985~ would be 45.27 ¢/kWh with fuel escalation and 42~30 ¢/kWh without fuel escalation. This alternative is compared to alternatives I-A and II-C on Figure III-3. The effect of this scheme is a III-4 SF:IEB:AD1:2-III slight decrease in the cost of power for the first three years of project operation followed by a sliqht increase in cost. F. 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 calculation of capital costs is shown on Table III-2. The results of the analyses of this Alternative are presented as Tables III-9, III-10(A), and III-10(B). The remaining 50 percent of the project cost would be paid by State assistance. The cost of power for this alternative in 1985 would be 31.32 4/kWh with fuel escalation and 31.29 4/kWh without fuel escalation. The cost would escalate to 40.33 4/kWh with fuel escalation and 41.94 4/kWh without fuel escalation in 2001. G. ALTERNATIVE II-B: 40% REVENUE BONDS/60% STATE GRANT The project waul d be financed using tax-exempt revenue bonds for 50 percent of the construction cost and a state grant for the remaining 50 percent. The results of this analysis are shown on Tables 111-11; III- 12(A), and III-12(B). The 1985 cost of power for this alternative would be 31.32 4/kWh for the case of fuel escalation. H. ALTERNATIVE II-C: 85% REVENUE BONDS/11% 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 1985 would be the same for the base case and the hydro case, assuming fuel escalation and neqlecting space heating. The III-5 SF:IEB:A01:2-III remainder of the capital cost (not included in the bond sale) would be paid by a state grant. through III-14(8). The results of this analysis are shown on Tables III-13 The unit cost of power for 1985 would be 45.27 ¢/kWh. This alternative is compared to alternatives I-A and I-B on Fioure III-3. I. ALTERNATIVE III: 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 Tables III-15 through III-16(8). The 1985 cost of power for this alternative~ assuming fuel escalation and neglectinq space heating~ would be 32.07 ¢/kWh. J. 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 on Tables III-17 through III-18(8). This alternative would yield the lowest cost of power for all alternatives considered~ with the 1985 cost of power, neglecting space heating and including fuel escalation, of 22.86 ¢/kWh. III-6 SF:IEB:A01:2-III K. SPACE HEATING The benefits and costs associated with space heating are shown on Tables II-19(A) and III-20(A). The potential savings from space heating are shown on Tables III-19(B) and III-20(B). The tables show the savings possible from space heating assuming various levels of the net avoided cost of space heating to be app 1 i ed to reduc i nq the cost of power to the village. Assuming that 50 percent of the net avoided cost is applied to power cost reduction, savings would range from 2.11 ¢/kWh for 1985 to 6.07 ¢/kWh for 2001 for the case of with fuel escalation; and from 1.90 4/kWh in 2001 for the case of no fuel escalation. III-7 SF:IEB:AD1:2-III TABLE lll-1 KING COVE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT -------------------Enerqy Demand Without and With Project 1/--------------------------WIthout Project With Project So ace Base Suop1ementa1 Vi 11 age Vi 11 age Cannery Heatino Hydro Case Vi11 age Diesel Demand Demand Demand Demand Generation Calendar Firm Electrical Firm Hydro Met br Met or; Met b(, Met llv Year Year Capacity 1! OemanGlf Capacity Capacity 1f Diesel.!!' Hyoro.d Hydro.=! HyarJ.! ik'lll (MWhJ {kW) ~kWJ ~ ~ ~ ~ -3 1982 350 634 350 0 634 0 0 0 ·2 1983 350 666 350 0 666 0 0 0 -1 1984 350 697 350 0 697 0 0 0 1 1985 350 729 350 575 19 710 681 889 2 1986 350 769 350 575 24 745 669 866 3 1987 350 809 350 575 29 780 657 343 4 1988 350 850 350 575 34 816 644 820 5 1989 350 890 350 575 39 851 632 797 6 1990 350 930 350 575 44 886 620 774 7 1991 350 950 350 575 46 904 612 765 8 1992 350 971 350 575 50 921 604 755 9 1993 350 991 350 575 52 939 595 746 lO 1994 350 lOll 350 575 54 957 587 736 11 1995 350 10:"-350 575 58 974 579 727 12 1996 350 1052 350 575 60 992 571 717 13 1997 350 1072 350 575 63 1009 563 708 14 1998 350 1092 350 575 65 1027 555 698 15 1999 350 1113 350 575 68 1045 546 689 16 2000 350 1133 350 575 71 1062 538 679 17 2001 350 1158 350 575 78 1080 530 670 18 2002 660 1158 350 575 78 1080 530 670 19 2003 660 1158 350 575 78 1080 530 670 20 2004 660 1158 350 575 78 1080 530 670 21 2005 660 1158 350 575 78 1080 530 670 22 2006 660 1158 350 575 78 1080 530 670 23 2007 660 1158 350 575 78 1080 530 670 24 2008 660 1158 350 575 78 1080 530 670 25 2009 660 1158 350 575 78 1080 530 670 26 2010 660 1158 350 575 78 1080 530 670 27 2011 660 1158 350 575 78 1080 530 670 28 2012 660 1158 660 575 78 1080 530 670 29 2013 660 ll58 660 575 78 1080 530 670 30 2014 660 1158 660 575 78 1080 530 678 31 2015 660 1158 660 575 78 1080 530 670 32 2016 660 1158 660 575 78 1080 530 670 33 2017 660 1158 660 575 78 1080 530 670 34 2018 660 1158 660 575 7B 1080 530 1;70 35 2019 660 1158 660 575 78 1080 530 670 36 2020 660 1158 660 575 78 1080 530 670 37 2021 660 ll58 660 575 78 lOBO 530 670 38 2022 660 1158 660 575 7B 1080 530 670 39 2023 660 1158 660 575 78 lOBO 530 670 40 2024 660 1158 660 575 78 1080 530 670 41 2025 660 1158 660 575 7B lOBO 530 670 42 2026 660 1158 660 575 7B 1080 530 670 43 2027 660 115B 660 575 78 1080 530 670 44 202B 660 1158 660 575 78 1080 530 670 45 2029 660 1158 660 575 78 1080 530 670 46 2030 660 1158 660 575 78 1080 530 670 47 2031 660 1158 660 575 78 1080 530 670 48 2032 660 1158 660 575 78 1080 530 670 49 2033 660 1158 660 575 78 1080 530 670 so 2034 660 1158 660 575 78 1080 530 670 1/ Energy demand from King Cove Feasibility Repart (1981), Tables Vll-11, IX-14, and IX-18. I! Finn capacity is capacity not including largest unit. The existing installation at King Cove consists of two l! Caterpillar 350 kW units and an older General Motors 280 kW unit. The GM unit is for emergencies only. Hydro project capacity from King Cove Feasibility Report, 1982. SF:IEB:AD1:1-FA* TABLE III·2 KING COVE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT PROJECT CAPITAL COSTS ALL ALTERNATIVES HYDRO COSTS ONLY Percent of Total Interest Annual Construction Construction Ourinq Finance Reserve Capital Oebt Cost l! Cost 11 Construct ion 1! Charqe 1/ Fund!! Cas til Servicai/ Alternative lSlOOOl l'l pi!OOOl (S1000l (~1000) .illf!.!l.!ll. ~~lOOOl I·A 4286.4 100 428.6 107.2 620.A 5443.1 564.4 l-8 4286.4 100 428.6 107.2 620.8 5443.1 Varies II·A 2143.2 50 214.3 53.6 310.4 2721.5 28:>.2 li·B 1714.6 40 171.5 42.9 248.3 2177.2 22~.'1 Il-C 3821.9 89 382.2 95.5 553.5 41!53.3 ;n·u III 4286.4 100 0 0 0 4286.4 21'il..~ IV 4286.4 100 0 0 0 4286.4 214.3 1/ Share of total hydroelectric construciton costs used to calculate debt service. Balance oai1 by state qrant. !/ 1~ of construction costs paid by tax-exempt bonds. :f/ 2.51 of construction costs paid by tax-exempt bonds. 4/ Required for bond sales. 1101 of annual debt service. !r/ s~ of construction cost, interest durinq construction, finance charqe, and reserve fund. ill For Alternatives I and II, capital cost amortized for 35 years at 101. For Alternative III, caoital cost amortized 35 years at 51. For Alt ~tive G, 51 of capital cost. SF:lEB:AOl:1·FA* Hydro Generation Year -3 -2 -1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 so Ca 1 endar Finn Year Capacity JJ (kW) 1982 350 1983 350 1984 350 1985 350 1986 350 1987 350 1988 350 1989 350 1990 350 1991 350 1992 350 1993 350 1994 350 1995 350 1996 350 . 1997 350 1998 350 1999 350 2000 350 2001 350 2002 660 2003 660 2004 660 2005 660 2006 660 2007 660 2008 660 2009 660 2010 660 2011 660 2012 660 2013 660 2014 660 2015 660 2016 660 2017 660 2018 660 2019 660 2020 660 2021 660 2022 660 2023 660 2024 660 2025 660 2026 660 2027 660 2028 660 2029 660 2030 660 2031 660 2032 660 2033 660 1034 660 Village TABLE III-3(A) KING COVE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT AVERAGE ANNUAL UNIT COST OF ENERGY BASE CASE ALL FINANCIAL ALTERNATIVES (REAL FUEL ESCALATION INCLUDED) Schedule Operation \ Total Electrical of and Oi 1 Debt Annual Demand 1f Investmentslf Maintenanc~ Costi' Service&! Insurance 1J Cos&/ (MWh) (S) (Sl ill_ (S) (S) J..ll... 634 666 697 729 769 809 850 890 930 950 971 991 ,,..,., 1032 1052 1072 1092 1113 1133 1158 1158 1158 1158 1158 1158 1158 1158 1158 1158 1158 1158 1158 115B 1158 1158 1158 1158 1158 1158 1158 1158 1158 1158 1158 1158 1158 1158 1158 1158 1158 1158 1158 1158 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3482716 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3482716 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 75732 81657 88018 94892 102489 110683 119550 129087 139374 149799 161036 173074 1B6009 199950 214884 230930 248169 266748 286650 308360 308360 308360 308360 308360 308360 308360 308360 308360 308360 308360 308360 308360 308360 308360 308360 308360 308360 308360 308360 308360 308360 308360 308360 308360 308360 308360 308360 308360 308360 308360 308360 308360 308360 113482 130535 149589 171320 197889 227960 262266 300696 344060 384848 430724 481358 537724 601038 670892 748592 835002 931910 1038779 1162561 1162561 1162561 1162561 1162561 1162561 1162561 1162561 1162561 1162561 1162561 1162561 1162561 1162561 1162561 1162561 1162561 1162561 1162561 1162561 1162561 1162561 1162561 1162561 1162561 1162561 1162561 1162561 1162561 1162561 1162561 1162561 1162561 1162561 56200 56200 56200 56200 56200 56200 56200 56200 56200 56200 56200 56200 56200 56200 56200 56200 56200 56200 56200 56200 279662 279662 279662 279662 279662 279662 279662 279662 279662 279662 279662 279662 279662 279662 279662 279662 279662 279662 279662 279662 279662 279662 279662 279662 279662 279662 279662 279662 279662 279662 279662 279662 279662 6217 6652 7117 7616 8149 8719 9330 9983 10681 11429 12229 13085 14001 14981 16030 17152 18353 19637 21012 22483 28907 28907 28907 28907 28907 28907 28907 28907 28907 28907 28907 28907 28907 28907 28907 28907 28907 28907 28907 28907 28907 28907 28907 28907 28907 28907 28907 28907 28907 28907 28907 28907 28907 25'1631 275044 300925 330028 364727 403562 447346 495966 550316 602276 660189 723717 793934 872169 958006 1052875 1157724 1274495 1402640 1549603 1779489 1779489 1779489 1779489 1779489 1779489 1779489 1779489 1779489 1779489 1779489 1779489 1779489 1779489 1779489 1779489 1779489 1779489 1779489 1779489 1779489 1779489 1779489 1779489 1779489 1779489 1779489 1779489 1779489 1779489 1779489 1779489 1779489 \ Average Annua 1 Unit Cos&' ~ 39.69 41.30 43 .17 45 .27 47 .43 49 .88 52.63 55. 73 59.17 63 .40 67.99 73.03 78.53 84 .51 91.07 98.22 106.02 114 .51 123.80 133.82 153.67 153 .67 153.67 153.67 153.67 153.67 153.67 153.67 153.67 153.67 153.67 153.67 153.67 153.67 153.67 153.67 153.67 153.67 153.67 153.67 153 .67 153.67 153.67 153.67 153.67 153 .67 153 .67 153.67 153.67 153.67 153.67 153.67 153 .67 JJ Finn capacity is capacity not including largest unit. The existing installation includes two Caterpillar 350 KW units and an old GM 280 KW unit that is used for standby only. 2/ Village direct electrical demand . Does not include cannery. See Table III-1 ;r1 Replacement cost at January 1982 price level • S900,000. Escalated for 20 years at 71 annual i nflation. ~ Operation for January 1982 • S60,000 annually, escalated at 71 annually. Maintenance for January 1982 is S17 /MWh, escalated at 71 annually. 2f Fuel oil cost and lubrication oil cost. At January 1982 price levels, fuel oil cost • Sl.45/gal. and lubrication oil cost • $3.95/gal . Escalated at 9.51 annually. Rate of fuel oil use • 111.1 gal/MWh; rate of lubrication oil use • 0.6 gal/MWh. 6/ Amortized for 20 years at 51. Based on current APA loans. Cost of ex1stinq plant • SlOOO/KW. 17 $0 .83 per SlOO replacement value . Replacement value of existing plant • $700,000 at January 1982, escalated at 71 annually. ~ Total cost of Base Case generation. SF:IEB:AD1:1-FA* ., r . ' ., /, TABLE !Il-3(8) KING COVE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT AVERAGE ANNUAL UNIT COST OF ENERGY BASE CASE All FINANCIAL ALTERNATIVES {NO REAL FUEL ESCALATION) Hydro Village Schedule ~eration Average Total Annual Generation Calendar Firm Electrical of and 011 Debt Annual Unit Year Year Capac it¢./ l:lrelftand 1! Investlllentsll Ma1ntenanceif Costi' Service!' Insurance 1f Cost.!!! Costf!! !kW) !MWhl !Sl !S! J..ll_ !S! !Sl ill... ~ -3 1982 350 634 0 75732 110891 56200 6217 249041 39.28 -2 1983 350 666 0 81657 124643 56200 6652 269151 40.41 -1 1984 350 697 0 88018 139575 56200 7117 2G09ll 41.74 1 1985 350 729 0 94892 156202 56200 7616 314910 43.20 2 1986 350 769 0 102489 176307 56200 8149 34314~ 44.62 3 1987 350 809 0 110683 198461 56200 8719 374064 46.24 4 1988 350 850 0 119550 223116 56200 11330 401l196 48.02 5 1989 350 890 0 129087 249968 56200 9CI83 445238 50.03 6 1990 350 930 0 139374 279487 56200 10681 485742 52.23 7 1991 350 950 0 149799 305482 56200 11429 522910 55.04 8 1992 350 971 0 161036 334092 56200 12229 563557 51'1.04 9 1993 350 991 0 173074 364841 5n200 13085 607201 61.27 10 1994 ,.,:)U 1011 0 186009 398251'1 56200 14001 li5446FI 64.73 11 1995 350 1032 0 199950 4349118 56200 14981 706119 68.42 12 1996 350 1052 0 214884 474457 56200 16030 761572 72.39 13 1997 350 1072 0 230930 517321 56200 17152 821603 76.64 14 1998 350 1092 0 248169 563860 56200 18353 886582 81.19 15 1999 350 1113 0 266748 614933 56200 19637 957518 86.03 16 2000 350 1133 0 286650 669802 562('1() 2101~ 1033664 91.23 17 2001 350 1158 3482716 308360 73251)2 56200 22483 1119545 96.68 18 2002 660 115A 0 308:160 732502 279662 2R907 134Q430 116.53 19 2003 660 1158 0 308360 732502 279662 28907 13494~0 116.53 20 2004 660 1158 0 308360 732502 2791in2 28907 13411430 116.53 21 2005 660 1158 0 308360 732502 279662 28907 1349430 116.53 22 2006 660 1158 0 308360 732502 279662 28Q07 134Q430 116.53 23 2007 660 1158 0 30!!360 732502 279662 28907 1349430 116.53 24 2008 660 1158 0 308360 732502 279662 2!!91'17 1349430 llli .53 25 2009 660 1158 0 308360 73250?. 279662 29<107 1349430 116.53 26 2010 660 1158 0 308360 732502 279662 28907 134<:14~0 116.53 27 2011 660 1158 0 308360 732502 279662 28907 1349430 116.53 28 2012 660 1158 0 308360 732502 279662 2f!CI07 1349431) 116.53 29 2013 660 1158 0 308360 732502 279662 28907 1349430 116.53 30 2014 660 1158 0 308360 73251!2 279662 28907 134Q430 116.53 31 2015 660 1158 0 308360 732502 279662 28907 1349430 11~.53 32 2016 660 1158 0 308360 732'i02 279662 2RQ07 134Q430 116.53 33 2017 660 1158 0 308360 732502 279662 21!907 1349430 116.53 34 2018 660 1158 0 308360 732502 279662 28907 1349430 116.53 35 2019 660 1158 0 308360 732502 279662 28907 13494~0 116. s 3 36 2020 660 1158 0 308360 732502 ~79662 21'1907 13411430 116.53 37 2021 660 1158 3482716 308360 732502 27961\2 2RQ07 1349430 1115.53 38 2022 660 1158 0 30836(1 732502 27961'i2 28Q07 1349430 116.53 39 2023 660 1158 0 308360 732502 279662 21'1907 1349430 116.53 40 2024 660 1158 0 308360 732502 279662 28907 1349430 116 .5~ 41 2025 660 1158 0 308360 732502 279662 28Q07 1349430 116.53 42 2026 660 1158 0 308360 73251!2 27<166<' 2A907 134Q430 111\ .5~ 43 2027 660 1158 0 308360 732502 279662 28907 1349430 116. ~3 44 2028 660 1158 0 308360 732502 279nli2 28Q07 1349430 116 .5~ 45 2029 660 1158 0 308360 732502 27<1662 28907 134Q430 116.!'"~ 46 2030 660 1158 0 301'1360 732502 279667 28Q(l7 134Q430 1HU3 47 2031 f\110 1158 0 308360 73?502 27CI!'i6?. 28907 13494~0 115.53 48 2032 660 1158 0 3083nO 732502 279662 28907 1349430 116.53 49 2033 660 1158 0 308360 732'i02 279662 28907 1349430 111\.53 so 1034 660 ll58 0 308360 732502 27G662 21!907 134943() 116.53 Firm cap~city is capacity not including larqest unit. The existing installation includes two Cateroillar 350 KW 21 units and an old GM 280 KW unit that is used for standby only. Village direct electrical demand. Does not include cannery. Seee Table Ill-1 J/ Replacement cost at January 1982 price level • S900,000. Escalated for 20 years at 7~ annual inflation. !! Operation for January 1982 • S60,000 annually, escalated at 7~ annually. Maintenance for January 1982 is jj $17/MWh, escalated at 7!r. annually. . Fuel oil cost and lubrication oil cost. At January 1982 price levels, fuel oil cost • ~1.45/aal. and lubr1cation oi 1 cost • $3.95/gal. Escalated at 7.01 annually. Rate of fuel oil use • 111.1 qal/~h; rate of lubrication ail 6/ use • 0.6 qal/MWh. Cost of existing olant • $1000/KW. Amortizea for 20 years at 5!r.. Based on current APA laans. !.! $0.83 per SlOO replacement value. Peplacement value of existinq plant • $700,000 at January 1~2. escalated at !.! 7!r. annually. Total cost of Base Case generation. SF:IEB:A01:1-FA* TABLE Ill-4( A) KING COVE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT AVERAGE ANNUAL UNIT COST OF ENERGY SUPPLEMENTAL DIESEL COST ALL FINANCIAL ALTERNATIVES (REAL FUEL ESCALATION INCLUDED) Total Averaae Hydro Schedule Operation Annual Annual Generation Calendar Firm Enerqy of and Di 1 Debt Diesel Unit Year Year Capacity.!/ OemanaY lnves tment s1/ Maintenance!/ Cost-21 Service.§./ lnsurancel! Cost!!/ Cost?/ (kW) (MWh) ( ~) ( $) l1L ( $) ( ~) _r_q_ ~ 0 1982 350 634 0 75732 113482 56200 fi217 '2~1631 )Q .60 0 1983 350 666 0 81657 130535 56200 6652 27'i044 41.30 0 1984 350 697 0 88018 149589 56?00 7117 1nno25 41.17 1 1985 350 1410 0 39747 4465 56200 7616 108028 7.66 2 1986 350 1438 0 42649 6176 56?00 8149 113174 7 .