Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNew Chenega Appendix J Reconnaissance Study of Energy Requirements & Alternatives 5-1982| RECONNAISSANCE STUDY OF ENERGY REQUIREMENTS AND ALTERNATIVES APPENDIX J: NEW CHENEGA | MAY 1982 ee at | ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY __ FALRBANKS BETHEL @ANCHORAGE a NEW CHENEGA ° o@ KODIAK ?P VILLAGE SPECIFIC REPORT J. NEW CHENEGA TABLE OF CONTENTS Section A - SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................0000. POD EOE ee ee Te eee ne eels tel eet lt wWwaoww PwWrre teete 7 GOVE CT ale le el late lel ele lale leh ole leeld lel al te lite 4 a etd B.5 Capital Projects Forecast ......... ccc ccc cece eee e ence Electrical Energy Forecast ........ cece cece cece ence ees Thermal Energy Forecast ........ ccc ccc cece eee e eee eees am-47 PWM G - VILLAGE TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT ......... eee cece cece cece eee e eee GOMOR AN ele aiele bela hlecela lel bie tl bia lel tealelelel Lice olsle Mt terdlesbleletet id ble cl bla Base | CASS yo ested ee eel el tlal blele cule ele tacataletstalsl ole lt lel old Alternative Plan "A" ..... ccc ccc cece cece cence cccseeees Ree E ye Oa eee eee ee eet! WwNhr toes zzz H. I - ENERGY PLAN EVALUATIONS ........... cc cece cece ccc ee ve eeneeeaee MBAS | CASE. cela tlh o ble lernls lee ol ola ol ble bl lel slole loci ele et alel bloledatole ble lel bla I.1 [1.2 - Alternative Plan "A" .... ccc cece cece cece cece ce eeceseees 1.3 - Alternative Plan "BY... i. cece cc cece cece cece cece ences LOG AUTOM he cis ee )csle ool oltilelel ala el ale Mla sholata old ol tle bla lel ste la old lal hed ald COO O TY eee ee eel ald cl slelertelel lal old lecl bo ble set blast & Population Forecast ........c.ccc ccc ccccccccccecccscecs TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Section J - COMMENTS AND DISCUSSION ............ccccsccccccccccccvssesece J.1 - Comments Received From The Chenega IRA Council ........ J.2 - Comments Received From Mr. Jim Renkert ..............5. J.3 - Comments Received From Ms. JoAnn Holmes, Community/ Natural Resource Planner, The North Pacific Rim ....... J.4 - Comments Received From U. S. Department of the Army, Alaska District, Corps of Engineers ..............00008 J.5 - Comments Received From The Alaska Power Amina Strat On lies «ores ale ele ss tog ecle ee save ee ot J.6 - Comments Received From The State of Alaska, Department of Natural Resources, Division of Parks, Office of History and Archeology ..........cccceeveeeee J.7 - Comments Received From The State of Alaska, Department of Fish and Game .................. eoo TS: J.8 - Comments Received From U.S. Fish and Wildlife serv ice- in Anchorage is. icc ccc csc cc tdcecscsees soe 0s J.9 - Comments Received From U.S. Bureau of Land MANAG @MOR Cos aclesw ote) focecae eo alec cnectet ate! etocel ooze tat -clofel ecocecdcatstal odedsct No. ND oO fF W MY LIST OF TABLES Title Comparative Estimated Electrical Energy Prices For Base Case Plan and Alternatives ............006. Eneray Use Profile for New Chenega - 1981 ............. Village Electric Energy Use Forecast ...........ecceees Net Thermal Requirements .......... cece cece cece eee eeees Village Technology Assessment ........ccc cece ceceeeee Estimated Costs of New Chenega Rase Case ..........0005 Estimated Costs of New Chenega Alternative Pam A lola a slate blwlal ela alee tcecetlelelaislitece bl weet lle lolol tbat ele bole Estimated Non-Electrical Benefits of Alternative Plan "A" Estimated Costs of New Chenega Alternative PUI TBS) lleltie dlele belleleteclolel eeu ceretelsl dislabese slelels bedlelelola dlehelalan led orale Page J-10 J-14 J-16 J-19 J-25-26 J-28-29 J-30 J-32-33 Title Energy Cost Summary Eneray Balance LIST OF FIGURES Page J-5 J-11 J-15 NEW CHENEGA J-1 A_- SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A.1 - General New Chenega, although included in a reconnaissance study involving 18 other villages throughout Alaska, is unique in one aspect--the village does not exist but is yet a blueprint to be realized. The original village of Chenega, located on Chenega Island near Port Nellie Juan in western Prince William Sound, was devastated by three tsunamis following the 1964 Good Friday earthquake, leaving survivors numbering two- thirds of its former population. Most relocated in Cordova while some settled in Anchorage and the small village of Tatitlek. Several meetings were conducted with officials of the Chenega village IRA council. In addition, a reconnaissance of the proposed site and its surrounding area, analysis of existing information and consideration of the wishes expressed by village officials generated certain findings and recommendations as follows: 1. The most obvious, yet paramount, conclusion is that of undertaking an aggressive, energy conscious program whereby any proposed structure would be designed and built incorporating the latest, most energy efficient means available. This, coupled with a strong commitment of the entire village to continued energy conservation, should be the very foundation and premise for all decisions concerning the development of the village. Professional advice and consultation should be commissioned by the village during all phases of development. 2. The primary means by which the projected electrical energy needs will most likely be met is diesel generation equipped with a water jacket waste heat recovery system. It is important to note, however, that although the study shows this to be true through about 1992, there is clearly the possibility that development of hydropower at the San Juan fish hatchery could provide cheaper energy over the long term. Note that the study demonstrates hydropower with diesel generator backup as being cheaper in the early 1990's and gradually becoming more attractive. 3. Because the preliminary assessment shows the economics of hydropower to be superior to those of diesel generation, a more detailed evaluation of this resource is warranted. The nearby San Juan fish hatchery is the site of an abandoned hydro site. Much of the existing equipment is NEW CHENEGA J-2 still in place, though unused and partially dismantled. If use can be made of this facility by rehabilitating it, a significant savings could be realized over the costs of developing a new site. Feasibility studies of this site should examine the suitability of the facility and its equipment for rehabilitation; the water quantity and quality requirements of the San Juan hatchery; and the problems which may be encountered in concurrent operation of both the hatchery and the hydroelectric plant. 4. The village council has expressed an interest in wind power and to this end has installed two anemometers in the vicinity of the proposed village site. The equipment incorporates a wind data accumulator which maintains a running total of the miles of wind passing the anemometer site. Such data would provide a long-term mean, or "average" wind speed over the measurement period. To be of value to designers of any but the most crude wind turbine systems, more detailed wind data than the simple arithmetic mean speed must be available. This will require the establishment of a new anemometry system, with an anemometer located at an appropriate hub height, about 100 feet above the ground. Frequent wind speed measurements must be made, with samplings taken at intervals of about 10 to 15 minutes. Data should include mean wind speed over the short recording interval, maximum short-duration gust in that interval, and wind direction. Such data must be collected on a continuous basis by reliable equipment which records wind data in a form directly readable by computer equipment. Readings on the existing anemometers have been taken sporadically, on the average of one every week to every three weeks, rendering any resulting data practically useless. 