HomeMy WebLinkAboutRuby Appendix K Reconnaissance Study of Energy Requirements & Alternatives 5-1982VIL-A 002
Ruby
RECONNAISSANCE STUDY OF ENERGY
REQUIREMENTS AND ALTERNATIVES
APPENDIX K: RUBY
MAY 1982
Prepared by:
Aid
—_ ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY _
we
ws
FAIRBANKS
ANCHORAGE
° aw
7 “oe
e
VILLAGE SPECIFIC REPORT
K, RUBY
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
A - SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..........eeseeceeeee K-1
Bee Oe dO eee ee K-1 A.2 - Alternative Plan Descriptions ...........ececeseeeeee K-2
B - DEMOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS .........eccceceecceceece K-5
Bel = Location ...... cece cece ccc cece eee eesccesevenceccece K-5 B12 - Population oo... cece cece cece cece sete ne ence cL K-5 B.3 = ECOMOMY 0... eee cece cece cence teteetnsee cece, K-5 B.4 - Government 2.0... .. cece cece ccc e eee eens eeeteecncecce K-5 B.5 - Transportation ........ cee cee ce cee ee sense eetee cece ee. K-6
C - COMMUNITY MEETING REPORT ........... cc ccc eeceeceeccuccucceuce K-7
D - EXISTING POWER AND HEATING FACILITIES ........c.cecceseecceee K-8
D.1 - Existing Power Facilities ....... cee eeccecceccenceecce K-8 0.2 - Existing Heating Facilities ...........cceeces cece eee, K-9
E - ENERGY BALANCE ........... cece ces cee cenceeccevccecucececcces K-10
F - ENERGY REQUIREMENTS FORECAST ..........c ccc ececcecceeseuccuce K-12
F.1 - Capital Projects Forecast ...... 0. ec cee seceeccuncceceee K-12 F.2 - Population Forecast .........cc cece cee cece ees eee eee cee. K-12 F.3 - Electrical Energy Forecast ...........c cess ee cee ce K-13 F.4 - Thermal Eneray Forecast .........ccceeeeseececec eee, K-15
G - VILLAGE TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT .........ccecseececceuccuccecce K-18
H - ENERGY PLAN DESCRIPTIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS .........ccccceeeeee K-22
HS =FBas@-Caseteihete essere eee K-22 H.2 - Alternative Plan "A" ooo... cece ccc ee sec ee ces ee cece ee. K-23 H.3 - Alternative Plan "B" o.oo... cece eee cece cece eee. K-25 H.4 - Alternative Plan "C" ooo... cece cece cece eee ee cece ee, K-26
I - ENERGY PLAN EVALUATIONS .........cccccccecceeceuccucceuccecce K-29
T.1 - Base Case .... eee cece ccc c ccc sccnteececevsecevcuces K-32 1.2 - Alternative Plan "A" ooo... cece cece cece eee eeeveece ce. K-36 1.3 - Alternative Plan "BY oo... cece cc ces ceccccrssececcucc, K-39 I.4| > Alternative: Plan ("ey i) etd K-42
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
J.6
Section Page
J—==COMMENTS AND- DISCUSSION =) oesees s sr sees ee K-44
J.1 - Comments Received From Unknown Resident in Ruby ....... K-45 J.2 - Comments Received From Mr. Larry Brian of RUD Yt ECCT 8 a aerecg oreceteceece ee ese sere wee eee | eee K-49 J.3 - Comments Received From The Alaska Power
Administration ....... cece cece cece ec eee ete e eee eees K-52 J.4 - Comments Received From The State of Alaska,
Department of Fish and Game ......... cc cece eee eee eee K-57 J.5 - Comments Received From U.S. Fish and Wildlife SOTV ICS 1AM CNOM AGC aos ecacanac el ecereres so serecere cecal tastes oa K-60 Comments Received From U.S. Bureau of Land Meme CMON ae aocacecect seco nscezcect ls scaceceis o tcecacaceneeal Ulopeeaect ll aaace K-65
No. eo ON DO FB W PT 10
LIST OF TABLES
Title
Comparative Estimated Flectrical Eneray Prices
For Base Case and Alternatives ..........ccc ee eeee
Eneray Use Profile for Ruby - 1980 and 1981 .........
Village Electric Energy Use Forecast ............000
Net Thermal Reauirements ........c cece cece eee eeeees
THETSE TT VN VT LITT T IVI TET W | fale sleteete ew hlelclelcleletcle le
Estimated Costs of Ruby Alternative Plan "B" .........
Estimated Costs of Quby Alternative Plan "C" .........
Page
K-3
K-10
K-14
K-17
K-21
K-30-31
K-33-34
K-35
K-37-38
K-40-41
LIST OF FIGURES
Title Page
Energy Cost Summary .........ccccccceccccecccsecvccccecce K-4
EPneroy7 Balances ttt tia das eastesataa setae eet K-11
eae at alawiehe le slelol sts oe elccw-ate stateless K-16
RUBY K-1
A_- SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
A.1 - General
Ruby is located on the Yukon River at the mouth of the Melozitna River. Four electric power alternatives were evaluated in detail for this village including central diesel power (base case), central diesel power with waste heat recovery (alternative "A"), hydroelectric power at Grayling Creek (alternative "B"), and hydroelectric power at Melozitna River (alternative "C"). Wind power was also reviewed. The following conclusions are drawn regarding energy use and energy alternatives for Ruby.
1. Central diesel power with waste heat recovery is the most economical
means by which to produce power in Ruby within the planning period of this: study (year 1982 through 2001). Attempts should be made by the
city government to generate power for the village from the school power plant. This would allow the waste heat recovery system at the school
to be returned to operation with a potential benefit of reduced electricity costs to the village. The city should maintain
responsibility for power generation in this plan.
2. Development of the hydroelectric potential at Grayling Creek or
Melozitna River would not be an economical venture within the planning
period under consideration in this study. Because of a regional focus, however, the Melozitna hydro site has greater potential. If growth and industrial development in the region (such as mining) take place as
many residents believe, the Melozitna project could provide very
economical power. Before this alternative is ruled out, further
evaluation in a feasibility study should be given to the probable plant configuration and costs of constructing the site and transmitting
power. Electrical energy forecasts for the region should be carefully
developed involving participation by industry and government at all
levels.
3. Substantial savings in energy costs to homeowners could be achieved with an ambitious energy conservation program, including the widespread
installation of more efficient heating systems.
Evaluation of alternatives suggests impacts on electric power costs as indicated in Table 1. Electric energy prices are busbar costs, thus
excluding the costs of power distribution, administration, and the benefits
of power subsidy programs. Prices of alternative "A" include the benefit
of fuel savings with diesel waste heat recovery. Wind power was evaluated
using optimistic assumptions and found unable to break even within the
planning period. Figure 1 illustrates projected costs of energy resources
available to Ruby.
RUBY K-2
A.2 - Enerqy Plan Descriptions
A.2.1 - Base Case
The base case addresses continued development of the diesel-based central utility system owned by the city. The net present worth of this plan is $5,970,000 for the period 1982 through 2041.
A.2.2 - Alternative Plan "A"
Starting in 1982, the city moves its two 150 kW diesel generators to the school power plant replacing the school units. The city uses this facility to generate power for the village and the school. The waste heat recovery system is reactivated to provide supplemental space heat to the school. The net present worth of this plan is $5,081,000 for the period 1982 through 2041.
A.2.3 - Alternative Plan "B"
This alternative addresses the development of the hydroelectric potential at Grayling Creek with a 200 kW plant coming on-line in 1992. The net present worth of this plan is $14,692,000 for the period 1982 through 2041.
A.2.4 - Alternative Plan "C"
This alternative addresses the development of the hydroelectric potential at Melozitna River with a 20 MW plant coming on-line in 1992. The project represents a major regional approach to electrification. The hydro plant would serve Galena, Ruby, Kaltaa, Huslia, Koyuk, Nulato, and possibly others. The net present worth of this plan is $12,644,000 for the period 1982 through 2041. Cost of this project was prorated based on nrojected electrical eneray consumption in Ruby.
TABLE 1
COMPARATIVE ESTIMATED ELECTRICAL ENERGY PRICES
FOR BASE CASE PLAN AND ALTERNATIVES
Energy Base Case Plan Alternative "A" Alternative "B" Alternative "C"
Production Energy Price (a) Energy Price (b) Energy Price (c) Energy Price (d) Year (MWh) ($/kWh) ($/kWh) ($/kWh) ($/kWh)
1982 270 0.47 0.48 0.47 0.47
1983 359 0.41 0.40 0.41 0.41
1984 375 0.41 0.40 0.41 0.41
1985 391 0.41 0.39 0.41 0.41
1986 418 0.40 0.39 0.40 0.40
1987 425 0.40 0.39 0.40 0.40
1988 431 0.41 0.39 0.41 0.41
1989 445 0.41 0.39 0.41 0.41
1990 453 0.41 0.39 0.41 0.41
1991 463 0.41 0.39 0.41 0.41
1992 467 0.42 0.39 1.49 1.26
1993 473 0.42 0.40 1.47 1.24
1994 483 0.43 0.40 1.44 1.22
1995 490 0.43 0.40 1.42 1.20
1996 496 0.44 0.41 1.40 1.18
1997 503 0.45 0.41 1.38 1.17
1998 507 0.45 0.41 1.37 1.16
1999 514 0.46 0.42 1.35 1.14
2000 521 0.46 0.42 1.33 1.13
2001 530 0.47 0.43 1.31 1.11
(a) Existing central diesel system
(b) Central diesel at school
(c) Hydropower at Grayling Creek
(d) Hydropower at Melozitna River €-> Agny
-4 RUBY K (um/$) 1809 A9YaN] 8 3 wooo AS
DELIVERED
0.10 OIL AS DELIVERED wooo AS USED AT
OIL AS USED AT
oO. RUBY - FIGURE g
RUBY K-5
B - DEMOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS
B.1 - Location
Ruby is located on the south hank of the Yukon River, south of the junction of the Melozitna River in the Kilbuck-Kuskokwim mountains and about 50 miles east of Galena.
B.2 - Population
Date: 1960 1970 1980 19811
Population: 179 145 197 240
The 1980 U.S. census shows 172 native and 25 non-native residents in Ruby. This gives a native population of 93 percent, a dramatic change from Ruby's early history as a non-native mining commmunity. In 1981, the city counted approximately 70 houses in the village area. Most of these houses are log cabins with about 15 HUD homes.