~7 3 1987 350 1466 0 45762 Rl72 56200 8719 118853 8.11 4 1988 350 1494 0 49102 10491 56200 <1330 1?5122 ~.17 5 1989 350 1522 0 52685 13177 56200 9983 132044 O.liR 6 1990 350 1550 0 56529 16278 56200 10681 139~8<1 0,(1[ 7 1991 350 1562 0 60553 18635 56200 11429 l41i817 ~.40 8 1992 305 1575 0 64935 22179 56200 1222<1 155~43 9,011 9 1993 350 1586 0 69557 25258 56200 13085 164100 10.35 10 1994 350 1598 0 74508 28721 56200 14001 173430 lO.AS 11 1995 350 1611 0 79898 33779 56200 14981 184859 11.47 12 1996 350 1623 0 85585 38264 56200 16030 19~07<1 12 .OR 13 1997 350 1635 0 91727 43994 56200 17152 209073 12.79 14 1998 350 1647 0 98255 49702 56200 18353 222510 13 .51 15 1999 350 1659 0 105305 56936 56200 19637 23807<1 14.35 16 2000 350 1671 0 112861 65096 56200 Wll2 25516<1 15.27 17 2001 350 1688 0 121222 78307 56200 22483 27?212 16.411 18 2002 350 1688 o 121222 78307 0 224A3 n<Ol2 13.15 19 2003 350 1688 0 121222 78307 0 22483 22?fll2 13.15 20 2004 350 1688 0 121222 78307 0 22483 222012 13 .1'i 21 2005 350 1688 0 121222 78307 0 22483 222012 13.15 22 2006 350 1688 0 121222 78307 0 22483 222012 13.1" 23 2007 350 1688 0 121222 7A307 0 22483 222012 12.l'i 24 2008 350 1688 0 121222 78307 0 2?483 222012 11.15 25 2009 350 1688 0 121222 78307 o 22483 222012 13.15 26 2010 350 1688 0 121222 78307 0 22483 ?22012 13 .15 27 2011 350 1688 3482716 121222 78307 0 22483 222012 1:1.15 28 2012 660 1688 0 121222 711307 279662 28<107 50A!'\DA 30 .1n 29 2013 660 1688 0 121222 78307 279662 29907 5080<1~ 30.10 30 2014 660 1688 0 121222 78307 270662 ?A907 <(1~(1<18 30.10 31 2015 660 1688 0 121222 78307 279662 28907 508098 30.10 32 2016 660 1688 0 121222 7A307 27<1662 ?8907 SORO<IR 10.10 33 2017 660 1688 0 121222 78307 279662 28907 50R098 30.10 34 1018 660 1688 0 121222 78307 2796fi2 28907 <OR !'\<Ill 10.Hl 35 2019 660 1688 0 121222 7R307 27<1662 28907 5!'\RI19A 30.1() 36 2020 660 1688 0 121222 78307 270662 2A907 'iOR09ll 3!'\.10 37 2021 660 1688 0 121222 78307 279662 28907 S(l€1098 30.10 38 2022 660 1688 0 121222 78307 279662 28907 508098 3f'l.10 39 2023 660 1688 0 121222 78307 279662 2B907 SOR098 30.10 40 2024 660 1688 0 121222 78307 279662 28907 SOR008 10.10 41 2025 660 1688 0 121222 78307 279662 28907 SOA098 30.10 42 2026 660 1688 0 121222 711307 279662 28907 2011098 30.10 43 2027 660 1688 0 121222 78307 279662 28907 50R008 30.10 44 2028 660 1688 0 121222 78307 279662 2A907 208!'\<IR 30 .1n 45 2029 660 1688 0 121222 78307 279662 28907 508098 30.10 46 2030 660 1688 0 121222 78307 279662 2A<I07 'i0~098 Jn .1n 47 2031 660 1688 0 121222 78307 279662 28907 508098 30.11) 48 2032 660 1688 0 121222 78307 n 28907 228435 11.53 49 2033 660 1688 0 121222 78307 0 28907 ~2~435 13.53 50 2034 660 1688 0 121222 78307 0 28907 '228435 11.5 3 JJ Firm capacity is capacity not inlcudinq larqest unit. The useful 1 ives of diesel enaines nas been extended to 30 2/ years because the engines operate less for the hydro case than they do for the base case. '!I Total village demand plus cannery demand met by hydro. See Table III-1. 4/ Replace plant in 30 years. January 1982 cost s S900,000; escalate at 7~ annually. Jj Operation for January 1982 s $60,000. Maintenance for January 1982 s $17/MWh. Values escalated at 7~ annually. Oil cost incudes fuel oil and lubrication oil. At January 1982 levels, fuel oil cost • ~1.45 aal. and lubrication oil costs $3.95/9al. Fuel oil use rates 111.1 gals/MWh and lubrication oil use rate • 0.6 6/ gal/MIIh. Oil cost escalates at 9.5S annually. '11 Debt service for plant capital costs amortized 20 years at 5l. :[/ $0.83 per $100 replacement value. January 1982 replacement value s ~1000/kW. Cost of diesel supplement to hydro only. SF:IEB:AD1:1-FA* 7A8LE Il!-4( B) KI~G COVE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT AVERAGE ANNUAL UNIT COST OF ENERSY SUPPLEMENTAL OIESEL COST ALL FINANCIAL ALTERNATIVES (NO REAL FUEL ESCALATION) Total Average Hydro Schedule Operation Annual Annual Generation Calendar Firm Enerq! of and 011 Oebt Diesel Unit Year Year Caoacit~ Deman~ Investment~ Maintenancs!f Cos til Service!.' InsurancaU Cost!' Cost!! [kW) (MWhl !S! !S! 1!L !Sl (S) _w_ (¢/kWh) 0 1982 350 634 0 75732 110891 56200 6217 24Q041 39.28 0 1983 350 666 0 81657 124643 56200 6652 269151 40.41 0 1984 350 697 0 88018 139575 56200 7117 290911 41.74 1 1985 350 1410 0 39747 4071 56200 7616 107634 7.63 2 1986 350 1438 0 42649 5502 56200 8149 112500 7.82 3 1987 350 1466 0 45762 7114 56200 8719 117795 8.04 4 1988 350 1494 0 49102 8925 56200 9330 123556 8.27 5 1989 350 1522 0 52685 10954 56200 991'!3 129821 8.53 6 1990 350 1550 0 56529 13223 56200 10681 136633 8.82 7 1991 350 1562 0 60553 14792 56200 11429 142974 9.15 8 1992 305 1575 0 64935 17203 56200 12229 150567 9.56 9 1993 350 1586 0 69557 19144 56200 13085 157986 9.96 10 1994 350 1598 0 74508 21272 56200 14001 165981 10.39 11 1995 350 1611 0 79898 24447 56200 14981 175527 10.90 12 1996 350 1623 0 85585 27060 56200 16030 184875 11.39 13 1997 350 1635 0 91727 30402 56200 17152 195481 11.96 14 1998 350 1647 0 98255 33563 56200 18353 206371 12.53 15 1999 350 1659 0 105305 37570 56200 19637 218713 13.18 16 2000 350 1671 0 112861 41973 56200 21012 232046 13.89 17 2001 350 1688 0 121222 49340 56200 22483 249244 14.77 18 2002 350 1688 0 121222 49340 0 22483 193044 11.44 19 2003 350 1688 0 121222 49340 0 22483 193044 11.44 20 2004 350 1688 0 121222 49340 0 22483 193044 11.44 21 2005 350 1688 0 121222 49340 0 22483 193044 ll.44 22 2006 350 1688 0 121222 49340 0 22483 193044 11.44 23 2007 350 1688 0 121222 49340 0 22483 193044 11.44 24 2008 350 1688 0 121222 49340 0 22483 193044 11.44 25 2009 350 1688 0 121222 49340 0 224S!3 193044 11.44 26 2010 350 1688 0 121222 49340 0 22483 193044 11.44 27 2011 350 1688 3482716 121222 49340 0 2241!3 193044 11.44 28 2012 660 1688 0 121222 49340 2796112 28907 479130 28.38 29 2013 660 1688 0 121222 49340 279662 28907 479130 28.38 30 2014 660 1688 0 121222 49340 279662 28907 479130 28.38 31 2015 660 1688 0 121222 49340 279662 28907 479130 28.38 32 2016 660 1688 0 121222 49340 279662 28907 479130 28.38 33 2017 660 1688 0 121222 49340 279662 28907 479130 28.38 34 1018 660 1688 0 121222 49340 279662 28907 479130 28.38 35 2019 660 1688 0 121222 49340 279662 28907 479130 28.38 36 2020 660 1688 0 121222 49340 279662 28907 479130 28.38 37 2021 660 1688 0 121222 49340 279662 28907 479130 28.38 38 2022 660 1688 0 121222 49340 279662 28907 479130 28.38 39 2023 660 1688 0 121222 49340 279662 28907 479130 28.38 40 2024 660 1688 0 121222 49340 279662 28907 479130 28.38 41 2025 660 1688 0 121222 49340 279662 28907 479130 28.38 42 2026 660 1688 0 121222 49340 279662 28907 479130 28.38 43 2027 660 1688 0 121222 49340 279662 28907 479130 28.38 44 2028 660 1688 0 121222 49340 279662 28907 479130 28.38 45 2029 660 1688 0 121222 49340 279662 28907 479130 28.38 46 2030 660 1688 0 121222 49340 279662 28907 479130 28.38 47 2031 660 1688 0 121222 49340 279662 28907 479130 28.38 48 2082 660 1688 0 121222 49340 0 28907 199468 11.82 49 2033 660 1688 0 121222 49340 0 28907 199468 11.82 50 2034 660 1688 0 121222 49340 0 28907 199468 11.82 y Firm caoacity is capacity not inlcuding largest unit. The useful lives of diesel enoines has been extended to 30 2/ years because the enQines ooerate less for the hydro case than they do for the llase case. Total village demand plus cannery demand met by hydro. See Table III-1. J/ Reolace plant in 30 years. January 1982 cost • $900,000; escalate at 71 annually. 4/· Qoeration for January 1982 • $60,000. Maintenance for January 1982 • $17/MWh. Values escalated at 7S annually. J! Oil cost incudes fuel oil and lubrication oil. At January 1982 levels, fuel oil cost • $1.45 qal. and lubrication oil cost • S3.95/9al. Fuel oil use rate • 111.1 gals/MWh and lubrication oil use rate • 0.6 5/ ga 1/MWII. 011 cost escalates at 7.01 annually. Debt service for plant capital costs 11110rtized 20 years at Sl. II S0.83 per S100 reolacement value. January 1982 replacement value • $700,000, escalated at 71 annually. ;' Cost of diesel supplement to hydro only. SF:IE8:A01:1-FA* TABLE II!-5 KING COVE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT ~VERAGE ANNUAL UNIT COST OF ENERGY HYDROELECTRIC COSTS FINANCIAL ALTERNATIVE 1-A: 1~ REVENUE BONOS Interest Earned Total Average Hydro Operation Replacement on Annual ~nnual Generation Calendar Energl Hydro and Si nkinf Debt Reserve Hydro Unit Year Year Demand!! Capacit~ Ma i nten an calf Fundi Servicaif Fun~ Cost!..! Cost!..! J1!!!U_ (kWl !Sl ($! ($l ($) _w_ ~ 0 1982 634 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0 1983 666 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0 1984 697 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 1 1985 1410 575 64096 18321 564393 62083 584727 41.47 2 1986 1438 575 68583 18321 564393 62083 589214 40.97 3 1987 1466 575 73383 18321 564393 62083 594014 40.52 4 1988 1494 575 78520 18321 564393 62083 599151 40.10 5 1989 1522 575 84017 18321 564393 62083 604648 39.73 6 1990 1550 575 99898 18321 564393 62083 610529 39.39 7 1991 1562 575 96191 18321 564393 62083 616922 39.49 8 1992 1575 575 !02924 18321 564393 62083 623555 39.59 9 1993 1586 575 110129 18321 564393 62083 630760 39.77 10 1994 1598 575 117838 18321 564393 62083 638469 39.95 11 1995 1611 575 126086 18321 564393 62083 646717 40.14 12 1996 1623 575 134913 18321 564393 62083 655543 40.39 13 1997 1635 575 144356 18321 564393 62083 664987 40.67 14 1998 1647 575 154461 18321 564393 62083 675092 40.99 15 1999 i659 575 165274 18321 564393 62083 685905 41.34 16 2000 1671 575 176843 18321 564393 62083 697474 41.74 17 2001 1688 575 189222 18321 564393 62083 709853 42.05 18 2002 1688 575 189222 18321 564393 62083 709853 42.05 19 2003 1688 575 189222 18321 564393 62083 709853 42.05 20 2004 1688 575 189222 18321 564393 62083 709853 42.05 21 2005 1688 575 189222 18321 564393 62083 709853 42.05 22 2006 1688 575 189222 18321 564393 62083 709853 42.05 23 2007 1688 575 189222 18321 564393 62083 709853 42.05 24 2008 1688 575 189222 18321 564393 62083 709853 42.05 25 2009 1688 575 189222 18321 564393 62083 709853 42.05 26 2010 1688 575 189222 18321 564393 62083 709853 42.05 27 2011 1688 575 189222 18321 564393 62083 709853 42.05 28 2012 1688 575 189222 18321 564393 62083 709853 42.05 29 2013 1688 575 189222 18321 564393 62083 709853 42.05 30 2014 1688 575 189222 18321 564393 62083 709853 42.05 31 2015 1688 575 189222 18321 564393 62083 709853 42.05 32 2016 1688 575 189222 18321 564393 62083 709853 42.05 33 2017 1688 575 189222 18321 564393 62083 709853 42.05 34 2018 1688 575 189222 18321 564393 62083 709853 42.fl5 35 2019 1688 575 189222 18321 564393 62083 89020 5.27 36 2020 1688 575 189222 18321 0 0 207543 12.30 37 2021 1688 575 189222 18321 0 0 207543 12.30 38 2022 1688 575 189222 18321 0 0 207543 12.30 39 2023 1688 575 189222 18321 0 0 207543 12.30 40 2024 1688 575 189222 18321 0 0 207543 12.30 41 2025 1688 575 189222 18321 0 0 207543 12.30 42 2026 1688 575 189222 18321 0 0 207543 12.30 43 2027 1688 575 189222 18321 0 0 207543 13.30 44 2028 1688 575 189222 18321 0 0 207543 12.30 45 2029 1688 575 189222 18321 0 0 207543 12.30 46 2030 1688 575 189222 18321 0 0 207543 12.30 47 2031 1688 575 189222 18321 0 0 207543 12.30 48 2032 1688 575 189222 18321 0 0 207543 12.30 49 2033 1688 575 189222 18321 0 0 207543 12.30 so 2034 1688 575 189222 18321 0 0 207543 12.30 1/ Village direct electrical demand plus cannery demand met by hydro. See Table II!-1. ""!! ""!! King Cove 1982 Fe!Siblity Report, pages VI-4 through VI-10. 4! 1.5l of contract cost, escalates at 7S annually. II Replacement of runner and tran9Rission lines. See table IX-12, K!nq Cove 1982 Feasibility Report. Debt service on revenue bonds for 35 years at 101. Includes interest during construction, financing fee, and 6/ reserve fund. !! Reserve fund • 1101 of debt service; Earns interest at lOl annually. Cost of hydro only. SF:IEB:A01:1-FA• TABLE Ill·6( A) KING COVE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT SUMMARY OF AVERAGE ANNUAL UNIT COSTS OF ENERGY HYDRO CASE WITH AND WITHOIJT SPACE HEATING ALTERNATIVE l·A: 1001 REVENUE BONDS (REAL FUEL ESCALATION INCLUDED) E.xample of Potential H~ro Project Onll Soa.ce Heatfna !ldiustment So ace Enerqy Supplemental Total Heatinq Cost Diesel Hydro With Savlnqs Adjusted Hydro Unit Unit Hydro @ 50'1' for Space Generation Calendar Energl Ener~j Enera7 Unit Avoid~!<! Heatinq Year Year Deman tid Cost=: Cosd: eo stY Cost& Savlnqsil l.!:!!!!.L ~ ~ .iiill.!!l. {4/kWI'I) J.till!!!l 0 1982 634 39.69 0.00 39.69 0.00 ~9.69 0 1983 666 41.30 0.00 41.30 o.oo 41.30 0 1984 697 43.17 0.00 43.17 0.00 4~.17 1 1985 1410 7.66 41.47 49.13 2.11 47.02 2 1986 1438 7.87 40.!17 48.84 2.22 46.62 3 1982 1466 8.11 40.52 48.63 2.33 46.10 4 1!188 1494 8.37 40.10 48.40 2.45 45.!15 5 1989 1522 8.68 39.73 4R.40 2.57 45.83 6 1990 1550 9.01 39.39 41!.41} 2.70 4<;.70 7 1991 1562 9.40 39.49 48.89 2.92 45.97 8 1992 1575 9.88 39.59 49.47 3.14 46.33 9 1993 1586 10.35 39.77 50.12 3.39 41i.73 10 1994 15!18 10.85 39.95 50.81 3.65 47.16 ll 1995 1611 11.47 40.14 51.62 3.93 47.69 12 1996 1623 12.08 40.39 52.47 4.23 4R.24 13 1997 1635 12.79 40.67 53.46 4.55 48.91 14 1998 1647 13.51 40.99 54.50 4.!10 49.60 15 1999 1659 14.35 41.34 55.70 5.27 50.43 16 2000 1611 15.27 41.74 57.01 5.66 ~1.35 17 2001 1688 16.48 42.05 58.53 6.07 52.46 18 2002 1688 13.15 42.05 55.21 6.07 4<1.14 19 2003 1688 13.15 42.05 55.21 6.07 49.14 20 2004 1688 13.15 42.05 55.21 n.07 4Q .14 21 2005 1688 13.15 42.05 55.21 5.68 49.53 22 2006 1688 13.15 42.05 55.21 5.61! 49.53 23 2007 16R8 13.15 42.05 55.21 5.1i8 49.53 24 2008 1688 13.15 42.05 5'i.21 5.68 49.53 25 2009 1688 13.15 42.05 55.21 5.68 49.53 26 2010 1688 13.15 42.05 55.21 5.68 4<1.53 27 2011 1688 13.15 42.05 55.21 5.68 49.53 28 2012 1688 30.10 42.05 72.15 5.68 66.47 29 2013 1688 30.10 42.05 72.15 5.68 66.47 30 2014 1688 30.10 42 .OS 72.15 5.68 66.47 31 2015 1688 30.10 42.05 72.15 5.68 66.47 32 2016 1688 30.10 42.05 72.15 5.68 66.47 33 2017 1688 30.10 42.05 72.15 5.6R 66.47 34 2018 1688 30.10 42.05 72.15 5.68 66.47 35 2019 1688 30.10 5.28 35.37 5.68 29.69 36 2020 1688 30.10 12.30 42.40 5.68 36.72 37 2021 1688 30.10 12.30 42.40 5.61! 36.72 38 2022 1688 30.10 12.30 42.40 5.68 36.72 39 2023 1688 30.10 12.30 42.40 5.68 36.72 40 2024 1688 30.10 12.30 42.40 5.68 36.72 41 2025 1688 30.10 12.30 42.40 5.68 36.72 42 2026 1688 30.10 12.30 42.40 5.68 36.72 43 2027 1688 30.10 12.30 42.40 5.68 36.72 44 2028 1688 30.10 12.30 42.40 5.68 36.72 45 2029 1688 30.10 12.30 42.40 5.68 36.72 46 2030 1688 30.10 12.30 42.40 5.68 36.72 47 2031 1688 30.10 12.30 42.40 5.68 36.71 48 2032 1688 13.53 12.30 25.83 5.68 20.15 49 2033 1688 13.53 12.30 25.83 5.68 20.15 50 2034 1!)88 13.53 12.30 25 .Ill 5.68 20.15 1/ Villaqe direct electrical demand plus cannery load met by hydro. See Table III·1. "!I From Table JII·4. !I From Table lll·S. 4/ Sum of supplemental diesel and hydro unit costs. 21 See Table !11·19(8). SF:IEB:A01:1·FA* TABLE l II-~( B) <ING COVE YYOROELECTRlC PROJECT SUMMARY OF AVERAGE ANNUAL UIHT COSTS OF ENERGY rlYDRO CASE WITH AND wiTHOUT SPACE HEATING ALTERNATIVE !-A: 100% REVENUE 0 0~DS (NO REAL FUEL ESCALATIO~) Exanple of Potentia 1 Space HydrO Project Only Heatina Adjustment Soace Eneray Supplemental Total Heatinq Cost Diesel Hydro With Savinqs Adjusted Hydro Unit Unit Hyrlro at 50'1 for Soace Generation Calendar Enerql Eneroy Eneroy Unit Avoided Heat inq Year Year Demandd CostY Costll Cost!! Costll Sav inqsif ~ ~ ~ ~ .l.illl!!!l ~ 0 1982 634 39.28 1).00 39.28 0.00 39.28 0 1983 666 40.41 0.00 40.41 0.00 40.41 0 1984 697 41.74 0.00 41.74 0.00 41.74 1 1985 1410 7.63 41.47 49.10 1.90 47.20 2 1986 1438 7 .fl2 40.97 48.RO 1.45 46.85 3 1982 1466 8.04 40.52 48.55 2.00 46.55 4 1988 1494 8.27 40.10 4fl.37 2.06 46.31 5 1989 1522 8.53 39.73 41l.26 2.ll 46.15 6 1990 1550 8.82 39.39 48.20 2.16 4fi.04 7 1991 1562 9.1:, 39.49 41.!.64 2.27 46.37 8 1992 1575 9.56 39.59 49.15 2.39 46.76 9 1993 1586 9.96 39.77 49.73 2.52 47.21 10 1994 1598 10.39 39.95 50.34 ?..65 47.69 ll 1995 Hm 10.90 40.14 51.04 2.79 48.25 12 1996 1623 11.39 40.39 51.78 ? .94 411.84 13 1997 1635 11.96 40.67 52.63 3.09 49.54 14 1998 1647 12.53 40.~9 53.52 3.25 50.27 15 1999 1659 13.18 41.34 54.53 3.41 51.12 16 2000 1671 13.89 41.74 55.63 3.58 52.05 17 2001 1688 14.77 42.05 56.82 3.76 53.06 18 2002 1688 11.44 42.05 53.49 3 .7fi 4q .71 19 2003 1688 11.44 42.05 53.49 3.76 49.73 20 2004 1688 11.44 42.05 53.49 3.76 49.73 21 2005 1688 11.44 42.05 53.49 3.37 5('1 .12 22 2006 1688 11.44 42.05 53.49 3.37 50.12 23 2007 1688 11.44 42.05 53.49 3.~7 50.12 24 2008 1688 11.44 42.05 53.49 3.37 50.12 25 2009 1688 11.44 42.05 53.49 3.37 50.12 26 2010 1688 11.44 42.05 53.4<} 3.37 50.12 27 2011 1688 11.44 42.05 53.49 3.37 50.12 28 2012 1688 2S.3B 42.05 70.44 3.37 67 .07 29 2013 1688 28.38 42.05 70.44 3.37 67.07 30 2014 1688 28.38 42.05 70.44 3.37 67 .07 31 2015 1688 28.38 42.05 70.44 3.37 67.07 32 2016 1688 28.38 42.05 70.44 3.37 67.07 33 2017 1688 28.38 42.05 70.44 3.37 67.07 34 2018 16A8 28.38 42.05 70.44 3.37 67.07 35 2019 1688 28.38 5.27 33.66 3.37 30.29 36 2020 1688 28.38 12.30 40.68 3.37 37.31 31 2021 1688 28.38 12.30 40.68 3.37 37.31 38 2022 1688 28.38 12.30 40.68 3.31 37.31 39 2023 1688 28.38 12.30 40.68 3.37 37.31 40 2024 1688 28.38 12.30 40.68 3.37 37.31 41 2025 1688 28.38 12.30 40.613 3.37 37.31 42 2026 1688 28.38 12.30 40.68 3.37 37.31 43 2027 1688 28.38 12.30 40.68 3.31 37.31 44 2028 1688 28.38 12.30 40.68 3.37 37.31 45 2029 1588 28.38 12.30 40.68 3.37 37.31 46 2030 1688 28.38 12.30 40.68 .3.37 37.31 47 2031 1688 28.38 12.30 40.68 3.37 37.31 48 2032 1688 11.82 12.30 24.ll 3.37 20.74 49 2033 1688 11.82 12.30 24.11 3.37 20.74 so 2034 1688 11.82 12.30 24.11 3.37 20.74 11 Village direct electrical demand plus cannery load met by hydro. See Table !Il-l. ""'!.! "!I From Table III-4. From Table III-5. 