5. New Chenega has been identified as having areas of historic or archeological significance. If feasibility-level work is done there, the State's Division of Natural Resources, Office of History and Archeology, should be contacted for further information. A.2 - Alternative Plan Descriptions A.2.1 - Base Case For the purpose of this study, the base case for New Chenega will be the simplest reasonable approach; that is, a diesel generator system sized to accommodate the projected energy needs through the year 2001. The units will be owned/operated by the village and power sold to the various customers. This plan has a net present worth of $4,750,000 for the period 1982 through 2035. NEW CHENEGA J-3 A.2.2 - Alternative Plan "A" This alternative will be similar to the base case except that a water jacket waste heat recovery system will be incorporated. The heat thus recovered will be used to heat nearby public buildings. This plan has a net present worth of $4,068,000 for the period 1982 through 2035. A.2.3 - Alternative Plan "B" The primary source of electrical energy will be a hydroelectric plant at the San Juan fish hatchery and transmitted overland about three miles to New Chenega. In addition, a standby diesel generator system will provide emergency backup in the village. This plan has a net present worth of $3,401,000 for the period 1982 through 2035. Costs of electrical energy produced by the alternatives studied are shown on Table 1. Costs of various energy resources available to New Chenega are shown in Figure 1. It should be noted that the energy cost figure in $/kWh is not necessarily the cost which would be billed to the ultimate customer. This figure, expressed in terms of 1981 dollars, does not take into account costs associated with distribution of energy within the village, which can add about $0.10/kWh to the customer's cost. The costs shown also do not indicate the effects of various government subsidy and grant programs which may be available. TABLE 1 COMPARATIVE ESTIMATED ELECTRICAL ENERGY PRICES FOR BASE CASE PLAN AND ALTERNATIVES Energy Base Case Plan Alternative "A" Alternative "B" Production Energy Price Energy Price Energy Price Year Muh ($/kWh $/kWh $/kWh 1982 210 - 56 -53 -70 1983 220 - 56 «53 -68 1984 230 ~55 -51 - 66 1985 240 .54 50 ~55 1986 240 .95 -51 55 1987 250 .54 -49 ~53 1988 250 55 -50 .53 1989 250 -55 -50 -53 1990 260 55 .50 ~52 1991 280 54 48 49 1992 290 54 47 -48 1993 300 55 .48 46 1994 310 55 46 £45 1995 320 54 .46 44 1996 330 55 £45 .43 1997 330 -55 -46 43 1998 330 56 146 44 1999 340 56 -46 -43 2000 340 ~57 -47 -43 2001 340 .58 -48 -43 Notes: 1. Energy prices are stated in 1981 dollars and do not include costs of village distribution and administration. They also do not include any Governmental subsidies such as power cost assistance programs. 2. Energy prices shown for Alternative "A" include the savings realized from the use of the waste heat system. y-C YOANFHD MIN NEW CHENEGA J-5 (UM/$) 1SOD ADYANA PPE UCL Hope | DELIV ERED wooo AS OIL_AS DELIVERED op ne ee xeuaNa NEW CHENEGA - FIGURE NEW CHENEGA J-6 B_- DEMOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS B.1 - Location The New Chenega site is located at Crab Ray on Evans Island, 15 boat miles from the old townsite of Chenega and about 41 air miles from Whittier and 48 air miles from Seward. B.2 - Population (Projected) Date 1982 1986 1991 1996 2001 Population 70 79 91 106 122 Seventy neople plan to reestablish themselves at New Cheneaa as early as the summer of 1982. According to their village council they expect to have 40 to 50 houses, or a total population of about 122 people by 2001 which establishes an average annual arowth rate of 3.0 percent. B.3 - Economy Cheneaa was primarily a fishina community, and the village council confirms that New Chenega will also depend upon fishing as its primary business. The presence of a fish hatchery about 3 miles west of New Cheneaa will provide seasonal job opportunities. They also expect some timber harvest and tourism. Because of its remote location they intend to maximize subsistence food harvests. B.4 - Government The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (1971) did not originally recognize the old Chenega as a certifiable village because the site had been abandoned. However, in 1977 the villaae was certified under a special "Act of God" provision of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act that recognized certain abandoned villages. This enabled Chenegans to enroll as shareholders of the Chenega Corporation, Inc., which, as recipient of land and money, is responsible for makina the villaae economically sound. NEW CHENEGA J-7 Sixty-nine shareholders are enrolled in the corporation. The non-profit business of the village is conducted by the Chenega Village IRA Council, the village governing body. The village council, dormant until 1971, has as its major responsibility oversight for the rebuilding of the village. B.5 - Transportation At present, the Crab Bay site is accessible either by chartered float plane or chartered boat from Whittier or Seward. Also, the Alaska State Ferry will stop at the San Juan fish hatchery if it is the destination of three or more passengers. The hatchery then ferries the passengers in a skiff the 1-1/2 miles to Crab Bay. Float planes also land at the hatchery. NEW CHENEGA J-8 C - COMMUNITY MEETING REPORT As previously mentioned, there were several meetings held with Native Council representatives to discuss what progress had already been made concerning the development of New Chenega and their general views of the needs and requirements in support of establishing their village. No public meeting was conducted since the future population of New Chenega has been scattered throughout various towns and villages in and around Prince William Sound and reportedly as far away as King Salmon. To the extent possible, the views and desires expressed by the Native Council have been incorporated herein. In addition, a reconnaissance visit was made to the proposed New Chenega site and a nearby privately owned fish hatchery. The primary purpose was to evaluate the potential energy development features of the area. About five hours were spent at the hatchery and new village site. NEW CHENEGA J-9 D_- EXISTING POWER AND HEATING FACILITIES There are obviously no existina power and heatina facilities at the site. There are, however, existing power generation units installed at the San Juan fish hatchery. The hatchery is owned and operated by the Prince William Sound Aquaculture Corporation, a private firm headquartered in Cordova and equipped with two 75 kW generators providina 100 percent backup. According to the hatchery's maintenance personnel, the winter Operation utilizes only 15 to 20 percent of the rated capacity or 10 to 15 kW, whereas summer peak operation increases to 40 to 50 kW. The hatchery's maximum use takes place in summer rather than in winter. This is primarily due to a skeleton crew operating during the winter months and a full crew during the fishing season. The generators are reportedly able to run from 15,000 to 25,000 hours before major overhaul is required. With a requirement to transmit eneray over about 3 miles of shoreline, it is unlikely that these units could serve the routine needs of New