8.3 - Economy
Primarily a subsistence community, Ruby residents hunt, tran, fish, mine and firefight for BLM. Permanent non-subsistence employment in Ruby includes local government, a store, roadhouse (summer only), health clinic, village corporation, and school. Income is also earned from crafts and from trappino and the sale of nelts. Transfer pavments also plav a role.
Native residents are shareholders of Dineega Corporation, which was formed in accordance with the terms of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act.
B.4 - Government
Ruby was incorporated in 1973 as a second class city with a mayor-city council form of government. There is an advisory school board and a clerk/treasurer, health aide director and a superintendent of schools.
local census
RUBY K-6
B.5 - Transportation
Ruby is located on the Yukon River, with major barae lines deliverina fuel and other bulk supplies in summer. Local residents use private boats as transportation. Other carao, passenaers, and mail arrive by air; Wien Air makes regularly scheduled flights three times a week out of Galena. Several other carriers also fly into Ruby several times a week.
Ruby is the suoply point for the mining town of Lona, Sulatna Crossing, Poorman, and Placerville directly to the south, and is connected by a 64-mile road to these communities. Residents travel by motor vehicles and snowmachine in winter.
RUBY K-7
C_- COMMUNITY MEETING REPORT
A community meetina was held in the office of Dineeaa at 7:00 p.m. on Friday, November 20, 1981. Seven veople attended including the city clerk, school orincipal, and a city council member. The purpose of the meeting was fourfold: to explain the objectives of the study, to briefly describe potential eneray alternatives, to obtain backaround information on the village, and to solicit public comment regarding community preferences.
After opening comments, there was a free-wheeling discussion on such topics as life in Ruby, potential growth in Ruby, energy alternatives, and the Melozitna dam concept.
The current economy is mostly subsistence supplemented with transfer payments. Many people trap, fish, and hunt. There is a small sawmill, and a few residents mine gold. There was a aeneral feeling that people in Ruby do want work, but they don't want to leave Ruby to find it.
People at the meetina anticipated growth in Ruby. Apparently, 40 new houses have been built in the last eight years. There is a possibility of a small fish processing plant being built in Ruby, and there is some talk of building a VoTech school being built. The pronosed Anchorage to Nome road would have a maior impact on Ruby. People acreed they could envision 2,000 people living in Ruby, but all present were not in favor of such development.
The possibility of develoning the hydroelectric notential on the Melozitna River was discussed at lenath with strong differences of opinion expressed on both sides. Some objected savina manv residents use the area for hunting, trapping, and fishina.
Meeting narticipants were interested in wind power as a possihle eneray source in Ruby. They wanted a wind survey program here, and said the best olaces to install anemometers would be on top of the bluff overlookina the Yukon River on the west side of the village, at the airport, and two other hill tops surroundina the villaae.
Some interest was also expressed in geothermal eneray. The two nearest not springs are at Horner, 20 miles up the Yukon, and the Melozi hot springs, 25 to 30 miles from Ruby on the Melozitna River.
Interest in solar energy and conservation was also expressed. Apparently no energy auditors have visited Ruby throuah the State eneray audit program.
The meeting was informative on both sides, lastina 2-1/2 hours.
RUBY K-8
D - EXISTING POWER AND HEATING FACILITIES
D.1 - Existing Power Facilities
Ruby is served by a municipally owned utility. Present capacity of the central plant is 390 kW provided by two diesel units of 150 kW capacities and one diesel unit of 90 kW capacity. Woodward aovernors allow the generators to operate in parallel. One 150 kW unit can presently serve all the village's power needs. The utility was first placed into oneration in February of 1978. The diesels are housed in a wood frame building.
At one time, a jacket water waste heat recovery system was connected to a 100 kW unit which was used to heat the firehouse adjacent to the generator building. At the time of the site visit, the diesel unit was down which prevented use of the waste heat recovery system. The 100 kW unit has been replaced with a 150 kW unit: and the waste heat recovery system has been retired.
In addition to the central utility, the school maintains a separate power plant consisting of two 100 kW, 3304 Caterpillar diesel units. Of the 200 kW installed canacitv, the school operates at a typical peak load of 40 kW. The two diesels are periodically switched to reduce engine wear. The units are housed in a separate buildina immediatelv behind the school. The wood framed structure with concrete foundation is in excellent condition. Waste heat recovered from the diesel jacket water coolina system is used to supplement the school's space heating needs. Four Soilers are available ta supply the halance of the heatina load. The waste heat recovery system has the potential to displace approximately 8,000 gallons of fuel annually.
In November 1981, the school district turned off its generators and started purchasing power from the city utility. Since the school peak load almost equals the balance of the villaae, the switchover represented a substantial boost in revenues to the city power system which has been plagued with high electricity costs since inception. Grants provided by the State allowed general upgrading of the system and construction of a distribution line to intertie the school with the village. One of the unfortunate aspects of the school's switchover to the village power system was the shutdown of the waste heat recovery system that supplemented school space heatina.
The city government of Ruby sells power at the rates of $5 per month for the first 5 kWh, $35 ner month for 5 to 109 kWh, and $0.35/kblh for purchases above 100 kWh per month. At the time of the site visit, the city was applying for power cost assistance.
RUBY K-9
For 1981, it was estimated that the city produced approximately 180 Mwh of electrical eneray distributed to 56 residential and 11 commercial customers, excluding the school. Next to the school, the largest consumers of electricity in the village are the store and warehouse, airport lighting, roadhouse, and telephone company. The typical residence annually uses aporoximately 1,900 kWh. Liahts, television, and freezers (for summer) are the major household appliances. Because a community washeteria is to be built in 1982, electric washers and dryers in the home are not anticipated for Ruby for most residences.
0.2 - Existing Heating Facilities aang eating Facilities
Most residences in Ruby are heated with wood, thouah some suoplement with oil for convenience. Commercial and institutional facilities are heated with fuel 071 using pot burner stoves, though some, such as the school, have hydronic heat distribution systems.
A representative home in Ruby fully heated with wood is estimated to use between 10 and 12 cords of wood annually, which is typical of other villages in the region. In calculatina residential space heatina loads, 35 percent efficiency was assumed for wood stoves and oil pot burners. Hydronic systems aenerally heat at 65 nercent efficiency.
Both Blazo and propane are used for cooking fuel in the village. It is estimated that tyoical residences burn ?-1/2 tanks of propane annually (assuming 100 pounds per tank) though some residents reported using as much as six tanks of propane annually.
Most domestic water in Ruby is obtained from wells and is of aood quality, unlike the groundwater of its distant neighbor Galena. Most domestic water heating is done on top of the stove, Construction of a village washeteria for laundry and showers is planned for 1982.
Fuel oi] is sold throuch Dineeaa Fuel Co., which purchases its fuel from Nenana Fuel Co. Dineega provides bulk storage for 137,000 gallons, storina heating 011, gasoline and aviation aas in five tanks. The school also has storage for 25,000 gallons of fuel in two tanks.
RUBY K-10
E - ENERGY BALANCE
Table 2 presents an energy use profile for Ruby based on information available for 1980 and 1981. Figure 2 shows the general distribution of
this eneray to end users.
TABLE 2
ENERGY USE PROFILE FOR RUBY - 1980 AND 1981
otal
Heat
Content
Type of Fuel Cost! @) End uses (4) Quantity (109 Btu)
(e) #1 Fuel Oil $1.60/aal Space Heating 52,000 gal 7.2 Residential (10%)
Commercial (12%) Institutional (33%)
Electricity
Generation (33%)
#2 Fuel Oi] $1.55/gal Electricity 32,000 gal 4.4
Generation (70%)
(f) Transportation (30%)
(f) Motor Gasoline $1.65/gal Transportation 28,000 gal 3.5
Aviation Fuel $1.86/oal Transportation 10,900 aal 1.3
(b) (g) (h) Propane $71.4/tank Cooking 17,500 1b 0.3 (c) (h) Wood $100/cord Space Heatina 745 cords 12.7
Residential (100%)
NOTES:
(a) Fall 1981 landed bulk fuel costs. Source: Nenana Fuel Oil fo. (b) Tanks contain 100 pounds of propane.
(c) Estimated cost of wood. Most residents collect their own wood.
(d) Quantities in parentheses indicate percentage estimate of energy used
by sector.
(e) Space heatina end use includes enerav consumed for domestic water
heating.
(f) Transportation end use includes enercy consumed for heavy eauipment
power tools, etc. a) Small cuantities of Blazo are also purchased for cookina fuel. h) Estimates.
BRUNING 44 132 42222
ENERGY RESOURCE ———_ END USE
RESIDENTIAL SYSTEM
SPACE HEATING LOSSES
(13.42) (8.72)
USEABLE HEAT
(4.70)
COMMERCIAL SYSTEM SPACE HEATING (086) LOSSES (030)
I USEABLE HEAT 10.56) FUEL OIL (3.24) INSTITUTIONAL SPACE SYSTEM LOSSES 1.13) (ie) HEATING (3.24) ZUSEABLE HEAT
(241)
ELECTRIC POWER SYSTEM LOSSES
GENERATION (4.37)
(5.46)
ZUSEABLE HE AT (1.09)
TRANSPORTATION (6.14)
GASOLINE (3.5)
AVIATION FUEL (1.3)
PROPANE (0.3) (0.3) COOKING (03)
NOTES
ALL UNITS IN 109 BTU/YR.
RUBY ENERGY
BALANCE (1981) FIGURE 2
ACRES AMERICAN -NCORPONATEO LI-y) Aane
RURY K-12
F/- ENERGY REQUIREMENTS FORECAST
F.1 - Capital Projects Forecast
F.1.1 - Scheduled Capital Projects
(a) 1982 - washeteria (b) 1982 - youth center
F.1.2 - Potential Developments
(a) Increase in minina activity (possihly coal) on the part of Anaconda Mining
Development of a small fish processing plant Construction of a district Vocational-Technical school Expansion of tourist industry
Construction of a areenhouse adjacent to the city power plant. HS a aaa enanaw F.1.3 - Economic Forecast
In general, Ruby's residents believe the area will arow substantially in the next 20 years. Forty homes have been built in Ruby since 1973, reflecting both in-miaration and youna adults remainina in Ruby and starting families. If the proposed Anchorage-to-Nome road is built, more jobs and people will come to Ruby. This is also the case if a hydroelectric project is developed on the nearby Melozitna River. Participants in the public meeting, however, aareed that the economy will largely remain subsistence.
