HomeMy WebLinkAboutElectrical Generation Alternatives for Port Lions, Alaska Findings and Rec 1982I
KOD-P
002
LIBRARY COPY
..
, '••. . .
ELECTRICAL GENERATION ALTERNATIVES
FOR
PORT LIONS, ALASKA
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
PROPERTY OF:
Alaska Power Authority
334 W. 5th Ave.
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
January 1982 II
-----------------
~
!
~
f
0 ...
0
IU
::I
Ill
p... !!l
I ON oo
:::.0::0 B
J:
!::
:::1!
Ill
J:
!2
J:
IU ... c
0
AI.~ASiiA t•O\VI~It AU1'liOitiTY
Bl\c::I<GROGl'JD
FINDINGS AND RECO:tv11v!FNDA'l'IONS
Electricc=tl Generating Alternatives
Port Lions, Alaska
,January 1982
The City of Port Lions is a Sl1'1Cill, predominately Alaskan native,
coastal village. It is situated on the shore of Settler Cove in
Kizhuyak Bay, at the north end of Kooiak Island in the Gulf Alaska.
Port Lions approximately 19 miles west northwesterly the Citv
KcxUak at a geodetic p:>sition longitude 152° 53' west and latitude
57° 52' north.
On Gcxx1 Friday, Harch 27, 1964, an earthquake with a rragnitudc of
8. 4 on t.he Richter sea 1e and the Tsunami wave it qenerated, partial
destroyed the native village of Afognak, on Afognak Island. The
residents ·their village site and relocated to a new area which
hecarre the City of Port Lions.
Port Lions is horne for approxinBtely 60 faroilies and had a
ropulation of 227 people in 1979.
Port Lions is a second class citv v'lith a Mavor-council form of
gover:nJTlent provic'les a n'lJili:)er of to the cortYTllmity,
water and sewer , protection, road rraintenance, public
safety, administrative services. The Kodiak Island Borough School
District provides an education system for grades K-12. The Borough
planning, parks, recreation services and education.
Port is accessible only by and sea travel. There are
approxinBtP.ly four miles of state highway which extends from the city
dock at Port Wakefield, on the peninsula east of the Ci , around the
southerly end Settler Cove and through the to State otmed,
city-operated airport.
A 2600 foot airstrip located northeast of Port Lions wi tJ1
Kodiak Western AJ Airlines, Inc. providing daily flights, weather
permitting, from Kodiak. The city dock has about 16,000 square feet of
usable surface area and the has 800 linear feP.t of moorage space.
The dock used by the State ferry M. V. Tustemena of the Alaska t-1arine
Hiqhway SystPm for. twice weeklv caJ l service. The dock also ---
rroorage for Chevron' s tanker, the Alaska Standard, when
delivering fuel.
The economy of Port Lions is largely dependent upon fishing and
fish processing. Of major iillfXlrtance to the local 12 vessel fleet
the harvesting of crab and salmon, and to a lesser degree, halibut. The
fleet provides emplovment to 50-60 J':')COple for varying periods of from 3
to 9 nine months a year. The Wakefield Fisheries processing plant which
went into operation in 1968, was the major source of employment until it
burned in Jl1arch, 1975. A. floating processor was operateci during 1976
and 1977 by the Port Lions Native Co:rp:>ration, an Alaska Native Claims
Settlement. Act (ANCSA) corp::>ration of the native residents of Port
Lions. The floater was sold and removed from the corrmmi ty thereby . .
eliminating local employrrent in the seafood processing industry. A
private firm purchased the and returned it to Port Lions for
several months but has again relocated the facility to another location.
Unemplo:vment a substantial problem in Port Lions and after the
removal of the floating processor, the unemployment rate was
approximately 50%.
F..xcludinq the fishing industrv, the re11laining e_mployment is
primarily in govermnent, education, and private support services for the
community. These various jobs employ approximately 38 people.
The cost of living in Port Lions is substantially higher than it is
in the City of Kcx1iak, which in turn is substantially higher than
Seat.tle. l\pril 1980, food basket costs compiled by KANA, shONed Port
Lions to be 49% higher than Kodiak. The cost of diesel fuel to KEA has
risen from 56¢ a gaUon in 1978 to .60 a gallon for the fall 1981
delivery in Port I,ions. This, compared to a current price of $1.06 a
gal1on in Kodiak, is 50% higher. This drastic increase in fuel prices
has causecl the cost of electricity to rise dr?J1latically. The present
cost of electricity in Port Lions for residential purposes is $.45 per
kwh of which $.33 per kwh paid by the State of Alaska under the Power
Cost Assistance Program.
PREVIOUS STODIF.S
A preliminary feasibility study titled, "Mennonite Creek Hydro-
electric Project, Kodiak, Alaska" was prepared by Robert W. Retherford
Associates in 1978 for KFA. At t.he of the study, the term
ME:>nnonite Creek was used interchangeably with the Port Lions River. A
second study, "Preliminary Feasibilit.y Desions and Cost Estim:ltes for a
Hydroelectric Project on the Port Lions River, Port Lions, Alaska" was
completed in January 1980 by Robert v~. Retherford Associates for the
0. S. Departlrent of Energy, Alaska PONer Administration, ~Tuneau, AlaskR.
A third study, "Port Lions Hydroelectric Project" was prepared by the
staff of the KEA and Rolland A. ,Tones, a consulting Engineer of Kodiak,
AJaska. Soils foundation work was accomplished by Howard Grey and
Associates of Anchorage, Alaska, an Environmental Heport on the project
was prepared by BEAK Consultants of Portland, Oregon and an
archaeolc:qical report on the project was prepared by Linda Yarborough.
2
Robert W. Retherford also prepared a feasibility studv
for a "Transmission Line Intertie Between Terror Lake Hydroelectric
Project and Citv of Port Lions" in April 1981 for KFA.
The above studies a1l found t.he Port Lions Hydroelectric Proiect to
provide the lcwest cost power to Port Lions, but the studies were based
on costs only through the vear 2000, optimistic streamflo,v estimates for
the Port Lions River, state grants for the hydroelectric facility versus
borrcwed funds for <-m electrical intertie, and an unrcalisticall y ]('JVV
cost estimate for the hydroelectric facility. Based on the ruYDve
factors, the conclusions reached required review.
DESCRIPI'ION OF PROu'ECI'
1\. Hydroelectric Proiect
The principal structures of the project consist of the Crescent
Lake Dam, a forebay dam, a steel penstock, a pcwer plant, and a tie-in
to the electrical distribution system.
CRESCENT LAKE DAM
en~ scent lnke is located approximatelv three miles west of the City
of Port Lions. The Crescent Lake facility \'Till consist of a main dam
and a dike. The dam will be construct.ed across the natural outlet of
t_he lake, anc the dike will constructed in a saddle adjacent to the
dam. The dam and dike will be earthfill with a key trench excavated
into the glacial till foundation. The upstream slope will be protected
by riprap, soil cP..rrent, or fabriform mattresses. The dcwnstream slope
will be J engthened by tJle disposal of waste material and protection \..Jill
be provided by the seedino of vegetat.i ve oover.
The outlet works will consist of a 24 inch drain pipe with on inlet
control gate to provide do.vnstrecun flew requirerrents.
spillway works will consist of a drop inlet spillway to hancUe
normal rainfall runoff. l\n emergPncy spillway will be constructed to
handle flood flow runoff.
The dam wilJ raise the water surface elevation from its present
level, of 298 feet to a J:Tk"'lximum level of 312 feet. The crest elevation
will be 320 feet. A dike will be constructed across a lCJ'\.V saddle
adjacent to the main dam and will be the same construction as
main dam and will be 340 feet long.
