HomeMy WebLinkAboutAK Revenue per Kilowatt hour 1993ee 7A Leek: OTE “9
/ rican ree Me aie ;
te Lg anllien om
April 24, 1995
MEMORANDUM
TO: Officials of Public Power Systems
FROM: Larry Hobart, Executive Director
SUBJECT: 1993 Data on Revenue per Kilowatt-hour
As an APPA member service, I am enclosing a summary of 1993 revenue per kilowatt-hour
for utilities in your state. The summary shows average revenue per kilowatt-hour for
residential, commercial, and industrial consumer classes. In addition, the report provides
average “Rev/kWh,” all classes; and “adjusted” average “Rev/kWh,” all classes. The
“adjusted” average corrects for compositional differences in the customer classes served by
the respective sectors. The data is summarized for the United States and for your state by
type of ownership. In addition, revenue per kilowatt-hour is listed individually for each
utility in your state.
Revenue per kilowatt-hour was calculated by APPA from 1993 data reported by each utility
to the U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration on Form EIA-861.
These calculations can help you compare your average rate level with other utilities in your
state. If you have any questions, call Scott Choate, Manager, Statistics at (202) 467-2969.
SC:cb
Enclosure
seted paper
AVERAGE REVENUE PER KWH, 1993
Cin cents)
UNITED STATES AND ALASKA
ALL CLASSES
RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL THOUSTRIAL ALL CLASSES ADJUSTED *
REV/KWH REV/KWH REV/KWH REV/KWH REV/KWH
U.S. UTILITIES
Publicly Owned 6.6 6.8 4.9 6.0 6.1
Investor-Owned 8.8 7.9 5.0 tee. Co2
Cooperative Tat 7.4 4.6 7.0 6.6
ALASKA
Publicly Owned 10.4 8.8 oa 9.2 9-5
Investor-Owned 11.7 15.9 8.1 12.4 13.3
Cooperative lit. 9.6 8.0 10.1 10.1
ALASKA
Publicly Owned . :
Ketchikan City of 8.3 7.6 6.9 LLY 7.8
Sitka City of & Borough of io) 8.6 7.5 8525 8.2
Wrangell City of 10.2 9.5 3.8 & 9.1
Petersburg City of 10.0 ot 8.0 O35
Metlakatla Power & Light 9.3 9.4 13.6 T1 9.9)
Seward City of 11.0 11.6 135 9.8 10.9
Nome Joint Utility Systems 17.6 {S37 11.9 15.2 15.9
Unalaska City of 20.9 18.2 nes, 1557 18.5
Galena City of S165 33.3 11.6 16.1 30.0
Nightmute Power Plant S762. 41.5 n/a 41.5 n/a
Anchorage City of 957 9 0.0 8.2 (a)
Atmautluak City of 46.9 48.3 0.0 47.3 (a)
Birch Creek Village Elec Util 60.0 60.0 0.0 60.0 (a)
Chignik City of 28.0 28.1 0.0 28.0 (a)
Chefornak City of 34.1 30.7 0.0 33.4 (a)
Coffman Cove Utilities 22-5 28.0 0.0 23.6 (a)
Eagle Village Energy Systems 68.3 0.0 0.0 68.3 (a)
Elfin Cove Utility Commission 22.2 22.3 0.0 22.3 (a)
Fairbanks City of 9.7 10.5 0.0 10.3 (a)
Igiugig Electric Company 58.8 50.0 0.0 53.6 (a)
Ipnatchiaq Electric Company 38.8 36.6 0.0 37.6 (a)
Klukwan Indian Village 14.3 0.0 0.0 14.3 (a)
King Cove City of 20.1 19.9 0.0 20.1 (a)
Kotlik City of 36.7 81.2 0.0 49.0 (a)
Kokhanok Village Council 55.9 56.3 0.0 56.0 (a)
Kwig Power Co 47.6 50.0 0.0 47.7 (a)
Larsen Bay City of 12.8 22.4 0.0 16.2 (a) Ouzinkie City of rr 28.1 0.0 27.8 (a)
Pedro Bay Village Council 61.9 56.4 0.0 59.8 (a)