F.2 - Population Forecast
The annual growth rate for Ruby for 1960 to 1980 was 0.5 vercent. The annual growth rate from 1970 to 1980 was 3.1 percent. From 1980 to 1981, however, the population exnanded 4.8 percent, based on city census fiaures in 1981 and U.S. census figures in 1980. In liaht of these past growth trends and aiven the economic activity forecast for Ruby, the population was projected to expand 3 percent annually for Ruby over the years 1982 to 1991 and 1.5 percent thereafter. The ponulation forecast for the village of Ruby is shown below.
RURY K-13
1960 1970 1980 (1981) 1986 1991 1996 2001
Population 179 145 197 (240}1 278 323 347 374 #Residences NA 46 92 70 93 104 114 125 #Commercial NA NA 2 3 4 5 5 6 #Gov't/other NA NA 7 8 12 12 12 12
F.3 - Flectric Eneray Forecast
Electric eneray forecasts should consider the maturity of the existing power system, the quality and cost of service available, and the readiness of villagers to accept chances in lifestyle as well as anticipate new loads. In Ruby, central electric power has been available for approximately five years and villagers are still in the process of acquiring new appliances. For new utilities, rapid and somewhat inconsistent growth rates are typical in the early years, aenerally takina anywhere from 5 to 10 years to establish a saturation condition where growth rate hecomes stable. With this in mind, an electrical eneray forecast was prepared for Ruby (Table 3) using the following assumptions:
o Approximately & percent of the existina households in Puby lor 56 homes) presently receive electric power. This ratio was assumed to continue without chanae in the future. New homes were anticipated to hook up.
o Of the households connected, present annual consumption averaces about 1,920 kWh per home. Household consumption was projected to increase at a rate of 5 percent annually until 2,350 kWh are consumed, then 1 percent annually thereafter.
o Electric eneray consumption in the institutional and commercial sectors was projected to increase in proportion to the population growth rate with special consideration given to planned projects.
o Peak load demand was forecast based on a load factor of 0.40 for the residential and commercial sectors. The school peak load was fixed at 40 kW, based on actual demand.
With these assumptions, Ruby was nrojected to double electric eneray consumption over the next 20 years. Fiqure 3 presents graphically the electrical enerav and peak power forecast for the village. The sudden jump in demand for the commercial sector between 1982 and 1983 represents opening of the washeteria and youth center alona with aeneral commercial expansion. The forecast, however, does not consider the impact of reduced electricity costs that can be achieved through the Power Cost Assistance Program. Since the economic analyses were based on the costs of producina electricity at the aenerator (busbar cost), it was assumed that customers continued to pay a higher price for electricity.
liocal census
RUBY K-14
F.4 - Thermal Eneray Forecast
A thermal enerqy forecast for electricity aeneration and snace heatina was projected for Ruby. Results of this forecast are shown in Table 4 in terms of net heatina requirements. Net heat refers to the heat eneray that actually goes to heating the building space, thus excluding losses up that stack. An advantage of presenting net rather than aross heatina needs is that the quantity of electricity required to displace oil and wood dependent heating systems can be readily determined. Recause the efficiency of electric resistance heating is always 1.0, the electrical eneray required to heat a village would be equivalent to the net heatina requirement as shown in the table, using the conversion factor of 3,413 Btu/kWh. Gross heating values can be estimated bv simply dividina the projected composite heating efficiency of the village into the net heatina reauirements for anv given vear. The forecast does not project eneray consumed by the transportation sector.
For the thermal enerav forecast, existing residences in Ruby were estimated to have an annual net space heating requirement of 67 MBtu. Starting in 1986, this heating requirement was reduced 19 nercent as a result of assumed energy conservation measures placed into effect, such as increased insulation and weatherstrinnina. For new homes constructed in 1986 and after, heating requirements were reduced 25 percent to reflect implementation of improved eneray conservina construction techniques such as double-walled homes and triple-glazed windows. New commercial and other structures were assumed to have an annual space heatina requirement equivalent to four existing homes.
TABLE 3
VILLAGE ELECTRIC ENERGY USE FORECAST
Residential Schools Other Total
Year kW Muh kW MWh kW Muh kW Mah
1982 31 108 40 90 21 72 92 270
1983 35 122 40 90 42 147 117 359
1984 39 138 40 90 42 147 121 375
1985 44 154 40 90 42 147 126 391
1986 50 175 40 90 44 153 134 418
1987 52 182 40 90 44 153 136 425
1988 54 188 40 90 44 153 138 431
1989 56 196 40 90 45 159 141 445 1990 58 204 40 90 45 159 144 453 1991 61 214 40 90 45 159 146 463
1992 62 218 40 90 45 159 147 467 1993 64 224 40 90 45 159 149 473 1994 65 228 40 90 47 165 152 483 1995 67 235 40 90 47 165 154 490 1996 69 241 49 90 47 165 156 496
1997 71 248 49 90 47 165 158 503
1998 72 252 40 90 47 165 159 507 1999 74 259 40 90 47 165 161 514 2000 76 266 40 90 47 165 163 521 2001 78 273 40 90, 47 165 165 530
Sl-y AgNYy
RUBY K-36
VILLAGE POWER DEMAND (KW) a
=e VILL AOe ENERGY CONSUMPTION (MWh) DEMAND (KW)
ENERGY CONSUMPTION (MWh)
1995 2000
RUBY-FIGURE 3
NET THERMAL REQUIREMENTS
TABLE 4
RUBY K-17
Electricity Residential Schools Other Total
Year (10%Btu) _—(10°Btu) (1o°Btu) _(10°Btu) —_—(10°Btu).
1982 0.9 4.7 2.5 0.9 9.0
1983 1.2 5.0 2.5 1.7 10.4
1984 1.3 5.4 2.5 1.7 10.9
1985 1.3 5.8 2.5 1.7 11.3
1986 1.4 6.2 2.5 2.0 12.1
1987 1.5 6.4 2.5 2.0 12.4
1988 1.5 6.6 2.5 2.0 12.6
1989 1.5 6.8 2.5 2.3 13.1
1990 1.5 7.0 2.5 2.3 13.3
1991 1.6 7.2 2.5 2.3 13.6
1992 1.6 7.3 2.5 2.3 13.7
1993 1.6 7.4 2.5 2.3 13.8
1994 1.6 7.5 2.5 2.6 13.9
1995 1.7 7.6 2.5 2.6 14.4
1996 1.7 7.8 2.5 2.6 14.6
1997 1.7 7.9 2.5 2.6 14.7
1998 1.7 8.0 2.5 2.6 14.8
1999 1.8 8.1 2.5 2.6 15.0
2000 1.8 8.2 2.5 2.6 15.1
2001 1.8 8.4 2.5 2.6 15.3
RUBY K-18
G - VILLAGE TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT
1. Coal. Several coal deposits exist alona the banks of the Yukon near Ruby. These deposits were once mined at the turn of the century to provide fuel for steamboats that traveled the Yukon. Since then, these mines have been closed down. Previous cost estimates to reopen these mines to provide fuel for space heating and other end uses have shown the projects to be uneconomical (Ref. 17, Main Report).
As an alternative to new minina, the costs of delivering coal from the commercial mine at Healy were examined in this study. Estimates show that coal delivered to Ruby from the source would be approximately $140 to $150 per ton including mine-mouth costs and the costs of handlina, baraina, and storina. This would make it marainally less expensive than oi], but more expensive than wood.
Technical and environmental problems are also a concern. Lona-term storage of Healy coal in bulk quantities has problems with spontaneous combustion which must be controlled. Most residents were not enthusiastic about using coal as a source of fuel because of environmental drawbacks related to air pollution. No further consideration of this. alternative is warranted.
Wood. Wood is widely used in Ruby as a home heating fuel. Sources of wood include driftwood from the Yukon River and forest areas surrounding the village. Reid, Collins (Ref. 20, Main Report) assesses the wood resource potential for commercial development as low to fair relative to other interior Alaskan villaaes.
Geothermal. Geothermal sites are located in the region at Horner and MeTozi Snrinas. Thouah temperatures at these sites were not known, they were belived by the reconnaissance team to be too far away for practical development as an eneray source for space heating or power generation.
Hydroelectric. R. W. Beck & Associates identified Grayling Creek and another unnamed tributary to the Melozitna River as potential
hydroelectric sites near Ruby (Ref. 15, Main Renort). The Graylina site was evaluated in alternative "B." Residents of Ruby also expressed interest in the hydroelectric potential at the Melozitna River. In response to this interest, this site was evaluated in alternative "C."
Wind. Considerable interest was expressed in Ruby for wind generation. villagers reported that the wind blows rather consistently on the hilltops surrounding Rubv. In the community meetina, several residents reauested that this resource be evaluated. Part of the interest shown also derives from previous visits by consultants, who encouraged the installation of wind anemometer stations and that residents campaian for this technoloav.
RUBY K-19
In general, interior villages do not a have good wind resource for electric power generation. Wind power should generally be considered if average annual wind power is above 200 W/m2 and average annual wind speed is above 10 mph. The Wind Energy Resource Atlas for Alaska does not report wind data for Ruby, but does for Falena, Tanana and Nenana. Of these three villages, Tanana has the highest wind power rating at 42 W/mé for an anemometer heiaht of 10 m (33 feet). This data suggests that Ruby is not a good candidate for a wind system installation.
The following evaluation also suagests that wind would probably not be a cost effective alternative for Ruby. Consider the followina assumptions for the installation of a 190 kl wind aenerator in Puby:
0 Installed cost is $5,200/kW (or $52,000) amortized over 15 years, The real discount rate (net from inflation) is assumed to be 3 percent annually.
o Annual overation and maintenance costs are £12,000, based on servicina four times a year by a qualified mechanic.
0 Capacity factor (CF) is 20 percent, which would he a very optimistic assumption for Ruby. Capacity factor is the actual energy produced in a year divided by the maximum possible enerayv that can be produced by a given machine.
o Availability factor (AF) is 9.9, which implies that the machine is on-line 90 percent of the time.
o No overhaul costs are required, which is also an optimistic assumption.