The existing water surface area is 150 acres and would be increased
t.o 280 acres with the dam resulting in a maximum storage capacity of
3
3000 . The drop inlet spillway will be at elevation 312 feet.
The errergency spillway will be at elevation 3Hi feet.
FOPEBJ\Y DAM
The Forcbay Darn would be located on the Port Lions River about 1000
feet. dONn stream from the confluence with Branchwater Creek and would be
of similar construction as the Crescent Lc.ke DArn. The clam \vould be 20
feet high, 320 feet long and would have a crest elevation of 92 feet.
The spi1lway will be a free overfall (straight drop) spillway with
dissipating basin. The spillway will he at elevation 86 feet. The
existing auxiliary' water intake faciHties for the City of Port Lions
would be relocate<'! to the ForPbay Dam Site. The \vater intake for these
facilities would be reconstn.1cted at an elevation approxirna.tely bvo feet
]ewer than the penstock elevation to pr0vent the drying up of the
municipal water syste.m hy the hydro project.
PENS'ICCK
Pcwer flews \vould be conducted from tJ1e Darn to the )X)Wer
plant. via a 30 inch dia:m2h'r sm:oth steel pipe. 'I'he penstock would be
1280 feet in length would be located on the north the river and
,,,ould be buried Htroughout length.
PC1i1ER PIJINT
The poweJ:-house \vould be an wCXJd frar:e or metal building
near the rrouth of the Port Lions River on the north shore. The
foundation would be plnced on bedrock ?1nd the tailrace excavated to the
lagcx:m. The pc:i<.ver house would contain one 200 K\\1 turbine generator \mit
estimated to operate at 900 RPM and 480 volts.
SWJTCINARD
The switchyard would be constructed adjacent to the power plant an:J
would contain a pad ITOunted 300 KVA r.hree phase transformer and
associat.ed equip:rent. This transformer would step up t.he 480 volt
generator voltage to t.he 7.2/12.5 KV voltage of the distribution system.
All cables would be underground. The PQ\Yer plant and swi tchyard would
.t.e enclosed in a chain lin}:: .
ELECTRICAL TIE
The power lines from the svlitchyard to the existing underground
distribution system would be 150 feet long and would be underground.
4
ThlFORJ'1ATION ON POFIT LIONS PRO .. JF:CT
Crescent Lake (maximum development under study)
Main Dam
Length
He:i.ght
Crest. Elev.
Spillway Elev.
Existing Lake Level Elev.
Existing Water Surface Area
t'i'a.ter Surface l\rea at Spillv1ay E1ev.
Dike
Length
Height
Storage Capacity
Forebay Dam
Length
Heiaht
Crest Elev.
Spillway Elev.
Nater Surface Area at SpilJway Elev.
Maximum Storage Capacity
Ci tv of Port Lions ~\Tater Intake Elev.
Penstock Water Intake Elev.
Penstock
Dian:eter
Length
Penstock will be buried
Pa-ver house
720 Feet
18 Feet
320 Feet_
312 Fee·t
298 (April 1980)
150 Acres
280 Acres
3000 Acre-Feet
340 Feet.
15 Feet
320 Feet
22 Feet
92 Feet
86 Feet
8 Acres
80 Acre-Feet
75 Feet
77 Feet
30 Inches
1280 Feet
Location-Near the rrouth of the Port Lions River on the north
shore.
Equiprrent-one 200 KIN turbine/generator unit.
B. Intertie
Based on the R. ~q. Retherford feasibility study, the proj)Osed
intertie would consist of a 14.4/24.9 kv 3 phase overhead wcx:x'i pole
transmission line from t..he Terror Lake Pc:werhouse located in Kizhuyak
valley to Port Lions located adjacent to Settlers Cove in Kizhuyak Bay,
5
a distance of approximately 14.5 miles. The line would be constructed
on single 45 foot wooden poles with a single wcx:xJen crossarm and pin
insulators. The recomrrended conductor would be 1/0 ACSR conductor and
\vouJd have less than a 3% voltage drop 2~d minimal line losses.
Transformer substations would be provided at each end of the line to
change voltage and provide overload protection for the line and
equiprrent.
Two routes are available and would be studied prior to final
design. The c.re approximately the sarrE. length and the main
considerations are enviroi"lTTX:ntal, subsurface conditions and capital
cost.
Previous studies by R.W. Retherford Associates considered use of
submarine cable and determined that it was not economical.
Consideration will be given during preliminary design to possible
use nf single phase to qround, single phase to sea water, and TIDnO]::olar
submarine cable to select the TIDst economically feasible svstem for
final design.
The Intertie could be constructed in 1982-1983 to coincicle wit.h the
completion of the Transmission Line from the Terror Lake Hydroelectric
Project powerhouse and there..by provide electrical power from KEA '"'-'-''-'-=>"'
generators at Kodiak to Port Lions, and take advantage of lo;.-1er fuel
costs in Kooiak and improved generating efficiencies unti 1 completion of
the Terror Lake project.
If the Terror Lake Hydroelectric Project not constructed, the
intertie lin2 l:::>etween the Terror Lake Hydroelectric PDilerhouse and Port
Lions could not provide power to Port Lions and therefore would not a
viable solution.
ALTERNATIVF..S
'T'he alternatives studied are as follCJI..vs:
a. Continued electrical generation from the e~isting diesel
plant located at Port Lions.
b. Continued electrical generation from the existing diesel
plant located at Port Lions follov;red by construction of a
Port Lions Hydroelectric Project (1983) and suppleroentecl
by Port Lions diesel generation as demand increases.
c. Continued electrical generation from the existing diesel
plant located at Port Lions follov;red by diesel generated
electrical power from Kooiak (1983) , Terror Ix>ke Hydro
(1985), and finally (1989) as demand increases, a
6
combination of power from Terror I~ke supplemented with
Kcxhak diesel.
d. Continued electrical generation from the existing diesel
plant located at Port Lions folla.ved by diesel p<::JNer from
KodicLk:. (1983), Terror Lake Hydro (1985.) , and finally
(1989) as deJ!land increases, a combinntion of Port Lions
Hydro, Terror wke and Kodiak diesel.
e. Continued electrical generation from existing diesel
plant located at Port Lions folla.ved by Port Lions
Hydroelectdc pcNJer supplemented by Kodiak Diesel (1983),
then Terror Lake Hydro (in 1985) and finally (1989) a
combination of Port Lions Hydro, Terror lake and Kodiak
The stanC!ard assumptions use(! in comparative analysis are as
folla.vs:
a. The inflation rate is zero percent.
b. Fuel is escalated at 2.6% per year for the first 20 years
of the evaluation period.
c. The interest rate for purposes of arrortization and
present wort11 calculations is 3 percent.
d. When the economic life of 8\.'JI.liprrent is less t11an the
evaluation period, the equipment is assumed to he
replaced by like equipment at the same cost.
e. The evaluation period for cost comparisons is 50 years
from 1981 with the econanic life of hyC!roelectric plants
of 50 years, plants 20 years, and transmission
lines 20 years.
f. Peak electrical demand in Port Lions is projected to gra.v
from 250 kw in 1981 to 579 kw in the vear 2001.
7
Other data which apply to one or rrore of the cases studied are as
follows:
a. Port Lions rronthly require.ITEnts were taken from
the Kodiak Electric Association Port Lions Hydroelectric
Project Report dated November 1980 and ext.rapolated to
forecast 1983 rronthly energy requireiT\E"_nts as follo.Ns:
January
February
March
April
122 1'1\>VH
125 MYlli
142 MtlH
153 MWH
May
June
July
August
132 MWH
100 Mi>JH
72 MWH
113 !YlVJH
September
October
November
December
113 ~1WH
91 MWH
138 MWH
113 MivH
b. The latest cost estimate for the Port Lions Hydroelectric
Project based on 1981 costs exclusive of construction
inten~st as follOtlS:
Direct Construction Cost
Unfon,seen Cost
Engineering, Design and
Constn 1ction i'k:1nage:ment
Allo.Nance for Inflation
to 1982
(10%)
{15%)
'KYrAJ}
{10%)
T\JJ'AL
Rouno Figure
$1,915,050
191,505
287,260
$2,393,815
239,382
$2,633,197
$2,600,000
c. The latest cost esti.rnate for the transmission line from
the Terror Lake Hydroelectric Project to Port Lions is as
follov1s: (Based on three phase overhead transmission
line.)