4/ Sum of supplemental diesel and hydro unit costs. Jj See Table Ill-20(8). SF:IEB:AD1:1-FA* TABLE III·7( A) KING COVE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT AVERAGE ANNUAL UNIT COST OF ENERGY HYDROELECTRIC COSTS ALTERNATIVE l·B: 1001 REVENUE BONDS WITH GRADUATED PAYMENTS (REAL FUEL ESCALATION INCLUDED) Interest Earned Total Average Hydro Operation ReD I acement on Annual Annual Generation Calendar Energ{ Hydro and Sinkin? Debt Reserve Hydro Unit \'ear Year DemanG:f Capac1t~ Maintenance¥ Fun~ Servicai' Funa§i Cost!.! Cost!.! (M'oll} (kW) (Sl (S! --l!L (Sl --l!L ~ 0 1982 634 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0 1983 666 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0 1984 697 0 0 0 0 0 0 o.oo 1 1985 1410 575 64096 18321 509967 62083 530031 37.61 2 1986 1438 575 68583 18321 530366 62083 555187 38.61 3 1987 1466 575 73383 18321 551580 62083 581201 39.65 4 1988 1494 575 78520 18321 573644 62083 608402 40.72 5 1989 1522 575 84017 18321 576890 62083 617145 40.55 6 1990 1550 575 89898 18321 576890 62083 623026 40.20 7 1991 1562 575 96191 18321 576890 62083 629319 40.29 8 1992 1575 575 102924 18321 576890 62083 636052 40.38 9 1993 1586 575 110129 18321 576890 62083 643257 40.56 10 1994 1598 575 117838 18321 576890 62083 650966 40.74 11 1995 1611 575 126086 18321 576890 62083 659214 40.92 12 1996 1623 575 134913 18321 576890 62083 668040 41.16 13 . 1997 1635 575 144356 18321 576890 62083 677484 41.44 14 1998 1647 575 154461 18321 576890 62083 687589 41.75 15 1999 1659 575 165274 18321 576890 62083 698402 42.10 16 2000 1671 575 176843 18321 576890 62083 709971 42.49 17 2001 1688 575 189222 18321 576890 62083 722350 42.79 18 2002 1688 575 189222 18321 576890 62083 722350 42.79 19 2003 1688 575 189222 18321 576890 62083 722350 42.79 20 2004 1688 575 189222 18321 576890 62083 722350 42.79 21 2005 1688 575 189222 18321 576890 62083 722350 42.79 22 2006 1688 575 189222 18321 576890 62083 722350 42.79 23 2007 1688 575 189222 18321 576890 62083 722350 42.79 24 2008 1688 575 189222 18321 576890 62083 722350 42.79 25 2009 1688 575 189222 18321 576890 62083 722350 42.79 26 2010 1688 575 189222 18321 576890 62083 722350 42.79 27 2011 1688 575 189222 18321 576890 62083 722350 42.79 28 2012 1688 575 189222 18321 576890 62083 722350 42.79 29 2013 1688 575 189222 18321 576890 62083 722350 42.79 30 2014 1688 575 189222 18321 576890 62083 722350 42.79 31 2015 1688 575 189222 18321 576890 62083 722350 42.79 32 2016 1688 575 189222 18321 576890 62083 722350 42.79 33 2017 1688 575 189222 18321 576890 62083 722350 42.79 34 2018 1688 575 189222 18321 576890 62083 207543 42.79 35 2019 1688 575 189222 18321 576890 62083 207543 12.30 36 2020 1688 575 189222 18321 0 0 207543 12.30 37 2021 1688 575 189222 18321 0 0 207543 12.30 38 2022 1688 575 189222 18321 0 0 207543 12.30 39 2023 1688 575 189222 18321 0 0 207543 12.30 40 2024 1688 575 189222 18321 0 0 207543 12.30 41 2025 1688 575 189222 18321 0 0 207543 12.30 42 2026 1688 575 189222 18321 0 0 207543 12.30 43 2027 1688 575 189222 18321 0 0 207543 12.30 44 2028 1688 575 189222 18321 0 0 207543 12.30 45 2029 1688 575 189222 18321 0 0 207543 12.30 46 2030 1688 575 189222 18321 0 0 207543 12.30 47 2031 1688 575 189222 18321 0 0 207543 12.30 48 2032 1688 575 189222 18321 0 0 207543 12.30 49 2033 1688 575 189222 18321 0 0 207543 12.30 50 2034 1688 575 189222 18321 0 0 207543 12.30 1/ Village direct electrical demand plus cannery demand met by hydro. See Table III-1. 7:/ King Cove 1982 Feasibility Report, pages Yl·4 through Yl·10. '!I 1.51 of contract cost, escalates at 71 annually. T/ Reolacement of runner and transmission lines. See table IX·12, King Cove 1982 Feasibility Report. !t Debt service on revenue bonds for 35 years at lOS. Includes interest during construction, financing fee, and 6/ reserve fund. Reserve fund. Same as Alternative A. !.! Cost of hydro only. SF:IEB:AD1:1·FA• TABLE l[!-7 ( B i KING COVE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT AVERAGE ANNUAL UNIT COST OF E~ERGY HVOROELECTR!C COSTS AL TERNATJVE l-B: 100% REVENUE BONOS WITH GRADUATED PAYMFNTS (NO REAL FUEL ESCALATION) Interest Earned Total Averaoe Hydro Operation Replacement on Annual Annual Generation Calendar Energy Hydro and Sinld'( Debt Reserve HvMro Unit Year Year Demandl/ Capacit¢/ Maintenancrdl Fund! Servic~ Fund.§/ CostZ! l.C'st2/ (MWh) !kW) !Sl ($l _J_ll_ ($) _($_)_ (t/kWh) 0 1982 634 0 0 0 0 0 0 !l,OI\ 0 1983 566 0 0 0 0 0 0 O.IJO 0 1984 597 0 0 0 0 0 I) 0.00 1 1985 1410 575 64096 18321 481203 62083 501537 35.57 2 1986 1438 575 68583 18321 500454 62083 52°275 J5 .53 3 1987 1466 575 73383 18321 520469 52083 550090 37.5? 4 1988 1494 575 78')20 18321 541288 62083 ~7~046 3A .5~ 5 1989 1522 575 84017 18321 562939 n2083 603194 3<1.63 6 1990 1550 575 "!989R 18321 ~84457 l\iM3 ~30~93 40.68 7 1991 1562 575 96191 18321 ')76890 62083 629319 40.29 8 1992 1575 575 102924 18321 576890 62083 ~31'05? dO,JR 9 1993 1586 575 _;0129 18321 576890 62083 fi43257 ~O.Sfi 10 1994 1598 575 117838 1!1321 576890 621183 ~41')<;11;1; 4!;.74 11 1995 1611 575 125086 18321 576890 f'i2083 6Sn14 40.Q2 12 1996 1623 575 134913 18321 576890 62083 fi~M40 4l.lli 13 1997 1635 575 144356 18321 576890 52083 677484 41.44 14 1998 1647 575 154461 18321 5768<10 620R3 6R75R9 41.7~ 15 1999 1659 575 165274 18321 576890 620113 fi98402 42.10 16 2000 1671 575 176843 18321 576890 62083 7')C~Q7] 4? .49 17 2001 1688 575 189222 18321 571;890 62093 722,50 42.70 18 2002 1688 575 189222 18321 571\890 62083 7?2350 4(. 79 19 2003 1688 575 189222 18321 5761190 62083 722350 42.]Q 20 2004 1688 575 189222 18321 57~890 I\20A3 722350 42.79 21 2005 1688 575 189222 18321 57681l0 f'i2083 722350 42.79 22 2006 1688 575 181l222 18321 5768<10 1;2083 722350 42.79 23 2007 1688 575 189222 18321 576890 62083 722350 42.79 24 2008 1688 575 189222 18321 576A<IO 62083 722350 42.79 25 2009 1688 575 189222 18321 5761'190 62083 722350 42.79 26 2010 1688 575 189222 18321 576!!90 620'13 722350 42.79 27 2011 1688 575 189222 18321 5761190 ~2083 722350 42.70 28 2012 1688 575 189222 18321 576890 62083 722350 4<.79 29 2013 1688 575 189222 18321 576890 62083 722350 42.79 30 2014 1688 575 189222 18321 576890 62083 n235o 42.7'l 31 2015 1688 575 189222 18321 5715890 62083 722350 42.70 32 2016 1688 575 189222 18321 576890 62083 722350 4~. 79 33 2017 1688 575 189222 18321 576890 621)83 722351J 42.79 34 2018 1688 575 189222 18321 571i890 6?083 7223~0 42.79 35 2019 1688 575 189222 18321 576890 62083 722350 d~.7Q 36 2020 1688 575 189222 18321 0 0 207543 12.31) 37 2021 1688 575 189222 18321 0 0 207543 12.30 38 2022 1688 575 189222 18321 0 0 207543 12.J(l 39 2023 1688 575 189222 18321 0 (1 207543 12.30 40 2024 1688 575 l'\9222 18321 0 0 207543 12.31\ 41 2025 1688 575 189222 18321 0 0 207543 12.30 42 2026 1688 575 189222 18321 0 0 207543 12.30 43 2027 1688 575 189222 18321 0 n 207543 12.30 44 2028 1688 575 18'l222 18321 0 0 21'17543 12.30 45 2029 1688 575 19q222 18321 0 0 207543 12.30 46 2030 1688 575 189222 18321 0 0 <07543 12.30 47 2031 1688 575 189222 18321 0 0 207543 12 .3'1 48 2032 1688 575 189222 18321 0 0 207543 12.30 49 2033 1688 575 189222 18321 0 0 207543 12.30 50 2034 1688 575 189222 18321 o 0 2!'17543 12.30 1/ Village direct electrical demand plus cannery demand met by hydro. See Table !II·l. 2/ 1'1 Kinq Cove 1982 Feasibility Reoort, pages VI-4 through VI-10. 4/ 1.5% of contract cost, escalates at 7~ annually. "if ~eplaceme~t of runner and transmission lines. See table IX-12, King Cove 1982 Feasibility Report. Debt serv1ce on revenue bonds for 35 years at lOl. Includes interest durino construction, financina fee, and 6/ reserve fund. 1! Reserve fund. Same as Alternative A. Cost of hydro only. SF:IES:A01:1·FA* TABLE III-8( A) KING COVE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT SUMMARY OF ~VERAGE ANNUAL UNIT COSTS OF ENERGY HYDRO CASE WITH AND WITHOUT SPACE HEATING ALTE~NATIVE t-B: 100l REVENUE BONOS WITH GRADUATED PAYMENTS (REAL FUEL ESCALATION INCLUDED) Examole of Potential Space "'eating Hydro Project On 1 y Ad.1ustment Soace Enerqy Supplemental Total Heating Cost Diesel Hydro With Savlnos Adjusted Hydro Unit Unit Hydro at 50~ for Space Generation Calendar Energl Ener¥y Ener~y Unit Avoided Heatinq Year Year Oemanci.d Cost:! Cost.:i! Cost!' Cos til Savincs.§/ .1!!!&... .1!ill!!!l ..liili!!l .1!ill!!!l (f/kwtl ~ 0 1982 634 39.69 o.oo 39.69 0.00 39.69 0 1983 666 41.30 o.oo 41.30 o.oo 41.30 a 1984 697 43.17 0.00 43.17 o.oo 43.17 1 1985 1410 7.66 37.61 45.27 2.11 43.15 2 1986 1438 7 .P,7 38.61 46.48 2.22 44.26 3 1987 1466 8.11 39.65 47.75 2.33 4~.42 4 1988 1494 fl.37 40.72 49.10 2.45 46.65 5 1989 1522 8.68 40.55 49.22 2.57 46.65 6 1990 1550 9.01 40.20 49.21 2.70 46.51 7 1991 1562 9.4r 40.29 49.69 2.'~2 411.77 8 1992 1575 9.88 40.38 50.26 3.14 47.12 9 1993 1586 10.35 40.56 50.91 3.39 47.52 10 1994 1598 10.85 40.74 51.59 3.65 47.94 11 1995 1611 11.47 40.92 52.39 3.93 48.46 12 1996 1623 12.08 41.16 53.24 4.23 49.01 13 1997 1635 12.79 41.44 54.22 4.55 49.67 14 1998 1647 13.51 41.75 55.26 4.90 50.36 15 1999 1659 14.35 42.10 56.45 5.27 51.18 16 2000 1671 15.27 42.49 57.76 '5.66 52.10 17 2001 1688 16.48 42.79 59.27 6.07 53.20 18 2002 1688 13.15 42.79 55.95 6.07 49.88 19 2003 1688 13.15 42.79 55.95 6.07 49.88 20 2004 1688 13.15 42.79 55.95 6.07 49,88 21 2005 1688 13.15 42.79 55.95 8.52 47.43 22 2006 1688 13.15 42.79 55.95 1!.52 47.43 23 2007 1688 13.15 42.79 55.95 8.52 47.43 24 2008 1688 13.15 42.79 55.95 8.52 47.43 25 2009 1688 13.15 42.79 55.95 13.52 47.43 26 2010 1688 13.15 42.79 55.95 8.52 47.43 27 2011 1688 13.15 42.79 55.95 8.52 47.43 28 2012 1688 30.10 42.7'J 72.89 8.52 64.37 29 2013 1688 30.10 42.79 72.89 8.52 64.37 30 2014 1688 30.10 42.79 72.89 8.52 64.37 31 2015 1688 30.10 42.7'J 72.P.9 8.52 64.37 32 2016 1688 30.10 42.79 72.89 8.52 64.37 33 2017 1688 30.10 42.79 72.89 8.52 64.37 34 2018 1688 30.10 42.79 72.89 8.52 64.37 35 2019 1688 30.10 42.79 72.89 8.52 64.37 36 2020 1688 30.10 12.30 42.40 8.52 33.88 37· 2021 lli88 30.10 12.30 42.40 8.52 33.88 38 2022 1688 30.10 12.30 42.40 8.52 ~3.88 39 2023 1688 30.10 12.30 42.40 8.52 33.88 40 2024 1688 30.10 12.30 42.40 8.52 33.A8 41 2025 1688 30.10 12.30 42.40 8.52 33.1.18 42 2026 1688 30.10 12.30 42.40 8.52 33.8!1 43 2027 1688 30.10 12.30 42.40 8.52 33.88 44 2028 1688 30.10 12.30 42.40 8.52 33.88 45 2029 1688 30.10 12.30 42.40 8.52 33.88 46 2030 1688 30.10 12.30 42.40 8.52 33.88 47 2031 1688 30.10 12.30 42.40 ~.52 33.88 48 2032 1688 13.53 12.30 25.83 8.52 17.31 49 2033 1688 13.53 12.30 25.83 8.52 17.31 50 2034 1688 13.53 12.30 25.83 8.52 17.31 1/ Village direct electrical demand.plus cannery demand met by hydro. See Table !Il-l. !1 See Table t!I-4. "JI See Table Ill-7. "fl Total unit cost of direct electrical demand. Includes hydro and supplemental diesel. 11 See Table !l!-19(8). SF:IEB:AOl:l-FA* TABLE 111-8(8) KING COVE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT SUMMARY OF AVERAGE ANNUAL UNIT COSTS OF ENERGY HYDRO CASE wiTH AND WITHOUT SPACE HEATING ALTERNATIVE 1-B: 100~ REVENUE BONOS WITH GRADUATED PAYMENTS (NO REAL FUEL ESCALATION) Example of Potentia 1 Space Hy>:!ro Project Only Heatino Adjustment So ace Enerqy Supplemental Total Heat i nq Cost Diesel Hydro With Savino'S at Adjusted Hy>:!ro Unit Unit Hydro 50'1: for Scace Generation Calendar Energl Ener~y Enerqy Unit Avoided Heating Year Year Oemandd Cosu.! eostll Cost!! Cos til Creditil ~ ~ (4/kWh) ~ ~ ~ 0 1982 634 39.28 o.oo 39.28 0.00 39.28 D 1983 666 40.41 0.00 40.41 0.00 40.41 0 1984 697 41.74 o.oo 41.74 0.00 41.74 1 1985 1410 7 .li3 35.57 43.20 1.90 41.30 2 1986 1438 7 .82 36.53 44.35 1.95 42.40 3 1982 1466 8.04 37.52 45.56 2.00 43.56 4 1988 1494 8.27 38.56 46.83 2.06 44.77 5 1989 1522 8.5? 39.63 48.16 2.11 46.05 6 1990 1550 8.82 40.68 49.50 2.16 47.34 7 1991 1562 9.15 40.29 49.44 2.27 47.17 8 1992 1575 9.56 40.38 49.94 2.39 47.55 9 1993 1586 9.96 40.56 50.52 2.52 48.00 10 1994 1598 10.39 40.74 51.12 2.65 48.47 11 1995 1611 10.90 40.92 51.82 2. 79 49.03 12 1996 1623 11.39 41.16 52.55 2.94 49.61 13 1997 1635 11.96 41.44 53.39 3.09 50.30 14 1998 1647 12.53 41.75 54.28 3.25 51.03 15 1999 1659 13.18 42.10 55.28 3.41 51.67 16 2000 1671 13.89 42.49 56.37 3.58 52.79 17 2001 1688 14.77 42.79 57.56 3.71i 53.80 18 2002 1688 11.44 42.79 54.23 3.76 50.47 19 2003 1688 ll.44 42.79 54.23 3.76 50.47 20 2{104 l6FIB 11.44 42.79 54.23 3.71i ~0.47 21 2005 Hi8FI 11.44 42.79 54.23 3.37 50.86 22 2006 1688 11.44 42.79 54.23 3.37 ~0.86 23 2007 1~A!l 11.44 42.79 54.23 ~.~7 ~O.~Ii 24 2008 1688 11.44 42 .i9 ~4.23 3.37 'ill.'~~ 25 2009 16AA 11.44 4?.7() '\4.23 3.37 ~O.Rii 26 2010 1688 11.44 42.7Q 54.21 3.37 50.AI\ 27 2011 1688 11.44 42.79 54.23 3.37 'i0.A6 28 2012 1688 28.38 42.79 71.18 3.37 67.81 29 2013 lfill8 21!.38 42.79 71.18 3.37 67.81 30 2014 1688 28.38 42.7t1 71.18 3.37 67 .~<1 31 2015 1688 28.38 42.79 71.18 3.37 n7 .81 32 2015 1688 28.38 42.79 71.113 1.37 67.R1 33 2017 1688 28.38 42.79 71.18 3.37 67.1'11 34 2018 1688 28.38 42.79 71.18 3.37 67.81 35 2019 1688 28.38 42.79 71.18 3.37 67.81 36 2020 1688 28.38 12.30 40.68 3.37 37.31 37 2021 1688 28.38 12.30 40.68 3.37 37.31 38 2022 1688 28.38 12.30 40.68 3.37 37.31 39 2023 1688 28.38 12.30 40.68 3.37 37.31 40 2024 1688 28.38 12.30 40.68 3.37 37.31 41 2025 1688 28.38 12.30 40.68 3.37 37.31 42 2026 1688 28.38 12.30 40.68 3.37 37.31 43 2027 1688 28.38 12.30 40.68 3.37 37.31 44 2028 1688 28.38 12.30 40.68 3.37 37.31 45 2029 1688 28.38 12.30 40.68 3.37 37.31 46 2030 1688 28.38 12.30 40.68 3.37 37.31 47 2031 1688 28.38 12.30 40.68 3.37 37.31 48 2032 1688 11.112 12.30 24.11 3.37 20.74 49 2033 1688 11.82 12.30 24.11 3.37 20.74 so 2034 1688 11.82 12.30 24.11 3.37 20.74 1/ Village direct electrical demand plus cannery demand met by hydro. See Table I!I-1. "!.! "'II See Table III-3. see Table III-7. '4! Total unit cost of direct electrical demand. Includes hydro and supplemental diesel. J! See Tab 1 e II t-20( B). SF:!EB:ADl:l-FA* TABLE Ill-9 KING COVE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT AVERAGE ANNUAL UNIT COST OF ENERGY HYDROELECTRIC COSTS ALTERNATIVE II-A: SOl REVENUE BONOS AND SOl STATE GRANT Interest Earned Total Average Hydro Operation Replacl!lll!nt on Annual Annual Generation Calendar Energ! Hydro and Sinki"}' Debt Reserve Hydro Unit Year Year Oelllancl.:!' Capacity.Y Maintenanc:.J/ Fund!: Servic.U Fun£/ Costl! Costl! (MWhl (kW! (S! (Sl !Sl .....!.!L _ill_ ~ 0 1982 634 0 0 0 0 0 0 o.oo 0 1983 666 0 0 0 0 0 0 f).()() 0 1984 697 0 0 0 0 0 0 o.oo 1 1985 1410 575 64096 18321 282197 31042 333572 23.66 2 1986 1438 575 68583 18321 282197 31042 338059 23.51 3 1987 1466 575 73383 18321 282197 31042 342859 23.39 4 1988 1494 575 78520 18321 282197 31042 347996 23.29 5 1989 1522 575 84017 18321 282197 31042 353493 23.23 6 1990 1550 575 89898 18321 282197 31042 35\1374 23.19 7 1991 1562 575 96191 18321 282197 31042 365667 23.41 8 1992 1575 575 102924 18321 282197 31042 372400 23.64 9 1993 1586 575 110129 18321 282197 31042 379605 23.93 10 1994 1598 575 117838 18321 282197 31042 387314 24.24 11 1995 1611 575 126086 18321 282197 31042 395562 24.55 12 1996 1623 575 134913 18321 282197 31042 404388 24.92 13 1997 1635 575 144356 18321 282197 31042 413832 25.31 14 1998 1647 575 154461 18321 282197 31042 423937 25.74 15 1999 1659 575 165274 18321 282197 31042 434750 26.21 16 2000 1671 575 176843 18321 282197 31042 446319 26.71 17 2001 1688 575 189222 18321 282197 31042 458698 27.17 18 2002 1688 575 189222 18321 282197 31042 458698 27.17 19 2003 1688 575 189222 18321" 282197 31042 458698 27.17 20 2004 1688 575 189222 18321 282197 31042 458698 27.17 21 2005 1688 575 189222 18321 282197 31042 45FJ698 27.17 22 2006 1688 575 189222 18321 282197 31042 458698 27.17 23 2007 1688 575 189222 18321 282197 31042 458698 27.17 24 2008 1588 575 189222 18321 282197 31042 458698 27.17 25 2009 1688 575 189222 18321 282197 31042 458698 27.17 26 2010 1688 575 189222 18321 282197 31042 458698 27.17 27 2011 1688 575 189222 18321 282197 31042 458698 27.17 28 2012 1688 575 189222 18321 282197 31042 458698 27.17 29 2013 1688 575 189222 18321 282197 31042 458698 27.17 JO 2014 1688 575 189222 18321 282197 31042 458698 27.17 31 2015 1688 575 189222 18321 282197 31042 458698 27.17 32 2016 1688 575 189222 18321 282197 31042 458698 27.17 33 2017 1688 575 189222 18321 282197 31042 458698 27.17 34 2018 1688 575 189222 18321 282197 31042 458698 27.17 35 2019 1688 575 189222 18321 282197 31042 148281 e. 78 36 2020 1688 575 189222 18321 0 0 207543 12.30 37 2021 1688 575 189222 18321 0 0 207543 12.30 38 2022 1688 575 189222 18321 0 0 207543 12.30 39 2023 1688 575 189222 18321 D 0 207543 12.30 40 2024 1688 575 189222 18321 0 0 207543 12.30 41 2025 1688 575 189222 18321 0 0 207543 12.30 42 2026 1688 575 189222 18321 0 0 207543 12.30 43 2026 1688 575 189222 18321 0 0 207543 12.30 44 2028 1688 575 189222 18321 0 0 207543 12.30 45 2029 1688 575 189222 18321 0 0 297543 12.30 46 2030 1688 575 189222 18321 0 0 207543 12.30 47 2031 1688 575 189222 18321 0 0 207543 12.30 48 2002 1688 575 189222 18321 0 0 207543 12.30 49 2033 1688 575 189222 18321 0 0 207543 12.30 50 2034 1688 575 189222 18321 0 0 207543 12.30 1/ Village direct electrical demand plus cannery demand met by hydro. See Table !II-1. 7/ Kinq Cover 1982 Feasibility Report, ~ages VI·4 through VI-10. "''I 1.5l of contract cost, escalates at 7l annually. "f! Replacement of runner and transmission lines. See table IX·12, King Cove 1982 Feasibility Report. JJ Debt service on revenue bonds for 35 years at 101. Includes interest during construciton, financing fee, and 5/ reserve fund. Reserve fund • 110: of debt service. Earns interest at tal annually. T! Cost of hydro only. SF:!EB:A01:1-FA* TABLE I! I-10( A) KING COVE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT SUM~ARY OF AVERAGE ANNUAL UNIT COSTS OF ENERGY YYORO CASE W!Ttl ANO WITHOUT SPACE HEATING ALTERNATIVE IT-A: SOl REVENUE BONOS ANO 50% STATE GRANT (REAL FUEL ESCALATION INCLUOEO) Example of Potentia 1 Space ~~ro ProJect Onll ~atino Adjustment Space Energy Supplemental Total Heatinq Cost uiesel Hydro With Savings Adjusted Kydro Unit Unit Hydro at SOl for Space Generation Calendar Ener9y Ener~y En erg )I Unit Avoided Heat in~ Year Year Demand.!! Cost.:! Cosdi Cost!