Chenega. There is potential for hydropower at the hatchery which will be discussed in detail. NEW CHENEGA J-10 E - ENERGY BALANCE Lacking historical data on energy consumption by New Chenega, many estimates given in a report prepared by the Alternative Energy Technical Assistance Program (AETAP) were used to determine the quantities of various energy resources the village will consume in its early years. This data given by the AETAP report was accepted only after a thorough review to ensure consistency with Acres' findings. Adjustments were made where appropriate. Table 2 and Figure 2 summarize the projected annual energy needs and uses of the village in its early years. As can be seen, fuel oi] accounts for more than 70 percent of the energy used at about 10,200,000,000 Btu. More than half of this is used by the generators, where only about 20 percent of the oil's energy is converted to electricity. The other 80 percent is wasted in the form of heat up the exhaust stack and through the radiators. TABLE 2 ENERGY USE PROFILE FOR NEW CHENEGA - 1982 “Total Heat. Content Type of Fuel Cost End Uses Quantity (109 Btu) Wood $100/cord Space Heating Cooking 122 cords 2.1 Hot Water Gasoline $200/gal Sawmil] Transportation 15,000 gal 1.9 Diesel Fuel $1.90/gal Transportation Gener ator Community Buildings 73,000 gal 10.2 School ENERGY RESOURCE END USE RESIDENTIAL SPACE YSTEM LOSSES(1.35 (2-07) (2.07) @ WATER HEATING aS (1.35) : AND COOKING (2.07) USEABLE HEAT (0.72) SCHOOL SPACE AND WATER HEATING (2.50) USEABLE HEAT (1.63) COMMUNITY BLOG. SPACE HEATING (0.37) SYSTEM LOSSES (0.13) USEABLE HEAT (0.24) FUEL OIL (10. 16) ELECTRIC SYSTEM LOSSES POWER (4.64) GENERATION ELECTRICITY (LI6) > (5.80) TRANSPORTATION (3.37) NOTE: ALL UNITS IN IO BTU/YR. NEW CHENEGA ENERGY BALANCE (1981) FIGURE 2 DRUNING 44 132 42222 ACRES AMERICAN INCORPORATED LL-f Y93N3HI MIN NEW CHENEGA J-12 F - ENERGY REQUIREMENTS FORECAST F.1 - Capital Projects Forecast As New Chenega jis yet to be constructed, virtually all capital projects lie ahead. In the short term, HUD homes are expected to be built along with essential community buildings, school and dock facilities. It is anticipated that the HUD homes, a church, local store, community building, dock facilities, runway and health clinic will be built within the first five to eight years. Other buildings such as a lodge, various offices and expanded dock facilities will be built in the longer term depending upon developing needs to the year 2001. F.2 - Population Forecast Seventy people are expected to inhabit New Chenega, perhaps as early as summer 1982. The village council expects New Chenega might grow to a total of 40 to 50 house lots or 120 to 150 people by 2001. Assuming this case, the growth rate for New Chenega would be 2.9 to 4.1 percent annually. The population table below was based on an annual growth rate of 3.0 percent. 1982 1986 1991 1996 2001 Population 70 79 91 106 122 #Residences 23 26 30 34 39 #Commercial 1 1 2 2 3 #Gov't/Other 2 2 3 3 4 F.3 - Electrical Energy Forecast As previously mentioned, the development of an electrical energy forecast should be predicated on sound, energy conscious engineering. Even so, because the entire town is still a concept and a great number of its future population are living in areas where electrical energy is readily available (Anchorage, Cordova), the village will most likely elect to retain many of these standards of living, thereby setting relatively high energy requirements. It is expected that initial residential use will be about 2,600 kWh per household annually. This figure will increase gradually throughout the study period, reaching a saturated state at about 4600 kWh annually in the mid-1990's. NEW CHENEGA J-13 Other users in the village include the school, which will likely be the largest single user of energy, the store, and various other commercial and governmental buildings. The requirements of these users are estimated to be as follows: Load kWh per year kW Demand School 65,000 30 Commercial 6,000 each 5 each Government /Other 10,000 each 5 each In some instances, where electrical energy can be produced at a cost significantly less than that of heat delivered by fuel oil, it can be expected that there will be some conversion to electric space heating, driving up electric demand. Such a situation was never discovered in the examination of alternatives for New Chenega. F.4 - Tnermal Energy Forecast The largest single user of heating energy will be the school where a projected 18,000 gallons of diesel fuel will be needed. It is expected that wood will be the primary means of space heating, cooking, and supplying hot water to the homes using a total of about 5-1/2 cords per residence annually. Because of the relatively frequent requirements to recharge, stoke, and generally tend wood burning stoves, it is expected that the school, community buildings, and other public facilities will be heated with fuel oil. A summary of village heat use forecast is given in Table 4. The figures given in this table are expressed in terms of net thermal energy. Net thermal energy is the energy actually delivered to an end use, such as building heating, after all conversion losses have occurred. TABLE 3 VILLAGE ELECTRIC ENERGY USE FORECAST Residentia Schools Other Total_. Year kW Mah kW Mh Wh WS Soh 1982 21 60 30 65 28 87 79 210 1983 24 68 30 65 28 87 82 220 1984 24 76 30 65 28 87 82 230 1985 27 84 30 65 28 87 85 240 1986 31 90 30 65 28 87 88 240 1987 32 97 30 65 29 89 91 250 1988 34 105 30 65 29 89 93 260 1989 35 113 30 65 29 89 94 270 1990 35 118 30 65 29 89 * 94 270 1991 39 126 30 65 34 113 103 300 1992 39 129 30 65 34 113 103 310 1993 42 140 30 65 34 113 106 320 1994 42 143 30 65 34 113 106 320 1995 43 150 30 65 34 113 107 330 1996 44 158 30 65 36 116 110 340 1997 46 162 30 65 36 116 112 340 1998 47 167 30 65 36 116 113 350 1999 48 172 30 65 36 116 114 350 2000 49 177 30 65 36 116 115 360 2001 51 181 30 65 36 116 117 360 an ne eed bvl-f WO3N3HO MIN 15 NEW CHENEGA J- (UMW) NOILGWNSNOD ADYSNZ VILLAGE POWER DEMAND (KW) NEW CHENEGA -FIGURE 3 NEW CHENEGA J-16 TABLE 4 NET THERMAL REQUIREMENTS Electricity Residential Schools Other Total Year (o%8tu) __(0%Btu) _ (10°8tu) (10%Btu) (10°Btu) 1982 .72 2.07 2.50 3.75 9.04 1983 75 2.25 2.50 3.75 9.25 1984 .78 2.43 2.50 3.76 9.47 1985 .82 2.61 2.50 3.76 9.69 1986 .82 2.70 2.50 3.77 9.79 1987 .85 2.79 2.50 3.78 9.92 1988 .85 2.88 2.50 3.79 10.02 1989 - 85 2.88 2.50 3.80 10.03 1990 .89 2.97 2.50 3.80 10.16 1991 .96 3.06 2.50 3.80 10.32 1992 .99 3.24 2.50 3.90 10.63 1993 1.02 3.33 2.50 4.00 10.85 1994 1.06 3.51 2.50 4.00 11.07 1995 1.09 3.78 2.50 4.20 11.57 1996 1.13 3.96 2.50 4.20 11.79 1997 1.13 4.05 2.50 4.30 11.98 1998 1.13 4.14 2.50 4.30 12.07 1999 1.16 4.23 2.50 4.40 12.29 2000 1.16 4.23 2.50 4.40 12.29 2001 1.16 4.32 2.50 4.50 12.48 NEW CHENEGA J-17 G - VILLAGE TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT ail, Coal. There presently exist no practical means to provide coal to New Chenega. There is beleived to be coal on Latouche Island (near Evans Island), but no mining or transport facilities exist to develop this coal. Additionally, it is not likely that the village supports an adequate supply of skilled personnel to staff a coal plant. No consideration of this alternative is warranted. Wood. Wood is an abundant resource on Evans Island. However, the skilled manpower requirements of a wood-fired power plant are such that this alternative would not be practical. Wood will play an important role in space heating in New Chenega. Geothermal. There are no known geothermal resources on Evans