Direct Construction Cost
Unforeseen Costs
Engineering, Design, and
Construction f•'lanage.ment
Allowance for Inflation
to 1982
8
(10%)
(15%)
'KYrAL
(20%)
Round Figure
$1,074,535
107,453
177,300
$1,359,288
271,858
~1,630,000
d. The cost of the Terror Lake Hydroelectric
Project used in the analysis as fo11ows:
Direct Construction Cost(1419 Dam Height) $180,000,000
F.ngineering, Design and
Construction M.anagerrent
Allowcmce for Inflation to 1982
Owner Costs
'IOTAL
8,000,000
6,000,000
6,000,000
$200,000,000
e. The estimated annual O&M costs for the various alternate
facilities are as follows:
a. Port Lions Diesel Plant $ 91,200
b. Port Lions Transmission Line 14,900
c. Port Lions Hydroelectric Plant 23,400
d. Kodiak Diesel Plant 1,004,300
e. Terror Lake Hydroelectric Plant ($15/kw) 300,000
f. The 1981 diesel fuel cost for Kodiak and Port Lions are
$1.06 and $1.60 ~r gallon res-pectively.
g. The 1981 estim-'1te of diesel fuel usage at Kodiak and Port
Lions are 12,375,000 and 85,000 gallons respectively.
h. In each case where the generating capacity of the Terror
La.l(e Hydroelectric Project was reached, Kodiak dieseJ
power generation was included in proportion to the power
consumed, since Kodiak operating and fuel costs are lower
than Port Lions Diesel operating and fuel costs.
i. It was asslllled that the height of the Terror Lake dam
will be 1,419 feet, will include the Upper Uganik and
Hidden Basin drainage areas and will provide a net annual
power product.ion of 160, 900 ~1J-L The final height of t.he
Terror Lake dam still being studied and may be
different than the height used in this study, however, it
is not JJelieved that use of a different dam height would
change the outcorre of this study.
Based on the above considerations, each of the alternatives were
a11alyzed and resulted in the follovJing conclusions: See Exhibit 1 for
Economic Analysis Computations.
Alternative A
Assumes continued diesel generation at Port Lions. This is the
base case and assumes that all future demand for electricity will be rret
by increasing diesel generation in Port Lions. The existing '--<-'-'-'''--'-
9
plant located nea.r Port V-!akefield which makes utilization of waste
heat from the genera.tors impractical. The present worth cost of this
Alternative over the evaluation [.€riod (1981 -2030) is $16,624,600.
Alternative B
Assurres that diesels at Port Lions would continue to supply all the
J?CMler requir0..!11E;nts of the village until construction of a hydroelectric
facility in Port Lions is complete in December, 1982. Thereafter,
village electrical needs would be rret by a combination of Port Lions
hydro and Port_ Lions diesel generation.
Port Lions hydro is e_xpected to produce 1,581,000 kWh of JXJNer
annually which e.xceeds current annual needs, however, monthly stream
flo.vs do not equal the pa..ver demands of the village in all months. As
demand for electrical power increases in Port Lions, an increasing
am:xmt of the hydroelectric capacity will be used. The de_mand for
usable hydroelectric energy increases fran 1,252,000 'kwh in 1983 to
ultinBte capacity of 1,581,000 'kwh jn 1994. Recent. steam flaw gaging
the USGS and AEIOC indicate that previous gaging mav have been
optimistic and that the total annual previously forecast generation may
not be available.
The present worth cost of Alternative B over the 50 year period of
analysis is 0,615,200.
Alternative C
This alternative also assurres that the diesels at Port Lions will
continue to supply all of the electrical p<:Mer requirerrents of the city
through 1982. Thereafter, Port Lions would receive power through a
transmission line which would tie into the Kodiak-Terror IBke
transmission line. The JXlWer which Port Lions would receive through
this line until the completion of the Terror Lake hydro project in 1985
would be diesel generated power from Kodiak. Kodiak generated diesel
pcwer is less expensive than diesel generated pcwer from Port Lions,
because of fuel costs and ll'E:!chanical efficiencies and therefore, the
Port Lions diesels would not be used after 1982 except for standby
purposes. In the period from 1985 to 1994, the village will be supplied
entirely from electricity generated from Terror Lake. Following this,
wi tJ1 cont.inued growth in demand from both Kodiak and Port Lions, it will
again become to use an increasing amount of Kodiak supplied
diesel generated electricity to supplement Terror lake electricity
through the end of the planning period.
present worth cost of Alternative C over the year ]:eriod
analysis, is $7,380,000.
10
Alternative D
This alternative as~mrres the sarre scenario for supplying pJWer to
Port Lions through 1988 as in Alternative C. Unlike Alternative C,
beginnj ng in 1989, Port Lions will be supplied by the Port. Lions
hydroelectric project as well as by Kodiak diesel and Terror Lake
hydroelectric r:ower. The present worth cost of Alternative D for the 50
year period of analysis is $7,550,000. This alternative requires
construction of the Port Lions Hydroelectric Facility and the Intertie
and therefore has a substantially higher capital cost than Alternative
c.
Alternative E
This alternative also assumes the same scenario for supplying r:ower
to Port Lions as depicted in Alternative D except that the Port Lions
Hydroelectric facility is brought on line in 1983 with the Intertie. A.s
i1 result, the present worth cost of tllis alternative for the fifty year
f)eriod of analysis $7,712,000. This alternative also requires
construction of the Port Lions Hydroelectric facility and the Intertie
and therefore has a higher capital cost than Alternative C.
LOAD FDRECAST
The most recent electrical load forecast for Port Lions was
prepared by the Kodiak Elect-xic Association in Octol)er 1980. That study
indicates the following:
A. Trend Data
A curvilinear attempt and a logarithmic projection was
prepared on KWH sales less large carl'1ercial sales for the
historical period 1970 through 1979. The curvilinear method
yielded a negative "C" value. The logarit..hmic projection was
reviewed and was determined to be of no value in determining
the estimates. Both rronthly energy use and consumer grCMth in
the residential and small comrrercial classes have been static
in recent years. It anticipated that increased gra..vth and
energy usage will occur during the period of 1980-1990.
B. Corrments by Consumer Classification
1. Residential (Port Lions)
Consumer count has not sha,..,'D an increase since 1975; the
average for this period 66.6 consumers. Housing
and Urban Developuent (BUD) constructing 35 new tmits
of single family housing which will be occupied in April
1982. The Kodiak Area Native Association (KANA) has a
11
list of 35 families that have signed up for these units
including:
a. 20 families moving into new banes from existing
homes that they are sharing with other families.
b. 10 families rroving into new hones from houses
outside Port Lions, i.e. Ouzinkie and Kodiak.
c. 5 families rroving into new horres from sub-standard
e""'<isting horres .
The KEA ]:)CMer forecast study was developed with the
ass1.n11ption that one new private unit vJould be constructed
in each of 1980 and 1981, and then 30 new HUD units would
utilize rx:wer in 1982 with the retirerrent of the 5
sub-standard units. From 1982 until 1989 a aradual
increase of residential consu:rrers was estim:":tted from 94
to 105.