With these assumptions, the total annual cost of the wind generator would be $55,600, including amortization and O&M. Annual electric eneray nroduction of the machine is estimated as follows:
(100 kW) (8,760 hr/yr) (0.20 CF) (0.9 AF) = 157,680 kWh
Assumina that a diesel generator has an efficiency of & kWh per aallon of fuel oil, then the fuel saved by the wind generator is calculated as follows:
157,680 kWh
8 kWh/aal
Fuel Savings = = 19,710 gallons
Thus, the break even cost for the system becomes:
$55,600 2 = $2.82/aal
19,710 aallons
Breakeven Cost =
7.
RUBY K-70
For Ruby, the projected cost of oi] at an annual real dollar inflation rate of 2.4 percent will not exceed the price required for a wind generator to break even within the planning period of this study. Thus, wind generators do not appear to he an economically viable alternative for Ruby at this time.
It is believed that the assumptions of the foreaoina economic analysis are reasonable despite the lack of wind data. Good wind anemometer stations are expensive to install (approximately $50,000 each) and locations should be judiciously selected. Further consideration of this alternative is not recommended at this time.
Photovoltaic. These systems are uneconomical for Alaska at this time. Solar systems are even less attractive for Ruby because it is located on the north bank of a hill which shades the morning sun.
Fuel Oil. Fuel oi] is delivered by barae fron Nenana during the summer months when the Yukon River is passable. Availability is good and storage facilities at Ruby are sufficient for village needs. Fuel oil is used for heatina public buildings .and for power generation.
Table 5 presents the results of the preliminary evaluation of resources and technologies as applied to the community. Methods and criteria used in developina this table are covered in Section C of the main report.
The results of this preliminary assessment were used as guidance in development of plans evaluated in the final stages of the studv.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
TABLE 5
VILLAGE TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT
TECHNOLOGY
Electric
Coal Fired Steam
Wood Fired Steam
Geotherma]
Diesel (base)
Gas Turbine
Hydroelectric
Wind
Photovoltaic
Heating
Diesel Waste Heat Recovery
Electric: Resistance
Passive Solar
Wood
Coal
Oil (base)
Other
Coal Gasification
Wood Gasification - Diesel
Biogas
Waste Fired Boiler
Peat
Binary Cycle Generator
Conservation
Hydroelectric-Regional
FOR
RUBY Own eR aar F&F FW rR Ww
NOTE: Higher numbers are more favorable.
TECHNICAL NMP FP MO HYP Be ONNKF HEP NM COST
FACTORS
RUBY K-21
RESOURCE FACTORS
yor FP YO YO FY OC CO OoNNDDOONF CO oO ON FF YP oF OOOO WO Orr FP FP Pe pPpPwADGwWwaoo www or WP Ke wWwwrr wno me YON NN WON NS wv 0no0onn mynremorFNnN COO CO oNnnooroanad
RUBY K-22
H_- ENERGY PLAN EVALUATION MALO
H.1 - Base Case
The base case study begins with the Present central utility system as described in Section D (i.e., three diesel units with capacities of 90 kW, 150 kW, and 150 kw). Projections show that these units will be sufficient to meet village power needs through the end of the planning period. The basic criterion assumed for utility plannina is that the system's laraest machine can be out of service and the load will still be met. One 150 kw unit should be sufficient to meet villaae power needs until 1989, after which paralleling of machines will be required. The utility is newly equipped to handle varallel Operation for any combination of units.
In 1997, the economic lifetime of the 90 kW unit will be reached and this unit can he replaced with a machine of equivalent size. The two 150 kW units, having been installed in late 1981, will have an economic lifetime lastina to the end of the plannina veriod for this study.
Assumptions made for calculating future electricity costs and present worth are as follows:
0 Utility planning is carried out as previously described.
0 Costs are presented in 1981 dollars.
0 Diesel aenerators are valued at a purchase price of $300/kW plus $500/kW for installation for a total installed cost of $800/kW, which is amortized for 20 years. The real discount rate (net from inflation) is assumed to be 3 percent annually.
0 General operation and maintenance costs for a municipal utility are valued at $44,000 per year, regardless of installed capacity. This expense covers the cost of operating personnel for the power plant and routine maintenance items such as replacement of lubricating oi]. As the study deals only with busbar costs, the cost of maintainina the distribution system is omitted as this system is common to all alternatives. Similarly, administration costs are excluded from the analysis. Costs associated with major overhauls and fuel purchases were not included under O&M as is frecuently done. These costs were itemized separately.
Q Each diesel is overhauled every 5 years at one-third of its Purchase price of $300/kW. Annual overhaul costs are established as a sinking fund desianed to provide the equivalent of $100/kW everv 5 years at 3 percent cost of money.
RUBY K-23
0 Electricity is produced at the fuel consumption rate of 8 kWh per
gallon.
0 Annual fuel cost is based on the 1981 nrice of $1.60 per gallon with the real cost rising 2.6 percent annually to $2.67 by the year 2001
and remainina constant thereafter.
Addition of the school load to the city power plant has also increased the quantity of waste heat in the jacket water which could he used for space heating purposes. A design was developed to construct a greenhouse behind the firehouse that could take advantaae of this waste heat, but the project was voted down by the city council as of late February 1982. The availability of this waste heat should be considered for the sitine of any future large structures.
Table & in Section I presents the present worth and power cost calculations of the base case (continued development of the central diesel system). The power costs shown in Table 6 do not necessarily reflect the sale price of electricity to residents of Ruby. In fact, these costs are actually higher than what is charaed. The reason for the discrepancy is that the costs represent probable real costs of producing power at the generators (often referred to as busbar casts). Advantages achieved by the village from grants and subsidies to establish the central power system have the effect of actually lowering the nrice residents must pay. Distribution,
administration, and costs common to all alternatives are also not represented in the present worth analyses.
The net present worth of the base case is $5,970,000 for the period 1982 though 2041.
H.2 - Alternative Plan "A"
At the time of the reconnaissance site visit, the school was heina connected to the city power system, thus shuttina down the school waste heat recovery system which had been operating since the school orened three years ago. To recover the benefits of this waste heat system, this alternative addresses a plan whereby the citv huys or leases the school power plant and supplies all village power from this location. This approach has several advantages. First, the school nower plant is a well constructed facility with concrete foundations that should prolong machine life. Second, and more importantly, the waste heat system could be reactivated and with the additional village load provide greater supplemental heating to the school than before. Third, proceeds from selling waste heat to the school could help reduce electricity costs to the village. Last, the village still maintains control over its own power systen. To facilitate this plan, both 150 kW diesel generators at the city power plant should be moved to the school power plant, thus replacina the
RUBY K-24
school's two 100 kW units (which have been poorly maintained and are too small for the village load anvwav). The 90 kl! diesel at the city power plant could be sold or maintained in anticipation of future needs. Forecasts show that this machine will be reauired earlv in the next decade although accelerated electric demand could force it on-line earlier. For the nurnoses of this analysis, it is assumed the citv will keen the 90 kW unit. When needed, this unit would be moved the school, requirina
expansion of the cererator buildina.
For the economic analysis, it was assumed that the city boucht the school
power plant for the same price they would pay if a new system were installed (i.e., $800/kW of installed capacity). The city would assume responsibility for operation and maintenance of the waste heat recovery
system up to the school walls. The city would then sell heat to the school at a negotiated rate. A brief conversation with a school official of the Yukon-Kovukuk school district suaqested the school would entertain such a plan.
Assumptions made for present worth and power cost calculations are the same as those for the base case with the followina additions:
0 27 percent of innut eneray to the diesel enaines is rejected to the
jacket water cooling system.
9 Enerav losses from the waste heat system are 10 percent of the jacket water energy.
0 5( percent of the heat availahle is used hy the school for space heating purposes.
0 Heatina efficiency of the existina school beilers is #5 nercent.
0 Installed cost of the waste heat recovery system is $79,000 includina pipina, heat exchanaers, pumps, and miscellaneous items. This cost
is amortized over 10 years, after which all existina equipment is replaced. The real discount rate (net from inflation) is assumed to
be 3 percent annually.
0 Annual O&M cost is $3,090 including pipina inspection, periodic heat exchanger and pump maintenance, and miscellaneous expenses.
0 School space heating requires approximately 28,000 gallons of fuel oil annually.
With these assumptions, benefits of the waste heat recovery system were
assumed to increase annually as electrical demand increases. For the purposes of this analysis, the following simple calculation was used to estimate the fuel displacement benefit of this system.
(#khh) (0.27) (0.90) (0.80) ($/aal)
Noda Benet (te
(8 kWh/aal)(0.65 eff)
RUBY K-25
Table 7 in Section I presents the present worth and Power cost calculations of alternative "A" (qeneration of village power from the school power plant with waste heat recovery). Table 8 presents the fuel savings benefit of the waste heat recovery system. Power costs are determined by subtracting the fuel savings benefit of each year from the total annual costs of the system and then dividina by the energy production. This assumes that the fuel savings will be passed on to the residents of Ruby through the reduction of electricity prices.
The net present worth of alternative "A" is $5,081,000 for the period 1982 through 2041. This is derived by subtracting the present worth of the fuel savinas benefit from the present worth of the svstem. The results suqaest that alternative "A" is a more economical plan than the base case (i.e., the net present worth of this plan is less than that for the base case).
H.3 - Alternative Plan "B"
Alternative "RB" addresses the construction of a run-of-the-stream hydroelectric plant at Grayling Creek as a power source to Ruby. Grayling Creek is a tributary to the Melozitna River. The dam site would be approximately 8 miles from Ruby. A reconnaissance level Study of this site was performed by Beck and Associates for the Corps of Enqineers in early 1981 (Ref. 5, Main Report). A project summary of this hydro plant follows:
Drainage Area 22.8 square miles Estimated Average Flow 17.1 cfs Plant Peak Discharge 25 cfs Gross Head 120 feet Installed Capacity 200 kW Dam Height 110 feet Dam Lenath 300 feet Penstock Length 900 feet Penstock Diameter 26 inches Transmission Line Length 10.5 miles (includes 0.5 mile of submarine cable)
The costs to develop the Graylina project were also estimated bv Reck and Associates. The following costs were projected (Ref. 5, Main Report).