Island. No further consideration of this alternative is warranted. Hydroelectric. A number of hydro sites have been identified in the vicinity of the proposed New Chenega site. Some of these have previously been used either to provide a running water supply or to generate electrical power. The abandoned hydroelectric plant at the San Juan cannery is still largely intact and is a likely candidate for rehabilitation to once again produce electrical energy. The construction of a transmission line between the cannery and New Chenega would provide the village with the benefits of the potentially less expensive hydroelectric energy. Photovoltaic. This technology is presently too expensive to consider for Alaska utility use. Wind. The potential for wind energy development on Evans Island is argely unknown. In general, areas near great expanses of open water such as the Gulf of Alaska are subject to substantial winds. The proposed New Chenega village site is on Evans Island, which is somewhat sheltered from the strong winds of the Gulf by LaTouche, Elrington, and Montague Islands. There is wind data available from stations at Seward, Cordova, Valdez, Cape Hinchinbrook, and Middleton Island. The Seward, Cordova, and Valdez stations are felt to be not representative of conditions at New Chenega. The other stations are out in the Gulf itself and, while showing exceptional wind power potential, cannot be considered representative of wind conditions to be expected at New Chenega. In the absence of both site-specific data and nearby stations of similar characteristics, it is not possible to make defensible assumptons regarding New Chenega's wind resource. For these reasons, no studies of wind energy will can be carried out in this study. In order to make informed judgements on the suitability of the wind resource at New Chenega, detailed investigations of the wind speed frequency distributions are needed. NEW CHENEGA J-18 7. Fuel Oil. This resource will most likely be available by barge or airplane. It will be the primary source of electrical power in the early part of the village's development. It will also likely be the main source of heat energy for government, commercial, and school buildings. Table 5 presents the results of the preliminary evaluation of resources and technologies as applied to the community. Methods and criteria used in developing 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 study. NEW CHENEGA J-19 TABLE 5 VILLAGE TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT FOR NEW CHENEGA TECHNI COST RESOURCE FACTO FACTORS FACTORS Py + my TECHNOLOGY Electric Coal Fired Steam Wood Fired Steam Geotherma1 Diesel (base) Gas Turbine Hydroelectric Wind Photovoltaic wWwWwnn rt Fr fF yor RP YK Pe yor PMY HYHrY CO FO oorrF FOO oO orrh Or COO CO wwwooradcnd ynonowIn NO TCO OC oo oo 0cUcUOUCcUlUllUDD 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 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 ar & FP We W Conservation NOTE: Higher numbers are more favorable. NEW CHENEGA J-20 H_- ENERGY PLAN DESCRIPTIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS H.1 - General There are basically three scenarios which are available concerning the Operation of a generator system, each having a different economic evaluation. They are: 1. Private Ownership: A family or individual living in the village may elect to purchase the equipment and sell the electricity. Assumptions in this case are that, because of the personal ownership and investment, the level of maintenance and operation will be such that the generators will only require overhaul every ten years at one-third the original cost of the equipment. 2. Local Utility Firm Ownership (i.e., AVEC): Under this circumstance, the equipment will need overhauling every seven years at one-third the original cost of the equipment. 3. State, Village, or School Ownership: Because of the part time hiring of local unskilled labor to operate and maintain the equipment, overhauls will be required every five years at one-half the original cost of the equipment. For the purpose of this study, the third scenario will be assumed. H.2 - Base Case Two 150 kW diesel generators will be installed supplying the village with 100 percent back-up power. The life of the system is assumed as 20 years and will satisfy all projected loads through the year 2001. Assumptions made when calculating future electrical costs and present value figures are: - The diesel sets will be valued at a purchase price of $300/kW plus $500/kW for installation for a total of $800/kW installed. - Maintenance and operation expenses are $8,000/yr. - The generator sets will produce electricity at the rate of 8 kWh per gallon of fuel consumed. - The diesel sets are amortized for 20 years. The real discount rate (net from inflation) is assumed to be 3 percent annually. NEW CHENEGA J-21 - Fuel in 1982 is assumed to cost $1.90 per gallon with its real (1981) cost risina 2.60 percent annually to $3.09 by the year 200] and remainina constant thereafter. A tabulation of the results of these calculations is shown in Section I. It should be noted that the energy cost figure in $/kWh is not necessarily the cost which would be billed to the ultimate customer. This fiqure, expressed in terms of 1981 dollars, does not take into account costs associated with distribution of eneray within the village, which can add about $0.10/kWh to the customer's cost. The costs shown also do not indicate the effects of various aovernment subsidv and arant proarams which may be available. H.3 - Alternative Plan "A" This alternative consists of providing two 150 kW diesel qenerators equipped with a water jacket waste heat recovery system. Although initial costs are assumed to be one half aqain as much as the base case, it attempts to maximize available eneray which would otherwise be wasted to the atmosphere. The heat from the recovery systems can be used to supplement oil-fired heating systems, thereby reducing heating fuel consumption. In order to take the best advantaae of this alternative, it will be important to locate the generator building as near the waste heat users as is possible. This will require coordinated plannina on the part of those responsible for the village layout and the design of the aenerator facilities. Proper attention must be given to safety and to noise attenuation. Assumptions made when calculating future costs and present value fiqures are the same as expressed in our base case plus the following: - The waste heat equipment installation will be valued at a cost equal to 50 percent of the installed value of the diesel sets, or $400/kW. - Annual costs of the diesel sets and their associated waste heat canture equipment are calculated as follows: 1. The diesel sets are amortized for 20 vears. The real discount rate (net from inflation) is assumed to be 3 percent annually. 