Native Village of Perryville S33 83.5 0.0 69.0 (a) St Paul City of 32.7 27.1 0.0 30.1 (a)
Tenakee Springs City of 33.1 36.1 0.0 34.4 (a) Thorne Bay City of 25.1 25.0 0.0 25.0 (a) City of White Mountain 38.1 38.4 0.0 38.3 (a)
AVERAGE REVENUE PER KWH, 1993
Cin cents)
UNITED STATES AND ALASKA
ALL CLASSES
RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL ALL CLASSES ADJUSTED *
REV/KWH REV/KWH REV/KWH REV/KWH REV/KWH
Akutan City of 37.2 36.2 0.0 37.0 (a)
Manokotak City of 37.8 38.4 0.0 38.0 (a)
North Slope Borough of - 24.2 23.9 0.0 24.0 (a)
ALASKA
Investor-Owned
Alaska Electric Light&Power Co 8.6 7.8 6.6 8.1 8.0
Pelican Utility Co 15.4 15.0 12.9 of 14.9
Haines Light & Power Co Inc 17.1 15.9 15.3) 16.3 16.3
G & K Incorporated 36.3 38.0 36.2 See) 37s2.
Tatitlek Electric Utility 39.1 38.6 42.9 39.0 39.3
Egegik Light & Power Co 50.4 50.3 26.8 41.6 47.6
Bettles Light & Power Inc : 47.8 55.2 52.2 52.4 52.0
Alaska Power & Telephone Co 18.7 16.5 0.0 17.5 (a)
Andreanof Electric Corp REET A 33.3 0.0 33.5 (a)
Bethel Utilities Corp Inc 24.1 19.3 0.0 20.8 (a)
Chitina Electric Inc 42.4 38.8 0.0 40.2 (a)
Aniak Light & Power Co Inc 45.5 42.4 0.0 43.7 (a)
Far North Utilities 42.9 42.1 0.0 42.2 (a)
Gustavus Electric Co Inc 49.6 47.1 0.0 48.6 (a)
Gwitchyaa Zhee Utility Co 28.4 21.3 0.0 24.3 (a)
Hughes Power & Light Co 30.8 43.7 0.0 40.1 (a)
Kuiggluum Kallugvia anil 35n0 0.0 28.2 (a)
Manley Utility Co Inc 72.6 70.0 0.0 Me (a)
McGrath Light & Power Co 34.5 29.3 0.0 30.8 (a)
Napakiak Ircinaq Power Co 55.6 58.9 0.0 56.9 (a)
Northway Power & Light Inc 12.7 31.6) 0.0 26.5 (a)
Tanana Power Co Inc 40.5 37.8 0.0 39.0 (a)
Teller Power Co 55.3 54.6 0.0 54.9 (a)
Yakutat Power Inc 22.8 19.8 0.0 20.8 (a)
ALASKA
Cooperative
Chugach Electric Assn Inc 9.4 7.5 5.8 8.4 8.1
Golden Valley Elec Assn Inc 10.1 9.4 7.4 9.2 oS
Homer Electric Assn Inc 11.9 10.3 Bss. 9.3 10.3
Kodiak Electric Assn Inc 15.4 14.6 13.4 14.1
Copper Valley Elec Assn Inc 18.4 15.8 10.9 15.4 6.2
Nushagak Electric Coop Inc 20.0 19.9 18.0 19.2 Bg
Nelson Lagoon Elec Coop Inc 49.3 41.5 29.4 46.7 43.1
Akiachak Native Comm Elec Co 50.5 50.9 0.0 50.7 (a)
Alaska Village Elec Coop Inc 42.3 36.2 0.0 40.7 (a)
Arctic Utilities Inc 0.0 14.0 0.0 14.0 (a)
Barrow Utils & Elec Coop Inc 8.5 6.1 0.0 6.6 (a)
I-N-W Electric Coop Inc 42.6 47.0 0.0 45.1 (a)
Kotzebue Electric Assn Inc 20.7 18.8 0.0 19.6 (a)
Materuska Electric Assn Inc 10.8 8.6 0.0 10.0 (a)
AVERAGE REVENUE PER KWH, 1993
Cin cents)
UNITED STATES AND ALASKA
ALL CLASSES
RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL ALL CLASSES ADJUSTED *
REV/KWH REV/KWH REV/KWH REV/KWH REV/KWH
Middle Kuskokwim Elec Coop Inc 58.3 54.8 0.0 56.4 (a)
Naknek Electric Assn Inc 21.7 21.8 0.0 21.8 (a)
Tlingit & Haida Region El Auth 30.3 24.2 0.0 27.0 (a)
Tuntutuliak Comm Svc Assn 46.2 46.4 0.0 46.2 (a)
Paxson Lodge Inc 21.4 20.7 0.0 20.8 (a)
Cordova Electric Coop Inc 22.5 18.9 0.0 20.0 (a)
Unalakleet Valley Elec Coop 25.0 23.4 0.0 23.8 (a)
* This is a standardized average that adjusts for compositional differences in the customer classes