RUBY K-26
Dam Cost $2,870,000 Penstock Cost 150,000 Powerhouse Cost . 200,000 Powerhouse Excavation Cost 16,00 Misc. Power Plant Equipment 16,000 Installed Turbine/Generator Cost 120,000 Station Electrical Equipment 115,000 Switchyard Fauioment Cost 62,000
Switchyard Civil Cost 18,000 Transmission Line 144,000
Subtotal (1) $3,771,000 Direct Construction Cost Includina
Geoaraphic Factor 7,542,000 Continaencies 1,508,000
Direct Construction Cost Plus Continaencies $ 9,050,000 Engineering and Owner
Administration @ 15 percent 1,357,000
Total Construction Cost 10,407,000 Interest Purina Construction 895,000
TOTAL INVESTMENT COST
(On-line 1980) — $11,302,000
For this alternative, the hydro plant was assumed to come on-line in 1992. The hydro power would he available vear round with peak capacity of 200 kl! and sufficient energy to provide village needs through the end of the plannino period in the year 2001.
Basic assumptions for the present worth and power cost calculations of alternative "B" are as follows:
0 From 1982 to 1991, alternative "R" is identical to the base case. Starting in 1992, the hydro plant comes on-line and diesel power is releaated to backup.
° Cost of the hydro plant is $12,432,000 in 1981 dollars. This cost is amortized over 50-year operating lifetime from 1992 through 2041. The real discount rate (net from inflation) is assumed to be 3 percent annually.
0 Annual oneration and maintenance costs (includina replacement costs) are $187,000 (Ref. 5, Main Report).
oO Annual operation and maintenance costs of diesel backup are $3,000.
0 No annual overhaul cost for the diesel backup is assumed.
RUBY K-27
Table 9 in Section I presents the present worth and power cost calculations of alternative "B" (development of the hvdroelectric potential at Graylina Creek). The cost estimate for the hydro site was based on an estimate developed by Beck and Associates. The estimate is believed to be low for the transmission line, possibly by an order of maqnitude. The present worth calculations and power costs suagest that the hvdro site at Graylino
Creek would not be economical compared to the base case (central diesel) within the plannina period. Therefore, this alternative is not recommended for Ruby.
H.4 - Alternative Plan "C"
Residents in the central Yukon reaion have expressed interest in
development of the hydroelectric potential at Melozitna River. They
propose a facility that could supply the lona-term electrical eneray needs of at least six villages and stimulate economic. growth in the region by encouragina industrial development, such as minina. As part of this reconnaissance study, three dam sizes on the Melozitna River were
evaluated, all of which are notentially feasible. A project summary of
these arranaements follows:
Medium
Low Head Head Hiah Head
Dam Crest Elevation 455 565 620 Normal Max. Operatina Level (ft) 449 550 600 Min, Reservoir Level (ft) 310 385 550 Max. Reservoir drawdown (ft) 130 165 50 Reservoir Volume (acre-feet) 400,000 2,100,000 3,700,000 Reservoir Surface Area (acres) 6,590 228,000 44,300
Dam Volume (cubic yards) 2,250,000 5,710,000 8,500,000
Spillway and Qutlet
Facility Capacity (cfs) 50,000 50,000 50,000
Powerhouse Installed
Capacity (MW) 20 64 104.8 Approximate Tailwater (ft) 225 225 225
Firm Annual Potential
Generation (GWh) 87.6 222 436
The project costs of these arranaements were estimated as follows:
RUBY K-28
20 MW 64 MW 104.8 MW Low Head Cost Medium Head Cost Hiah Head Cost ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000)
Item
Power Plant/Powerhouse 35,000 52,300 63, 300 Dam 33,800 85,700 127,500 Spillway 32,000 45,000 50,000 Intake 17,300 27,000 20,000 Penstocks 2,500 4,000 5,000 Land 7,000 29,600 38,800 Reservoir Clearina 5,500 11,000 15,000 Diversion/Cofferdams 27,000 30,500 32,800
Tailrace/Surge Chamber 2,500 3, 300 3,600 Switchyard 900 2,500 4,800 Airstrip/Main Access 10,800 10,e00 10,800 Site Facilities 66,000 95,000 114,000 Transmission line 11,700 18, 300 18, 300
Subtotal 252,000 415,000 503,900 20 % Continaency 50,400 €3,000 100,800 12.5% Enaineerina, Owner
Cost, Administration 37,800 62,300 75,690
TOTAL PROJECT COST $340,200 $560, 300 $680, 300
Alternative "C" addresses construction of the low head hvdro arranaement at the Melozitna River. For this alternative it was assumed that the hydro site comes on-line in year 1992. The hydro power would be available vear round with emergency backup diesels maintained in each villaae.
For the purpose of comoarino the present worth of this alternative with the base case, it was assumed that the total annual costs of the hydro plant in any given vear would he proratec based on the percentage of saleable energy that is actually delivered to Ruby. To ascertain Ruby's role in the purchase of power from the hydro plant, a reaional electrical eneray forecast was projected for the six villages potentially served by this dam, includina the air base in Galena. The villages involved are Galena, Ruby, Nulato, Kaltaqg, Huslia, and Koyukuk. The electrical eneray forecast is presented below:
Reaional
Electrical Demand 1982 1986 1991 1995 2001
GWh 9.6 10.2 10.9 11.5 12.4 myo 2.7 2.9 3.1 3.2 3.5
lpssumes 0.40 load factor
RUBY K-29
The basic assumptions for the present worth and power cost assumptions of alternative "C" are as follows:
0 From 1982 to 1991 alternative "C" is identical to the base case.
Starting in 1992, the Melozitna hydro project comes on-line.
0 The cost of the low head hydroelectric scheme is $340,200,000 which is amortized over a 50-year operating lifetime from 1992 through 2041. The real discount rate (net from inflation) is assumed to be 3 percent annually.
0 Annual overhaul (replacement) costs of mechanical and electrical
components are $450,000.
0 Annual operation and maintenance costs are $400,000.
° Costs of the hydro plant are prorated to Ruby at a percentage of 4 percent based on the percentage of electrical energy delivered to the village.
° Diesel backup capacity is maintained in Ruby after the hydro plant comes on-line with 390 KW provided up to the year 2001.
° Annual 0& costs of maintaining diesel backup is valued at $3,000.
0 No annual overhaul cost of the diesel generators is assumed.
Table 10 in Section I presents the present worth and power cost calculations for alternative "C" (development of the low head hydroelectric potential at Melozitna River). The calculations suggest the hydro site at Melozitna would not be economical compared to the base case (central diesel) within the planning period, given the electrical energy forecast for the region. Costs were prorated to Ruby based on the projected electrical energy consumption of the village. Economic success of this hydro plant will depend on unconfirmed industrial growth in the region (such as mining) which was not projected in the electrical energy forecast. If substantial industrial development in the region does take place, the Melozitna hydro plant could provide very economical power and would become a viable alternative.
RUBY K-30
I - ENERGY PLAN EVALUATIONS
TABLE 6
ESTIMATED COSTS OF RUBY BASE CASE (Central Diesel)
FUEL COSTS SYSTEM ADDITIONS FIXED COSTS Energy Diesel Fuel Fuel Capital Annual Overhaul Total Fixed Production | Fuel Used x Price = Costs Costs Costs + Fund + O&M = Costs Year (MWh) (1,000 gal) ($/gal) ($1,000) Component ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000)
1982 270 34 1.64 56 o Existing diesel system 312 21 7 44 72 consisting of three 1983 359 45 1.68 76 units (90 kW, 150 kW 21 7 44 72 and 150 kW) 1984 375 47 1.73 81 21 7 44 72
1985 391 49 1.77 87 21 7 44 72
1986 418 52 1.82 95 21 7 44 72
1987 425 53 1.86 99 21 7 44 , 72
1988 431 54 1.91 103 21 7 44 72
1989 445 56 1.96 110 21 7 44 72 =°
1990 453 57 2.01 115 21 7 44 72
1991 463 58 2.07 120 21 7 44 72
1992 467 58 2.12 123 21 7 44 72
1993 473 59 2.18 129 21 7 44 72
1994 483 60 2.23 134 21 7 44 72
1995 490 61 2.29 140 21 7 44 72
1996 496 62 2.35 146 21 7 44 72
1997 503 63 2.41 152 21 7 44 72
1998 507 63 2.47 156 21 7 44 72
1999 514 64 2.54 163 21 7 44 72
2000 521 65 2.60 169 21 7 44 72
2001 530 66 2.67 176 21 7 44 72
2002-2041 530 66 2.67 176 21 7 44 72 Le-y Agny
TABLE 6 (Cont'd)
Total Discounted
Fuel Fixed Annual Annual Energy
Costs + Costs = Costs Costs Costs
Year ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000) ($/kWh)
1982 56 72 128 124 0.47
1983 716 72 148 140 0.41
1984 81 72 153 * 140 0.41
1985 87 72 159 141 0.41
1986 95 72 167 144 0.40
1987 99 72 71 143 0.40
1988 103 72 175 142 0.41
1989 110 72 182 144 0.41
1990 115 72 187 143 0.41
1991 120 72 192 143 0.41
1992 123 72 195 141 0.42
1993 129 72 201 141 0.42
1994 134 72 206 140 0.43
1995 140 712 212 140 0.43
1996 146 72 218 140 0.44
1997 152 72 224 140 0.45
1998 156 72 228 138 0.45
1999 163 72 235 138 0.46
2000 169 72 241 137 0.46
2001 176 72 248 137 0.47
2002-2041 176 72 248 3,174 0.47
TOTAL $ 5,970
All costs shown in thousands of dollars
Note 1: Diesel fuel use is calculated at a consumption rate of 8 kWh produced per gallon of fuel used. Note 2: Diesel fuel price is expressed in terms of 1981 dollars, with prices escalated at 2.6 percent above general inflation. Note 3: Total annual fixed costs include funds for equipment amortization (calculated at 3%), a sinking fund for equipment overhaul and replacement, and general O&M work. Ze-y =a
RUBY K-33
I.1 - Base Case
1.1.1 - Social and Environmental Evaluation
There would be no adverse social or environmental impacts beyond what are experienced already with diesel aenerators if the central utility expands to meet future load projections.
1.1.2 - Technical Evaluation
Transferral of the school load to the city aenerators in 198] introduced need for expansion of the utility. The utility responded by retirina a 100 kW machine and adding two 150 kW machines. Since the units have also been equipped with paralleling governors, future expansion as projected should oresent no load problems. No technical barriers are foreseen to continued development of this utility throuch the planning period.