2. The waste heat capture eauipment is amortized for 10 years. The real discount rate (net from inflation) is assumed to be 3 percent annually. At the end of this veriod, it is replaced in its entirety so that the annual costs associated with this equipment will remain constant throughout the study period (as long as the installed capacity remains unchanged). NEW CHENEGA J-22 3. The waste heat capture equipment is assumed to require no additional maintenance expenses beyond those already allocated to the diesel sets except for replacement every 10 years. Tabulations of the results of these calculations are qiven in Section I. H.4 - Alternative Plan "B" There exist several streams and perched lakes providing votential for hydropower development in the surrounding area. Although the natural topoaraphy and water resources in several areas are suitable, onlv one site, which is already partially developed, appears to be economically usable at this time. About three miles southwest of the villaae site in Sawmill Bay is located the San Juan fish hatchery, a privately owned operation headquartered in Cordova under the name of the Prince William Sound Aquaculture Corporation. Formerly the site of a fish processing and cannery operation, the area has a perched lake just west at an elevation of between 200 and 300 feet. The present operating personnel advise that it is at an elevation of 313 feet; however, a man reconnaissance indicates an elevation between 200 to 300 feet. The site is partially develoved for hydropower, presently includina a small dam structure, penstock and powerhouse at the foot of the inlet. All structures are in reasonably good repair. Durina the days of the fish processing operation, a small pelton wheel turbine system provided electric eneray. However, the system has since been disconnnected by the present occupant and the water used solely to support the hatchery and domestic needs. Based upon a map reconnaissance and a visual inspection of the site, certain assumptions and preliminary parameters were formed. They are: - With a drainage area of about 3/4 of a square mile and an annual runoff of about 12 cfs ner square mile! the averaae discharae of the lake is about 9 cfs. - The elevation of the penstock intake is 250 feet with an efficiency of 85 percent. - Turbine/aenerator size is to be 180 kW. - Cost of turbine equinment and installation is $3,500/kW. 1 Extracted from the Small-Scale Hydropower Reconnaissance of Southwest Alaska NEW CHENEGA J-23 The installation equipment costs of a transmission line will be $135,000 per mile. All major equipment presently in place is in reasonable condition and can be utilized with only minor repair. The first three years of operation will be totally on diesel generation at New Chenega. The back-up diesel generators will be utilized as the primary source of power during four months of the year (December through March). During this period, hydropower will be used for peaking. tabulation of the results of these calculations is given in Section I. NEW CHENEGA J-24 I _- ENERGY PLAN EVALUATIONS TABLE 6 ESTIMATED COSTS OF NEW CHENEGA BASE CASE FUEL COSTS SYSTEM ADDITIONS FIXED COSTS Energy Diesel ~~ Fuel ——‘ Fuel Capital Annual Overhaul Total Fixed Production Fuel Used x Price = Costs Costs Costs + Fund + O&M = Costs Year (MWh) (1,000 gal) ($/gal) ($1,000) Component ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000) 1982 210 26 1.90 49 o Initial installation of 240 16 8 44 68 generator plant 1983 220 28 1.95 55 (two 150 kW units) 16 8 44 68 1984 230 29 2.00 58 16 8 44 68 1985 240 30 2.05 62 16 8 33 68 1986 250 31 2.11 65 16 8 44 68 1987 250 31 2.16 67 16 8 44 68 1988 260 32 2222 7 16 8 44 68 1989 270 34 2.27 77 16 8 44 68 1990 270 34 2.33 19 16 8 44 68 1991 i 300 38 2.39 91 16 8 44 68 1992 310 39 2.46 96 16 8 44 68 1993 320 40 2.52 101 16 8 44 68 1994 320 40 2.59 104 16 8 44 68 1995 330 41 2.65 109 16 8 44 68 1996 340 42 2.72 114 16 8 44 68 1997 340 42 2.79 117 16 8 44 68 1998 350 44 2.86 126 16 8 44 68 1999 350 44 2.94 129 16 8 44 68 2000 360 45 3.02 136 16 8 44 68 2001 360 45 3.09 139 16 8 44 68 2002-2035 360 45 3.09 139 o Replace 1982 generators 240 16 8 44 68 S2-C WOIN3HD MIN 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 49 68 V7 113.6 0.56 1983 55 68 123 115.9 0.56 1984 58 68 126 115.3 0.55 1985 62 68 130 115.5 0. 54 1986 65 68 133 114.7 0.53 1987 67 68 135 113.1 0.54 1988 val 68 139 113.0 0.53 1989 77 68 145 114.5 0.54 1990 719 68 147 126.7 0.54 1991 91 68 159 118.3 0.53 1992 96 68 164 118.5 0.53 1993 101 68 169 118.5 0.53 1994 104 68 172 117.1 0.54 1995 109 68 177 117.0 0.54 1996 114 68 182 116.8 0.54 1997 V7 68 185 115.3 0.54 1998 126 68 194 117.4 0.55 1999 129 68 197 115.7 0. 56 2000 136 68 204 116.3 0.57 2001 139 68 207 114.6 0.58 2002-2035 139 68 207 2,422.0 0.58 Total net present worth $4,750 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. 92-Cf WOINSHD MIN NEW CHENEGA J-27 I.1 - Base Case I.1.1 - Social and Environmental Evaluation Various labor intensive jobs will be created during the construction effort while putting the aenerator sets into place. The number of jobs could be as many as five at any one time during the construction stage. There is a possibility for long term employment in the area of general maintenance for two personnel. Skilled presonnel required for major overhaul would likely be brought in from Anchorace. Diesel plant equipment is relatively benign environmentally. Diesel engines emit small quantities of carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, water vapor, nitrous oxides (NOx), sulfur dioxide (S09), and unburned hydrocarbons. With the small scale plant there will not likely be any noticeable buildup of any of these vollutants. The lubricating oi] must be changed periodically and the waste oi] must be disposed of properly. In remote villaces this can be a significant problem. Diesel engines also are significant sources of noise, but with oroner siting and with adequate muffler svstems, this problem can be minimized. 1.1.2 - Technical Evaluation Although diesel svstems are the best understood means of providing electricity to bush villages today, they nonetheless require frequent and reqular preventive maintenance by knowledaeable neople. A functional, well understood, active maintenance program is by far the sinale most important factor in providing reliable, uninterrupted diesel energy. The converse is also true: that a lack of such a Program can cause major damaae to equipment leadina to premature failure and, of course, very substantial additional costs. In any event, a aood continual maintenance proaram must be in place and treated on a priority basis or the chance of enjoying dependable electrical service diminishes rapidly. TABLE 7 ESTIMATED COSTS OF NEW CHENEGA ALTERNATIVE PLAN "A" FUEL COSTS SYSTEM ADDITIONS FIXED COSTS Energy Diesel Fuel Fuel Capital Annual Overhau 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 210 26 1.90 49 o Initial installation of 360 30 8 44 82 generator plant (two 1983 220 28 1.95 55 150 kW units with waste 30 8 44 82 heat recovery system) 1984 230 29 2.00 58 30 8 44 82 1985 240 30 2.05 62 30 8 44 82 1986 250 31 2.11 65 30 8 44 82 1987 250 31 2.16 67 30 8 44 82 1988 260 32 2.22 7 30 8 44 82 1989 270 34 2.27 77 30 8 44 82 1990 270 34 2.33 719 30 8 44 82 1991 300 38 2.39 91 30 8 44 82 1992 310 39 2.46 96 o Replacement of 1982 120 30 8 44 82 waste heat system 1993 320 40 2.52 101 30 8 44 82 1994 320 40 2.59 104 30 8 44 82 1995 330 41 2.65 109 30 8 44 82 1996 340 42 2.72 114 30 8 44 82 1997 340 42 2.79 117 30 8 44 82 1998 350 44 2.86 126 30 8 44 82 1999 350 44 2.94 129 30 8 44 82 2000 360 45 3.02 136 30 8 44 82 2001 360 45 3.09 139 30 8 44 82 2002-2035 360 45 3,09 139 o Rep. of 82 gen/92 W.H. Syst 360 30 8 44 82 82-C VOANSHD MIN 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 49 82 131 127.2 0.53 1983 55 82 137 129.1 0. 53 1984 58 82 140 128.1 0.51 1985 62 82 144 127.9 0. 50 1986 65 82 147 126.8 0. 50 1987 67 82 149 124.8 0.49 1988 7A 82 153 124.4 0.48 1989 77 82 159 125.5 0.49 1990 79 82 161 123.4 0.49 1991 91 82 173 128.7 0.47 1992 96 82 178 128.6 0.46 1993 101 82 183 128.4 0. 46 1994 104 82 186 126.7 0.46 1995 109 82 191 126.3 0.46 1996 114 82 196 125.8 0.45 1997 117 82 199 124.0 0.45 1998 126 82 208 125.8 0. 