served. For each utility, the average is calculated by multiplying the average rev/kwWh for each
class by the average proportion of sales for that class for the state (for the nation for U.S.
averages) and then summing the results.
(a) Adjusted total not computed unless sales in all customer classes are greater than zero.
Source: Prepared April 1995 by the American Public Power Association, Department of Statistical Analysis,
using data from the U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, Form EIA-861.
**K 2OB°ADGd TWLOL *x Tur Bonn Buyer Friday, April 28, 1995
Groups Say Poll Shows Power Agencies’ Sale Unpopular
By Heather Ann Hope
WASHINGTON — Consumers are
opposed to the sale of the five fed-
eral electric power marketing agen-
cies, according to a survey commis-
sioned by the American Public Power
Association and the National Rural
Electric Cooperative Association.
The nationwide poll, released yes- terday, reported that 65% of the
1,000 registered voters surveyed
April 10 to 16 said the federal gov-
ernment should retain the power mar-
keting agencies, while 23% favored
selling them.
“American consumers are obvi-
ously aware of the detrimental con-
sequences of selling the [federal
power agencies]. They know it would
raise electricity costs and the prices
of goods and services, as well as
eliminate a reliable source of revenue
now being paid to the U.S. Treasury,”
said Glenn English, executive vice
president of the National Rural Elec-
tric Cooperative Association and for-
mer Democratic congressman from
Oklahoma.
However, the polling data suggests
that many of those surveyed were un-
familiar with the power marketing
agencies before being contacted by
the polling firm. When first asked
whether the federal government
should sell the power agencies to pri-
vate utility companies, only 30%
thought the federal government
should keep them.
It was only “after a thorough dis-
cussion of this issue, the present sit-
uation, and the proposed sale” that
opposition to the sale increased to nearly 3 to 1, according to the poll
taken by the Washington. polling firm
of Hamilton & Staff.
The American Public Power As-
sociation and the National Rural
Electric Cooperative Association,
which represent municipal-and con-
sumer-owned nonprofit electric util-
ities, respectively, oppose the sale of any of the five federal power mar-
keting associations for various rea-
sons, including the fear of increased
utility rates.
The survey was released two
weeks after the Edison Electric In-
stitute released a study claiming that
the federal government could gener- ate up to $9 billion from the sale of
the power agencies. The Edison Elec- tric Institute represents privately
owned electric utility companies,
The Clinton administration has
proposed selling off the Southeast-
em, Southwestern, and Western pow-
er administrations. The sale was pro- posed in Clinton's fiscal 1996 budget and is part of an administration pro- posal to streamline the Department of Energy.