~ Cost.2/ Savinasd .Jll!!!!L !!lkllh) (!lkllh! {!/kWh) !ifkllh) ~ 0 1982 634 39.69 0.00 39.69 o.oo 39.69 0 19113 666 41.30 0.00 41.30 0.00 41.30 0 1984 597 43.17 0.00 43.17 0.00 43.17 1 1985 1410 7.66 23.66 31.32 2.11 29.21 2 1986 1438 7.87 23.51 31.38 2.22 29.16 3 1987 1466 8.11 23.39 31.49 2.33 29.16 4 1988 1494 11.3. 23.29 31.67 2.45 29.22 5 1989 1522 8.66 23.23 31.90 2.57 29.33 6 1990 1550 9.01 23.19 32.20 2.70 29.50 7 1991 1562 9.40 23.41 32.81 2.92 29.89 3 1992 1575 9.88 23.64 33.52 3.14 30.38 9 1993 1586 10.35 23.93 34.28 3.39 30.89 10 1994 1598 10.85 24.24 35.09 3.65 31.44 ll 1995 1611 11.47 24.55 36.03 3.93 32.10 12 1996 1623 12.08 24.92 37.00 4.23 32.77 l3 1997 1635 12.79 25.31 38.10 4.55 33.55 14 1998 1647 13.51 25.74 39.25 4,QO 34.35 15 1999 1659 14.35 26.21 40.56 5.27 35.29 16 2000 1671 15.27 26.71 41.98 5.66 36.32 17 2001 1688 16.48 27.17 43.66 6.07 37.59 18 2002 1688 13.15 27.17 40.33 6.07 34.?6 19 2003 161!8 13.15 27.17 40.33 6.07 34.26 20 2004 1688 13.15 27.17 40.33 6.07 34.26 21 2005 1688 13.15 27.17 40.33 5.68 34.65 22 2006 1688 13.15 27.17 40.33 5.68 34.65 23 2007 1688 13.15 27.17 40.33 5.68 34.65 24 2008 1688 13.15 27.17 40.33 5.68 34.65 25 2009 1688 13.15 27.17 40.33 5.68 34.65 26 2010 1688 13.15 27.17 40.33 5.68 34.65 27 2011 1688 13.15 27.17 40.33 5.6~ 34.65 28 2012 1688 30.10 27.17 57.27 5.68 51.59 29 2013 1688 30.10 27.17 57.27 5.68 51.59 30 2014 1688 30.10 27.17 57.27 5.68 51.59 31 2015 1688 30.10 27.17 57.27 5.68 51.59 32 2016 1688 30.10 27.17 57.27 5.68 51.59 33 2017 1688 30.10 27.17 57.27 5.68 51.59 34 2018 1688 30.10 27.17 57 .27 5.68 51.59 35 2019 1688 30.10 8.78 '38.119 5.68 33.21 36 2020 1688 30.10 12.30 42.40 5.68 36.72 37 2021 1688 30.10 12.30 42.40 5. 61! 36.72 38 2022 1688 30.10 12.30 42.40 5.68 36.72 39 2023 1688 30.10 12.30 42.40 5.68 36.72 40 2024 1688 30.10 12.30 42.40 5.68 31L72 41 2025 1688 30.10 12.30 42.40 5.68 31i.72 42 2026 1688 30.10 12.30 42.40 5.68 36.72 43 2027 1688 30.10 12.30 42.40 5.68 36.72 44 2028 1688 30.10 12.30 42.40 5.68 36.72 45 2029 1688 30.10 12.30 42.40 5.68 36.72 46 2030 1688 30.10 12.30 42.40 5.68 36.72 47 2031 1688 30.10 12.30 42.40 5.68 36.72 48 2032 1688 13.53 12.30 25.83 5.68 20.15 49 2033 1688 13.53 12.30 25.83 5.6~ 20.15 50 2034 1688 13.53 12.30 25.83 5.68 20.15 1/ Village direct electrical demand plus cannery demand met by hydro. 2! jf See Table l!I-4. See Table III-9. "'!I Total unit cost of direct electrical demand. Includes hydro and supplemental diesel. Jj See Table II 1·19(8). SF:IEB:AOl:l-FA* TABLE lti-10( B) KINr. COVE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT SUMMARY OF AVERAGE ANNUAL UNIT COSTS OF ENERGY HYDRO CASE ~ITH AND ~ITHOUT SPACE HEATING ALTERNATIVE II-A: 501 REVENUE BONOS ANO 5Qr. STATE GRANT (NO REAL FUEL ESCALATION) Example of Potentia 1 So ace 'l,l!!ro ProJect ()! 1 :l Heatina M1ustment Space Eneroy Suoplewental Total Heat in!! Cost 01 esel Hydro ~ith Savinas Ad.1usted Hydro ~)lit Unit Hydro at 5~ for Space Generation Calendar Energy Energy Ener'!IY Unit Avoided Hf!atinq Year Year Demand J! Cost JJ Cost 1/ Cast~ Cost jf Savinqs i/ ...ll!!!!.L 1!/kWh! !ilkWh) (i/kWh) (f/kWh) (4/kWh) 0 1982 634 39.28 o.oo 39.28 0.00 39.2!3 0 1983 666 40.41 0.00 40.41 0.00 40.41 0 1984 697 41.74 0.00 41.74 0.00 41.74 1 1985 1410 7.63 23.66 31.29 1.90 29.39 2 1986 1438 7.82 23.51 31.33 1.95 29.311 3 1987 1466 8.04 23.39 31.42 2.00 29.42 4 1988 1494 8.27 23.29 31.56 2.06 29.50 5 1989 1522 8.53 23.23 31.76 2.11 :!9.65 6 1990 1550 8.82 23.19 32.00 2.16 29.84 7 1991 1562 9.15 23.41 32.56 2.27 30.29 8 1992 1575 9.56 23.64 33.20 2.39 30.81 9 1993 1586 9.96 23.93 33.90 2.52 31.38 10 1994 15911 10.39 24.24 34.62 2.65 U.97 11 1995 1611 10.90 24.55 35.45 2.79 32.66 12 1996 1623 11.39 24.92 36.31 2.94 33.37 13 1997 1635 11.96 25.31 37.27 3.09 '14 .18 14 1998 1647 12.53 25.74 38.27 3.25 35.M 15 1999 1659 13.18 26.21 39.39 3.41 35.98 16 2000 1671 13.89 26.71 40.60 3.58 ~7.02 17 2001 1688 14.77 27.17 41.94 3.76 38.18 18 2002 1688 11.44 27.17 38.61 . 3.76 34.85 19 2003 1688 11.44 27.17 38.61 3.76 34.85 20 2004 1688 11.44 27.17 3!3.61 3.76 34.85 21 2005 1688 11.44 27.17 38.61 :!.31 34.95 22 2006 1688 11.44 27.17 38.61 3.37 34.!1~ 23 2007 1688 11.44 27.17 38.61 3.37 34.1!~ 24 20011 1688 11.44 27.17 38.61 3.37 34.85 25 2009 1688 11.44 '.7 .17 38.61 3.37 34.85 26 2010 1688 11.44 27.17 38.61 3.37 34.~5 27 2011 1688 11.44 27.17 38.61 3.37 34.fl5 28 2012 1681! 28.38 27.17 55.56 3.37 52.19 29 2013 1688 28.38 27.17 55.56 3.37 52.19 30 2014 1688 28.38 27.17 55.56 3.37 52.19 31 2015 1688 28.38 27.17 55.56 3.37 52.19 32 2016 1688 28.38 27.17 55.56 3.37 1!2.19 33 2017 1688 28.38 27.17 55.56 3.37 52.19 34 2018 1688 28.38 27.17 55.56 3.37 ~2.1Q 35 2019 1688 28.38 1'1.78 37.17 3.37 33.80 36 2020 1688 28.38 12.30 40.68 3.37 37.31 37 2021 1688 28.38 12.30 40.68 3.37 37.31 38 2022 1688 28.38 12.30 40.68 3.37 37.31 39 2023 161!8 28.38 12.30 40.68 3.37 37.31 40 2024 1688 28.38 12.30 40.68 3.37 37.31 41 2025 1688 28.38 12.30 411.61! 3.37 37.31 42 2026 1688 28.38 12.30 40.68 3.37 37.31 43 2027 1688 28.38 12.30 40.68 3.37 37.31 44 2028 1688 28.38 12.30 40.68 3.37 37.31 45 2029 1688 28.38 12.30 40.68 3.37 37.31 46 2030 1688 28.38 12.30 40.68 3.37 37.31 47 2031 1688 28.38 12.30 40.61! 3.37 37.31 48 2032 1688 11.82 12.30 24.11 3.37 20.74 49 2033 1688 11.1!2 12.30 24.11 3.37 20.74 50 2034 1688 11.82 12.30 24.11 3.37 20.74 11 Village direct electrical demand plus cannery demand ~t by hydro. "'!I See Table rri-4. J/ See Table IIl-9. T'l Total unit cast of direct electrical demand. Includes hydro and suoplemental diesel. Jj See Table lii-20(8). SF: IEB:AD1;1-FAa TABLE lll·i.l KING COVE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT AVERAGE ANNUAL UNIT COST OF ENERGY HYDROELECTRIC COSTS ALTERNATIVE li·B: 40% REVENUE BONOS AND 60% STATE GRANT Interest Earned Total Hydro Operation Replacement on Annual Generation Ca 1 endar Energl Hydro and Sink in? Oebt Reserve Hydro Unit Deman ad Capac it~ Maintenancelf Servicei' Funo2/ Cost.Z! 'I Year Year Fund!: Cost.::.: (MWhl (kill [Sl (Sl [Sl ($) (S) ~ 0 1982 634 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 1983 666 0 0 0 0 0 a 0.0 0 1984 697 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 1 1985 1410 575 64096 18321 225757 24833 283341 20.10 2 1986 1438 575 68583 18321 225757 24833 287828 20.02 3 1987 1466 575 73383 18321 225757 24833 292628 19.96 4 1988 1494 575 78520 18321 225757 24833 297765 19.93 5 1989 1522 575 84017 18321 225757 24833 303262 19.93 6 1990 1550 575 89898 18321 225757 24833 309143 19.94 7 1991 1562 575 96191 18321 225757 24833 315436 2D.19 8 1992 1575 575 102924 18321 225757 24833 322169 20.46 9 1993 1586 575 110129 18321 225757 24833 329374 20.77 10 1994 1598 575 117838 18321 225757 24833 337083 21.09 11 1995 1611 575 126086 18321 225757 24833 345331 21.44 12 1996 1623 575 134913 18321 225757 24833 354157 21.82 13 1997 1635 575 144356 18321 225757 24833 363601 22.24 14 1998 1647 575 154461 18321 225757 24833 373706 22.69 15 1999 1659 575 165274 18321 225757 24833 384519 23.18 16 2000 1671 575 176843 18321 225755 24833 396088 23.70 17 2001 1688 575 189222 18321 225757 24833 408467 24.20 18 2002 1688 575 189222 18321 225757 24833 408467 24.20 19 2003 1688 575 18!1222 18321 225757 24833 408467 24.20 20 2004 1688 575 189222 18321 225757 24833 408467 24.20 21 2005 1688 575 189222 18321 225757 24833 408467 24.20 22 2006 1688 575 189222 18321 225757 24833 408467 24.20 23 2007 "1688 575 189222 18321 225757 24833 408467 24.20 24 2008 1688 575 189222 18321 225757 24833 408467 24.20 25 2005 1688 575 189222 18321 225757 24833 408467 24.20 26 2010 1688 575 189222 18321 225757 24833 408467 24.20 27 2011 1688 575 189222 18321 225757 24833 408467 24.20 28 2012 1688 575 189222 18321 225757 24833 408467 24.20 29 2013 1688 575 189222 18321 225757 24833 408467 24.20 30 2014 1688 575 189222 18321 225757 24833 408467 24.20 31 2015 1688 575 189222 18321 225757 24833 408467 24.20 32 2016 1688 575 189222 18321 225757 24833 408467 24.20 33 2017 1688 575 189222 18321 225757 24833 408467 24.20 34 2018 1688 575 189222 18321 225757 24833 408467 24.20 35 2019 1688 575 189222 18321 225757 24833 160134 9.49 36 2020 1688 575 189222 18321 0 0 207543 12.30 37 2021 1688 575 189222 18321 0 0 207543 12.30 38 2022 1688 575 189222 18321 0 0 207543 12.38 39 2023 1688 575 189222 18321 0 0 207543 :2.30 40 2024 1688 575 189222 18321 0 0 207543 12.30 41 2025 1688 575 189222 18321 0 0 207543 12.30 42 2026 1688 575 189222 18321 0 0 207543 12.30 43 2027 1688 575 189222 18321 0 0 207543 12.30 44 2028 1688 575 189222 18321 0 0 207543 12.30 45 2029 1688 575 189222 18321 0 0 207543 12.30 46 2030 1688 575 189222 18321 0 0 207543 12.30 47 2031 1688 575 189222 18321 0 0 207543 12.30 48 2032 1688 575 189222 18321 0 0 207543 12.30 49 2033 1688 575 189222 18321 0 0 207543 12.30 50 2034 1688 575 189222 18321 0 0 207543 12.30 1/ Village direct electri~al demand plus cannery demand met by nydro. See Table lll·l. !I T/ King Cove 1982 Feasibility Report, pages VI-4 through VI-10. 4/ 1.5~ of contract cost, escalates at 71 annually. If Replacement of runner and trans.ission lines. See table IX-12, Kinq Cove 1982 Feasibility Report. Oebt service on revenue bOnds for 35 years at 101. Includes interest during construction, financing fee, and 6/ reserve fund. Reserve fund • 1101 of debt service. Earns interest at 101 annually. I! Cost of hydro only. SF:!EB:A01:1-FA* TABLE III-12(A) KI~r, COVE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT SU~MARY OF AVERAGE ANNUAL UNIT COSTS OF ENEqGY HYDRO CASE WITH ANO WITHOUT SPACE HEATING ALTERNATIVE II-8: 4n\ REVENUE BONOS AND 6~ STATE GRANT (REAL FUEL ESCALATION INCLUOEOl Examole of Potential Saace H}'dro Project Only ~atina Adjustment So ace Enerqy Supplemental Total Heat ina Cost Diesel Hydro With Savinos Adjusted H)l:lro Unit Unit Hydro at 5n\ for Soace Generation Calendar Energl Ene~y Enerqy Unit Avoided Heat ina Year Year Demand.:!' Cosw' Costdl CostY Cost§/ Savino&/ ~ (!/kWh! t!lkWhl ~ liili!!l t!/kWh) 0 1\182 634 39.69 o.oo 3«1.69 n.nn 39.69 0 1983 666 41.30 0.00 41.30 o.no 41.30 0 1984 697 43.17 o.oo 43.17 0.00 41.17 1 1985 1410 7.66 20.10 27.76 2.11 25.65 2 1986 1438 7.87 20.02 27.89 2.22 25.n7 3 1987 1466 B.ll 19.96 28.07 2.33 25.74 4 1988 1494 8.37 19.93 21J.31 ?..45 2'i.66 5 1989 1522 8.68 19.n 28.60 2.57 26.03 15 1990 1550 -.01 19.94 21J.96 2.70 211.21\ 7 1991 1562 9.40 20.19 29.59 2.92 26.,;7 8 1992 1575 9.88 20.46 30.33 3.14 27.1<1 9 1993 1586 10.35 20.77 31.11 3.39 27.72 10 1994 1598 10.85 21.09 31.95 3.65 28.30 11 1995 1511 11.47 21.44 32.91 3.93 28.98 12 1996 1623 12.08 21.92 33.90 4.23 29.67 13 1997 1635 12.79 22.24 35.03 4.55 30.48 14 1998 1647 13.51 22.69 36.20 4.90 31.30 15 1999 1659 14.35 23.18 37.53 5.27 32.26 16 2000 1671 15.27 23.70 38.97 5.6n 33.31 17 2001 1688 16.48 24. 21) 40.68 6.01 34.61 18 2002 1688 13.15 24.20 37.35 r..o7 31.28 19 2003 1688 13.15 24.20 37.35 6.07 31.211 20 2004 1688 13.15 24.20 37.35 6.07 31.2!! 21 2005 1688 13.15 24.20 37.35 5.68 31.1!7 22 2006 1688 13.15 24.20 37.35 5.~1'1 31.67 23 2007 1688 13.15 24.20 37.35 5.611 31.67 24 2008 1688 13.15 24.20 37 .35 5.6R 31.67 25 2009 1688 13.15 24.20 37.35 5.613 31.67 26 2010 1688 13.15 24.20 37 .35 5.611 31.67 27 2011 11188 13.15 24.20 37.35 5.68 31.67 28 2012 1688 30.10 24.20 54.30 5.1iR 4R .62 29 2013 1688 30.10 24.20 54.30 5.68 41'1.62 30 2014 1688 31).10 24.20 54.30 5.1i8 48./i~ 31 2015 1688 30.10 24.20 54.30 5.61! 48.152 32 2016 1688 30.10 24.20 54.30 5.68 48.62 33 2017 1688 30.10 24.20 54.30 5.6~ 48.52 34 2018 1688 30.10 24.20 54.30 5.68 4g.fi2 35 2019 1688 30.10 9.49 39.59 5.68 33.91 36 2020 1688 30.10 12.30 42.40 5.6R 36.72 37 2021 1688 30.10 12.30 42.40 5.68 36.72 38 2022 1688 30.10 12.30 42.40 5.68 36.72 39 2023 1688 30.10 12.30 42.40 5.68 36.72 40 2024 1688 30.10 12.30 42.40 <;.68 36.72 41 2025 1688 30.10 12.30 42.40 'i.6R 36.72 42 2026 1688 30.10 12.30 42.40 5.611 36.7?. 43 2027 1688 30.10 12.30 42.40 'i.68 36.72 44 2028 1688 30.10 12.30 42.40 5.68 ]6 .72 45 2029 1688 30.10 12.30 42.40 5.68 36.72 46 2030 1688 30.10 12.30 42.40 5.68 36.n 47 2031 1688 30.10 12.30 42.40 5.68 36.72 48 2032 1688 13.53 12.30 25.83 5.68 20.15 49 2033 1688 13.53 12.30 25.83 5.68 21'1.15 50 1034 1688 13.53 12.30 25.83 5.611 20.15 1/ Village direct electrical demand plus cannery demand met by hydro. See Table III-1. 21 See Table !II-4. !I See Table !II-11. '1:1 Total unit cost of airect electrical demand. Includes hydro and supplemental diesel. Jj See Table III-19(8). SF:!EB:A01:1-FA• TA8LE l!I-12(81 KING COVE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT SUMMARY OF AVERAGE ANNUAL U~IT COSTS OF ENERGY HYDRO CASE WITH AND WITHOUT SPACE HEAT!~G ALTERNATIVE l!-8: 40\ REVENUE BONOS AND 60% STATE GRANT (NO REAL FUEL ESCALATION) Example of Potential Hl!!ro oroiect On lz: Soace ~eatina Arliustment Space Enerqy Supolemental Total Heat incs Cost Diesel Hydro With Savinqs Adjusted Hyoro Unit Unit Hydro at 50'% for Soace Generation Calendar Energy EnerCly Enerqy Unit Avoided Heatinq vear vear Demand!! Cost.Y Costl/ Cosclf Cost1' Savinqsi/ ~ WkWh) !!/kWh) WkWh) (d/kWhl (tfkWh) 0 1982 634 39.28 o.oo 3'l.28 o.oo 39.28 0 1983 666 40.41 0.00 40.41 0.00 40.41 0 1984 697 41.74 0.00 41.74 o.oo 41.74 1 1985 1410 7.63 20.10 27.73 1.90 25.83 2 1986 1438 7.82 20.02 27.84 1.95 25.89 3 1987 1466 8.04 19.i'l6 28.00 2.00 26.00 4 1988 1494 8.27 19.93 ?8.20 2.06 26.14 5 1989 1522 8.53 19.93 28.45 2.11 26.34 6 1990 1550 8.82 19.94 28.7n 2.16 2fl.60 7 1991 1562 tl.1s 20.19 29.35 2.27 27.08 8 1992 1575 ~.56 20.46 30.02 2.39 27.63 ~ 1993 1586 9.96 20.77 30.73 2.52 28.21 10 1994 1598 10.39 21.09 31.48 2.65 28.83 11 1995 1611 10.90 21.44 32.33 2.7tl 29.54 12 1996 1623 11.39 21.82 33.21 2.94 30.27 13 1997 1635 11.96 22.24 34.19 3.09 31.10 14 1998 1647 12.53 22.69 35.22 3.25 31.97 15 1999 1659 13.18 23.18 36.36 3.41 32.95 16 2000 1671 13.89 23.70 37.59 3.511 34 .n1 17 2001 1688 14.77 24.20 38.96 3.76 35.20 18 2002 1688 11.44 24.20 35.63 3 .7fi 31.87 19 2003 16R8 11.44 24.20 35.63 3.76 31.87 20 2004 1688 11.44 24.20 35.63 3.76 31.87 21 2005 1688 11.44 24.20 35.63 3.37 32.26 22 2006 1688 11.44 24.20 35.63 3.37 32.21\ 23 2007 1688 11.44 24.20 35.63 3.37 32.26 24 2008 1688 11.44 24.20 35 .n3 3.J7 32.26 25 2009 1688 11.44 24.20 35.63 3.37 32.26 26 2010 1688 11.44 24.20 35.63 3.~7 n.2s 27 2011 1688 ll.44 24.20 35.63 3.37 32.26 28 2012 1688 28.38 24.20 52.58 3.37 49.21 29 2013 1688 28.38 24.20 52.58 3.37 49.21 30 2014 1688 28.38 24.20 52.58 3.37 4'l.21 31 2015 1688 28.38 24.20 52.58 3.37 49.21 32 2016 1688 28.38 24.20 52.58 3.37 49.21 33 2017 1688 28.38 24.20 52.58 3.37 49.21 34 2018 1688 28.38 24.20 52.58 3.37 49.21 35 2019 1688 28.38 9.49 37.87 3.37 34.50 36 2020 1688 28.38 12.30 40.68 3.37 37.31 37 2021 1688 28.38 12.30 40.68 3.37 37.31 38 2022 1688 28.38 12.30 40.68 3.37 37 .31 39 2023 1688 28.38 12.30 40.68 3.37 37.31 40 2024 1688 28.38 12.30 40.68 3.37 37.31 41 2025 1688 28.38 12.30 40.68 3.37 37.31 42 2026 1688 28.38 12.30 40.68 3.37 37.31 43 2027 1688 28.38 12.30 40.68 3.37 37.31 44 2028 1688 28.38 12.30 40.68 3.37 37.31 45 2029 1688 28.38 12.30 40.68 3.37 37.31 46 2030 1688 28.38 12.30 40.68 3.31 37.31 47 2031 1688 28.38 12.30 40.68 3.37 37.31 4S 2032 1688 11.82 12.30 24.11 3.37 20.74 49 2033 1688 11.82 12.30 24.ll 3.37 20.74 50 2034 1688 11.82 12.30 24.11 3.37 ?0.74 1/ Villaqe direct electrical demand plus cannery demand met by hydro. See Table III-1. 21 '!I See Table III·4. See Table !11·11. 4/ Total unit cost of direct electrical demand. Includes hydro and supplemental diesel. Jj See Table III·20(B). SF: IEB:I\01:1-FA* TABLE III-13( A) KING COVE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT AVERAGE ANNUAL tJNIT COST OF ENERGY HYDROELECTRIC COSTS ALTERNATIVE II-C: 891 REVENUE BONDS AND 111 STATE GRANT (REAL FUEL ESCALATION INCLUDED) Interest Earned Total Averaoe Hydro Clperat1on Reolacement on Annual Annual Generation Calendar Eneroy H.)ldro and S1nk1n7 Debt Reserve Hydro llntt Year Year Demandlf Capac it~ ~aintenancall Fun~ Serv1caif Fund.2/ eost1/ eost1/ ~ !kWJ ! SJ !Sl ! Sl ! Sl !~! ~ 0 1982 634 0 0 () 0 0 n o.oo 0 1983 666 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0 1984 697 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 1 1985 1410 575 64096 18321 503237 55356 530298 37.61 2 1986 1438 575 68583 18321 '103237 55~56 534784 37.19 3 1987 1466 575 73383 18321 503237 55356 539585 36.8l 4 1988 1494 575 78520 18321 503237 55356 'i4472:? ~6.41i 5 1989 1522 575 84017 18321 503237 55356 550218 36.15 6 1990 1550 575 898(j8 18321 503237 55356 556100 35.!18 7 1991 1562 575 96191 18321 503237 55356 562392 J6.nll 8 1992 1575 575 10~24 18321 503237 55356 5f;9l26 ;16.13 9 1993 1586 575 Uit129 18321 503237 55356 571>330 36.34 10 1994 1598 575 117838 18321 503237 55356 5114('130 36.55 11 1995 Hill 575 126M6 18321 503237 55356 592288 36.77 12 1996 1623 575 134913 183n 503:?37 5~356 601114 37.(14 13 1997 1635 575 144356 18321 503237 55356 61055R 37.34 14 1998 1647 575 154461 18321 503237 55356 620flfl3 17.1'13 15 1999 1659 575 165274 18321 503237 55356 li3147!i 38.06 16 2000 1671 575 175843 18321 503237 55355 1143044 31! .411 17 2001 1688 575 189222 18321 503237 55356 655423 3!!.13~ 18 2002 1688 575 189222 18321 503237 55356 655423 31!.83 19 2003 1688 575 189222 18321 503237 55356 655423 38.R3 20 2004 1688 575 189222 18321 503237 55356 655423 38.113 21 2005 1688 575 189222 18321 503237 55356 655423 38.83 22 2006 1688 575 189222 18321 503237 55356 655423 11!.83 23 2007 1688 575 189222 18321 503237 55356 655423 38.