'l'he average rronthlv energy usage for the residential
consu:rrer of Port Lions shewed a steady from 306
kwh/roonth in 1975 to 243 kwh/rocmth in 1977. It is felt
tJ1at this decline was due to an economic decline in the
communitv as a result of the destn1ction of the Wakefield
Processing Plant due to a fire. In addition, the rising
cost of electricity resulted in increased energy
conservation by the consumers. Less efficient appliances
were with more efficient models. Since 1977,
the average usage has climbed gradually to 263 kwh/month
in 1979 and it is felt that this grc:wth will continue to
310 kwh/month in 1984 and 380 kwh/rronth in 1989. When
the Port Lions Hydroelectric Project or other renewable
energy alternative is in operation it is believed that
the energy rates will stabilize. This stabilization will
have the effect of increasing energy usage.
2. Small Corrrrercial (Port Lions)
Historically, the small ccrrrnercial count in Port Lions
has shewn an increase of 4 consumers from 1969 to 1977.
The historical data of the number of small corrrrercial
consumers in Port Lions during 1978 and 1979 was adjusted
during the first part of 1980 to 14 consumers using an
average of 1060 kv;h/rronth. A new 100 stall small boat
harbor is anticipated to be ready for occupancy in 1983.
Of the available stal , it was felt that 40 would be
used in 1984, the first year after construction, >vith 20
12
A.
B.
more stal used by 1980. Only two loads otber tban tbe
SBH loads are estimated to be added.
The average rrontbly energv usage for tbe small cc:m:nercial
cons1..'ll1Ers in the small boat harbor was calculated using
historical data from the Kodiak small boat harbor and an
adjustment factor. 90 kwh/ITOnth per consumer was used
for these new consumers. These figures, when averaged in
with the 1060 kwh/montb consumption of 1980 resulted in a
rronthly average of 360 kwh in 1984 and 305 kwh in 1989.
3. I arge Col1l1Ercial (Port Lions)
It is anticipated tbat a ne\V shore based plant replacing
the previous floating processor, will be constructed ir
1983 which would start using power in 1984. The
of usage and den~cnd should be equal to that of the
\'lakefield plant prior to the fire. No other loads in
bela.; 350 KVA class or in the above 350 KVA class are
expected.
4. Street Liahts (Port Lions)
Port Lions has one street light account. Additional
accounts are not e:-q:::ected. Additional lights "'ill be
installed due to the 35 new HOD horres that are to be
constructed.
C. _KI,<J Demands (Port Lions)
Because of the diversity of the types of loads and large
fluctuations in KW deJTlcmds over the last 5 years, load fact.ors
were not used in determining peak denx>nds. Instead, each
was looked at individually. Residential and small
comrrercial dE~nds were figures based on using historical aY'.d
projected e.-nergy usages and REA Bulletin 45-2, Demand Tables.
The large consumer demands were figured using historical
demands, i.e. the floating processor hist.orica.l demands and
tbe 1•7nkefield historical demands if a new processor is built.
TabJe of Present Worth and Ratios
Alternate
Port Lions
P.L. P.L. P.L. Hydro &
Diesel/Hydro/P.L. Diesel
13
Present Wortb
$16,624,600
10,615,200
B/C Ratio
1
1.6
c.
D.
E.
SUMMARY
P.L. Kodiak Diesel &
Diesel/Intertie/Terror I1ydro 7, 380,000
P. L. Kodiak Diesel
Diesel/Intertie/Tcrror Hydro
P.L. Hydro 7,550,000
P.L. P.L. Intertie
Diesel/Hydro/P. L. Hydro
Kodiak
Terror Hydro 7, 712,100
2.3
2.2
2.2
Each of the fotrr alternatives (B through E) app3ar sup3rior to
continued generation at Port Lions (Alternative A). Of these
four, Alternatives C, D ctnd E call for a transmission intertie \·Jit.h
Terror , and A} B, D and E require that a
hydroelectric faci1ity be const:L-ucted in Port Lions. Fran the
standpoint of costs, Alternatives C, D and E are priced within 5% of
each other and V·lould therefore all appear to be reasonable alternatives
at this . Since Alternatives D and E require construction of a Port
Lions Hyr...roelectric Project and the Port Lions Transmission Line, the
initia·J. capital would be greater than Alternative C. Comparing
Alternatives D and E, appears that it rrore cost effective to build
the transmission line prior to the Port Lions Hydroelectric Project.
For reasons, the Alaska Paver Authority believes that construction
of a tra.nsmission line from Port Lions to the Kodiak/Terror Lake
transmission line the preferable initial step for satisfying the
po.ver require.rrents of Port Lions. Construction of the Port Lions
Hydroelectric should be deferred tmtil the Terror Lake Project
fully developed.
RF~1ENDATION
It recommended that, upon assumption of management
responsibility for Terror Lake Pro:iect, the Pcwer Authority proceed
with design and preparation of detailed cost estimates for a
transmission line between Port Lions and the Terror Lake Project
paver house. Subsequent to desi~m and detailed cost estimates, the
project's economic viability should be reviewed prior to a decision to
acquire rights of way and initiate construction.
CO.'VJMEI'.1TS BY Il\l'I'ERESTED PARriES
A letter su:rnm:trizing the results of our alternative study was
.,....,.,...,..,,....~ in November 1981 and sent to h'FA, Kodiak Borough, City of Port
Lions, Afognak Native Corporation and Dr. Michael Emmick of Port Lions.
Each of the recipients endorsed the intertie except for KFA who
14
responded with a of non-objection and full cooperation. Copies
of the responses are attached as Exhibits 2,3,4 and 5.
15
PORT LIONS -D1ESEL
1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
·----·----
P0r lx'"ll F110l *
Ccds (c'/C..al) !60.0 164.2 168,4 172.8 177.3 181.9 186.6 191.5 196.5 201.6 20fi.fl 212.2 217.7 2?3.4 229.? 235.1 !41. 247.5 254.0 2fi0.6
(000)
Cals Con?tm~cl 85.0 110.0 142.0 185.0 195.0 203.0 212.0 222.0 230.0 232.3 234.6 237.0 239.3 241.7 244.1 246.6 249.1 251.5 754.1 256.6
F\Jel Cn::;t($000) 136.0 180.6 239.1 319.7 345.7 369.3 395.6 42S.1 4:,2.0 46R.3 48';.2 502.9 571.0 540.0 559.5 ~179.8 00l.1 67/.S 645.4 668.
Equj pn-cnt Co~;t 0 0 0 0 0 (l 0 0
0 & W* ($000) 91.2 91.2 91.2 91.2 91.2 91.2 91.2 9].
($00(1)
Tot<!] Cost
P. v;. ($000)
-----------·
227.2 271.8 330.3 410.9 436.9 460.5 486.8 Sl6.
227.2 263.Q 311.3 376.0 38R.2 397.2 407.
---------------
l'< ·~.m1ulat'H1 P/W cost of continu<ed clicsel qeno1abon 1981-2000-
l\<·u.mnllntorl P/\\' cost of continu0rl clic;;,~J qnnc"'iltion ~001-2031
'f\ffl'f' p /I·:
* Ba!"".'G 01: 2.6't F\lE"l F!Xi11ation
**T'.clc.r•cl up:m 1980 plus thv first 7 rronths 1981
---·--------------·------------------·-·------
0 0 () 0 () n 0 0 0 0 0 0
91.2 (]]. 91.2 91.2 91.7 9J. 91. 2 q] • 2 'll . 2 91 <)] • 2 'Jl .