The sale of a fourth agency, the
Alaska Power Administration, is a!- ready under negotiation, and Clinton
has proposed completing that sale
before the beginning of the next fis- cal year on Oct. 1. Clinton proposed
that a fifth agency, the Bonneville
Power Administration, be converted into a government-sponsored corpo-
ration.
Although selling the agencies would be profitable for the federal
government, it is still unclear whether Congress will approve the
sale because lawmakers representing
areas served by the agencies may ob-
ject. For example, Sen. Larry
Pressler, R-S.D., who has advocated
privatizing many public agencies,
said yesterday that he was “strongly opposed to the sale” of the power
marketing agencies.
Consumers who were polled ex-
pressed a number of concems with
selling the power marketing agen-
cies, including the fear of increased
ulility costs, loss of environmental
protections, and less cost-culting
competition among electricily sup-
pliers,
In other poll results:
* 54% believe the country would be harmed by giving private compa- nies the right to make a profit from public resources such as rivers, fed- erally owned land, mineral rights, air tights, or forests and parks. 29% polled believes it benefits the coun- try.
* 80% believe it is a good idea to have three kinds of electric utilities — privately owned, profit making; municipal-owned, not-for-profit; and cooperatively owned, not-for-profit — so that no one kind of utility wil] become a monopoly. Q
|) OW
—
W4"WO" LIF WO oir PRU ' WU 961-8998 P.@1
t
| For immediate release For additional information contact: April 3, 1995 Stephen T. Lewis, Chairman & CEO
Petro Star eyes co-generation at Valdez Refinery
I | Petro Star has reviewed Phase I of its energy study for supply of
electricity to its Petro Star Valdcz Refinery and has preliminarily determined
that a turbine generator can be economically installed at the refinery and
would supply all power required by the refinery, as well as approximately 25%
of the heat required for the crude heater. The same fuel used in the heater
can also be used to supply the turbine generator.
The turbine generator would supply 100% of the refinery power and
have excess capacity which could be sold. Under the scenario explored in this
study, the refinery would} remain connected to Copper Valley Electrical
Association (CVEA) and would have the option of using power from CVEA if
ineeded.
Petro Star is also reviewing a Phase II study on the feasibility of
installing a second turbine to produce electricity for CVEA and additional heat
to its refinery. This Phase II study examines the option known as co-
generation, Combined Heat) and Power (CHP) systems, which use far less fuel to
deliver the same amounts} of power and heat as separate encrgy systems.
Advantages of co-generation are: high thermal efficiency; system
efficiencies up to 95%; and improved energy economics.
Under the Phase I|study, Petro Star would have approximately 2
megawatts of excess power. Under Phase Ii, Petro Star would have 6 to 6.5
megawatts of excess power to sell. The project laid out in Phase II could be
completed by the summer} of 1996 and would have the capacity, along with
wee ay ee ws rine ww VOLO
Core Gulch, of supplying all of Copper Valley's current requirements
jocluding Petro Star Valasz Refinery’s current and future requirements.
! During the past 12 months, major economic factors have changed at the
tefincry, prompting a re-revicw of the facility's power requirements. The
Federal Energy Regulatory |Commission and Alaska Public Utilities Commission handed down rulings in emily 1994 that substantially changed the method of
alculating costs for delivering oil of different qualities into the trans-Alaska
ipelinc. This impacted the Petro Star Valdez Refinery, which receives crude
il from the trans-Alaska vipeline, returns unused portions of the oil to the
fine, and pays a quality differential for that reinjection. ## | } | |
| i
|
TOTAL P.@2
1:45PM #847 P.@2 Loos: 987 561 8998 OCT 12; TO: Comparison of Average Electric Rates for Selected Alaskan Electric Utilities
(1993)
Tlingit-Haida Regional Electric
Bethel Utilities
1 Electric
Nome Joint Utilities
Copper Valley Electric
Kodiak Electric
Seward Electric
Fairbanks Municipal Utilities
Matanuska Electric
Homer Electric
Galden Vailey Electric
Petersberg MP&L
Sitka Electric
Wrangell ML&P
Chugach Electric
Ketchikan Public Utilities
Anchorage ML&P
Alaska Electric (Juneau) FROM: CH2M HILL-SEA - 5.0 10.0 15.¢ 20.0 25.0 30.0
Cents per kwh
Source: State of Alaska, Division of Energy, Alaska Electric Power Statistics, 1560-1993
: ALASKA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
AND EXPORT AUTHORITY —_ ALASKA
@E_ _=ENERGY AUTHORITY
480 WEST TUDOR ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99503 907 / 561-8050 FAX 907 /561-8998
September 15, 1995
Mr. Clayton Hurless, General Manager
Copper Valley Electric Assoc. Inc.