~3 24 2008 1688 575 189222 18321 503237 55356 655423 ~13 .83 25 2009 1688 575 189222 18321 503237 55356 655423 38.83 26 2010 1688 575 189222 18321 503237 55356 655423 31!.83 27 2011 1688 575 189222 18321 503237 55356 655423 38.83 28 2012 1688 575 189222 18321 503237 55356 655423 38.83 29 2013 1688 575 189222 18321 503237 55356 655423 38.R3 30 2014 1688 575 189222 18321 503237 55356 1155423 38 .~1 31 2015 1688 575 189222 18.121 503237 'i5356 ~55423 38.~3 32 2016 1688 575 189222 18321 503237 55356 655423 38.83 33 2017 1688 575 189222 18321 503237 55356 655423 38.83 34 2018 1688 575 1811222 18321 503237 55356 655423 JR .1!3 35 2019 1688 575 189222 18321 503237 55356 101863 6.1')3 36 2020 1688 575 189222 18321 0 0 21'7543 1?..30 37 2021 1688 575 189222 18321 0 0 296543 1?..30 38 2022 1688 575 189222 18321 0 0 207543 12.30 39 2023 1688 575 189222 18321 0 0 207543 12.3D 40 2024 1688 575 189222 18321 0 0 207543 12.30 41 2025 1688 575 189222 18321 0 0 207543 12.30 42 2026 1688 575 189222 18321 0 () 21)7~43 12.30 43 2027 1688 575 189222 18321 0 0 207543 13.30 44 2028 1688 575 189222 18321 0 0 207543 12.30 45 2029 1688 575 189222 18321 0 0 207543 12.30 46 2030 1688 575 189222 18321 0 0 207543 12.30 47 2031 1688 575 189222 18321 0 0 207543 12.30 48 2032 1688 575 189222 18321 0 0 207543 12.30 49 2033 1688 575 189222 18321 0 0 207543 12.30 50 2034 1688 575 189222 18321 0 0 207543 12.30 1/ Village direct electrical demand plus cannery demand met by hydro. See Table III-1. II King Cove 1982 Feasibility Reoort, pages VI-4 through VI-10. !/ 1.5' of contract cost, escalates at 71 annually. "ll ~placement of runner and transmission lines. See Table IX-12, Kinq Cove 19~2 Feasibility .~port. Jj Jebt service on revenue bonds for 35 years at lOS. Includes interest during construction, financing fee, and 6/ reserve fund. Reserve fund • 1101 of debt service. Earns interest at lOS annually. I! Cost of hydro only. SF:IEB:AOl:l-FA* TABLE lll-13 (B) KING COVE ~YDROELECTRIC ?ROJECT ~VERAGE ~NNUAL U~IT COST OF ENERGY HYDROELECTRIC COSTS ALTERNATIVE It-C: 89' REVENUE BONDS AND 11l STATE GRANT (NO REAL FUEL ESCALATION) Interest Earned Total Aver~ge Hydro !klerat ion Reel ac:ement on Annual Annual Generation Calendar Energy Hydro and Sinking Debt Reserve Hydro Unit Year Year Demand JJ Capacity JJ Maintenance 1J Fund lJ Service~ Fund 1/ Cost !:.! Cost Ll IMWhl (kW) (Sl !Sl !S! I Sl m ( 6/kWh) !) 1982 634 0 0 0 0 0 0 o.on 0 1983 666 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0 1984 697 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 1 1985 1410 575 64096 18321 470825 51791 501451 15.~/i 2 1986 1438 575 68583 18321 470825 51791 505938 35.18 3 1987 1466 575 73383 18321 470025 51791 510739 34.84 4 1988 1494 575 78520 18321 470825 51791 5151'175 34.53 5 1989 1522 575 84017 18321 470825 51791 'i2D72 34.25 6 1990 1550 575 89898 18321 470825 51791 5?7253 34.02 7 1991 1562 575 96191 18321 470825 51791 533546 34.16 8 1992 1575 575 102924 18321 470825 51791 540279 34.30 9 1993 1586 575 110129 18321 470825 51791 547484 34.52 10 1994 1598 575 117838 18321 47na25 51791 555193 ~4.74 11 1995 1611 575 126086 18321 470825 51791 563442 34.97 12 1996 1623 575 134913 18321 470825 'i17'H 5722"8 '5.2~ 13 1997 1635 575 144356 18321 470825 51791 581711 3~.58 14 1998 1647 575 154461 18321 470825 51791 591R16 ~5 .'l~ 15 1999 1659 575 165274 18321 470825 51791 602629 36.32 16 2000 1671 575 176843 18321 470825 51791 514198 ~li .71i 17 2001 1688 575 189222 18321 470825 51791 626577 37.12 18 2002 1688 575 189222 18321 470825 51791 62~577 37.12 19 2003 1688 575 189222 18321 470825 51791 626577 37.12 20 2004 1688 575 189222 18321 47f1'!25 51791 626577 37.12 21 2005 1688 575 189222 18321 470825 51791 626577 37.12 22 2006 1688 575 189222 18321 470825 51791 626577 37.12 23 2007 1688 575 189222 18321 470825 51791 626577 37.12 24 2008 1688 575 189222 18321 470825 51791 626577 37.12 25 2009 1688 575 189222 18321 470825 51791 626577 37.12 26 2010 1688 575 189222 18321 470825 51791 67.6577 37.12 27 2011 1688 575 189222 18321 470825 51791 626577 37.12 28 2012 1688 575 189222 18321 470825 51791 626577 ~7.12 29 2013 1688 575 189222 18321 470825 51791 626577 37.12 30 2014 1688 575 189222 18321 470825 51791 526577 37.12 31 2015 1688 575 189222 18321 470825 51791 621;577 37.12 32 2016 1688 575 189222 18321 470825 51791 625577 37.12 33 2017 1688 575 189222 18321 470825 51791 li26577 37.12 34 2018 1688 575 189222 18321 470825 5171}1 6:>6577 17.12 35 2019 1688 575 189222 18321 470825 51791 108670 6.44 35 2020 1688 575 189222 18321 0 0 207543 12.30 37 2021 1588 575 189222 18321 0 0 207543 12.30 38 2022 1688 575 189222 18321 0 0 207543 12.30 39 2023 1688 575 189222 18321 0 0 207543 12.3!) 40 2024 1588 575 189222 18321 0 I) zn7543 12.30 41 2025 1688 575 189222 18321 0 0 207543 12 • .10 42 2026 1688 575 189222 18321 0 0 207543 12.30 43 2027 1688 575 189222 18321 0 0 207543 13.30 44 2028 1688 575 189222 18321 0 0 207543 12.30 45 2029 1688 575 189222 18321 0 0 207543 12.30 46 2030 1688 575 189222 18321 0 0 2(17543 12 .3(l 47 2031 1688 575 189222 18321 0 0 207543 12.30 48 2032 1688 575 189222 18321 0 0 207543 12.30 49 2033 1688 575 189?.22 18321 0 I) 207543 12.30 so 2034 1688 575 189222 18321 0 0 207543 12.30 11 Village direct electrical demand plus cannery demand ~et by hydro. See Table III-1. 2/ '!/ King Cove 1982 Feasibility Report, paoes VJ-4 through VI-10. 4/ 1.5~ of contract cost, escalates at 7~ annually. It Replaceme~t of runner and transmission lines. See Table IX-12. King Cove 1982 Feasibility Report. Debt serv1ce on revenue bonds for 35 years at 101. Includes interest during construction financinq fee, and reserve 6/ fund. Reserve fund • 1101 of debt service. Earns interest at lOS annually, I! Cost of hydro only. SF:!ES:ADl:l-FAc TABLE III-14( A) KING COVE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT SUMMARY OF AVERAGE ANNUAL UNIT COSTS OF ENERGY HYDRO CASE WITH AND WITHOUT SPACE HEATING ALTERNATIVE !1-C: 89l REVENUE BONOS AND 11l STATE GRANT (REAL FUEL ESCALATION INCLUDED) Example of Potential Space HlJro Pro.1eet On ll Heatino AdJustment Space Enerqy Supplemental Total Heating Cost Diesel Hydro With Savinqs Adjusted H.)dro Unit Unit H.)dro at SOl for Space Generation Calendar Ener 9l Ene~7 Ener~ Unit Avoided Heat ina Year Year De~~~and.il' Cos~ Cost:!! Cos til Cost¥ Savinos!f ~ J.iili!!.l J.iili!!.l J.iili!!.l 1lli!!!!.l. J.iili!!.l 0 1982 634 39.69 0.00 39.69 o.oo 39.69 0 1983 666 41.30 o.oo 41.30 o.oo 41.30 0 1984 697 43.17 o.oo 43.17 0.00 43.17 1 1985 1410 7.66 37.61 45.27 2.11 43.16 2 1986 1438 7.87 37.19 45.06 2.22 42.84 3 1987 1466 8.11 36.81 44.91 2.33 42.58 4 1988 1494 8.37 36.46 44.84 2.45 42.39 5 1989 1522 8.68 36.15 44.83 2.57 42.26 6 1990 1550 9.01 35.88 44.89 2.70 42.19 7 1991 1562 9.40 36.00 45.40 2.92 42.48 8 1992 1575 9.88 36.13 46.01 3.14 4~.87 9 1993 1586 10.35 36.34 46.69 3.39 43.30 10 1994 1598 10.85 36.55 47.40 3.65 43.75 11 1995 1611 11.47 36.77 48.24 3.93 44.31 12 1996 1623 12.08 37.04 49.12 4.23 44.89 13 1997 1635 12.79 37.34 50.13 4.55 45.58 14 1998 1647 13.51 37.68 51.19 4.90 46.29 15 1999 1659 14.35 38.06 52.41 5.27 47.14 16 2000 1671 15.27 38.48 53.75 5.66 48.09 17 2001 1688 16.48 38.83 55.31 6.07 49.24 18 2002 lli88 13.15 38.83 51.98 6.07 45.91 19 2003 1688 13.15 38.83 51.98 6.07 45.91 20 2004 1688 13.15 38.83 51.98 6.07 45.91 21 2005 1688 13.15 38.83 51.98 5.6R 46.30 22 2006 1688 13.15 38.83 51.98 5.68 46.30 23 2007 1688 13.15 38.83 51.98 5.68 46.30 24 2008 1688 13.15 38.83 51.98 5.68 46.30 25 2009 1688 13.15 38.83 51.98 5.68 46.30 26 2010 1688 13.15 38.83 51.98 5.68 46.30 27 2011 1688 13.15 38.83 51.9R 5.6a 46.30 28 2012 1688 30.10 38.83 68.93 5.68 63.25 29 2013 1688 30.10 38.83 68.93 5.68 63.25 30 2014 1688 30.10 38.83 68.93 5.68 63.25 31 2015 1688 30.10 38.83 68.93 5.68 63.?.5 32 2016 1688 30.10 38.83 68.93 5.68 63.25 33 2017 1688 30.10 38.83 68.93 5.68 63.25 34 2018 1688 30.10 38.83 68.93 5.68 63.25 35 2019 1688 30.10 5.03 36.14 5.68 30.46 36 2020 1688 30.10 12.30 42.40 5.68 36.72 37 2021 1688 30.10 12.30 42.40 5.68 36.72 38 2022 1688 30.10 12.30 42.40 5.58 36.72 39 2023 1688 30.10 12.30 42.40 5.68 36.72 40 2024 1588 30.10 12.30 42.40 5.68 36.72 41 2025 1688 30.10 12.30 42.40 5.68 36.72 42 2026 1688 30.10 12.30 42.40 5.68 36.72 43 2027 1688 30.10 12.30 42.40 5.68 36.72 44 2028 1688 30.10 12.30 42.40 5.68 36.72 45 2029 1688 30.10 12.30 42.40 5.68 36.72 45 2030 1588 30.10 12.30 42.40 5.68 36.72 47 2031 1688 30.10 12.30 42.40 5.68 36.72 48 2032 1688 13.53 12.30 25.83 5.68 20.15 49 2033 1688 13.53 12.30 25.83 5.6R 20.15 50 2034 1688 13.53 12.30 25.83 5.68 20.15 1/ Village direct electrical demand plus c!nnery demand met by hydro. See Table I II-1. 2/ See Table lll-4. jf See Table !Il-13. 41 Total unit cost of direct electrical demand. Includes hydro and. supole~~~ent!l diesel. J! See Table III-19(8). SF:!EB:AD1:l-FA* TABLE III~ 14( Bl KING COVE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT SUMMARY OF AVERAGE ANNUAL UNIT COSTS OF ENERGY HYORO CASE WITH AND ~ITHOUT SPACE ~EATING ALTERNATIVE ll-C: 89' REVENUE BONOS AND 11' STATE SRANT (NO REAL FUEL ESCALATION) Example of Potential Space Hvdro Project Onl;r: Heat i nQ Adjustroent So ace Enerqy Supplemental Total Heatinp Cost Diesel Hydro With Savinqs Adjusted for Hydro Unit Unit Hydro at ~0% Space Generation Calendar Enerqy Enerqy Eneray Unit Avoided HeatinQ Year Year Demand J! Cost Y Cost l! Cost~ Cost 2! SaviMS 2! J!!.l:!!l.L ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 1982 634 3;;7.~u 0.00 39.28 0.00 39.28 0 1983 666 40.41 0.00 40.41 o.oo 40.41 0 1984 697 41.74 0.00 41.74 0.00 41.74 1 1985 1410 7.63 35.56 43.20 t.qo 41.30 2 1q86 1438 7.82 35.18 43.01 1.95 41.06 3 1982 1466 8.04 34.84 42.87 2.00 40.87 4 1988 1494 8.27 34.53 42.80 2.06 40.74 5 1989 1522 8.53 34.26 42.79 2.11 40.68 6 1990 1550 8.82 34.02 42.83 2.16 40.67 7 1991 1562 9.15 34.16 43.31 2.27 41.{14 a 1992 1575 9.56 34.30 43.86 2.39 41.47 9 1993 1586 9.96 34.52 44.48 2.52 41.96 10 1994 1598 10.39 34.74 45.13 2.65 42.4A 11 1995 1611 10.90 34.97 45.87 2.79 43.()8 12 1996 1623 11.39 35.26 46.65 2.94 43.71 13 1997 1635 11.96 35.58 47.53 3.0<1 44.44 14 1998 1647 12.53 35.93 48.46 3.25 45.21 15 1999 1659 13.18 36.32 49.51 3.41 46.10 16 2000 1671 13.89 36.76 50.64 3.S8 47.06 17 2001 1688 14.77 37.12 51.1!9 3.76 48.13 18 2002 1681l 11.44 37 .12 48.56 3.76 44.!10 19 2003 1688 11.44 37.12 4R.56 3.76 44.q0 20 2004 1688 11.44 37.12 48.56 3.76 44.80 21 2005 1688 11.44 37.12 41l.56 3.37 45.19 22 2006 1681l 11.44 37.12 48.56 3.37 45.19 23 2007 1688 11.44 37.12 48.56 3.37 45.19 24 2008 1688 11.44 37.12 4$1.56 1.37 45.19 25 2009 1688 11.44 37.12 48.56 3.37 45.19 26 2010 1688 11.44 37.12 48.56 3.37 45.1<1 27 2011 1688 11.44 37.12 48.56 3.37 45.lq 28 2012 1688 28.38 37.12 65.50 3.37 1\2.13 29 2013 1688 28.38 37.12 65.50 3.37 62.13 30 2014 1688 28.38 37.12 65.50 3.37 62.13 31 2015 1688 28.38 37.12 65.50 3.37 62.13 32 2016 1688 28.38 37.12 65.50 3.37 62.13 33 2017 1688 28.38 37.12 65.50 3.37 62.13 34 2018 1688 28.38 37.12 65.50 3.37 62.13 35 2019 1688 28.38 6.44 34.112 3.37 31.45 36 2020 1688 28.38 12.30 40.68 3.37 37.31 37 2021 1688 28.38 12.30 40.68 3.37 37.31 38 2022 1688 28.38 12.30 40.68 l.37 37.31 39 2023 1688 28.38 12.30 40.68 3.37 37.31 40 2024 1688 28.38 12.30 40.68 3.37 37 .31 41 2025 1688 28.38 12.30 40.68 3.37 37.31 42 2026 1688 28.38 12.30 40.68 3.37 37.31 43 2027 1688 28.38 12.30 40.68 3.37 37.31 44 2028 1688 28.38 12.30 40.68 3.37 :17.31 45 2029 1688 28.38 12.30 40.68 3.37 37.31 46 2030 1688 28.38 12.30 40.68 3.37 37 .31 47 2031 1688 28.38 12.30 40.158 3.37 37.31 48 2032 1688 11.82 12.30 24.11 3.37 20.74 49 2033 1688 11.82 12.30 24.11 3.37 20.74 50 2034 1688 11.82 12.30 24.11 3.37 :?0.74 1/ Village direct electrical demand plus cannery demand met by nydro. See Table !Il-l. 2/ See Table III-4. "!! See Table III-13. 4/ Total unit cost of direct electrical demand. Includes nydro and suoolemental diesel. :¥ See Table III-ZO(Bl. SF: IEB:AOl :1-FAd TABLE III-15 KING COVE HYOROELECTRtC PROJECT AVERAGE ANNUAL UNIT COST OF ENERGY HYDROELECTRIC COSTS AL TERNATtVE IV: STATE LOAN Interest Earned Total Hydro ODeration Rep 1 acement on Pflnua 1 Generation Calendar Ene"'i Hydro and Sinki~ Debt Reserve Hydro Unit Year Year aemana.J Capac it~ Maintenancel' Fu~ Servicail Fund!J! Cost1! eost1! ~MWh! {kW} !Sl ! S} !Sl !SI .J.1l_ ($/kWh) 0 1982 634 0 0 0 0 0 0 o.oo 0 1983 666 0 0 0 0 0 0 o.oo 0 1984 697 0 0 0 0 0 (1 0.00 1 1985 1410 575 64096 18321 261778 0 344195 24.41 2 1986 1438 575 68583 18321 251778 0 3411M2 24.25 3 1987 1466 575 73383 18321 261778 0 353483 24.11 4 1988 1494 575 78520 1£1321 261778 0 ~5R620 24.00 5 1989 1522 575 84017 18321 261778 0 36411(: ?.3.92 6 1990 1550 575 89898 18:!21 261778 0 ]6qq97 2J,.q7 7 1991 1562 575 96191 Vi321 261778 0 376290 24.09 8 1992 1575 575 102924 18321 261778 0 3~3024 24.32 9 1993 1586 575 110129 18321 261778 0 3q0228 24.fi0 10 1994 1598 575 117838 18321 261778 0 3«17937 24.90 11 1995 1611 575 tZtiU86 18321 261778 0 406186 25.21 12 1996 1623 575 134913 18321 261778 0 415012 25.57 13 1997 1635 575 144356 18321 261778 0 424456 25.'115 14 1998 1647 575 154461 18321 261778 0 434561 26.38 15 1999 1659 575 165274 18321 261778 0 445373 25.85 16 2000 1671 575 176843 18321 26177!! 0 451;942 ~7.35 17 2001 1688 575 189222 1!!321 261778 0 469321 27 .!!0 18 2002 1688 575 199222 1~321 261778 0 469321 27.BIJ 19 2003 1688 575 189222 18321 26177!1 0 4,;q321 ?.7 .110 20 2004 1688 575 lAq222 18321 261778 0 4!;9321 27.80 21 2005 1688 575 189222 18321 21;1778 0 469321 27.AO 22 2006 1688 575 189222 18321 261778 0 4,;1nn !7.M 23 2007 1688 575 189222 18321 261778 0 469321 27.110 24 2008 1688 575 189222 18321 ~6177!1 0 4119321 ?7.80 25 2009 1688 575 189222 18321 26177!1 0 460321 21 .eo 26 2010 1688 575 189222 18321 261778 0 41iC1321 '7 .an 27 2011 Ui!!8 575 189222 18321 261778 0 469321 27 .so 28 2012 1688 575 1~9222 18321 26177!1 0 41;11321 ".an 29 2013 1688 575 189222 18321 2617713 0 469~21 27.80 30 2014 1688 575 1!19222 18321 261778 0 41\0J21 27.80 3l 2015 1688 575 189222 18321 261778 0 469321 27 .AO 32 2016 1688 575 189222 18321 261778 0 4~Q321 ?.7.80 33 2017 1688 575 lA9222 18321 261778 0 41;9321 ?.7.RO 34 2018 1688 575 189222 18321 261778 0 46q321 27.80 35 2019 1688 575 189222 18321 261778 0 460321 27 .'10 36 2020 1688 575 189222 18321 0 0 207543 12.30 37 2021 1688 575 189222 18321 0 0 207543 12.30 38 2022 1688 575 189222 18321 0 0 207543 12.30 39 2023 1688 575 189222 18321 0 n 207543 12.30 40 2024 1688 575 189222 18321 0 0 207543 12.30 41 2025 1688 575 189222 18321 I) 0 207543 12.30 42 2026 1688 575 189222 18321 0 0 207543 12.30 43 2027 1688 575 189222 18321 0 0 207543 12.30 44 2028 1688 575 189222 18321 0 0 207543 12.30 45 2029 1688 575 189222 18321 0 0 207543 12.30 46 2030 1688 575 189222 18321 0 0 207543 12.30 47 2031 1688 575 189222 18321 0 0 207'i43 12.30 48 2032 1688 575 189222 1~321 0 0 207543 13.30 49 2033 1688 575 189222 18321 0 0 207543 12.30 50 2034 1688 575 189222 18321 0 0 207.;43 12.30 1/ Village direct electrical demand plus cannery demand met by h)'dro. See Table !It-1. '!I King Cove 1982 Feasibility Repart, pages YI-4 throuqh Vt-10. "!I 1.5% of contract cost, escalates at 71 annually. 4/ Replacement of runner and transmission lines. See Table IX-12, Kinq Cove 1982 Feasibility Reoort. 'if Debt Seryice on loan for 35 years at 51. Does not include interest during construction, financing fee, or reserve 6/ fund. No reserve fund for this alternative. I! Cost of h)'dro only. SF:IEB:A01:1-FA* TABLE III-16(A) KING COVE HYDROELECTRIC Pth,JECT SUMMARY OF AVERAGE ANNUAL UNIT COSTS OF ENERGY HYDRO CASE WITH AND \IITHOIJT SPACE HEATINt; ALTERNATIVE IV: STATE LOAN (REAL FUEL ESCALATION INCLUOEO) Example of Potentia I Space 1-ll.!!ro Project <mlx "eatinQ Adjustment Space Enerqy Supp 1 ementa 1 Total Heat inC! Cost Oiesel rtydro With Savings Adjusted hydro Unit Unit Hydro at SOl for Soace Generation Calendar Energl Ener~y EnerCly Unit Avoided Heatinq Year Year Demand!!' Cos~ Costl/ Cost!f Cost2/ SavinQsil ~ 1 !I kWh l 1!/kWh} ~ (VkWh) ~ 0 1982 634 39.69 0.00 39.!\9 o.oo 39.6~ 0 1983 666 41.30 0.00 41.30 0.00 41.30 0 1984 697 43.17 0.00 43.17 0.00 43.17 1 1985 1410 7.66 24.41 32.n7 2.11 29.q6 2 1986 1438 7.87 24.25 32.12 2.22 29.90 3 1987 1466 S.l' 24.11 32.22 2.33 29.89 4 1988 1494 8.3! 24.00 32.38 2.45 29.93 s 1989 1522 8.68 23.92 32.60 2.57 30.03 6 1990 1550 9.01 23.87 32.88 2.70 30.18 7 1991 1562 9.40 24.09 33.4q 2.92 30.57 a 1992 1575 9.88 24.32 34.19 3.14 31.05 9 1993 1586 10.35 24.60 34.95 3.31) 31.56 10 1994 1598 10.85 24.90 35.76 3.65 32.11 11 1995 1611 11.47 25.21 36.69 3.93 32.76 12 1996 1623 12.08 25.57 37.65 4.23 13.42 13 1997 1635 12.79 25.96 31!.75 4.55 34.20 14 1998 1647 13.51 26.38 39.90 4.90 35.00 15 1999 1659 14.35 26.85 41.20 5.27 35.93 16 2000 1671 15.27 27.35 42.62 5.66 3fi.96 17 2001 1688 16.48 27.80 44.29 6.07 38.22 18 2002 1688 13.15 27.80 40.96 6.07 34.89 19 2003 1688 13.15 27.80 40.96 6.07 34.89 20 2004 1688 13.15 27.80 40.96 6.07 34.39 21 2005 1688 13.15 27 .1!0 40.96 5.68 35.28 22 2006 1688 13.15 27.80 40.96 5.68 35.28 23 2007 161'18 13.15 27.80 40.96 5.61! 35.28 24 2008 1688 13.15 27 .80 40.96 5.68 35.28 25 2009 1688 13.15 27.80 40.96 5.68 35.28 26 2010 1688 13.15 27.80 40.96 5.68 35.28 27 2011 1688 13.15 27.80 40.96 5.68 35.28 28 2012 1688 30.10 27.80 57.90 5.68 52.22 29 2013 1688 30.10 27.80 57.90 5.68 52.22 30 2014 1688 30.10 27 .1!0 57.90 5.68 52.22 31 2015 1688 30.10 27.80 57.90 5.68 52.22 32 2016 1688 30.10 27.80 57.90 5.68 52.22 33 2017 1688 30.10 27.80 57.90 5.68 52.22 34 2018 1688 30.10 27.80 57.90 5.68 52.22 35 2019 1688 30.10 27.80 37.90 5.613 32.22 36 2020 1688 30.10 12.30 42.40 5.68 36.72 37 2021 1688 30.10 12.30 42.40 5.68 36.72 38 2022 1688 30.10 12.30 42.40 5 .61! 