543.2 559.5 576.4 594.1 61 .2 631.2 G50.7 ~71.0 ~n2.3 713.7 7JG.E 7S9.9
-------·------·
430. 'j 431.4 . ·1.8 <132. ·133. 4
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
] 990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
Est. FueJ Cost
¢ HiO.O
164.2
168.4
172.8
177.3
181.9
186.6
191.5
196.5
201.6
206.8
212.2
217.7
223.4
229.2
235.1
241.3
247.5
254.0
260.6
0 & M (Ed Kozak)
FORr LIONS -DIESEL
Est. Gallons
85,000
llO ,000
142,000
185,000
195,000
203,000
212,000
222,000
230,000
232,300
234,600
237,000
239,300
241,700
244,100
246,600
249,1
251,500
254,100
256,600
Total fuel and 0 & M for 1980 $170,592
Fuel oil for 1980 60,943
0 & M $109,649
Total fuel and 0 & !vl for first 7 rronths of 1981
Fuel oil for first 7 rronths of 1981
0 & M for first 7 rronths
Fuel Cost
136,000
180,620
239,128
319,680
345,735
369,257
395,592
425,130
451,950
468,317
485,153
502,914
520,956
539,958
559,477
579,757
601,078
622,463
645,414
668,700
=:: 87,964
:: 45,554
42,410
A-1
42,410 ~ 7 = 6058 X 12 = 72,703 + 109,649 = 182,352 ~ 2 = $91,200
SOLJPCES OF FT ,F.CTRJlJTY Y.DR f()jff LIONS
Port T.i.ons niesP1, Foll<NJPd hv Pnr 1• T,jons llvdr<>
vlhich is ThereCJftf"'r SuppJ em_,ntrrl by Port
T.ions Diesel f'\qnin
J 'Jfll 1987 1983 1'184 1985 198(1 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1997 1993 1994 1995 199(, 1997 lCJ'lR 1999 2000
Diesel
<'.cnerotion
Fuel ($000) 136 180.6 28.1 G3.2 78.2 92.6 109.9 129.8 146.8 154 lf11 . 7 170 178.1 lfl6.R 197.1 20B.J 219.6 231.2 243.8 256.7
---~--
0 [, 11 ($000) 91.2 -'11. ;:>
($000)
.1\nnuCJl Coc-.t '27.7. 2 271.8 119.5 154.4 169.4 183.8 201.1 7.21 .0 238.0 745.2 757.9 161. ;' 7G9.3 278.0 78R.3 299.5 :no.c 327.4 335.0 :)/1.7. '.!
---------------· ------
Port T .:1 em~~ Hyrlrr'
------
0 [, 11 ($000) 23.4 ---------~ 2J.1
Jl.nnual Cost
($000) 95.6 --~--~ 9'·. (,
Total Cost
(OOil) 227.7 271. fl /)fl .5 273.4 2flR.4 302.8 370.1 340 357 :1G4.) 171. C) 380.7 1~8. l 39'/ 407.) 41 R. 'i 479.8 441.4 1\')A <j(;f .lJ
-----------·-----------
fli C'C0U11t('(]
C< JO'lc (()()(\) 27.7.7 263.9 7:'-1 .8 ;H~O. 2 /'i6.7 761.7 26R.1 276.S 7Pl. R 279.1 27(..7 ;;74.1 277.4 770.4 ?G~'. --: ;'( ;; . -/ 7h I.~) h·7 ?fit). :)(,6-~
------------------~----------------------~----------------------~
To tell P.\-J. C0c't 1981-~()0(1 ~ s 'i,/H9,l0Cl
'J'c,t ell P.\·1. Co!" I-2001<-'031 ~ c,, 1:'6 'J 00
1UI'i\J, Pil-l _c:_J o; 615 ,2011
-------
B-1
SOUFCES OF ENERGY 'ID MEIIT
NRT LIONS NEFD FOR ELFrr. (K\Illi}
(000}
HYDro 1 2 EST FUEL COST TOTAL EST
DFMAND DIESEL, PER GAL ¢ FUEL COST
1981 850 0 850 160.0 $136,000
1982 1,100 0 1100 164.2 180,620
1983 1,420 1,252 168 168.4 $ 28,300
1984 1,850 1,484 366 172.8 63,200
1985 1,950 1,509 441 177.3 78,200
1986 2,030 1,521 509 181.9 92,600
1987 ?.,120 1,531 589 186.6 109,900
1988 2,220 1,542 678 191.5 129,800
1989 2,300 1,553 747 196.5 146,800
1990 2,323 1,559 764 201.6 154,000
1991 2,346 1,564 782 206.8 161,700
1992 2,370 1,569 801 212.2 170,000
1993 2 I 1,575 818 217.7 178,100
1994 2,417 1,581 836 223.4 186,800
1995 2,441 860 229.2 197,
1996 2,466 886 235.1 208/300
1997 2/491 910 241.3 219,600
1998 2,515 934 247.5 231,200
1999 2, 960 254.0 243,800
2000 2,566 1,58] 985 260.6 256,700
1 Est ar.nual usable K."hlf!
2 10 K1.rv1I :=:: 1
1/31
2/28
3/31
4/30
5/31
6/30
7/31
8/31
9/
10/31
11/30
12/31
1/31
2/28
3/31
4/30
5/31
6/30
7/31
8/31
9/30
10/31
ll/30
12/31
B-2
EST. I\1\"lti AVAilABILITY AND USAGE
BY M'JNTH FOR PORT LIONS
1983
Est F~erqy Hydroelectic
Rryire.rrents (Kv\rt) Potential
122,000
125,000
142,000
158,000
132,000
100,000
72,000
113,000
113,000
91,000
138,000
113,000
1,419,000
160,000
165,000
184,000
195,000
172,000
142,000
100,000
143,000
143,000
122,000
,000
149,000
1,852,000
128,000
45,000
68,000
145,000
152,000
145,000
151,000
151,000
145,000
,000
147,000
151,000
1,579,000
1984
128,000
45,000
68,000
145,000
152,000
145,000
151,000
151,000
145,000
151,000
147,000
151,000
1,579,000
1\WH Available
For Use in Port
Lions*
122,000
45,000
68,000
145,000
132,000
100,000
72,000
113,000
113,000
91,000
138,000
113,000
1,252,000
Rst. of actual KVVH avail
from Port Lions Hydro
use in Port Lions
128,000
45,000
68,000
145,000
152,000
142,000
100,000
143,000
143,000
122,000
147,000
149,000
1,484,000
Surplus
3,000
51,000
8,000
2,000
29,000
0
2,000
95,000
*Usable energy from project
B-3
EST KWH AVAilABlE & USAGE
BY ~"'NI'H F'OR PORT LIONS HYDRO
ENERGY KWH AVAIL. FOR ENERGY ENERGY ENERGY
REQMTS USE ON PORT REQMTS KWH RFX2Ml'S RYJH RB;J'1I'S KVJH
LIONS (K\<JH) AVAIL. (K\AJH) AVAIL. (KWH) AW\IL.
1985 1986 1987 1988 --------
1/31 168,000 128,000 175,000 128,000 182,000 128,000 190,000 128 ,00(
2/28 173,000 45,000 181,000 45,000 189,000 45,000 197,000 45 ,oor
193,000 68,000 202,000 68,000 210,000 68,000 219,000 68, oor
4/30 204,000 145,000 214,000 145,000 224,000 145,000 233,000 145,00(
5/31 181,000 152,000 189,000 152,000 197,000 152,000 206,000 152 ,OOl
6/30 149,000 145,000 156,000 145,000 164,000 145,000 171,000 145,00\
7/31 105,000 105,000 110,000 110,000 115,000 1 ,000 120,000 120,001
8/31 150,000 150,000 157,000 151,000 163,000 151,000 170,000 151 ,oor
9/30 150,000 145,000 157,000 1 ,000 163,000 145,000 170,000 145 ,00(
10/31 128,000 128,000 134,000 134,000 139,000 139,000 145,000 145,00!