TABLE 7 ESTIMATED COSTS OF RUBY ALTERNATIVE PLAN "A" (Central Diesel with Waste Heat Recovery )
FUEL COSTS SYSTEM ADDITIONS FIXED COSTS Energy Diesel Fuel Fuel Capital Annual Overhaul Total Fixed Production | Fuel Used x Price = Costs Costs Costs + Fund + 08M = Costs Year ____— (MWh) (1,000 gal) ($/gal) ($1,000) Component ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000) _ ($1,000)
1982 270 34 1.64 56 o Village power generated 312 29 ‘j 47 83 from school powerhouse. 1983 359 45 1.68 76 System consists of three 29 ul 47 83 diesels (90 kW, 150 kW, 1984 375 47 1.73 81 and 150 kW). Waste heat 29 7 47 83 recovery system reactivated. 1985 391 49 1.77 87 29 7 47 83
1986 418 52 1,82 95 29 7] 47 83
1987 425 53 1.86 99 29 7 47 83
1988 431 54 1.91 103 29 7 47 83
1989 445 56 1.96 110 29 7 47 83
1990 453 57 2.01 115 29 7 47 83
1991 463 58 2.07 120 29 7 47 83
1992 467 58 2.12 123 o Waste heat recovery 70 29 7 47 83 system replaced with 1993 473 59 2.18 129 new system 29 7 47 83
1994 483 60 2.23 134 29 7 47 83
1995 490 61 2.29 140 29 7 47 83
1996 496 62 2.35 146 29 7 47 83
1997 503 63 2.41 152 29 7 47 83
1998 507 63 2.47 156 29 7 47 83
1999 514 64 2.54 163 29 7 47 83
2000 521 65 2.60 169 29 7 47 83
2001 530 66 2.67 176 29 7 47 83
2002-2041 530 66 2.67 176 29 7 47 83 ve-y% =AgNY
TABLE 7 (Cont'd)
Total Discounted Fuel Fixed Annual Annual Energy Costs + Costs = Costs Costs Costs Year ____—«( $1,000) __ ($1,000) ($1,000) | ($1,000) ($/kWh)
1982 56 83 139 135 0.48
1983 76 83 159 150 0.40
1984 81 83 164 150 0.40
1985 87 83 170 151 0. 39
1986 95 83 178 154 0. 39
1987 99 83 i 182 152 0.39
1988 103 83 186 151 0. 39
1989 110 83 193, 152 0.39
1990 115 83 198 152 0.39
1991 120 83 203 151 0.39
1992 123 83 206 149 0.39
1993 129 83 212 149 0.40
1994 134 83 217 148 0.40
1995 140 83 223 147 0.40
1996 146 83 229 147 0.41
1997 152 83 "235 146 0.41
1998 156 83 239 145 0.41
1999 163 83° 246 145 0. 42
2000 169 83 252 144 0.42
2001 176 83 259 143 0.42
2002-2041 176 83 259 3,315 0. 43
TOTAL $ 6,025
Total present worth of non-electrical benefits $ ( 736)
Net present worth $ 5,289
All costs shown in thousands of dollars
Note 1: Diesel fuel use is calculated at a consumption rate of 8 kWh produced per gallon of fuel used. Note 2: Diesel fuel price is expressed in terms of 1981 dollars, with prices escalated at 2.6 percent above general inflation. Note 3: Total annual fixed costs include funds for equipment amortization (calculated at 3%), a sinking fund for equipment overhaul and replacement, and general O&M work. Se-y any
RUBY K-36
TABLE 8
ESTIMATED NON-ELECTRICAL BENEFITS OF BASE CASE
Total Annual Benefits Discounted Year (Space Heating Fuel Saving) Benefits
1982 10 10 1983 14 13 1984 15 14 1985 16 14 1986 17 15
1987 18 15 1988 19 15 1989 21 17 1990 21 16 1991 22 16
1992 23 17 1993 24 17 1994 - 2 17 1995 26 17 1996 27 17
1997 29 18 1998 29 18 1999 30 18 2000 32 18 2001 33 18
2002 33 416
through 2041
TOTAL: $ 736
All cost figures shown are in thousands of dollars.
RUBY K-37
I.2 - Alternative Plan "A"
1.2.1 - Social and Environmental Evaluation
Minor environmental gains can be achieved with waste heat recovery by displacing oil that otherwise would be burned at the school for space heating. A minor social benefit of alternative "A" is the generation of village power from the school Power plant, which is isolated from the community, thus minimizing noise impact.
1.2.2 - Technical Evaluation
No major technical barriers are foreseen for implementina alternative "A". The school generator building and waste heat recovery system are in place. Fuel storage for 25,000 qallons is available. Expansion of the building will eventually have to be undertaken to house a third unit. Synchronization eauipment wil] be required when the third unit is brought on line.
About 28,000 aallons of fuel oil are reauired to heat the school annually. With the waste heat recovery system operating, it was estimated that 28 percent of this fuel could be saved in 1982, and 56 percent by year 2001, assuming 50 percent of the jacket water eneray is delivered to the buildina space.
TABLE 9
ESTIMATED COSTS OF RUBY ALTERNATIVE PLAN "B" (Hydropower at Grayling Creek)
FUEL COSTS SYSTEM ADDITIONS FIXED COSTS Energy Diesel Fuel Fuel Capital Annual Overhaul Total Fixed Production | Fuel Used x Price = Costs Costs Costs + Fund + O&M = Costs Year (MWh) (1,000 gal) ($/gal) ($1,000) Component ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000)
1982 270 34 1.64 56 o Existing diesel system 312 21 7 44 72 consisting of three 1983 359 45 1.68 76 units (90 kW, 150 kW 21 7 44 72 and 150 kW) 1984 375 47 1.73 81 21 7 44 72
1985 391 49 1.77 87 21 7 44 72
1986 418 52 1.82 95 21 7 44 72
1987 425 53 1.86 99 21 7 44 72
1988 43) 54 1.91 103 21 7 44 72
1989 445 56 1.96 110 21 7 44 712
1990 453 57 2.01 115 21 7 44 72
1991 463 58 2.07 120 21 7 44 72
1992 467 0 2.12 0 o Grayling Creek hydro 12,432 504 0 190 694 plant comes on line. 1993 4713 0 2.18 0 Diesel system is re- 504 0 190 694 legated to backup. 1994 483 0 2.23 0 504 0 190 694
1995 490 0 2.29 0 504 0 190 694
1996 496 i) 2.35 0 504 0 190 694
1997 503 0 2.41 0 504 0 190 694
1998 507 0 2.47 0 504 0 190 694
1999 514 0 2.54 0 504 0 190 694
2000 521 0 2.60 0 504 0 190 694
2001 530 0 2.67 0 504 0 190 694
2002-2041 530 0 2.67 0 504 0 190 694 8e-y AaNy
TABLE 9 (Cont'd)
Total Discounted Fuel Fixed Annual Annual Energy Costs + Costs = Costs Costs Costs Year ($1,000) ($1,000) * ($1,000) ($1,000) ($/kWh)
1982 56 12 128 124 0.47
1983 76 72 148 140 0.41
1984 81 72 153 140 0.41
1985 87 72 159 141 0.41
1986 95 72 167 144 0.40
1987 99 72 71 143 0.40
1988 103 72 175 142 0.41
1989 110 72 182 144 0.41
1990 115 72 187 143 0.41
1991 120 72 192 143 0.41
1992 0 694 694 501 1.49
1993 0 694 694 487 1.47
1994 0 694 694 473 1.44
1995 0 694 694 459 1.42
1996 0 694 694 445 1.40
1997 0 694 694 : 433 1.38
1998 0 694 694 420 1.37
1999 0 694 694 408 1.35
2000 0 694 694 396 1.33
2001 0 694 694 384 1.31
2002-2041 0 694 694 8,882 1.31
TOTAL $ 14,692
All costs shown in thousands of dollars
Note 1: Diesel fuel use is calculated at a consumption rate of 8 kWh produced per gallon of fuel used. Note 2: Diesel fuel price is expressed in terms of 1981 dollars, with prices escalated at 2.6 percent above general inflation. Note 3: Total annual fixed costs include funds for equipment amortization (calculated at 3%), a sinking fund for equipment overhaul and replacement, and general O8& work. 6€-y AgNy
RUBY K-40
1.3 - Alternative Plan "B"
1.3.1 - Social and Environmental Evaluation
Grayling Creek is a tributary to the Melozitna River. The Melozitna River supports runs of chinock and chum salmon. Salmon soawn in this river and are important to the area's economy. Local residents reported that these fish do not ascend Cravlina Creek. Residents occasionally use Grayling for sport fishing of trout and araylina, but these species are not presently important to community well being.
The reaion is also important for trapping and as a moose hahitat.
Construction of the dam could have a significant impact on lifestyle in Ruby. Pooulation would likely expand. Hundreds of workers would be required for construction, which could provide sianificant employment to the villaae.
1.3.2 - Technical Evaluation
The Graylina dam would likely be an earthfilled desian and include a penstock, powerhouse and transmission line, including a submarine cable to cross the Yukon Piver. The site would have enouah storaae to allow some control of the timing of generation, but not enough to fully reaulate the river. Flow rates suaaest that the river would require a lona period for filling the reservoir.