36.72 39 2023 1688 30.10 12.30 42.40 5.68 36.72 40 2024 1688 30.10 12.30 42.40 5.68 36.72 41 2025 1688 30.10 12.30 42.40 5.68 36.72 42 2026 1688 30.10 12.30 42.40 5.68 31!.72 43 2027 1688 30.10 12.30 42.40 5.6R 36.72 44 2028 1688 30.10 12.30 42.40 5.68 36.72 45 2029 1688 30.10 12.30 42.40 5.68 36.72 46 2030 1688 30.10 12.30 42.40 5.68 36.72 47 2031 1688 30.10 12.30 42.40 5.68 36.72 48 2032 1688 13.53 12.30 25.83 5.68 20.15 49 2033 1688 13.53 12.30 25.83 5.68 20.15 so 2034 . 1688 13.53 12.30 25.83 5.68 20.15 1/ Village direct electrical demand plus cannery demand met by nydro. See Table III-1. 71 J/ See Table III-4. See Table !II-15. 4/ Total unit cost of direct electrical demand. Includes hydro and supplemental diesel costs. J.! See Table IIl-19(8}. SF:IEB:AOl:l-FA* TABLE III-16 (8) KING COVE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT SUMMARY OF AVERAGE ANNUAL UNIT COSTS OF ENE~GY HYDRO CASE WITH AND WITHOUT SPACE HEATING ALTERNATIVE IV: STATE LOAN (NO REAL FIJEL ESCALATION) Example of Potential Space H:t:!!ro ProJect On1;)! HeatinQ Ad.justment Space EnerctY Supp lementa 1 Total HeatinCI Cost 01ese1 H)'dro With Savings Adjusted H)'dro Unit Un1t H)'dro at 501 for Soace Generation Calendar Enef'9y Enerqy Enerqy Unit Avoided Heattna Year Year Demand 1! Cost 1.1 Cost Y Cost~ Cost 11 Savinqs 11 .J.!!hl_ !$/kWh) !!lkWII} ( 4/kWh) (UkWII} (t/kWh) 0 1982 634 39.28 0.00 39.28 0.00 39.~13 0 1983 666 40.41 o.oo 40.41 0.00 40.41 0 1984 697 41.74 0.00 41.74 0.00 41.74 1 1985 1410 7.63 24.41 32.04 1.90 30.19 2 1986 1438 7.82 24.25 32.07 1.95 30.12 3 1987 1466 8.04 24.11 32.15 2.00 30.15 4 1988 14114 8.27 24.00 32.27 2.06 30.21 5 1989 1522 8.53 23.92 32.45 2.ll 30.34 6 1990 1550 8.82 23.R7 32.611 2.16 30.53 7 1991 1562 9.15 24.09 33.24 2.27 30.!17 8 1992 1575 9.56 24.32 33.88 2.39 31.49 !! 19113 1586 9.96 24.60 34.57 2.52 32.05 10 1994 15t!S 10.39 24.90 35.2CI 7.65 32.64 11 1CI95 1611 10.90 25.21 36.11 2.79 33.32 12 1996 1623 11.39 25.57 36.911 2.94 34.!'12 13 1997 1635 11.96 25.96 37.92 3.09 34.83 14 1998 1647 12.53 26.38 38.92 3.25 35.157 15 1999 1659 13.18 26.85 40.03 3.41 36.~2 16 2000 1671 13.89 27.35 41.23 3.58 37.65 17 2001 1688 14.77 27.110 42.57 3.76 38.81 18 2002 1688 11.44 27.80 3CI.24 3.76 35.48 19 2003 1688 11.44 27.80 39.24 3.76 35.48 20 2004 1688 11.44 27.80 39.24 3.76 35.48 21 2005 1688 11.44 21.80 39.24 3.37 35.48 22 2006 16811 11.44 27.80 39.24 3.37 35.48 23 2007 1688 11.44 27.80 39.24 3.37 35.48 24 2008 1688 11.44 27.80 39.24 3.31 35.4!! 25 2009 168!! 11.44 21 .8o 39.24 3.37 35.48 26 2010 1688 11.44 27.80 3CI.24 3.37 35.48 27 2011 1688 11.44 27.80 39.24 3.37 35.48 28 2012 1688 28.38 27.80 5~.19 3.31 "2.82 29 2013 1688 28.38 27.80 56.19 ·3.37 ;:ul2 30 2014 1688 28.38 27.110 56.19 3.37 52.82 31 2015 1688 28.38 27.80 56.19 3.37 5Ul2 32 2016 1688 28.38 27.80 56.19 3.37 52.82 33 2017 1688 28.38 27.80 56.19 3.37 52.82 34 2018 1688 28.38 27.80 56.19 3.37 52.82 35 2019 1688 28.38 27.80 56.19 3.37 52.82 36 2020 1688 28.38 12.30 40.68 3.37 37.31 37 2021 1688 28.38 12.30 40.68 3.37 37.31 38 2022 1688 28.38 12.30 40.68 3.37 37 .31 39 2023 1688 28.38 12.30 40.68 3.37 37.31 40 2024 1688 28.38 12.30 &0.68 3.37 37.31 41 2025 1688 28.38 12.30 40.68 3.31 37.31 42 2026 1688 28.38 12.30 40.68 3.37 37.31 43 2027 1688 28.38 12.30 40.68 3.37 37.31 44 2028 1688 28.38 12.30 40.68 3.37 37.31 45 2029 1688 28.38 12.30 40.68 3.37 37.31 46 2030 1688 28.38 12.30 40.68 3.37 37.31 47 2031 1688 28.38 12.30 40.68 3.37 37.31 48 2032 1688 11.82 12.30 24.11 3.37 20.74 49 2033 1688 11.82 12.30 24.11 3.37 20.74 50 2034 1688 11.82 12.30 24.11 3.37 20.74 1/ ~fllage direct electrical demand plus cannery demand met by hydro. See Table !II.l "!! See Table UI-4. '!/ See Table IIl-15. 4/ Total unit cost of direct electrical demand. Includes hydro and supplemental diesel. 21 See Table III-20(8). SF: IEB:A01:l-FPI:! TABLE III-17 Kl~G COVE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT AVERAGE ANNUAL UNIT COST OF ENERGY HYDROELECTRIC COSTS ALTERNATIVE V: STATE EQUITY FINANCING Hydro Q:!eration Replacement Total Generation Calendar Energl Hydro and Sink in( Annual Return on Unit Year Year Demand.!~ Capac it~ Maintenancdl Fun~ Cost.§/ Investment!~ Costl! )MWI\l !kW) )S) !S) !Sl ($) (¢/kWh) 0 1982 634 0 0 0 0 n 0.1)() 0 1983 666 0 0 0 0 I) 0.00 0 1984 697 0 0 0 0 n 0.00 1 1985 1410 575 64096 18321 214320 131903 15.20 2 1986 1438 575 68583 1!!321 214320 127416 14,QO 3 1987 1466 575 73383 18321 214320 122fi15 14.62 4 1988 1494 575 78520 18321 214320 11747a 14.35 5 1989 1522 575 84017 18321 214320 111982 14.0~ 6 1990 1550 575 89898 18321 214320 106101 13.!'!3 7 1991 1562 575 96191 18321 214320 99908 13.72 8 1992 1575 575 102924 18321 214320 Q3074 l3 .61 9 1993 1586 575 110129 18321 214320 1'!5870 11.51 10 1994 1598 575 117838 18321 214320 78161 13.41 11 1995 1611 575 126086 18321 214370 69912 13.30 12 1996 1623 575 134913 18321 214320 61086 13.21 13 1997 1635 575 144356 18321 214320 51642 13.11 14 1998 1647 575 154461 18321 214320 41537 13 .n1 15 1999 1659 575 165274 18321 214320 30725 12. 'l2 16 2000 1671 575 176843 18321 214320 13156 12.83 17 2001 1688 575 189222 18321 214320 6777 12.70 lB 2002 1688 575 189222 18321 214320 6777 12 .?rl 19 2003 1688 575 189222 18321 214320 6777 12.70 20 2004 1688 575 189222 18321 214320 6777 12.70 21 2005 1688 575 189222 18321 214320 6777 12.70 22 2006 1688 575 189222 18321 214320 6777 12.7r'l 23 2007 1688 575 189222 18321 214320 6777 12.70 24 2008 1688 575 189222 18321 214320 6777 12.70 25 2009 1688 575 189222 18321 214320 6777 12.70 26 2010 1688 575 189222 18321 214320 6777 12.70 27 2011 1688 575 189222 18321 214320 6777 12.70 28 2012 1688 575 189222 18321 214320 6777 12.70 29 2013 1688 575 189222 18321 214320 6777 12.70 30 2014 1688 575 189222 18321 214320 6777 12.70 31 2015 1688 575 189222 18321 214320 6777 12.711 32 2016 1688 575 189222 18321 214320 6777 12.1n 33 2017 1688 575 189222 18321 214320 6777 12.70 34 2018 1688 575 189222 18321 214320 6777 12.70 35 2019 1688 575 189222 18321 214320 6777 12.70 36 2020 1688 575 189222 18321 214320 6777 12.70 37 2021 1688 575 189222 1R321 214320 6777 12.70 38 2022 1688 575 18<!222 18321 214320 6777 1?.70 39 2023 1688 575 189222 18321 214320 6777 12.70 40 2024 1688 575 189222 18321 214320 6777 12.70 41 2025 1688 575 189222 18321 214320 6777 12.71) 42 2026 1688 575 189222 18321 214320 6777 12.70 43 2027 1688 575 189222 18321 214320 6777 12.70 44 2028 1688 575 189222 18321 214320 n777 12.70 45 2029 1688 575 189222 18321 214320 6777 12.70 46 2030 1688 575 11'!9222 18321 214320 6777 12.70 47 2031 1688 575 189222 18321 214320 6777 12.70 48 2032 1688 575 189222 18321 214320 6777 12.70 49 2033 1688 575 189222 18321 214320 6777 12.70 50 2034 1688 575 189222 18321 214320 6777 12.70 1/ Village direct electrical demand plus cannery demand met by hydro. See Table I JI-1. 2/ J/ King Cove 1982 Feasibility Reoort, pages VI-4 through VI-10. 4/ 1.51 of contract cost, escalates at 71 annually. !/ Replacement of runner and transmission lines. See Table IX-12, K1nQ Cove 1982 Feasibility Reoort. 6/ 5% of Construction Cost (See Table III-2). !J Return to state after pa~ent of Operation. Maintenance, and Replac~t. Cost of hydro only. SF:IEB:A01:1-FA* TABLE !II-18(A) KING COVE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT SUMMARY OF AVERAGE ANNUAL UNIT COSTS OF ENERGY HYDRO CASE WITH AND WtTH~IT SPACE HEATING ALTERNATIVE V: STATE EQUITY FINANCING (REAL FUEL ESCALATION INCLUDED) Example of Potentia 1 So ace H~ro Pro.1ect Onl,l Heating Adjustment Space Enerqy Supplemental Total Heatinq Cost Diesel Hydro W1th Savings Ad.1usted Hydro Unit Unit Hydro at 5~ for Space Generation Calendar Enerqr Ene]y Enerqy Unft Avoided Heatinq Year Year Demand!! Cosu! Cosd! Cos til Cos&' Savin~:~s.& .2!!!!1_ i!/kWhl (!/kWhl (f/I<Whl ~ ili!.!!!!l. 0 1982 634 39.69 0.00 3q.sq 0.00 39.59 0 1983 666 41.30 o.oo 41.30 o.oo 41.30 0 1984 697 43.17 0.00 43.17 0.00 43.17 1 1985 1410 7.66 15.20 22.1~6 2.11 20.75 2 1986 1438 7.87 14.90 22.77 2.22 20.55 3 1987 1466 B.ll 14.62 22.73 2.33 20.40 4 1988 1494 8 .3. 14.35 22.72 2.45 20.27 5 1989 1522 8.68 14.08 22.76 2.57 20.19 6 1990 1550 9.01 13.83 22.84 2.70 20.14 7 1991 1562 9.40 13.72 23.12 2.92 20.20 8 1992 1575 9.88 13.61 23.48 3.14 20.34 9 1993 1586 10.35 13.51 23.86 3.39 20.47 10 1994 1598 10.85 13.41 24.26 3.65 20.61 ll 1995 1611 ll.47 13.30 24.78 3.93 20.85 12 1996 1623 12.08 13.21 25.29 4.23 21.06 13 1997 1635 12.79 13.11 25.90 4.55 21.35 14 1998 1647 13.51 13.01 ~6.52 4.90 21.62 15 1999 1659 14.35 12.92 27.27 5.27 22.00 16 2000 1671 15.27 12.83 28.10 5.66 22.44 17 2001 1688 16.48 12.70 29.11! 6.07 23.11 18 2002 1688 13.15 12.70 25.85 6.tl7 19.78 19 2003 1688 13.15 12.70 25.85 6.07 19.78 20 2004 1688 13.15 12.70 25.85 6.07 19.78 21 2005 1688 13.15 12.70 25.85 5.68 20.17 22 2006 161!8 13.15 12.70 25.85 5.68 20.17 23 2007 1688 13.15 12.70 25.85 5.68 20.17 24 2008 1688 13.15 12.70 25.85 5.68 20.17 25 2009 1688 13.15 12.70 25.85 5.61!1 20.17 26 2010 1688 13.15 12.70 25.85 5.68 20.17 27 2011 1688 13.15 12.70 25.85 5.68 20.17 29 2012 1688 30.10 12.70 42.80 5.68 37.12 29 2013 1688 30.10 12.70 42.80 5.611 37.12 30 2014 1688 30.10 12.70 42.80 5.68 37.12 31 2015 1688 30.10 12.70 42.80 5.68 37.12 32 2016 1688 30.10 12.70 42.80 5.68 37.12 33 2017 1688 30.10 12.70 42.80 5.68 37.12 34 2018 1688 30.10 12.70 42.80 5.68 37.12 35 2019 1688 30.10 12.70 42.80 5.68 37.12 36 2020 1688 30.10 12.70 42.90 5.68 37.12 37 2021 1688 30.10 12.70 42.80 5.68 37.12 38 2022 1688 30.10 12.70 42.80 5.68 37.12 39 2023 1688 30.10 12.70 42.80 5.68 37.12 40 2024 1698 30.10 12.70 42.80 5.68 37.12 41 2025 1688 30.10 12.70 42.80 5.68 37.12 42 2026 1688 30.10 12.70 42.80 5.68 37.12 43 2027 1688 30.10 12.70 42.80 5.68 37.12 44 2028 1688 30.10 12.70 42.80 5.fi8 37.12 45 2029 1688 30.10 12.70 42.80 5.68 37.12 46 2030 1688 30.10 12.70 42.80 5.68 37.12 47 2031 1688 30.10 12.70 42.80 5.68 37.12 48 2032 1688 13.53 12.70 26.23 5.68 20.55 49 2033 1688 13.53 12.70 26.23 5.611 20.S!i 50 2034 1688 13.53 12.70 26.23 5.68 20.55 1/ Village direct electrical demand olus cannery demand met by hydro. See Table !It-1. "'!.! See Table l!I-4. st See Table ll!-17. 4/ Total unit cost of direct electrical demllnd. Includes hydro and supplemental diesel costs. Jj See Table lll-19(8). SF:IEB:A01:1-FA* TABLE Ill-18 (B) KING COVE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT SUMMARY OF AVERAGE ANNUAL UNIT COSTS OF ENERGY HYORO CASE WITH AND WITHOIIT SPACE >iEATI Nf. ALTERNATIVE V: STATE EQUITY FINANCING (NO REAL FUEL ESCALATION) Eumo1e of Potenta 1 Space H.)!dro Pro.ject and Heatino M.iustment So ace Eneroy Supp I e~~~ent a 1 Total Heating Cost Oiesel Hydro With Savings Adjusted Hydro Unit Unit Hydro at 5~ for Soace Generation Calendar Enerqy Enerqy Enerqy Unit Avoided Heat inq Year Year Demand J!. Cost l! Cost}} Cost .5! Cost jj Sav inqs 'l/ ~ ~ilkWn) ( !lkWhl (4/kWh) ~ (¢/kWit) 0 1982 634 39.28 0.00 39.28 0.00 39.28 a 1983 666 40.41 0.00 40.41 0.00 40.41 0 1984 697 41.74 0.00 41.74 0.00 41.74 1 1985 1410 7.63 15.20 22.83 1.90 ~o.q3 2 1986 1438 7.82 14.90 22.73 1.95 zn.7R 3 1987 1466 8.04 14.62 22.65 2.00 20.1i5 4 1988 1494 8.27 14.35 22.62 2.06 20.56 5 1989 1522 8.53 14.08 22.61 2.11 2o.sn 6 1990 1550 8.82 13.83 22.64 ?..16 20.48 7 1991 1562 9.15 13.72 22.87 2.27 20.60 8 1992 1575 . 9.56 13.61 23.17 2.3<1 ~0.79 9 1993 1586 <l.96 13.51 23.47 2.52 20.95 10 1994 1598 10.39 13.41 21.AO 2.65 21.15 11 1995 1611 10.90 13.30 24.20 2.79 21.41 12 1996 1623 11.39 13.21 24.60 2.!14 21.~6 13 1997 1635 11.96 13.11 25.06 3.09 n.q7 14 1998 1647 12.53 13.01 ~5.54 3.25 22.29 15 1999 1659 13.18 12.92 26.10 3.41 22.69 16 2000 1671 13.89 12.83 26.71 3.58 23.13 17 2001 1688 14.77 12. 71) 27.46 3.76 23.70 18 2002 1688 11.44 12.70 24.13 3.76 20.37 19 2003 1588 11.44 12.70 24.13 3.76 20.37 20 2004 1688 11.44 12.70 24.13 3.76 ~0.37 21 2005 1688 11.44 12.70 24.13 3.76 20.37 22 2006 16R8 11.44 12.70 24.13 3.37 20.37 23 2007 1688 11.44 12.70 24.13 3.37 20.37 24 2008 1688 11.44 12.70 24.13 3.37 21).37 25 2009 1688 11.44 12.70 24.13 3.37 20.37 26 2010 1688 11.44 12.70 24.13 3.37 20.37 27 2011 1688 11.44 12.70 24.13 3.37 20.37 28 2012 1688 28.38 12.70 4l.OR 3.37 37.71 29 2013 1688 28.38 12.70 41.08 3.37 37.71 30 2014 1688 28.38 12.70 41.08 3.37 37.71 31 2015 1688 28.38 12.70 41.08 3.37 37.71 32 2016 1688 28.38 12.70 41.08 3.37 37.71 33 2017 1688 28.38 12.70 41.08 3.37 37.71 34 2018 .1688 28.38 12.70 41.08 3.37 37.71 35 2019 1688 28.38 12.70 41.08 3.37 37.71 36 2020 1688 28.38 12.70 41.08 3.37 37.71 37 2021 1688 28.38 12.70 41.08 3.37 37.71 38 2022 1688 28.38 12.70 41.08 3.37 37.71 39 2023 1688 28.3R 12.70 41.08 3.37 37.71 40 2024 1688 28.313 12.70 41.08 3.37 37.71 41 2025 1688 28.38 12.70 41.08 3.37 37.71 42 2026 1688 28.38 12.70 41.08 3.37 37.71 43 2027 1688 28.38 12.70 41.08 3.37 37.71 44 2028 1688 28.38 12.70 41.08 3.37 37.71 45 2029 1688 28.38 12.70 41.08 3.37 37.71 46 2030 1688 28.38 12.70 41.08 3.37 37.71 47 2031 1688 28.38 12.70 41.08 3.37 37.71 48 2032 1688 11.82 12.70 24.51 3.37 21.14 49 2033 1688 11.82 12.70 24.51 3.37 21.14 50 2034 1688 11.82 12.70 24.51 3.37 21.14 1/ V111age direct electrical demand plus cannery demand met by hydro. See Table l!I.l zt See Table !II-4. "'!I See Table lll-17. T; Total un1t cost of d1rect electrical demand. Includes hydro and supplemental diesel. Jj See Table IIJ-20(8). SF:IEB:ADl:l-FAb TABLE !ll-19(A) KIHG COVE HYOROELECTRIC PROJECT POTENTIAL BENEFIT FROM SPACE HEATING (REAL FUEL ESCALATION INCLUDED) Benefits Costs Space Heating Un1t Un1t Unit Demand 011 Value of Sc:hedule Value of Value of Calendar Met by 011 Unit 011 Gross of Annual Gross Net Net Year H~ro JJ Equivalent JJ Cost l! Cost~ Benefit 2 Inves'tlllellt ~ Cost 1! Cost~ Benefit 1! Benefit!/ (MWh) (Gallons) ($/Gallon} ...ill.. {4/kWh) ( Sl ...ill.. (!/kWh) _(S_J_ (t/k:Wh) 19A2 0 0 1.59 0 0.00 0 0 o.oo 0 1].00 1983 0 0 1.74 0 0.00 0 0 o.no 0 n.oo 1994 () 0 1.90 0 o.oo 514Si! 0 o.oo (I () .'10 19PS 889 31413 2.08 654e5 7.37 0 6044 .68 59441 n,t;g 198~ 866 30601 2.28 69851 8.07 0 6044 .70 63807 7.37 1CJ87 843 29788 2.50 74455 8.83 n 6044 .n 68411 8.12 1988 820 289~~ 2.74 79304 9.67 0 6044 .74 732110 lLOJ 19M 797 28163 3.00 84402 10.59 0 ~044 .76 7R~511 11.83 1990 774 27351} 3.28 89753 11.60 0 6044 .78 83710 10.112 1991 765 27032 3.59 97137 12.70 0 6044 .79 91093 11.91 1992 755 26678 3.93 104975 13.90 0 6044 .80 98931 13.10 1993 746 26360 4.31 113~77 15.22 0 6044 .81 1117533 14.41 1994 736 26007 4.7i! 122700 16.67 0 6044 .82 116656 15.85 1995 727 25689 5.17 132713 18.25 0 6044 .83 126670 17.42 1996 717 25336 5.56 143322 19.99 0 6044 .84 137278 19.15 1997 708 25018 6.19 154968 21.89 0 6044 .85 141!924 21.03 1998 698 24664 6.78 167293 23.97 0 6044 .87 161249 23.10 1999 689 24346 7.43 180A24 26.24 0 6044 .SP 17478('1 2~.37' 2000 679 23993 8.13 195128 28.74 0 6044 .8!1 18CJ084 27.!15 2001 670 23675 8.91 210833 31.47 0 6!144 .<10 2047<111 311.57 2002 670 23675 8.91 210833 31.47 0 6044 .90 204790 311.57 2003 !i70 23675 8.91 2101133 31.47 0 6044 .90 ?04700 311.57 2004 670 23675 8.91 210833 31.47 162527 6044 .90 204790 30.57 2005 670 23675 8.91 210833 31.47 0 1<~n!ln 2.85 191743 2~.1i2 2006 670 23675 8.91 210833 31.47 0 111090 2.85 19174~ 2f!.li( 2007 670 23675 8.91 210833 31.47 0 10090 VIII 1Cil743 2~'~ .62 2008 670 23675 8.91 210A33 31.47 0 19090 2.85 191743 28.62 2(109 670 23675 8.91 210833 31,47 0 10(190 2.R5 1<11743 28.S2 2011) 670 23675 8.91 210833 31.47 0 19090 2.85 191743 Z!'\.~2 21]11 670 23675 !L91 2101'133 31.47 0 1!1MO 2.1!5 191743 2~ .62 2(112 670 23675 8.91 210833 31.47 0 1!1090 2.!l5' 1!11743 ZA.ii2 2013 670 23675 8.91 210A33 31.47 0 19090 2.85 191743 28 .~? 2014 670 23675 8.91 210833 31.47 0 19090 2.85 191743 28.6? 2015 ~70 23675 8.91 210!133 31.47 0 1q09n '-.85 10174~ 2fl.~2 2016 670 23675 8.!ll 210833 31.47 0 190!10 2.1'!5 1!?1743 28.62 2017 670 23675 8.91 210833 31.47 0 19090 2.9~ 1'H74:l ~p .52 2018 670 23675 8.!.11 210833 31.47 0 19090 2.85 191743 28.62 2019 670 23675 8.91 210833 31.47 0 19!'1<10 2.!"5 191743 2~.~2 2020 670 23675 8.91 210A33 31.47 0 1<1090 2.1!5 191743 ?P .F-? 2021 670 23675 A.91 210833 31.47 0 19090 2.85 191743 ?!U2 2022 670 23675 8.91 210833 31.47 0 19090 2.1l!'i 191743 28 .fi2 2023 670 23675 8.91 2lf.l833 31.47 0 19090 2.85 191743 28.62 2024 670 23675 8.91 210833 31.47 11)2527 190110 2.RS 191743 2Q.62 2025 670 231)75 8.91 210833 31.47 0 19091) 2.85 191743 28.1i2 2n2s 670 23675 8.91 210833 31.47 0 190!10 2.85 191743 21:.~2 2027 670 23575 8.91 210833 31.47 0 1<1090 2.1!!'i 191743 2? .~2 20211 670 23675 8.91 210833 31.47 0 19090 2.1'!5 191743 28.1i2 2029 670 23675 8.91 210833 31.47 0 19090 2.85 19174~ 2!1.62 2030 670 23675 8.91 210833 31.47 0 10090 2.1!5 1~1743 ~8.52 2031 670 23575 il.91 2101!33 31.47 0 1911!10 2.85 19174~ 28 .~2 2032 670 23675 8.91 210033 31.47 0 19090 2.A5 1<11743 2R.Ii~ 2033 670 231i75 8.91 210833 31.47 0 190<1('1 2.8~ 10}741 2!1.1i2 2034 670 23675 8.91 210833 31.47 0 19090 2.ll5 ICH742 2A.6? 'l-1. : ilon. 'anuary 1982 escalated ~ 9.5S annually. ·~nt multiplied by unit cost. ··rent soace heatin9 that could be replaced by hydro. -January 1982 escalated ~ 7'1: annua11y. Reol ace all capital components every 20 years. Seetinq KinQ Cove Feasibi1ity Report, investments amortized 20 years at 101. 'ce heatin<;~ met by hydro. between benefits and costs. TABLE III-l9(B) KING COVE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT POTENTTAL POWER COST REDUCTION FROM SPACE HEATING (REAL FUEL ESCALATION INCLUDED) Poooer Power Power Power Cost Cost Cost Cost Net Reduction Reduction Reduct ion lleduction Annual @100" @75~ @5~ lll';)5'1: Hydro Avoided Ener-gy Avoided Avoided Avoided Avoided Generation Calendar cost l! Oellland 1! COst JJ Cost 11 COst 1! Cost 1! Year Year tSl (MIIhl (!IKWhl (i/KWn} (!