11/30 ,000 147,000 194,000 147,000 203,000 147,000 211,000 JA7,0Qi
157,000 151,000 165,000 151,000 172,000 151,000 180,000 151,00
TCYI'AL A VAIL. _1 ,509,000 1,521,000 1,531,000 1,542,00
1989* 1990* 1991* 1992* 1993* 1994*
1/31
2/28
3/31
4
5/31
6/30
7/31 125 125 131 131 136 136 141 141 147 147 153
8/31
9/30
10/31 151 151 156 151 161 167 151 172 151 171 151
11/30
12/31
1,533,000 1,559,000 1,564,000 1,569,000 1,575,000 1,58 1
* Same as 1988 except as noted
Port Lions FroP1 Kcxli 0lr
Diesel, Terror !.l'lke Hwlro i'mcl Finally 7\ Comhinatinn of Transrnissinn Fran Kcx1ii1k Dies,•] and Tcn·or T,lk<" l!vclrn
J 98.1 1982 1984 1985 19Rf> 1987 l9P'l 1 Q<)] 1992 19<J4 J 996 1997 1998
Diesel c..,ner0-
Kcdiak/Port 1
4 l
42.9 52.3 15.9 l7 .5 lfUl 20.6 22.0 23.7 2'i.2 27.1 28.7 30.4 32.1
7 7 7 8 n o 7 6 (i 8 h 8
94 8
J 75 ~' 173 9 177 8 183 9 180
l\f:t<:r 1988 Port Lions will be surr,lir<::l in part bv Kn0iuk rli.Cl'PI i'lliCl in pilrt h\' 'I'PrTor 1,•\p llwlro Trt:a 1 P .\•i • 1-?nno = $ ,848,000
. , ( '·" ·c nl:t~aerp,:'J [Jilm')
.:lt_ $1S/D .. · ~l-~~r (SeC' Rct}•8rforr1 Terre:~-l..:1K(• Il\'t_1rn 1'_:Tlic··-·t-, f\·,}: 19H(l Tnb!0 i;-~:, b:J
ure assturr::d tn Llf' rret. fr0rn Lt=d:C? .~t the rC'i-c f\';JH rleF\c'-HYl fnr rl -C' sr1rr~~
f1acx•d ,1 tot ill rapi tell investm:rnt in 1985 o' /0(1, Pflll, 0(1(1 C · ,. r•.•r r 0!'0i1CT"' \ 4 'i(l
To!<11 P.l·c. n•o.t 2001-2(;3]
att:•·:'hc·1 fX1.1 To+:1\
S7,i73,100
4 7,773,100 .;_ 160,900,000 KWH 4.831¢/Kl'lll
Rr:prcscnf.<': 0&1'1 cost of that port:i.cJc of Kcxliak d:i es0 1 q(;nc:rat ion 1 tilb I c: !:r Pori u~,•o" pJ $ H, 900 p:•r
v:llich is the: estimated 0&1·1 cost of thr· tranRnisrion l iw· fn"'.' TPrrrn T<,h; t.0 Port Lion;c. ISc:P Rclllf>rfcn1 Re[Drt 'l'nb1r 8-4 Fuel F'.£!1n.l'" 85<J;
5 of Total F'uel + 0&1-1 costs.
Repr<'scnts thF annunl cost of thrc trnr"-::Tissinn line fran TPJTor J,'JJ:c to Port Lions.
c
2000
93 3
c 1
ENERGY REQUIREMENTS
KWH (000)
Port Lions Kodiak Total Terror Lake % of Total Dem-:>nr
Demand Demand Demand From Terror Lake
1985-1988 Varies Varies 160,000 160,900 100.00
1989 2,300 161,700 164,000 98.1
1990 ') 166,700 169,000 95.2 "·,
1991 2,346 170,700 173,000 93.0
1992 2,370 175,700 178,100 90.3
1993 2,393 179,700 182,100 88.4
1994 2, 417 184,700 187,100 86.0
1995 2,441 188,700 191,100 84.::!
1996 2,466 193,700 196,200 82.0
1997 2, l 197,700 200,200 80.4
] 998 2,515 202,000 204,500 78.7
1999 2,541 206,000 208,500 77.2
2000 2,566 211,000 213,600 160,900 75.3
% of Tota 1 De.Jnand Alrount of KI\TH Demand Fuel Cost For 1 From Kodiak/Port at Port Supplied Kcx1iak Diesel Fuel Cost For
Lions Transmission Ko:liak Diesel Kodial< esel
1985-1988 0 0 0 0
1989 1.9 ,700 130.2 4,064
1990 4.8 111,500 133.6 10,640
1991 7.0 164,220 137.0 13,915
1992 9.7 229,890 140.6 23,088
1993 11.6 277,590 144.2 28,592
1994 14.0 338,380 148.0 35,772
1995 15.8 385,680 151.9 41,847
1996 18.0 443,880 155.8 49,398
1997 19.6 488,240 159.8 55,729
1998 21.3 535,700 164.0 6217.53
1999 22.8 579,350 168.3 69,646
2000 24.7 633,800 172.6 78,138
1 14 KWH = 1 Gal
C-2
TERROR IAKE HYDRO COST
A'ITHIBTJTABLE TO PORT LIONS USAGE
% of Deficiency runt of ~'ii-I Demand
Port Lions~ Frcm Terror Lake at Port Lions Supplied Terror Hydro
Dern::md KvlH (000) Bv Terror Lake (000) Annual Cost
1985 1950 100 1950 4.831 $ 94,200
1986 2030 100 98,100
1987 2120 100 2 102,400
1988 2220 100 2220 107,200
1989 747 99.1 740 35,800
1990 764 96.1 734 ,500
1991 782 93.8 734 ,400
1992 801 91.2 731 35,300
1993 818 89.1 729 35,200
1994 836 86.7 725 35,000
1995 860 84.9 730 ,300
1996 885 82.6 731 35,300
1997 910 81.0 737 ,
1998 934 76.3 713 34,400
1999 960 74.5 715 34,600
2000 985 73.1 720 4.831 34,800
1 less Port Lions production after 1988
C-3
O&M & Af\lNtJAL ffiST FOR
TERroR LAKE HYDROELF_,CI'RIC PROJECT
KW Demand % of Total Demand 0&!'-1 $15 Year Terror Lake
Port Lions From Per KW O&M
1985 500 100 15/kw $ 7,500
1986 510 100 7,700
1987 515 100 7,700
1988 520 100 7,800
1989 530 98.1 8,000
1990 535 95.2 7,600
1991 541 93.0 7,500
1992 546 90.3 7,400
1993 552 88.4 7,
1994 557 86.0 7,200
1995 563 84.2 7,100
1996 568 82.0 7,000
1997 574 80.4 6,900
1998 580 78.7 6,800
1999 585 77.2 6,
2000 591 75.3 15/kw 6,700
Port Lions Demand % Of Total Demand .Arroun.t of KWH Dem:md
KWH (000) From Terror at Port Lions Supplied Estimated
Hydro Terror (QOO) ¢/K'i-JH Annual Cost
-
1985 1950 100 1950 4.831 $ 94,200
1986 2030 100 2030 98,100
1 2120 100 2120 10?,400
1988 2220 100 2220 107,200
1989 2300 98.1 2256 109,000
1990 2323 95.2 2211 106,800
1991 2346 93.0 21 105,400
1992 2370 90.3 103,400
1993 2393 88.4 2115 102,200
1994 2417 86.0 2079 100,400
1995 2441 84.2 2055 99,300
1996 2466 82.0 2022 97,700
1997 24 80.4 2003 96,800
1998 2515 78.7 1979 95,600
1999 2541 77.2 1962 ,800
2000 2566 75.3 1932 4.831 93,300
l\nnual
Terror Lake 1
Am:na l Cost
L'.i :·.'<.·m:nh:<:l
Cn;ct
l<lfl]
/2'1 2
Port Lions
llvc1ro and ri CJil J I y 7\
1987 198~ 1985
107 4 140 ;>
42.9 'i2.3
. 2 2t>3.h 233. 2h'3.4 177.0
-,Frill-15i~i,-~;!·~1(-;;~··T)::O.il hclf-TJill._--f~<:~~], 'V0rn-:r T ..;1kr,
Frcm Ya1i.nl: Pi <'Se 1 , 1'er ror Lake, Hyrlrn rcn'i~ U ""'·· lh•r1 •T•
1986 1987 19f<fl l9R9 1990 1 Ql)] 199~' 1 99] ]9'!A l99'i 99R 1999
7 <l q ? 11 7 ] 4 J l7l
15. 1 l 'i. G 16. 1 lli.fi 17.2 17.4 1 fl. t~ 19.1
107 ~ J 01 2 4 3'1 3
.3 173." J72.R 2F•. ::'11.0 ;>pr,,' 707 .. 0 l'!F.l l'Jt..O 19l.f1 1H7,r; 184.5 18~.0 180 .