TABLE 10
ESTIMATED COSTS OF RUBY ALTERNATIVE PLAN "C" (Hydropower at Melozitna River)
FUEL COSTS SYSTEM ADDITIONS FIXED COSTS Energy Diesel Fuel Fuel Capital Annual Overhaul Total Fixed Production | Fuel Used x Price = Costs Costs Costs + Fund + O&M = Costs ‘Year (Mth) (1,000 gal) _($/gat) ($1,600) _|__ Component ($1,000) | ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000) _ ($1,000)
1982 270 34 1.64 56 o Existing diesel system 312 21 7 44 72 : consisting of three 1983 359 45 1.68 76 units (90 kW, 150 kW 21 ia 44 72 and 150 kW) 1984 375 47 1.73 81 21 7 44 72
1985 391 49 1,77 87 21 a 44 72
1986 418 52 1.82 95 21 7 44 72
1987 425 53 1. 86 99 21 q 44 72
1988 431 54 1.91 103 21 i 44 72
1989 445 56 1.96 110 21 7 44 72
1990 453 57 2.01 115 21 7 44 72
1991 465 58 2.07 120 21 7 44 72
1992 467 0 2.12 0 o Melozitna River hydro 340, 200 550 18 19 587 plant comes on-line. 1993 473 0 2.18 0 Diese! system is 550 18 19 587 relegated to backup. 1994 483 0 2.23 0 550 18 19 587
1995 490 0 2.29 0 550 18 19 587
1996 496 0 2.35 0 550 18 19 587
1997 503 0 2.41 0 550 18 19 587
1998 507 0 2.47 0 550 18 19 587
1999 514 0 2.54 0 550 18 19 587
2000 521 0 2.60 0 550 18 19 587
2001 530 0 2.67 0 550 18 19 587
2002-2041 530 0 2.62 0 550 18 19 587 Ly-> Agne
TABLE 10 (Cont'd)
Total Discounted
Fuel Fixed Annual Annual Energy Costs + Costs = Costs Costs Costs Year ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000) _ | ($/kWh)
1982 56 72 128 124 0.47
1983 76 72 148 140 0.41
1984 81 72 153 140 0.41
1985 87 72 159 141 0.41
1986 95 72 167 144 0.40
1987 99 72 71 143 0.40
1988 103 72 175 142 0.41
1989 110 72 182 144 0.41
1990 115 72 187 143 0.41
1991 120 72 192 143 0.41
1992 0 587 587 424 1.26
1993 0 587 587 412 1.24
1994 0 587 587 400 1.22
1995 0 587 587 388 1.20
1996 0 587 587 377 1.18
1997 0 587 587 366 1.17
1998 0 587 587 355 1.16
1999 0 587 587 345 1.14
2000 0 587 587 335 1.13
2001 0 587 587 325 al
2002-2041 0 587 587 7,513 1.11
TOTAL $ 12,644
All costs shown in thousands of dollars
Note 1: Diesel fuel use is calculated at a consumption rate of 8 kWh produced per gallon of fuel used. Note 2: Diesel fuel price is expressed in terms of 1981 dollars, with prices escalated at 2.6 percent above gener Note 3: Total annual fixed costs include funds for equipment amortization (calculated at 3%), a sinking fund for al inflation. overhaul! and replacement, and general O& work. equipment 2v-y = AaNd
RUBY K-43
1.4 - Alternative Plan "C"
1.4.1 - Social and Environmental Impact
The Melozitna River supports runs of chinock and chum salmon, which are species presently important to residents of Ruby. The reaion is also important for trapping and as a moose habitat.
Construction of the dam (probably earthfilled) would he a maior undertaking involving up to 1,000 workers. The influx of this larae number of workers would undoubtedly have a substantial impact on lifestyle in Ruby. Permanent population would likely expand. Construction would last up to four years and require develonment of a camp site and runway (for airplanes and helicopters) on the north side of the Yukon River.
Routina of the transmission line to villages in the reaion would also be a major undertaking which would probably face tremendous
resistance from environmental interest aroups.
1.4.2 - Technical Evaluation
The Melozitna dam would likely be an earthfilled desian, but this would depend on the condition of the canyon and can only be determined by site investiaations. Possibly a concrete thin arch dam would be more practical. The site would have enough storage to allow control of the timina of aeneration and requlation of the river flow. Provisions could be made for future expansion by staging the entry of turbines.
One of the biggest problems is the construction of a transmission line to Ruby and other villages. To reach Ruby the transmission line must cross the one-half mile Yukon Piver. This would he accomnlished with a submarine cable.
RUBY K-44
J_- COMMENTS AND DISCUSSION
RUBY K-45
J.1 - Comments Received From Unknown Resident in Ruby
[Original Comments Retyped Here for Clarity]
RUBY K-46
RUBY
1. The waste heat recovery system has NOT been reconnected to the
Fire Hall since you were here. I don't know where your information
came from but it isn't true. The Fire Hall has been heated quite
easily from an oil heater, all winter.
2. Before you pass off the wind generation idea, I think that anemometers
should be installed, as you said you would do.
3. [Original comment deleted by author. ]
4. Also, from the same source a suggestion was made re: a series of
pillar turbines in the Yukon.
5. In your plan for the town to utilize the schools generators and building, I am told that those generators for their short use,
were not properly maintained (oi1 change infrequent - one specific
cited) so that this should be checked out more carefully and the _ cost of overhauling & what ever should be added.
ic
2.
3.
Comment :
Response:
Comment :
Response:
Comment:
Response:
RUBY K-47
ACRES' RESPONSE
"The waste heat recovery system..."
The field staff had discussed the status of the waste heat
recovery system in November 1981 at the village meeting and
were told, as you report, that the system was disconnected.
In February 1982, the field staff member called the designers
of the new waste heat recovery system for the proposed
greenhouse and they commented that the existing system was
operating. It was naturally assumed that the system was
reconnected and thus the base case was treated as such. In
light of your comment, we revised the base case and removed
the existing waste heat system from the analysis.
"Before you pass off the wind generating idea..."
At the village meeting, considerable interest was shown in
wind generators. This interest undoubtedly derives from the
preception of good wind existing on the hilltops surrounding
Ruby. Previous consultants who have visited Ruby have also
recommended this alternative. After reviewing the economics
of wind generation, however, it was judged by the study team
that wind systems would not be an economically viable
alternative for Ruby. This was concluded using very
optimistic wind power assumptions (see discussion in Section
G). As a result, Acres could not, in good faith, recommend
placement of a wind anemometer station in the village.
Anemometer stations, if properly installed, cost $50,000
each, not including operation and maintenance costs. If
public monies were available to Ruby, they would probably be
better spent on other projects.
It is agreed, however, that one cannot truly assess the
feasibility of wind generators without knowing the wind
behavior over a period of time. The Power Authority has
noted your interest in wind and, at your request, would
perhaps authorize the placement of wind anemometers. It
should be added that Acres is not against wind systems as the
recommendation has been made for several villages where wind
speeds regularly reach 20 mph. These villages are generally
located on the west coast, however.
"Pillar Turbines..."
It is presumed that this is in reference to Pelton turbines.
These devices are generally used for high head applications,
inappropriate to Yukon River conditions. The Yukon would not
be a practical site for hydroelectric development.
4. Comment :
Response:
RUBY K-48
"In your plan for the town to..."
Acres was not aware of the poor maintenance record of the
school generators at Ruby. However, many school districts
across the State maintain their systems poorly so this is not
surprising. In alternative "A" for the final report, it was
Proposed that the two 150 kW generators at the city power
plant be transferred to the school generator building. This
would allow reactivation of the school waste heat recovery
system. It was also suggested that the city assume
responsibility for the operation of this plant.
RUBY K-49
J.2 - Comments Received From Mr. Larry Brian of Ruby Electric
hiEhO TO THE RECORD RUBY K-50
ALASKA | suavect _RUBY RECONNAISSANCE STUDY sy __PKD pate 3/31/82 *
POWER TELECON WITH LARRY BRIAN, RUBY FIFCTRIC SHEETNO._] Ss OF__y_ AUTHORITY | (City Office, 468-4401) prRoJect_ACRES' RECON
Larry called to comment on the draft recon for Ruby. He said that since
~~ —the-time-of_the-field—team's-visit, Ruby -has-acquired two new generators. | They formerly had
~——________1 90kw_and - ain i 1 100kw | both Caterpillars.
They now have
T 90Kw and ' 2 150kw's
—— and-have-retired-the-100kw-unit? St He
____He said _that-a 90 or_1 00 -kw- unit-atone-does-not-have-the capaci ty to” power the town, the school and the airport, but that a single 150 kw unit alone will _do the job, . oe
He also added that the generators could be paralled_in_the future since | —_— “they have Woodward governors.
He also expressed-concern-over-Acres* discussion oF waste heat use. The city has plans of its own for waste heat capture and use. I am uncertain - whether -he was referring -to—the- schoot+s—waste-heat—or-the-ci ty genérators' waste heat. The city has a grant to use waste heat for a greenhouse near the firehouse (attached?), soil_warming, and-space-heating -of the fire-- hall.
Comment :
Response:
Comments:
Response:
Comments:
Response:
Comment :
Response:
RUBY K-51
ACRES' RESPONSE
"At the time of the site visit, Ruby had one 90 kW and one 100 kW Caterpillar generators. They now have one 90 kW and two 150 kW generators, having studied the 100 kW unit."
Acres was not aware of the change at the time of the draft
report. The final report reflects the system as it now
stands.
"A 90 kW or 100 kW unit alone does not have the capacity to
power the town..."
When the school switched over to the village system, it was apparent that the village would be near capacity of the old system. The forecast for 1982 indicates a one year lag in power needs. It should also be added that, if ambitious
development takes place or the power cost assistance program
comes into effect, the electrical energy forecast may be low.
"The generators could be paralleled in the future because they have Woodward governors."
This was noted in the final report and the machines will
indeed need to be paralleled in the near future.
"Acres discussion of waste heat use..."
At the village meeting the proposed greenhouse project
adjacent to the powerhouse was discussed. Waste heat from the jacket water of the diesel generators was to be
circulated through the greenhouse. A follow-up of this
concept by Acres revealed that the city council had voted it down. Thus, it was not considered further in the analysis.
RUBY K-52
J.3 - Comments Received From The Alaska Power Administration
[Original Letter Retyped Here For Clarity]
RUBY K-53
April 12, 1982
Mr. Eric P. Yould
Executive Director
Alaska Power Authority
334 West 5th Avenue, Second Floor
Anchorage, Alaska 99802
Dear Mr. Yould:
We have reviewed the two draft sets of reconnaissance reports of energy
requirements and alternatives for numerous small Alaskan villages,
transmitted to us by your March 3 letter. One was prepared by Acres
American, Inc. and one by Northern Technical Services (NORTEC).
We agree with the recommendations in the Acres summary report (pp. 0-6 and 0-7), and the individual village NORTEC reports. However, there appears to be a discrepancy in that the recommendations of the NORTEC
summary report are not presented in the same priority as some of the individual reports. Specifically the individual reports recommend
investigation before specific action is taken on new projects, while the
summary report recommends immediate installation of central diesel
generators in eight villages.
We offer a few general comments for consideration.
There appears to be a disparity between the two reports in that Acres
assumed that conservation was not within the scope of consideration while NORTEC did. Neither put a "value" on conservation in terms of energy
reduction.