/KWhl (if KWh) -3 1982 0 634 0.00 0.00 0.00 n.oo -2 1983 0 666 0.00 o.on 0.00 Q,(IQ -1 1984 0 697 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 1985 59441 1410 4.22 3.16 2.11 1.05 2 1986 631!07 1438 4.44 3.33 2 .2:? 1.11 3 1987 68411 1466 4.67 3.50 2.33 1.17 4 198A 78260 1494 4.90 3.68 2.45 L23 5 19!!9 78359 1522 5.15 3.86 2.57 1. ~9 6 1990 83710 1550 5.40 4.05 2 .7() 1.1~ 7 1991 91093 1562 5.83 4.37 V12 L41i 3 1992 98931 1575 6.28 4.71 3.14 1.57 3 1993 107533 1586 6.78 5.09 3.39 l. 70 10 1994 116656 1598 7.30 5.48 1.65 l.R3 11 1995 126670 1611 7.86 5.90 3.93 1. 07 12 1996 137278 1623 • 8.46 6.34 4.23 ~ .11 13 1997 148924 1635 9.11 6.83 4.55 2.26 14 1998 161249 1647 9.79 7.34 4.90 2.45 15 1999 174780 1659 10.54 7.90 5.27 2.fi() 16 2000 189084 1671 11.32 8.49 ~-66 2 .8'l 17 2001 204790 1688 12.13 9.10 6.07 3.!13 18 2002 204790 l6A8 12.13 9.10 6.07 3.03 19 2003 204790 1688 12.13 9.10 6.07 3.03 20 2004 204790 1688 12.13 9.10 6.07 '.03 21 2005 191743 1688 11.36 8.52 5.6-'l 2.84 22 2006 191743 1!588 11.36 8.52 5.68 ~.84 23 2007 191743 1688 11.36 8.52 ~.na 2.~4 24 2008 191743 1688 11.36 A.52 5.68 2 .!l4 25 2009 191743 1688 11.36 8.52 5 .1>8 2.114 26 2010 191743 1688 11.36 8.52 ~.68 2.84 27 2011 191743 1688 11.36 8.52 5.68 2..~4 28 2012 191743 1688 11.36 8.5'2 5.68 ? .~4 29 2013 191743 1688 11.36 8.52 s.na 2.84 30 2014 191743 1588 11.36 8.52 5.68 ~.f!4 31 2015 191743 1588 11.36 8.52 5.68 2.1~4 32 2016 191743 1688 11.36 !!.52 5.~8 ~-~4 33 2017 191743 1688 11.36 8.52 5.68 2 .. ~4 34 2018 191743 1688 11.36 8.52 5.6R 2 .'l<l 35 2019 191743 1688 11.36 a .s2 5.68 2.!<4 36 2020 191743 1688 11.36 '!.52 S.6fl 2 .!!4 37 2021 191743 1688 11.36 8.52 5.68 2.~4 38 2022 191743 1588 11.36 '!.52 5.68 2.84 39 2023 191743 1688 11.36 A.52 5.68 2.84 40 2024 191743 1688 11.36 8.52 5.68 ? .84 41 2025 191743 1688 11.36 8.52 5.68 Z.A4 42 2026 191743 1688 11.36 8.52 5.68 2.34 43 2027 191743 1688 11.36 8.52 5.68 2.1'!4 44 2028 191743 1688 11.36 8.52 5.68 2.~4 45 2029 191743 1688 11.36 8.52 5.68 ?.R4 46 2030 191743 1688 11.36 8.52 5.68 2.84 47 2031 191743 1688 11.36 8.52 5.68 2.84 48 2032 191743 1688 11.36 8.52 5.68 2.114 49 2033 191743 1688 11.36 8.52 5.68 2.94 50 2034 191743 1688 11.36 R.52 5.68 2.84 11 Avoided cost from Table III-19(A) 11 Vf11age and Cannery electrical demand 1! Savings fr0111 space heating applied to V111 age and Cannery electrical demand. SF:lEB:AOl-1-FAf TABLE III-20(A) KING COVE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT POTENTIAL BENEFIT FROM SPACE HEATING (REAL FUEL ESCALATION NOT INCLUDED} Benefits Costs Space Heating Unit Unit Unit Dell!and Oil Value of Schedule Value of Value of 'on Calendar Met by Oil Unit Oil Gross of Annual Gross Net Net Year Hydro J! Equivalent J! COst Jf COst~ Benefit J! lnvestlllent .§! Cost JJ Costs Y Benefit !11 Benefit ! J!!!!L (Gallons} (S/Gallon) .J!L (~/kWh} (S) .J!L ill!!!!!l ___ill_ (4/kWhl 1982 0 0 1.55 0 o.oo 0 0 o.oo 0 0.00 1983 0 0 1.66 0 o.oo 0 0 0.00 0 o.oo 1984 0 0 1.78 0 0.00 51452 0 o.oo 0 o.oo 1985 889 31413 1.90 59706 6.72 0 6044 .68 53663 6,04 1986 866 30601 2.03 62233 7.19 0 6044 .70 56180 6.49 1987 843 29788 2.18 64B20 7.69 0 6044 .72 ~P.717 6.97 1988 £120 28975 2.33 67466 8.23 0 6044 .74 61422 7.49 1989 797 • .:163 2.49 701~3 8.80 0 6044 .76 64120. A.C'S 1990 774 27350 2.67 72!108 9.42 0 6044 .7!! 6ft865 8.64 1991 765 27032 2.85 77105 10.08 0 6044 .79 71061 9.20 1992 755 26678 3.05 81424 10.78 0 6044 .80 753BO 9.<H< 1993 746 2ft360 3.27 8601!5 11.54 0 6044 .Ell 8(1041 1('1.73 1994 736 26007 3.49 90876 12.35 0 6044 .fl2 84!13? 11. ~3 1995 727 25689 3.74 96048 13.21 0 6044 .83 90005 12.3P. 1996 717 25336 4.00 1013S8 14.14 0 6044 .!14 9!'814 13.?.0 1997 708 25018 4.28 107~2 15.13 0 6044 .85 1('1104P. 14.27 1tl98 698 24664 4.58 112970 16.18 0 6044 .87 10ftq:?6 15 •. 1! 1999 689 24341i 4.90 119319 17.32 0 f\044 .P.P. ll3'7''i 1~.44 2000 679 23tl93 5.24 125818 18.53 0 6044 .A9 110775 17.64 2001 670 23675 5.61 1321'141 19.83 0 6()a4 .90 126707 )~.<1? 2002 670 23675 5.61 132841 19.83 0 6044 .~0 1267!17 18.<:12 2003 670 23675 5.61 132841 19.83 0 6044 .90 l2!i7C17 1Q.,CI2 2004 670 23675 5.61 132841 19.83 162527 6044 .!10 121'797 1B.CI2 2005 670 23675 5.61 132!!41 19.83 0 111090 2 .PS 113751 1~.<:1~ 2006 670 23675 5.61 132841 19.113 0 19090 2.1'1~ 113751 16.9!1 2007 670 23675 5.61 132841 19.83 0 190011 2.!15 1137<;1 16.91'1 2008 670 23675 5.61 132!!41 19.B3 0 19090 2.85 113751 16.98 2009 670 23675 5.61 1321!41 19.83 0 19090 2.85 1137~1 l6.<l9 2010 670 23675 5.61 132841 19.83 0 19090 2.A!'i 113751 jf),OP 2011 670 23675 5.61 132841 19.83 0 19('190 2.85 1D751 16.9!' 2012 670 23675 5.61 132841 19.83 0 19090 2.115 113751 16.<:1~ 2013 670 23675 5.61 132f!41 19.83 0 190<10 2.A~ 1137~1 16.0 ~ 2014 670 23675 5.61 132841 19.83 0 19090 2.!~5 113751 1'\.<!R 2015 670 23675 5.61 132841 19.83 0 19090 2.85 1137!;1 1fi.<ll> 2016 670 23675 5.61 132!141 19.83 0 19090 2.R5 113751 16.0l> 2017 670 23675 5.61 132841 19.83 0 190!11'1 2.!15 113751 16.91> 2018 670 23675 5.61 132841 19.83 0 19090 2.1'l5 113751 16.00 2019 670 23675 5.61 132f!41 19.83 0 19090 2.85 113751 16 .9<1 2020 670 23675 5.61 132841 19.83 0 190°1'1 2.R5 113751 lf'.OP 2021 670 23675 5.61 132841 19.83 0 19090 2.1'!5 113751 1F.OI'! 2022 670 23675 5.61 132841 19.83 0 19090 2.RS 1137<;1 l!\.0~ 2023 670 23675 5.61 132!141 14!.93 0 1909(1 2 .RS 113751 11\,01'1 2024 670 23675 5.51 132841 19.83 162527 19090 Ul~ 113751 1F.<t('; 2025 670 23675 5.61 1321!41 19.fl3 0 19090 2.1~5 1D751 1~.9P 2026 670 23675 5.61 132!341 19.83 0 1Q09(1 2.85 113751 1(3.0 1> 2077 67('1 231575 5.61 132841 19.83 0 1CIIlCII'I 2.!!5 1137~1 11\.<ltl 2028 670 23'375 5.61 132841 19.83 0 1C!090 2.R5 1137~1 1f;.9~ 2029 670 23675 5.61 132P.41 19.R3 () 1<1(190 2.A5 1137"1 1~.011 2030 670 23675 5.61 132841 19.83 0 190911 2.8!' 1) ~751 16.98 2031 670 23675 5.61 132841 19.83 0 191190 2.85 113751 11'i,OP 2032 670 23675 5.61 132841 19.83 0 19090 2.85 113751 16.9R 2033 670 23675 5.61 132841 19.83 0 190<10 2.R5 113751 16.9e 2034 670 23675 5.61 132841 19.83 0 19090 2.85 1137~1 1&.98 ,,le III-1. 'lolh/gallon. for January 1982 escalated~ 9.5% annually. 1uivalent multiplied by unit cost. 1f current space heatina that could be replaced by h~ro. ·n for January 1982 escalated~ 7% annually. see Kinq Cove Feasibility Report. Aopendix G • . le of investments amortized 20 years at 7%. ,f space heatinQ met by ~~~ro. •ence between benefits and costs. ::1-FAg TABLE lll-20(8) KING COVE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT POTENTIAL POWER COST REDUCTION FROM SPACE HEATING Net Annual Hydro Avoided Generation Calendar Cost 1! Year Year !Sl -3 1982 0 -2 1983 0 -1 1984 0 1 1985 53663 2 1986 56189 3 1987 58777 4 1988 61422 5 1989 64120 6 1990 66865 7 1991 71061 8 1992 75880 9 1993 80041 10 1994 84832 11 1995 90005 12 1996 95314 13 1997 101048 14 1998 106926 15 1999 113275 16 2000 119775 17 2001 126797 18 2002 126797 19 2003 126797 20 2004 126797 21 2005 113751 22 2006 113751 23 2007 113751 24 2008 113751 25 2009 113751 26 2010 113751 27 2011 113751 28 2012 113751 29 2013 113751 30 2014 113751 31 2015 113751 32 2016 113751 33 2017 113751 34 2018 113751 35 2019 113751 36 2020 113751 37 2021 113751 38 2022 113751 39 2023 113751 40 2024 113751 41 2025 113751 42 2026 113751 43 2027 113751 44 2028 113751 45 2029 113751 46 2030 113751 47 2031 113751 48 2032 113751 49 2033 113751 so 2034 113751 Avoided cost from Table III-20(A) Village and Cannery electrical demand (REAL FUEL ESCALATION NOT INCLUDED) Power Power Cost Cost Reduction Reduct ion l!l100'J: (!1751 Energy Avoided Avoided Demand 1! Cost l! Cost 1! (MWhl (!/KWh) !!!KWh} 634 0.00 0.00 666 o.oo ().00 697 0.00 0.00 1410 3.81 2.85 1438 3.91 2.93 ~ ...... :-5 4.01 3.01 1494 4.11 3.08 1522 4.21 3.16 1550 4.31 3.24 1562 4.55 3.41 1575 4.79 3.59 1586 5.05 3.79 1598 5.31 3.98 1611 5.5'1 4.19 1623 5.87 4.40 1635 6.18 4.64 1647 6.49 4.87 1659 6.83 5.12 1671 7.17 5.313 1688 7.51 5.63 1688 7.51 5.61 1688 7.51 5.63 1688 7.51 5.63 1688 6.74 5.05 1688 6.74 5.05 1688 6.74 5.05 1688 6.74 5.05 1688 6.74 5.05 1688 6.74 5.05 1688 6.74 5.05 1688 6.74 5.05 1688 6.74 5.05 1688 6.74 5.05 1688 6.74 5.05 1688 6.74 5.05 1688 6.74 5.05 1688 6.74 5.05 1688 li.74 5.05 1688 6.74 5.05 1688 6.74 5.05 1688 6.74 5.05 1688 6.74 5.05 1688 6.74 5.05 1688 6.74 5.05 1688 6.74 5.05 1688 6.74 5.05 1688 6.74 5.05 1688 6.74 5.05 1688 6.74 5.05 168!! 6.74 5.05 1688 6.74 5.05 1688 6.74 5.05 1688 6.74 5.05 Savings from space heating applied to Village and Cannery electrical demand \ EB :A01-l-F Ah Power Power Cost Cost Reduction Reduction @5()'1; razs~ Avoided Avoided Cost J! Cost l! (!/KWh) (~/KWh) 0.00 n.oo 0.00 o.on o.oo 0.(10 1.90 .95 1.95 .9£ 2.(10 1.011 2.06 1.03 2.11 1.05 2.16 1.08 2.27 1.14 2.39 1.20 2.52 1.26 2.65 1.33 2.79 1.40 2.94 1.47 3.09 1.55 3.25 1.62 3.41 1.71 3.58 1.79 3.76 1.813 3.76 1.81' 3.76 1.88 3.76 1.3R 3.37 1.~~ 3.37 1.58 3.37 1.6A 3.37 1.68 3.37 1.68 3.37 1.68 3.37 1.68 3.37 LSil 3.37 1.68 3.37 1.6R 3.37 1."~ 3.37 1.68 3.37 1.68 3.37 1.68 3.37 1.68 3.37 1.6!l 3.37 1.68 3.37 1.1'~ 3.37 1.68 3.37 1.68 3.37 1.68 3.37 1.58 3.37 1.~8 3.37 1.68 3.37 1.68 3.37 1.68 3.37 1.68 3.37 1.6R 3.37 1.58 3.37 1.1;8 SF:IEB:A01:2-C APPENDIX A FEASIBILITY SUMMARY INTRODUCTORY NOTE: APPENDIX A KING COVE SUMMARY Presented in this section is the Summary from Volume 8--Feasibility Study for King Cove Hydroelectric Project. Inc 1 uded for general background information are Sdveral items from that report: Exhibit VI-1, Photographs of the Project Area; Figure VII-3, Projected Monthly Generation, Demand, and Usage; and selected project drawings which include Plate I, the General Plan, Plate III, the Penstock Plan, Profile and Details, and Plate VI, the Powerhouse Plans and Sections. References to fiqures, exhibits, and plates in the summary presented here refer to items in Volume B, the full feasibility report for the King Cove Hydroelectric Project. A-1 SF: I EB: ADl: 2 -A A. GENERAL KING COVE SUtfitARY Several prior studies of alternative means of supplying King Cove with electrical energy had recommended a hydroelectric project as the best source. As a direct result of these prior studies and recommendations, the Alaska Power Authority authorized a feasibility study to investigate in detail the hydropower potential in the vicinity of King Cove. This report summarizes the activities conducted for the feasibility study. These activities included projections of energy needs, formulation of a hydroelectric project plan and an alternative base case plan to meet the electrical energy needs of King Cove, detailed analyses of economic feasibility of each-option, and preparation of an environmental assessment of the effects of the project. The results of the study indicate that a 575 kilowatt (kW) hydro- electric project can be constructed at King Cove, that the project is considerably more economical than the base case alternative, and that the environmental effects of the project are minor. The estimated total construction cost of the proposed King Cove hydro- electric project is $3,743,900 in January 1982 dollars. The project could be implemented and on-line by January 1, 1985, if a decision to proceed with the project is made by December 1982. During an average water year, A-2 SF: IEB: ADl: 2-A the proposed project would be capable of supplying more than 90 percent of the electrical needs and some of the space heating needs in the project area. The equivalent savings in diesel fuel in the year 2001 would be about 120,000 gallons for direct electrical demand and 23,000 qallons for space heating. B. AREA DESCRIPTION Kinq Cove is 1\icated on the western end of the Alaskan Peninsula near the beginning of the Aleutian Island chain. With the exception of Cold Bay/Fort Randall 18 miles to the northwest, the nearest major towns are Dillingham, King Salmon, and Kodiak, 300 to 400 miles to the northeast. The selected hydropower site is located on Delta Creek about five miles north of town. The project area and the proposed site are shown on Plate I of Appendix A. C. POWER PLANNING Power planning for the King Cove Project was conducted usinq standards set forth by the Alaska Power Authority. Previously recommended potential hydroelectric sites were investiqated and the pro,iect area was surveyed to evaluate potential new sites. After detailed study, a project was selected and then compared with a base case plan. The base case plan consisted of a continuation of the present diesel generation system, enlarged as necessary to meet future growth. The base case also included the installation of waste heat recovery and wind generation. These were both found to be viable for installation. A-3 SF:IEB:A01:2-A Present energy demands for King Cove for direct electrical uses, cannery use, and space heating were estimated and future uses in these same categories were projected. The project ions were based on forecasts of increases in the number of customers and increased usage rates. Population growth and employment, legislation and other political influences, life style changes, and other factors can influence future energy demands but they were not explicitly treated. The period of economic evaluation used was 53 years, which starts in January 1982 and extends for the 50-year life of the hydroelectric project after the estimated on-1 i ne date of January 1985. The energy demands for King Cove were increased for 20 years starting in January 1982 and extend- ing throu~h December 2001. The demands were then held level over the remainder of the economic evaluation period. assumed to remain constant over the entire period. The cannery demand was For the proposed hydroelectric project, it was assumed that the first priority of use for the energy produced would be the direct electrical needs of King Cove, second priority would be for the cannery requirements, and remaining energy would be used for space heating to as great an extent as possible. D. DESCRIPTION OF RECOMMENDED HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT Hydroelectric power p 1 ants transforn1 the energy of falling water ; nto electrical energy. Generally, a hydroelectric power project consists of a A-4 SF:IEB:AD1:2-A dam to produce the head or to divert stream flows so that they can be passed through a turbine-generator system to produce electric power. In the case of the recommended King Cove Hydroelectric Project, a low weir will act as a dam to divert water from Delta Creek through an inlet structure and into a penstock (conveyance pipe). The penstock wi 11 be 36 inches in diameter and it will carry the water about 5300 feet to the powerhouse, where it will be passed through the turbine-qenerator system to produce electric energy. The project will incorporate a sediment basin near the divers ion weir to trap and remove sediment from the water before it enters the penstock; otherwise, coarse sediment might damage the turbine. The powerhouse will have the capacity to produce 575 kW of electrical power. A transmission 1 ine wi 11 be constructed to transmit the power generated at the plant to King Cove. Access to the powerhouse facilities will be provided by building a new road to link up with the existin~ road at the King Cove Airport. The transmission line will follow the alignment of the new access road and the existing road from the airport to King Cove. The general plan and features of the proposed project are presented on Plates I through VIII of Appendix A. Photoqraphs of the project area are presented in Exhibits VI-1 and VI-2 at the end of Section VI and in the Environmental Report, Appendix E. Under the recommended plan, energy generated by the hydroelectric plant will have to be supplemented by diesel generation. The entire existing di ese 1 capacity will be required as standby and backup power. The hydro- electric generation will. be adequate to meet the direct electrical needs of A-5 SF:IEB:AD1:2-A King Cove (not including the cannery) during most of the year; however, from December through March diesel will be necessary to supplement the hydrogeneration. Diesel will also be needed at times to meet the needs of the cannery located in Kinq Cove. In all, during an average water year the proposed hydroelectric project will be capable of supplying more than 90 percent of the electrical needs of King Cove and approximately one-third of the cannery needs. Aver age annua 1 energy production from the hydroe 1 ectr i c p 1 ant wil 1 be 2.28 million kilowatt-hours (kWh) and the average annual plant factor will be about 45 percent, which means that the plant is expected to generate about 45 percent of the energy that it could produce if the turbine- generator unit was operated continuously at full capacity. E. BASE CASE PLAN The base case plan fonnul ated to meet the projected energy demands of King Cove assumed that the existing diesel system would continue to be used as the sole source of electric power, excluding the cannery. Because of apparent economic benefits, it was assumed that the system would incorporate waste heat recovery that would be used for space heating. The installation of wind generation equipment was also considered and was found to be economically viable. The existing diesel plant's capacity was judged to be adequate to meet peak demands on the King Cove system throughout the period of study. A-6 SF : I EB: ADl : 2 -A The diesel system at King Cove now uses about 70,000 gallons of fuel oil per year; this rate was expected to increase over the next 20 years to more than 128,000 gallons per year. Waste heat recovery was expected to displace the use of 17,000 gallons of fuel oil per year by the year 2001. F. ECONOMIC ANALYSIS The economic analysis was based on the Alaska Power Authority criteria that compare the net present worth of the base case costs to the net present worth of the proposed hydroelectric project costs using specified real price escalation and discount rates. Net present worth is the present value of the costs that would be incurred over a comparable economic evaluation period of 53 years for both the base case and the hydroelectric project. The net present worth of the total cost of the base case plan is $9,287,000. This net present worth is $8,790,000 after adjustment for waste heat recovery; $8,170,800 after adjustment for wind energy; and $12,983,900 after adjustment for the cannery credit. In order to compare all alternatives to the hydroelectric project, all costs other than the cost of the hydroelectric project and its diesel supplement were applied as adjustments to the base case. The net present worth of the base case, after all adjustments, including the space heating credit associated with the hydro project, is $14,203,900. For the proposed hydroelectric project, the present worth of the costs is $7,053,100. A comparison of these net present costs with the base case A-7 SF:IEB:AD1:2-A net present costs indicates that the recommended hydroe 1 ectri c project is considerably more economical than the alternative base case. An additional measure of project feasibility is the benefit/cost (B/C) ratio. The 8/C ratio is the present worth of the project benefits divided by the net present worth of the project costs. For this project the calcu- 1 ated B/C ratio is 1.317 when the hydro project is compared to the base case only, 1.246 when the base case is adjusted for waste heat recovery, 1.158 when the wind energy credit is also considered, 1.841 when the cannery credit is added, and 2.011 when all adjustments have been made. The annual unit costs of energy production for the base case and recom- mended hydroelectric alternatives were calculated for each year of the economic analysis in order to determine the optimum timinq for development of the hydroelectric project. This analysis indicates that the hydro- electric project is viable for immediate development. G. ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL EFFECTS The environmental study results indicate that the effects of the proj- ect will be minor due to the limited scope of the project activities, the lack of major fish or wildlife resources in the inmediate area, and the availability of measures to mitigate potential effects from the construc- tion and operation of the facilities. Minor socioeconomic benefits will occur as a result of project construction and maintenance and cheaper electric rates made possible by the project. Additional environmental A-8 SF:IEB:AD1:2-A studies do not appear to be warranted unless regulatory agencies or local residents express additional concerns. H. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The studies conducted for this report indicate that the proposed 575 kW project is feasible and that the energy demands of King Cove are sufficient to utilize the hydroelectric plant's planned capacity. The proposed project is a more economic means of meeting the area's future electric needs than the base case diesel alternative. Environmental effects of the proposed project are minor. In view of these findings, it is recommended that actions be initiated to implement the project. A-9 SF:IEB:AD1:2-A w > 0 u ~ z ...... ~ POWERHOUSE TO KING COVE · .. " ' . . .. . .•• '! . I :.. .. ~ .• ~. ·~ . PANORAMA OF DELTA CREEK SITE, LOOKING WEST PENSTOCK ROUTE INDICATED : ...... DIVERSION WEIR SITE LOOKING DOWNSTREAM UPPER PORTION OF PENSTOCK ROUTE LOCATED AT TOE OF RIGHT BANK DIVERSION WEIR EXHIBIT VI-1 -.-~~-.,-. (: ~:~ :_ .. ~' ~ -:';:-~~2~: .· .. --~-:.-: ·:: PROJECT PL AI~ .-, ...;,· 0 I 2 I~ ,.(P ! I I I I I I i I I I I I I' I i I I l i I I \' i 1 •• zl. z BRISTOL BAY 3 "IL ES LOCATION MAP NTS VICINITY MAP NTS STATE OF ALASKA ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY ANCHORAGE, ALASKA KING COVE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT GENERAL PLAN ()()wL EHCNroi((RS ANCHORAGE , ALA SK A Tt.JOCJt [,_..,.EERING C()W(IIIA"fY SAN fRAHCISCO, CAUFO..:HtA I'\. AT£ I 475 350 325 ~ 300 .... <( 0 275 ... .... '" 250 ZZ5 .... ... ... zoo .._ z 175 0 ;::: ~ 150 ... ..J ... 125 I I '~ ---------·· -~p ~~-------r-c==-·---·----- EL." "!i6 DIVERSIO N FACILITIES , TYPE II SEE ACCESS ROAD AND PEN S TOCK CREEK CROSSING DETA ILS . . ' q PLAN , SCALE ' I"• Z50' "' z ".:;; ..... wO 0: 0: uu TYPE ID _-_-_--_:~-~-~~;===~ 'i 'j. -: PENSTOCK/ACCESSROAO TYPES :I .r--:.:i·:... j .•. ::=.J ·.-.;.: :.·.,'.::-;-::j. l ----'-'-'1-~~+---,~.,;,;.. ~1:--'-·: .. --'-..;..i. I ·. L . -~~~--~~ .. :' . --~~ : I ~~>J . ..:..' ~--· ! : ' .·.·· (:L:~~ ·i :: i . '<i ~-----.. -~----_:_ ---~-------~ _J ~~j~ --: _____ j ;-! ---'~'-'---- ~ ! : ; ~NST~ AND k ~c~RQAO ·i · 1 · :j ~ ----_.. u .. .._ z 0 __ a; 0: g 0 ----.:--'---··----- ~ < 0 ~ ---------------------· ' . .. : .. ; . ,. ACCESS ROAD AND . TRANSMISSION LINE TO KING COVE (5 MILES) VIA AIRPORT (1/Z MILE)' <50 I 42 5 i 4 00 3 7'~ 3 ~0 f I 3 00 250 2Z5 1 zoo ~ECTION A ,. !:IQIE: :: NO TERRAIN WAS ENCOUNTERED RECJ,.IIRING 0 0 THE TYPE I SECTION DURING THE FltLD RECONNAISSANCE. IT IS INCLUDED HERE llj CASE LATE IIORE DETAILED INVESTIGATIONS YIELD EVIDENCE 0 SUBSURf'ACE ROCK . 24 SCALE ' I"• 250' ........ ',~NATURAL GROUND (ROCK) , SELECT ROAOEIEO FILL ', ' TYPE I-SIDE HILL (ROCK) o.o.• Z-o· · (TYP) TYPE ill -SIDE HILL (SOIL) 3 • SAND BEOOING TYPE l'l:-FLOODPLAIN SELECT ROADBED FLL SELECT ROADBED FILL TYPICAL PENSTOCK I ACCESS ROAD SECTIONS SCALE: I"•"' STATE OF ALASKA ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY ANCHORAGE , ALASKA KING COVE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT PENSTOCK-PLAN, PROFILE, AND DETAILS [)()WL ENGtH([RS ANCHORAGE • ALASKA TUDOR ENGM:ERIHG COWPIUfY SAH FRANO SCO • CAUF<lRHIA PLA T£ ffi PROFILE-SECTION A SCALE '~ • 1'-0 16 GENERAL PLAN SCALE ' I" • zo' EOI.JIPWEIO" MOUNTING SIQO TAA..RACE RET,_..NG WALL ------- TAILRACE TURBINE SHUTOFF VALVE R~RAP------------- PROFILE-SECTION B SCALE • ~ • 1'-0 16 TURBINE ~ 1•. ~ l'i: ,, i ~; POWER H~SE PLAN SCALE ,1_ •1 '-o I> 16 ,_: ~~r !··$! lr : : ( i,~ i ,. PREFABRICATED .,. loiETAL BUILOING Y5'-o• a ~·-o·! · I. EOUIPioiENT ENTRANCE 00011 EQUIPMENT loiOUHTING SKIO B j I L--------TAILRACE STATE Of' ALASKA ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY ANCHORAGE,ALASKA KING COVE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT POWERHOUSE-PLANS AND SECTIONS OO.WL ENGINEERS ANCHOAACE • ALASKA T~ ENGM(fttHO COWNHY SAH fRANCISCO. CALifOftHLA. PLATE :ill -0 0 0 >-(.!) a:: w z w o~~--~~~~--~~--~~~-L--~~--~ J M A M J J ~ A S 0 N 0 MONTH DETAIL DATA I 1 I I OVERAt:.L! DATA 1 l MONTH 1 ( l t ~ - AM "i4C§i't I'S'1&#J¥1#f¥WhWWJ4 fi&@l$§@&9¥i¥i t!5§1JWrWXWf·&Y¥ ¥d&4 ; kLQlWHitmjiiQN\$ iti@khfQf, a;: t'»'"SAt:'Mft 'JkMWfk4'S&*ih£h MM8 *AU*i?-*!f'Lftil!S&%? .. t§®i.Vi#E5MW&@64&1 §i@ ;&W§>-.jdifuA Whit f '#i#tiSJ! ii'5tF riA '"'BiAiW 1*' '&MW%#'9!¢@#$$ 'TB'dii! li'MS: J3iJiri!45ti&tJ$i5#41ft'§$Ji@W&Af&¥Wi i¥& - OLD HARBOR HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT PROJECTED MONTHLY ENERGY GENERATION, DEMAND, AND USAGE FIGURE SF:IEB:AD1:2-C APPENDIX B ALASKA P<IIER AUTHORITY ANALYSIS PARAMETERS ... AijASKA POWER AUTHORITY MEMO TO: Engineering Staff FROM Robert Mohn ~ Director of Engineering SUBJECT: Economic analysis 7/l/82. Attached are the new economic analysis parameters adopted by the Board of Directors at the last Board Meeting. Please instruct contractors beginning new contracts or new phases of studies to use these in their analyses.and encourage contractors working on studies already well under way to adopt these if possible. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS Analysis Parameters for the 1983 Fiscal Year Economic Analysis Inflation Rate -0% Real Discount Rate -3.5% Real Oil Distillate Escalation Rate 2.5% -F;r~t 20 years 0% -Thereafter Cost of Power Analysis Inflation Rate -7.0~ Project Debt to Equity Ratio -1:0 Cost of Debt -12.0% 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 (Including Coal and Wood-fired Boilers) Under 10 MW Over 10 MW Hydroelectric Projects Economic Life Term of Financing Transmission Systems Transmission Lines w/ Wood Poles Transmission Lines w/ Steel Towers Submarine Cables Oil Filled 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. 1 Inflation Rate For the purpose of the economic analysis there is assumed to be no inflation. Recommendation: The inflation rate should therefore remain at 0%. Discount Rate As previously indicated in the Analysis Parameters of FY 82 the historic inflation free -~~t of money to the utility industry appears to be approximately 3.0%. Currently national and local economists and financial experts estimate the overall real discount rate to be in the range of 3% to 4% with a likelihood that the real cost of money for utilities is increasing slightly due to the increasing size and cost of electric generation projects currently being undertaken. It is also acknowledged that historically the real cost of money in Alaska contains an 11 Alaska factor" and is therefore somewhat higher than in the rest of the nation. However, the discount rate is also intended reflect the state opportunity cost of money and reflect long term trends. Recommendation: In regards to the above analysis and review, the Discount Rate should be set at 3.5%. Escalation Rate Based upon a composite research of Energy Consulting Companies, national and local economists, and Investment Brokerage Firms,'the forecast of distillate fuels (diesel and fuel oil) are expected to increase at an average real rate of 2.5% per annum for the period from 1982 to 2001. Beyond the year 2001 further increases in fuel are assumed to be zero. This assumption is based upon the belief that although additional increases are expected they are too speculative to quantify . . Recommendation: The escalation rate for diesel and fuel oil be set at 2.5% per annum for the first 20 years of the economic analysis. Thereafter, further increases in the rate are assumed to be zero. 2 Inflation Rate For the 1983 Fiscal Year, national and local economists along with Financial Institutions and En.ergy consulting Firms forecast the National inflation rate between 6 and 8 percent. Recommendation: The inflation rate should be set at 7% per year. Debt to Equity Ratio At the present time and under legislation currently in effect it is difficult to estimate the extent of debt financing for future Power Authority projects. It is also common utility practice to debt finance capital intensive projects. Recommendation: In spite of the Power Authority's legislation, the debt to equity ratio for power project financing should remain at 1:0. Cost of Debt Cost of Debt is largely determined by the interest rate identified by statute for loans from the Power Project Loan fund. That interest rate is equal to the average weekly yield of municipal revenue bonds for the previous 12 month period as determined from the Weekly Bond Buyers 30 year index of revenue bonds. This average is currently approximately 13%. It is anticipated that the average will decrease only slowly during the 1983 fiscal year. Recommendation: Because of the anticipated slow decrease in the weekly revenue bond index it is recommended that the cost of debt be set at 12~ to reflect current long term tax exempt rates with a decreasing participation of the Rural Electrification Administration in providing federal low interest financing. 3 Economic Life and Term of Loan Although in certain instances economic lives of up to 100 years may be warranted for hydroelectric projects, both the State Division of Budget and Management and F.E.R.C. recommend the use of 50 year economic lives for new hydroelectric projects. As a result the economic life of a new hydroelectric project is set at 50 years and the term of financing at 35 years. For all other alternative generation sources, the economic life and the term for which financing can be obtained is assumed to be the same even though they vary for each alternative. The following economic lives and loan terms should be used for various power project alternatives. 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 (Including Coal and Wood-fired Boilers) Under 10 MW Over 10 MW Hydroelectric Projects Economic Life Term of Financing Transmission Systems Transmission Lines w/ Wood Poles Transmission Lines w/ Steel Towers Submarine Cables Oil Filled 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 t1is economic life is by unit and not total plant capacity. 4 Inflation Rate Or. Scott Go1dsrnith i.S.E.R. 6.0% Dr. David Reaume Economic Consultant 7.0% Lehman Brcthers, Kohn LoeD 5.0 -6.0% Dr. Bradford Tuck University of Alaska 6.0% Donald MacFayden Sa!omon Brothers 6 -8% Peter W. Sugg URS/Cloverdale & Colpitts-6.0 -7.0: Gary Anderson, Stanford Research Institute Dr. Mike Sent Battelie Pacific NJ.(. Lab. ~r. Thomas Thur~er Data Resources, Inc. Victor .A.. Perry I II 3echte i Corp. William L. Randall 7he First Boston Corp. Wm. Michea1'McHugh Appliea Ec~nomics Associates Fredric J. Prager Smith, Barney, Harris 7.0% 5.0-7.0% 6:-5.% 5.0% 7.0-8.0: 7.0-8.0% Upnam & Company 5.0 -6.0: John Delrcca1i Whartan Econometric Fotcasting Asso. Micnqel G. Moroney Peat, MarHick & Mitcl'lell, Inc. E.xxor Corp. ~"'h ,.. ... evrcn ~..orp. 7.0: 6.5% 6.0% 7.0% REFER~~iCE Discount Ra-te Fuel Esca1at,on Rate 3.0% 3.0% 2.6~ 3.0 -3.5% 3.5: 2.E5% 4.0% 3.0 -4.0'!. 4.0t% 4.0: 4.0 -4.0t% 3.0~ 3.0: 2.7~ 3.0% 2.0: 3.0% I 3.5% 3.5% 3.0 - 4.0% 2.5~ 3.5% 3.0% 2.5:';; 3.0% -4.0: 2.0! 3.0% 2.G: SF:IEB:AD1:2-C APPENDIX C TUDOR LETIER SUMMARIZING FINANCIAL CRITERIA .. LOOIS "' IIC.CS 101M IT N IAOOOI'AUL ,AUL I I'OTTI I lUlMD lULL OltAl I CQioYUS DA¥10 C WtlU I MICHAtL I HAI'ItNClON fHlOOOII H PUICILI WAlTUI r AN1()N TI\1S l THOM~ II TUDOR ENGINEERING COMPANY CONSULTING ENGINUIS AND PLANNEIS 110 • 15th STilET DENVll, COLOIADO 10202 Tllf~[ !JDJJitJ·lSOJ TC:~R ENG!REERntG CD. ~ F~CISCO L\'.:'- RNJ-('fj P "'P <"·1 .. -(;', DCw--- MDH- RR- OJC - OCR- IAL"" A TUOOII1'1112·1Woll COIII'OIA Tf OF ftC£ Wit NIW II!ONTC;,()M(IV ST SoAN fRANCISCO. CAI.IfOitNIA 'M10S January 319 1983 File: 952.2 Mr. Heinz Noonan Economist ,. ~ GVQ--·· ;.ICS-(", WFA- O!C-Alaska Power Authority 334 ~. 5th Ave., 2nd Floor Anchorage9 ~~ 99501 Dear Fleinz: - It was good ~o talk to you again by phone on January 25, !983 9 and to clarify criteria to be used in the financial studies we are doino for the Authority on several small hydroelectric projects. Sorry we missed you when Dave Willer9 Gordon Little and I were reporting on these projects last No- vember. As mentioned, I did have a very good but brief meeting with Ray Benish during that visit to your office. Since ther~ have been some changes. in the financial criteria since we last discussed the matter, I thought it mig~t b@ well to list tne 9eneral approach and procedures that we plan to use in the first cut of the study: 1. The King Cove Hydroelectric Project financial study will be completed first and sent to you for review, comment, and determination as to its procedural application to other projects. 2. Three alternative funding approaches will be analyzed: a. ~.combination of State Revemre Bonds and a State Grant, with tr,e grant sized so that the average first year base case electric unit costs arte equal to the average first year .,ydro project plus suppl~ental deisel costs. This would ~ean that the aver- ace cost per kWh would be Poual under both the without hydro and with hydro conditions beginning in the first full year of oper- ations assumed to be 1985. Flnancial terms assume a uniform debt service over 35 years or 10 percent interest~ a reserve fund cif 1.1 times the debt service, interest on debt ser .ice equal to the bond rate, and interest during construction at the same rate. b. Sixty percent State equity financin99 as a arant, with 40 per- cent State revenue bond fundi no under the same terms as above. c. State loan at five percent interest over 35 years with no inter- est auring construction. Mr. Heinz Noonan, Economist Page 2 3. Realistic estimates of the King Cove base case diesel and supple- mental diesel production costs, including fixed and variable costs, will be estimated. It is noted that the previous economic studies appropriately assumed initial diesel capital costs were 11 Sunk." under both the base case and the with hydro analyses. 4. The cannery load will be included in the analysis assuming that King Cove and the Cannery would share in the costs of the hydro project in proportion to energy consumed. 5. The effect of conditions with and without inclusion of space heatin9 as a demand on hydro generation will be tested. 6. Waste heat recovery will not be analyzed inasmuch as its inclusion would have to be justified and financed separately. 7. The recommended general inflation rate of 7 percent for 20 years, 1982-2001, with an additional real fuel escalation for oil of 2.5 percent v.'ill be used. Economic life and terms of financino will also follow the Analysis Parameters for 1983 fiscal year dated l/1/82. ~. Computerized cash flow studies ~ill show average annual energy cost for each year of the study period, which encompasses the 35 year financing term and the 50 year economic life. Unit energy costs for the base case, hydropower project, and supplemental diesel will be plotted for each year. (You may wish to look at the rouoh qraph I left with Ray Benish). We would appreciate it if you would confirm this criteria as soon as possible. Looking forward to working with you a9ain. EB:952-l/4 Sincerely, TUCOR ENGINEERING COMPANY u Edl!'lund Barbour Chief Economist cc: Gordon Little, Robert Toothman San Francisco office