'J'nLll P.W. Cost l'JRJ ··2000
Tot·ol P.l'i. Coc:t :'00]-2031
Tct·al P/\'1
s 4,020,000
:moo
7
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
D-1
FNERGY REX)UIREfvlENTS
KWH (000)
Port Lions Port Lions Net Port Lions
Demand Hydro Demr...nd
2,300 1,553 747
2,323 1,559 764
2,346 1,564 782
2,370 1,569 801
2,393 1,575 818
2,417 1,581 836
2,441 I 860
2,466 885
2, 49] 910
2,515 934
2,541 960
2,566 1, 58] 985
Terror Lake as on 'I; Net Port Lions
of Total Net Demand
99.1 747
96.1 764
93.8 782
91.2 801
89.1 818
86.7 836
84.9 860
82.6 885
81.0 910
76.3 934
74.5 960
73.1 985
I\cxhak
Demand
161,700
166,700
170,700
175,700
179,700
184,700
188,700
193,700
197,700
202,000
206,000
211,000
Combined
Demand
162,400
167,500
171,500
176,500
180,500
185,500
189,600
194,600
198,600
211,000
216,000
220,000
Terror I.aJ.:o
1419 ---
160,900
160,
Arnt Supplied Bv Arnt Supnlicd
Terror Lake Hydro Kodiak Diesel
740 7
734 30
734 48
731 70
729 89
725 111
730 130
731 154
737 173
713 221
715 245
no 265
Amt of KVJH Supplied
DIESFL FUEL AI\[) 0 & M COSTS
KODIAK DIESEL AND TERROR I.,Z\KE HYDRO
0-2
Bv Kodiak Diesel (000)
Fuel Cost For Kodiak
Diesel ¢/Gal
Costs for
Kooiak Diesel
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
1985
198G
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
1
7
30
48
70
89
111
130
154
173
221
245
265
KW Demand for2
Port Lions
500
510
515
520
330
335
341
346
352
357
363
368
374
380
385
391
130.2
133.6
137 .o
140.6
144.2
148.0
151.9
155.8
159.8
164.0
168.3
172.6
700
2,900
4,700
7,000
9,200
11,700
14,100
17,100
19,700
25,900
29,500
32,700
% of Total Demand 0 & M Terror lake Hydro
Frcm Terror Take Per Yr Per ~v 0 & M
0
0
0
0
99.1
96.1
93.8
91.2
89.1
86.7
84.9
82.6
81.0
76.3
74.5
73.1
15
15
7,500
7,700
7,700
7,800
~~ 1900
4,800
4,800
4,700
4,700
4,600
4,600
4,600
4,500
4,300
4,300
4,300
2 14 KVJH -1 Gal
This after subtracting the 200 I\li~ supplied by Port Lions Hydro in 1989
Dic:>o;cl Gf'neril-
tion Port Lions
Fuel
]981 1982
136.0 180.6
SO\l!X:l'_S OF' ELH::'1'RJCAL POtiER f'('F !DIU J.JO!:S
Poric Lions Dil"sc>], F'ollcwccl hy Pnrt Lions llyclro Which is Snpp!enY•nh-(1 ],• •. • YrY 1 iilk Dir~rJ, Tl1rn
Trrror T ,,kc Hydro ancl Fi ncllly n Corrbination of Trnnsmission Frnc Yn'1i.ilk Dir:s"J, Tcrror T <1kr
Hvclro Ancl Pnrt Linns llydrn
1983 1984 l98'i 1986 1987 19fl8 1989 1990 1991 1993 1994 19%
(l & ~l 91.2 91.2 -----------------------~---------------------------------
Annua J Cost
Port Lions H 'clro
0 & M
Annunl Cost
K~ink/Port 1
LlOTlS Trans.
Fuel
0 I• M
Annui11 Cost 1
TPJ:TOr] I <>kC'
~
23.4
95.6
_____________ 1_8~._7 ____ 4_1~.9 ________________ _
18.2 2/.3
97.6
----------------·-----------------------
!·:
l 'J9'7 1998 7000
-4--2J.4
0 & t-1 1 ________ 4:..:·~5c__ _ _:4c:•_:.7 __ 4. ·; 4.8 Sarre AS Altr-rnnt-i.vr n ----------------------------~ ------------------------·------------------------------
Annual Cost 1 _______________ 2_.1_._3 ___ 2_4 _. 6 ___ 28_._5 ___ 32_._8 ~------------------------------------------
Total Cost 227.2 271.8 253.5 280.8 242.4 245.9 249.8 254.2 ------~---_....,...
Discounircl Cnst 7n.2 263.9 238.9 7'i7.0 715.4 217.1 209.2 ?OG.7 /15.5 711.(' 706.S 202.3 J9fl.J 1'14.0 JOJ.(' lfl7.G lfi~.r, 183.0 1no.n 1":7.'>
1 S•>C" at.t2chrd sh0et ancl j\lternz1tive C
T"ca] P. \'I. .'o:cr 1981-?000
Toti'll P. \'1. Cost 7001-20::\J
$ 4,162,00(1
3,550,000
$ 7,712,000
E-1
SDURCES OF EI I'CI'RICITY
FOR PORT LIONS
DEMAND AND ENERGY REtlUIRENENTS
Port Lions Diesel C.,eneration Hydro Kodiak Diesel Terror Lake
DeJTBnd Port Lions Port Lions & Trcmsmission Hvdro
(KWH) (KHH) (KWH) (KvmJ (KWli)
1981 850,000 850,000
1982 1,100,000 1,100,000
1983 1,420,000 1,252,000 168,000
1984 1,850,000 1,484,000 366,000
1985 1,950,000 1,509,000 441,000
1986 2,030,000 1,521,000 509,000
1987 2,120,000 1,531,000 589,000
1988 2,27.0,000 1,542,000 678,000
1989 :?,300,000
1990 2,323,000
1991 2,346,000
1992 2,370,000 I SN1F. AS #C
1993 2,393,000
1994 2,417,000
1995 2,441,000
1996 2,466,000
1997 2,491,000
1998 2,515,000
1999 2,541,000
2000 2,566,000 1,542,000
Supplemental Needs For
Sources of KW Port Lions Diesel
FueJ Costs KW Peak Port Lions Kodiak Diesel
Kcx1iak ¢I Gal Demand Hydro Terror Lake
(KW) (KW) (l\W)
1981 106.0 250 200 so I . . 1
1982 108.8 315 115 Port Llons D1ese.
1983 111.6 390 190 I '. k D. 1
1984 114.5 490 290 Kcxua lese.