A summary comparison of energy cost per kWh for each generation technology would enhance the Acres report. Presentation of costs in terms of kWh units and a summary by technologies would also enhance the NORTEC report.
Neither report addresses actual present and projected electric power costs with or without consideration of the residential subsidy under AS 44.83.162.
RUBY K-54
Extending a single energy cost for a given technology to several
communities leads to risk of invalid comparison based on local
conditions.
The description of each technology in each report is a good approach to
inform lay consumers of the basic parameters. It is good to see a
description of the state-of-the art of technologies that are not yet
practical for power generation in remote locations such as wind, biomass,
and geothermal.
Thanks for the opportunity to comment.
Sincerely,
Robert J. Cross
Administrator
FSUMMERS:gs:sr 3/18/82 Yould Letter FLOYD4
1.
2.
Comment:
Response:
Comment :
Response:
RUBY K-55
ACRES' RESPONSE
"... Acres assumed that conservation was not within the scope
of consideration."
No such assumption was ever made either explicitly or
implicitly. In a number of village reports, the primary
recommendation was that aggressive energy audit programs be
undertaken forthwith. It was repeatedly noted that village
residents were more concerned about the costs of home heating
and the inefficiencies of their homes than they were about
the supply of electricity within their village. While the
study of the means necessary to achieve any meaningful
savings of space heating energy was beyond the scope of the
study, the effects of such savings were incorporated where
appropriate. It was assumed that new housing desians which
would be implemented in the villages after 1985 would 25 to
30 percent more efficient than existing units. No "value"
was placed on such improvements for the reason noted above.
It is the opinion of Acres! staff that electrical energy
conservation is a function of electric energy cost and is
inversely related to disposable income: consumers will
purchase and use those electricity-consuming devices for
which they feel a need or desire. As the real cost of using
these items increases, their use will likely (but not
necessarily) decrease. The incorporation of so-called energy
efficient lights or motors is not expected to have
perceptible impact on any village's energy or demand
forecast.
No comment or change in report text is needed.
"A summary comparison of energy cost per kWh for each
generation technology would enhance the Acres report."
Without site-specific parameters such as fuels costs,
construction costs, and annual O&M charges, such a summary
would be meaningless. Not all technologies are appropriate
or available to all villages. Even where two villages may
snare access to a particular technology, such as diesel
generation, local conditions including fuel costs, fuel
consumption rates, and O&M considerations may make
comparisons invalid.
The comment is noted to be contradictory to the later comment
that "Extending a single energy cost for a given technology
to several communities leads to risk of invalid comparison
based on local conditions."
No comment or change in report text is needed.
3: Comment :
Response:
RUBY K-56
"Neither report addresses actual present and projected
electric power costs with or without consideration of the
residential subsidy under AS 44.83.162."
This omission is deliberate at the direction of the Alaska
Power Authority. Study costs given are busbar costs
calculated without governmental subsidy. The availability of
a subsidy does not affect the economics of a power production
facility; it merely shifts the burden of paying the operation
costs to the government. It is also worth noting that the
subsidy programs are continued from year to year at the
pleasure of the legislature.
No comment or change in report text is needed.
RUBY K-57
J.4 - Comments Received From The State of Alaska Department of Fish and Game
RUBY K-58 SUATE Of ALASKA [
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME
OFFICE OF THE COFSATISSIOMER ad 2 au oe tt ooaae
PHONE: 465-4100
April 8, 1982 RECEIvep
Alaska Power Authority
334 West 5th Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Attention: Eric P. Yould, Executive Director
Gentlemen:
The Alaska Department of Fish and Game has reviewed the Power Authority's Draft FY 82 Energy Requirement Reconnaissance Reports for several Alaska communities.
We have no comments to offer at this time. We wish, however, to review subsequent studies as they become available.
Sincerely, “ On Gorm fr Ronald 0. Skoog
Commissioner
RUBY K-59
ACRES' RESPONSE
No comment or change in report text is needed.
RUBY K-60
J.5 - Comments Received From U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service in Anchorage
RUBY K-61
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Western Alaska Ecological Services
733 W. 4th Avenue, Suite 101
Anchorage, Alaska 99501 REC
(907) 271-4575 BIVED
APR~ 9 1999 Mr. Eric P. Yould aye
Executive Director ale
Alaska Power Authority ‘
334 West 5th Avenue & APR 1982
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Dear Mr. Yould:
We have reviewed the Alaska Power Authority's (APA) Draft FY 1982 Energy
Reconnaissance Reports. If the conclusions and recommendations stated in the
individual reports become those of the APA, and if the APA undertakes feasi-
bility studies in fulfillment of the recommended alternatives, then the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) requests that the information and studies
outlined below be made a part of the feasibility studies.
thout current site-specific resource information and a more complete
escription of the proposed project, it is difficult to assess what impacts, f any, will occur to fish and wildlife resources and associated habitat. rmation should be acquired and studies conducted to identify the fish and
those resources, assess alternatives to the proposed action and devise a
mitigation plan that would prevent a net loss to fish and wildlife resources.
Specific information to be collected and studies to be conducted which the FwS feels are necessary to adequately assess potential impacts include the
following:
1. ? ob a ans for construction activities and project features to minimize e to fish, wildlife, and their habitats should be devised, e.g.,
on control, revegetation, transmission line siting, construction
ing, siting the powerhouse, diversion weir, and penstock above
mon spawning habitat, etc.
2,
Os 3 a +o a mo 4 2. Losses of fish and wildlife habitat should be held to a mininun, and measures to mitigate unavoidable losses and enhance resources should be devised.
there is to be a diversion of water or if substantial water
erature fluctutations are imminent, then these factors should be
essed because of their possible influence on water quality and habitat. Aauatic data collection should at least include the
owing: 'o a My hh WD ch HH oF BD th Hoa an
/ RUBY K-62 ‘oD n oy o nm
(a) Identification of species composition and distribution of ident and anadromous fish within and downstream of the pro-
Standard sampling methods such as fyke netting and at pping, as well as visual observation of spawning nd/or redds, should be used.
(>) Surveying and mapping of fish spawning, rearing, and over- wintering habitat as defined in the
or similar guidelines.
FWS Instream Flow Technicues
(c) Harvest levels and subsistence use data, if applicable.
T+ should be incumbent upon the APA to document animal species within the project ovoundary. If it is determined that impacts to terrestrial mammals or bird habitat is imminent, the APA should gather habitat and population infor- mation in a manner consistent with the FWS' Habitat Evaluation Procedures.
4. trial data collection should include the following:
(a) cation of game and non-game species use and occurrence
ithin the project area.
l. Mammals.
ae Historical and current harvest levels and subsistence
use data.
db. Site-specific wildlife observations, including wil
life sign, cenning sites, feeding sites, migration
routes, winter use areas, ani calving areas.
2. Birds. Raptor nesting surveys within the project area.
(>) Description of vegetation, cover typing, and areal extent of
each type.
The FWS requests that bald eagle surveys be undertaken. If nest sites are
encountered, the APA should notify the FWS. The FWS seeks to maintain a
tive zone around all Ss " ° <. a, ° 3 a % my active and inactive nests.
* the Bald Eagle Protecton Act is:
Compliance
ndatory.
We request that the following be accomplished during the course of the
studies:
1. During the period of project planning, the APA. should consult with
federal, state, and local agencies having an interest in the fish and
wildlife resources of the project area, including the Fish and
Wildlife Service, prior to preparing any environmental reports.
2. nvestigate end document the possible presence of any
hreatened species in the project area. If endangered
species are jetermined to be present, the FWS should be
RUBY K-63
age 3
3. The APA shall design and conduct at project cost, as soon as prac-
ticable, preparatory studies in cooperation with the FWS and the
Alaska Department of Fish and Game. These studies shall include, but
not be limited to, the above aquatic and terrestrial data. The
studies shall also identify and evaluate general measures to avoid,
offset, and/or reduce adverse project-caused impacts on fish and
wildlife resources.- Information from these fish and wildlife related
studies shall be provided to the concerned state and federal resource
agencies.
Future correspondence on this, or other projects proposed by the APA should
include a clear map, in sufficient detail to show the exact location of th
project. This will enable the FWS to accurately determine whether or not
Interior managed lands are involved. oH sir
fish, wildlife, and other resources. If it is determined that the
t will result in resource impacts, the FWS will assist tne APA in
ting to modify the project to alleviate or mitigate any eaiverse iy mo co. bho ch YO ck Hy, ct O o oO Q ¢ +s QO mo ry ard ah oT oO 09 free to contact me if you have any questions regarding our
asibility studies.
Sincerely, Jeter Leven
Field Supervisor
i Comment :
Response:
RUBY K-64
ACRES' RESPONSE
"Without current site-specific resource information and a
more complete description of the proposed project, it is
difficult to assess what impacts, if any, will occur to fish
and wildlife resources and associated habitat. Information
should be acquired and studies conducted to identify the fish
and wildlife resources of the study area, identify adverse
project impacts to those resources, assess alternatives to
the proposed action and devise a mitigation plan that would
prevent a net loss to fish and wildlife resources."
The reconnaissance study scope does not provide for any but
the most general identification of sites, definition of
project design characteristics, and assessment of
environmental consequences. The level of study effort
suggested in the USF&WS letter is appropriate to a
feasibility-level study of a project. No change in report
text is required.
RUBY K-65
J.6 - Comments Received From U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
RUBY., K-86, ER TO United States Department of the Interior
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
Anchorage District Office 4700 East 72nd Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 99507 APR 6 1982
RECEIVED
APR - 8 1982
Mr. Eric P. Yould ‘ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY Alaska Power Authority
334 West 5th Avenue
Anchorage, AK 99501
Dear Mr. Yould;
Reference your letter dated 3 March 1982 in which you requested comments concerning your draft FY1982 energy reconnaissance reports.
This agency agrees with the contractors basic conclusions that further feasibility studies of hydro power potential should be evalu- ated at applicable locations.
Generally there is little or no BLM land involved at any sites. Most locations are native selected or other non-BLM land. When actual construction plans formulate land use and ownership will be determined On a case by case basis.
The opportunity to comment on this report is appreciated. Should you have further questions feel free to contact me.
Sincerely, Wipes cael ca
RUBY K-67
ACRES' RESPONSE
No comment or change in report text is needed.
i a
PROPERTY OF:
Alaska Power Authority
334 W. 5th Ave.
Anchorage, Alaska 99501