P.O. Box 45
Glennallen, AK 99588
Dear Clayton,
This is in regards to your letter of August 31, requesting that the Alaska Industrial Development
& Export Authority (AIDEA) conduct a due diligence examination of Arctic Slope Regional
Corporation. The purpose of the examination would be to determine the financial condition of
Arctic Slope as it relates to their possible issuance of a Letter of Credit to Copper Valley Electric
Assoc. Inc. (CVEA).
The Authority would be happy to assist CVEA in conducting the due diligence, subject to a
reimbursement agreement for all of the Authority's out-of-pocket costs. Since the Letter of
Credit is predicated on the Sutton-Glennallen Intertie being constructed, we would propose to
delay the start of the due diligence until after the decision is made by the Department of
Community and Regional Affairs to proceed with the project. The Authority will move to draft the
scope of services if CVEA has other reasons to proceed with the review of Arctic Slopes’
financial condition for purposes of issuance of a Letter of Credit. Please let me know if you
wish the Authority to proceed.
Sincerely,
H Stel
Executive Director
cc: Percy Frisby, Division of Energy, DCRA
bec: Dennis McCrohan
Randy Simmons
Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc.
4831 Eagle Street Anchorage, Alaska 99503-7497 Ec iW (907) 561-1818 D)ic tic i (907) 561-2388 FAX
JUL d
July 3, 1995 Alaska Industrizl Development
and Exoort Authority CGE
Mr. Mike Irwin, Commissioner . ym
Department of Community and Regional Affairs : 6b
P.O. Box 112100 Juneau, Alaska 99811-2100 Be pee)
Mr. John Shively, Commissioner 7 aay reife
Department of Natural Resources
400 Willoughby Avenue
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1796
Mr. Riley Snell, Executive Director
Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority
480 West Tudor Road
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
Gentlemen:
This letter is written in support of the Sutton to Glennallen 138 kV transmission line project.
This project has been studied in depth and submitted to public review. In our opinion, it is
clearly in the best interests of all Alaskans that this important piece of our economic
infrastructure be put in place.
With the Sutton to Glennallen "energy highway" in place, we will have the capability to
maximize the efficient utilization of our energy resources. Under any scenario of future
events our economy is strengthened by this project for the ultimate benefit of all Alaskans.
We and our fifty villages join with the Copper Valley Electric Association in respectfully
requesting your favorable consideration and decision on this important project.
Sincerely,
_iage Ree
Charles Y. Walls
General Manager
Randy Simmons
From: Katelyn Ohmer
To: Randy Simmons
Subject: McLean
Date: Tuesday, August 29, 1995 11:36AM
Robin called me back and said that Debra Bonito saw her at the Fair and told her that a report had been
given to the Commissioners and Copper Valley. She wants a copy and/or to know who is entitled to see a
copy of the DRAFT. She may request it through the public info law....She was nice, but terse. | continued
to say that AIDEA's official report from CH2M-Hill would not be available until the end of September and |
could provide her with a copy then. | didn't need to mention "public input or hearings." It didn't come up.
What report is Debra talking about??? A draft????
Page 1