1985 117.5 500 300
1986 120.5 510 310
1987 123.7 515 315 1 Terror Lake
1988 126.9 520 200 320
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
1'WH FIRH CAPACITY
{KI\IH) 10 X 3)
Current Kodiak Terror Lake Current Port Lions
Diesel Hydro Diesel
136,130
"
"
181,170
181,170
0
0
0
0
139,000
139,000
6,570
6,570
E-2
Port Lions
Hydro
0
0
1581
1581
1981
1982
1983
2031
1981
1982
1983
2031
Annual Cost
2
2
,566
95,566
Annual Cost
$ 2
2
97,574
97,574
0 & H --
$91,200
91,200
23,384
,384
PORT LIONS HYDRO 1
'l'otal
$91,200
91,200
118,950
118,950
P/W
$91,200
91,200
115,485
115,485
P.W. Cost 1981-2031
KODIAK/PORT LIONS TRANR{TSSION LINE 3
0 & M Total P/N
$ 91,200
91,200
14,885
]4,885
$ 91,200
91,200
112,459
112,459
$ 91,200
91,200
109,183
P.VJ. Cost 1981-2031
~ 50 year life
3 Continued diesel generation at Port Lions
20 year
::::
E-3
Accumulated P.W.
$ 91,200
88,500
?.,917 ,400
$ 3,097,600
Accumulated P.W.
$ 91,200
88,500
2,758,700
$ 2,938,400
:::o -r':
I ;-j
I
3:
:::E
(') \ cr:
llJ \ z \ w
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
0
I
I
I
I
I
I
KWH
QQ)
MAY J UN JUL i\UG
MONTH
PROJECTED ENERGY
P OCT NOV DEC
H Y D R 0 E L E C T R I C P 0 T E N T I A L F i g \l ,-c· .')
AND ENERGY REQUIREMENTS
(I
1.
(i ·{
KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH
11 r: c c m ]1 e r ~) , 1 ~~:; I
,\Jas]cl I'OI,'Cl' ;\u::lwrity
.)::J.J West rifth i\'..cnue
,\nchor~1gc, 1\Li:;J,;:! 00:~01
;\~tcntinn: !\lr. L<)l1,l~:tcrc
iZr: : Port L i on s
ilc:1r ~!r. Lort;::1cre:
Telephones 486-5736 -486-5737 -Box 1246
RE C_E IV ED
KODIAK, ALASKA 99615
DEC 1 4 1981
",t·,USAA POWER AUTHORITY
Th:lni: V'lU ror your letter oF Noc·crnbcr lS, l~iSl rc:::l.rding the
·leveJ:>pi:1c:1:· :1t l'oJ·t Lions. The Kocli:ll-; Island Borough .\sscrnhl;
:1t their n·gul:1r ::1ccting on llcccm11cT :~, l01ll rc\·ich·cd yo:.1r
1Ct1CI' :llon:: \·lith m::lteri::ll :-ro::l the ma:.-or or Pt•rt Lions :md in
.c',l'llC' r:1l l. he :\s •;r'::l\1 l )' ::c:ppn rt. :; t· he 1\P:\ cnn c l ct:~ ion, n :1me 1 )' "the
constnl,·ti on or· :1 tr:n~·;1:1i ssi on l inc fro:;: l'ort Lion:' to the
::c!di:1k error L1ke tr:msm!ssion is the prcfc1·:ll1lc initial step
f:J'' s:rt: ~Cying the po·::er rcqtti rc1ocnts of l'ort J.i.ons. Construc-
t ion :1f' the Port Lion:' hyc:rDclcctric project should 1·c deferred
until tLc Tc1·rc~r r.akc }J1'0jcl~t is fully dc\·clGpccJ 1 '.
'!'iLl:JL you for L'.·-' opportunjty to conmcnt on the v:n1ous altcrnn-
t-i\·c~: rrf~~lrd-inf: Port Lions.
:1 i i1 C\' ] y,
( c
/: . ' ,., /•
/ ! ./"}---'--
·'
. ) A (~' '--/,.. '!
(/ ", l'hi 1 C. Shc:1 Jy
EonJUgh t'!:ln:1 gc r
u: l':1t Lukin, >!:tyor
Pon Lirlllc-., ,\K
mdc1
Rll.11'v R E C E I V E D ,~ .. :.··~
.,;. ·J ·.·''fb t:ozv ,, .. ,. ·:, ... · , ·<7!fl~.-·,. '· · 1{·\ /: E C 1 8 19 81 ~:--... ~':·~····" ··~ 'v.:.j -~;;_\.;;~_~::)2.#~:) ~~;~ .. ,ALAteKA POWER
AF. (f"'"f',
".\ ~ h, I~ 'oh ,._,.,.~,
~-~,_.~?" NATIVE ~'%..,. CORPORATION
BOX 14
i..;,....;_~W· • 0
KODIAK, AL.C,SfCJ.\ :::J9b15 ------Q ----··--TEL. (907)486-4200
l'CC111!H':Y 16, J98
'-lr. onf'Jlcrc
;\ J ~. k:l PC''A'QY Att i ty
J .lt hiest Sth :\·t,.:-c:nu
!\nchm.-,1 c, AK 99 01
DE:c1r )·1r. Lon,2J1 e:
In r s t Eric Yould~
concJ!l Lon to defer the rt
the rror Lake P eel: is fu1
t~conomicai more easablc, but
w-i on meet the needs th
months.
, .. • 1
f\ .. L y'
M~J~-
:lARVTt; FROST
Gc:ner a.l Manager
Afognak Nntivc Corporation
\IF: cfb
le ter, we tota support yo!lr
ons electric Pr cct until
evcloped. Not only is it
the w-ntcr supply in Port Lions
ro stern nine ou of twelve
..
(907) 486-3261
f}Z ,n n RECEIVED L11JWw0~ r-DEC 14 1981
/-" /7 _ >Ki' 0 00 f171 II -r--;v?~~ ~j?JJJJ::. W!Y~_§f,tfl.~f)OWER AUTHORITY w111
Box 787
KODIAK, ALASKA 99615
mhcr-11,
\lr. Er·ic P. Yo\lL, I) CC'Ctcn
ALASK/\ P E!< i\UT!!
est h /\venue
1\ n c h or c , 1\ 1 a s k fl
a r . r· 1 c:
Ec: T rror Inkc TriH1o'
i'rc·jcct as Per vc11r-
ion L ne versus P t Lions ll roclcctri
n Mil
crror Lil kc
etwc n Dr.
l , 1 J r ~
Pr-oject
•. 1 ,n lC r<
.rnrn ic k
i iccn >~
nnd E/1.
ctter· of Novcmh r l ,
L 1 n s p c t it one d i·: !·.· t i n i c v <' n e 1 n I h•·
process. A Sett nt A1~cccmcnt wa rcnchc
c w n u 1 cl \v it h r <1 \•/ h is P c t 10 n t C·
lntervenc n the r roc L ell~ c a n d \,· \v o u 1 d _i o i n v r e q u c s t API\
n•a c clfl v luat1 n (ir t he top vide vdro pc."c.'cc· for the p e
of Port 1 ns.
\~\r a l rc('cl that '.:e ·..:ou1d not challenge the conch:sion of th st
n(\rcc it the con lus ons of your studv on sup ort you in
vou r
Lake
r u r t s t h tll l d t h t r a n rn i s s ion 1 i n k b c: tween Po r t L ion s a n d t ll e Ter-ror·
appropl-r
n .
i::c undcrsL1nci that the ~;l,LOO,OOO that was originc\1lv
for t);c h r·o project wi1l now he divet-ted to th transmission
lf there 1s any way t' can be help, don t hcsiti1tc to ask.
nee ly,
//:"' • (. .!"'
case, Tr.
n er<t <:l n cr
1 a p
------------
>-a.
0 u
=
---