46 1999 129 82 211 123.9 0.47 2000 136 82 218 124.3 0.47 2001 139 82 221 122.4 0.48 2002-2035 139 82 221 2,585.9 0. 48 TOTAL $ 5,108 Total present worth of non-electrical benefits $(1,040) Net present worth $ 4,068 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. 62-C WOINSHD MIN NEW CHENEGA J-30 TABLE 8 ESTIMATED NON-ELECTRICAL BENEFITS OF ALTERNATIVE PLAN "A" Total Annual Benefits Discounted Year Space Heating Fuel Savin Benefits 1982 19 18.4 1983 21 19.8 1984 22 20.1 1985 23 20.4 1986 23 19.8 1987 26 21.8 1988 27 22.0 1989 27 21.3 1990 28 21.5 1991 31 23.1 1992 34 24.6 1993 35 24.5 1994 39 26.6 1995 40 26.4 1996 44 28.2 1997 45 28.0 1998 46 27.8 1999 47 27.6 2000 48 27.4 2001 49 27.1 2002 49 563.4 through 2035 TOTAL: $ 1039.8 All cost figures shown are in thousands of dollars. NEW CHENEGA J-31 1.2 - Alternative Plan "A" — 1.2.1 - Social and Environmental Evaluation As with the base case evaluation, there will be various labor intensive jobs created during the construction effort and several long term jobs involving general maintenance work on the diesel generators. No appreciable work will be generated by the addition of the water waste heat recovery system except after ten years when it must be replaced. 1.2.2 - Technical Evaluation The same observations and concerns regarding an effective, functional maintenance program as were observed in our base case also apply in this alternative. This issue cannot be overemphasized. There is a tendency to locate generator systems some distance away from the village because of the noise a diesel system creates. However, in order to take full advantage of the waste heat and minimize installation costs for the recovery system, the generator site must be located in the vicinity of the facilities it intends to serve. In this regard, future expansion should also be included in the planning of the site location. The obvious payback of a diesel system is the saving in fuel costs realized by harnessing the waste heat otherwise lost. As noted by the calculations, an average of 14,000 gallons of diesel fuel per year can be saved over a period of 20 years using the waste heat recovery system. TABLE 9 ESTIMATED COSTS OF NEW CHENEGA ALTERNATIVE PLAN "BY 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 210 26 1.90 49 o Initial installation of 160 11 4 22 37 diesel generators (two 1983 220 28 1,95 55 100 kW units) W 4 22 37 1984 230 29 2.00 58 iW 4 22 37 1985 240 7 2.05 14 o Rehabilitation of San 640 + 370 61 4 44 109 Juan hydro plant and 1986 250 7 2.11 14 construction of trans- 61 4 44 109 mission line to New 1987 250 7 2.16 15 Chenega 61 4 44 109 1988 260 7 2.22 15 61 4 44 109 1989 270 7 2.27 15 61 4 44 109 1990 270 7 2.33 17 61 4 44 109 1991 300 8 2.39 19 61 4 44 109 1992 310 8 2.46 20 61 4 44 109 1993 320 8 2.52 21 61 4 44 109 1994 320 8 2.59 22 61 4 44 109 1995 330 9 2.65 23 61 4 44 109 1996 340 9 2.72 25 61 4 44 109 1997 340 9 2.79 25 61 4 44 109 1998 350 9 2.86 26 61 4 44 109 1999 350 9 2.94 27 61 4 44 109 2000 360 9 3.02 28 61 4 44 109 2001 360 9 3.09 29 61 4 44 109 o Replacement of 1982 2002-2035 360 9 3.09 29 diesel generators in 2002 160 61 4 44 109 c€-f YOINIHD MIN 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 49 37 86 83.5 0.41 1983 55 37 92 86.7 0. 39 1984 58 37 95 86.9 0. 38 1985 14 109 123 109, 3 0.51 1986 14 109 123 106.1 0.49 1987 15 109 124 103.8 0.50 1988 15 109 124 100.8 0.48 1989 15 109 124 97.9 0.46 1990 7 109 126 96.6 0.47 1991 19 109 128 95.2 0.43 1992 20 109 129 93.2 0.42 1993 21 109 130 91.2 0.41 1994 22 109 131 89.2 0.41 1995 23 109 132 87.3 0.40 1996 25 109 134 86.0 0.39 1997 25 109 134 83.5 0. 39 1998 26 109 135 81.7 0. 38 1999 27 109 136 719.9 0. 39 2000 28 109 137 78.1 0. 38 2001 29 109 138 76.4 0.38 2002-2035 29 109 138 1,614.7 0. 38 Total net present worht $3,401 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. eneral inflation. Note 2: Diesel fuel price is expressed in terms of 1981 dollars, with prices escalated at 2.6 percent above gfor equipment overhaul Note 3: Total annual fixed costs include funds for equipment amortization (calculated at 3%), a sinking fund and replacement, and general O&M work. €€-C YOANSHD MIN NEW CHENEGA J-34 1.3 - Alternative Plan "B" 1.3.1 - Social and Environmental Evaluation As diesel generator back-up is required, several part time maintenance positions will be established. In addition, various labor intensive jobs will be created during the construction of the turbine facilities at San Juan Fish Hatchery and the transmission line to the village site. Except durina the four winter months when diesel aeneration will he the primary energy source, pollutant build-up will not occur and noise pollution will be eliminated. The existence of a small transmission line around Crab Bay to the village will require some chanae to the environment but is not expected to create any major impacts to the land or wildlife. 1.3.2 - Technical Evaluation As can be readily seen by the projected long term power costs, hydropower is clearly a very competitive alternative. Although some improvements to the existing facilities are needed they are felt to be negligible compared to the capital costs of a turbine system and transmission line. It is assumed that an approximate draw down depth of 10 feet is available at the penstock intake. With some work at the dam, this could be increased by several more feet. However, a large low area extending 200 to 300 yards adjacent to the impoundment limits further Capacity of the impoundment area; thus, a substantial amount of earth work is evident to realize more water storage. Based upon a contour map reconnaissance, the impoundment was assumed to have a volume of 230 acre-feet with a water shed area approximating .75 square miles. Annual Climatologic Summaries from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration for the years 1975 through 1978 suqgest that, with the assumed water shed, impoundment capacity and hydraulic head, it is possible to install a 180 kW turbine capable of © sustaining an annual potential for 788 MWh with plant factor .5. It is emphasized that these conclusions are based upon preliminary, reconnaissance level data and that further examination, at least on the feasibility level, is necessary to lend further credibility to the results. NEW CHENEGA J-35 J_- COMMENTS AND DISCUSSION NEW CHENEGA J-36 J.1 - Comments Received From The Chenega IRA Council Chenega IRA Council - 903 W. Northern Lights Blvd. ia anen -37 Suite #204 Aneherate: MtnkMt RECEIVED APR - 8 1982 April 8, 1982 ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY Mr. Eric P. Yould, Executive Director Alaska Power Authority 334 W. 5th Ave. Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Dear Mr. Yould: In responding to the draft report of the Reconnaissance Study of Energy Requirements and Alternatives for New Chenega by Acres America Incorporated, dated March, 1982. Is there going to be a more detailed study? If so, are such things as (1. Identify- ing all alternatives, wind, hydro, waste heat, passive solar, peat, thermal, coal, wood, geothermal. (2. The engineering aspect encompassing cost, use, installation and maintenance of the alternatives, going to be addressed? (3. Is the final report, if any, going to be prepared in a way we can use it as a tool with the State and other agencies for grant type loans for alternative energy? This report, as I see it, does no justice for New Chenega. It stipulates that we are stuck with fuel oil for almost everything. The report addresses the wind data as lacking. I agree, but did they suggest where to locate the anamometer to better analyze the wind or a different type of anamometer! The graphs are pretty, but who can read them besides an engineer? Section C-Page.J-7,second paragraph can be left out. The Village Council has the authority to conduct business of behalf of the Chenega people regarding rebuilding of New Chenega. Section D-Page J-8, last sentence is excellent. I think that should be studied in detail and soon. Section E-Page J-9, are some estimates on the higher side? The quantity column is that in a year, month or what? Section F-3-Page J-1]1, is a poor assumption to make. We lived before with no electri- city. What makes you think we can't do that again? Page J-14, where did you get information on figures? They appear to be on the high side. Graph on Page J-17, the ranking column,is that on a 1-10 basis or what? Section H-Page J-18, why wasn't the hydro potential at LaTouche addressed? Also, it would be helpful to know the reasons why hydro power in closer proximity to the New Chenega site was not considered. NEW CHENEGA J-38 Eric P. Yould April 8, 1982 Page Two Section I.3.3-Page J-29, should address a housing design recommending energy, con- servation and education methods. nde shew! Why is it because there is no known constant wind data available, its potential is discounted? I will make myself available to discuss this with you, should a meeting be warranted. Thank you. Sincerely, BEL <I Larry Evanoff, Chairman Chenega IRA Council jm cc: Acres American Incorporated 1577 'C' Street Anchorage, AK 99501 Chenega Files 4. Comment: Response: Comment: Response: Comment : Response: Comment : Response: NEW CHENEGA J-39 ACRES' RESPONSE "Is there going to be a more detailed study?" The text will be changed to more strongly emphasize the recommendations that detailed studies be performed on the San Juan cannery hydro site and that a sophisticated anemometry program be implemented. "Is the final report, if any, going to be prepared in a way we can use it as a [lobbying] tool with the State ...? Past reports of this type have been used directly by the Alaska Power Authority to initiate detailed project studies and construction work. As such, it may not be necessary for the New Chenega people to do substantial lobbying work. No change in the report text is needed. "This report ... stipulates that we are stuck with fuel oi] for almost everything." This is, unfortunately, likely to be true. It can be expected that diesel fuel will be used for power generation (except for what can be provided by hydro or wind in the future), heating of public buildings, and the village's fishing boats. As shown in the energy balance, more than half of the oil used by the village will go to electricity generation. Diesel engines are remarkably inefficient machines, converting only about one-fifth of the energy available in their fuel to electricity. The rest is wasted. Some of this wasted heat can be recaptured and used to heat buildings. This is studied in our alternative "A." No change in the report text is needed. ",.. did they [Acres] suggest where to locate the anamometer [sic] to better analyze the wind or a different type anamometer![sic]" A discussion of a more satisfactory anemometry program will be included in the text of the final report. 5. 8. 9. Comment : Response: Comment: Response: Comment : Response: Comment : Response: Comment : NEW CHENEGA J-40 "The Village Council has the authority to conduct business on behalf of the Chenega people ..." The authority of the council is not in question here. It is a contractual requirement of the reconnaissance studies that “public meetings" be held to discuss the studies and to get a feeling for residents' preferences. It is possible that some could argue that the closed informal meetings held in North Pacific Rim offices were intended to circumvent these requirements. The paragraph in question attempts to explain why no "public" meetings were advertised or held. "... are some estimates on the higher side? The quantity column is that in a year, month, or what?[sic]" The price of "$200/gal" shown for gasoline is obviously in error. This will be corrected in the final report. No other data is believed to be incorrect. The table will be edited to be easier to understand. "We lived before with no electricity. What makes you think we can't do that again?" It is unlikely that a suggestion that such an experiment be tried would be met with much enthusiasm by village residents. No change in the report text is needed. "... where did you get information on figures? They appear to be on the high side." No figures on the referenced page appear incorrect. Without knowing which figures are felt to be in error, it is not possible to more fully address this point. No change in the report text is needed. "Graph on Page J-17, the ranking column, is that on a 1-10 basis or what?" The "Rating" column gives the results of the attribute scoring and can award any technology 0 to 100 points. The "Ranking" column picks out the top point totals. The process is described in detail in Sections C and F of the main report. 10. ll. 12. 13. Comment: Response: Comment : Response: Comment: Response: Comment: Response: NEW CHENEGA J-41 "Why wasn't the hydro potential at La Touche addressed?" The costs of developing a new site on La Touche Island are thought to be prohibitive. The development of the San Juan site is shown to be only marginally attractive even when reusing the existing components now at the site where practical. The expense of site access and the requisite underwater transmission system will put such a scheme out of reach. No change in the report text is needed. “... it would be helpful to know the reasons why hydro power in closer proximity to the New Chenega site was not considered." Again, the costs associated with the development of a new site would be prohibitive. The San Juan site has such an advantage largely because so much of its required work is already done. No change in the report text is needed. "Section I ... should address a housing design recommending energy, conservation and education methods." This report addresses the supply of electric energy to the village. The addition of discussion of house design would be inappropriate and beyond the commissioned scope of work. No change in the report text is needed. "Why is it because there is no known constant wind data available, its potential is discounted?" No useful conclusions can be made about the economics of wind energy at New Chenega without some idea of the availability of the resource at the site. The nearest wind data site to New Chenega is at Cape Hinchinbrook Island. Although this is quite likely a good wind turbine site, exposed to Gulf of Alaska winds, it is not where New Chenega will be built. Evans Island is sheltered from Gulf winds by La Touche, Montague, and Elrington Islands, making extrapolation of Hinchinbrook data to Crab Bay inappropriate. Recognizing the importance of wind data in determining wind energy potential, the text has been revised to provide discussion of a more satisfactory anemometry program. NEW CHENEGA J-42 J.2 - Comments Received From Mr. Jim Renkert NEW CHENEGA J-43 RECEIVED APR - 8 1982 April 8, 1982 ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY Ms. Patti Dejong Alaska Power Authority 334 W. Sth Ave. Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Re: Comments on Acres American Chenega Reconnaissance Study Dear Patti: The following are some brief comments on the Acres American Chenega Reconnaissance Study. Did Acres study existing information and studies on Chenega extensively? There is a wealth of existing information on Chenega, but except for the AETAP Study (Pre- liminary Energy Plan for New Chenega) I saw no other studies or plans mentioned in the report. Of particular importance would have been the Chenega house design developed by Design Lab, Inc. for The North Pacific Rim Housing Authority. These house designs had an energy efficient analysis performed on them by James Barkshire of Alaska Renewable Energy Associates. Barkshire called the houses "state of the art in energy efficiency for HUD Native houses". Did Acres know about these plans and did they make use of them in deriving some of their members for residential energy use? Time and budget constraints may have prohibited them from using the plans. Still it seems that housing plans at least deserve discussion in the report, part- icularly since they show how Chenega has already taken major steps in becoming | a low-energy use village. Other things that seemed noteworthy that were not discussed, and indeed hardly mentioned in the report, were such alternative energy technologies as passive solar and conservation. The AETAP study felt that passive solar showed real promise for meeting some of the heating requirements in Chenega. In the Acres report passive solar received a high ranking in the village technology assessment (page J-17), yet it was not discussed ‘at all in text. Possible energy savings that could be realized through methods of conservation. (energy efficient lighting, consolation of community facilities, land management) were not discussed either. Acres ruled out wind generated power very early in their study noting that there was a poor data base with which to determine wind potential. Is is true that there is an inadequate data base on wind at the New Chenega site, however, just because there is an inadequate data base it seems premature to rule out wind for "further consideration". Crab Bay may or may not have wind potential. Although diesel generation will be the village's chief form of power. I see no reason why it was not recommended that the wind potential for New Chenega be more closely studied to see if there is a chance it could contribute to the village future electrical needs. Patti Dejon NEW CHENEGA J-44 April 8, 1982 Page Two Alternative "B" of Acres Energy Plan Description (p.J-18) states that the primary means of power for New Chenega will be hydro power from the San Juan Hatchery. Unless the lake above the San Juan hatchery is raised further it seems unlikely that it could supply substantial power for New Chenega at its current flow rates, especially during personnel advised us last summer that there is hardly enough water to meet the fish hatching needs during the low flow winter months. There are also reports that in periods of very ‘cw flow water in hatchery process actually has to be "raised" several times. Acres stated that the villages will probably have "relatively high energy requirements" (J-11). While this may or may not be true the estimate for electrical energy use for New Chenega was 2,600 kwh/year per home. This estimate seems grossly underestimated. AETAP calculations indicated that a good estimate of residential electrical use would be 5,500 kwh/year. This estimate was derived after looking at other estimates of village electrical use done throughout Alaska. Design Lab Inc. (designers of the homes to be built in New Chenega) estimated that 5,220 kwh/year would be used.in the village houses. The ISER study estimated that rural Alaska Village electrical consumption would be around 7,800 kwh/year per house. Wind Systems Engineering estimated household village consumption at 3,730kwh/year. Some of the other estimates for ecletrical use seemed off also. The school, which will only be open nine months out of the year, was estimated at needing 65,000 kwh/year. I believe the school in Chenegas sister village of Tatitlek (where the school is approximately double the size of that planned for New Chenega) uses less than 20,000 kwh/year of electricity. Interestingly enough the total village electrical demand was estimated by Acres at 210 mwh/year. AETAPs estimate was very close to this at 190 mwh/year. These are just a few of the things I could comment on, they seemed especially important. If you would like further comment or input please contact me at 277-0354. Please look at the AETAP study if you get a chance. Sincerely, ofa. 7 = Sim Kenkert Le cc: Alaska Power Authority Chenega IRA Village Council 1. 2. 3. Comment: Response: Comment: Response: Comment : Response: NEW CHENEGA J-45 ACRES' RESPONSE "Did Acres study existing ... studies on Chenega extensively?" The only report which Acres was furnished by the village council was the ATEAP report. However, it was the opinion of the study staff that the information it contained was adequate to provide an introduction to the village. Many of the parameters used in the Acres study were taken from the ATEAP work. No change in the report text is needed. "Other things that seemed noteworthy that were not discussed . were such ... technologies as passive solar and conservation." This report addressed the technologies available to produce electricity for the village. A discussion of heating needs and alternatives is generally not relevant to the electric energy picture. An exception to this is in those cases where electricity can be produced at a cost which makes electric heating attractive. No such alternative was found to be available to New Chenega. No change in the report text is needed. . it seems premature to rule out wind for ‘further consideration.' ... I see no reason why it was not recommended that wind ... be more closely studied ..." One of the recommendations made in the report, admittedly weakly worded, was that a more sophisticated anemometry Program be initiated at the village to assess the wind potential there. The report text will be changed to make this point clear. The “ruling out of further consideration" statement was taken out of context. The actual quote is "... wind power did not receive further consideration in this report." (Emphasis added.) This does not imply that the wind resource should not be studied further. The text of the report will be expanded to discuss the reasons for dropping wind from consideration in this report. 4. Comment: Response: NEW CHENEGA J-46 "The estimate for electrical energy use for New Chenega was 2,600 kWh/year per home. This estimate seems grossly underestimated. AETAP calculation indicated that a good estimate ... would be 5,500 kWh/year." The AETAP, ISER, and other projections are in error. AETAP used an assumption of nearly 500 watts of lighting operating 18 hours a day, 365 days a year. This is clearly out of line, particularly for a village with "a commitment to energy conservation." A more realistic figure would be perhaps 400 W of lights operated for about 6 hours daily, for a consumption of about 900 kWh/year, less than a third of AETAP's 3,100 kWh/year for lighting. Major appliances which will likely appear in New Chenega homes are: Refrigerator 300 W 900 kWh/yr Television 200 W 400 kWh/yr Total 1,300 kWh/yr Added to the 900 kWh given for the lighting, this gives 2,200 kWh, leaving 400 kWh for miscellaneous uses. It is not practical to try to predict the energy use of each household in the village so some generalities must be made. Individual consumption will vary, but early in the village's development, household consumption will be low. It is worth pointing out that by 1991, a per household consumption of 4,300 kWh/yr is forecast; for 2001, the figure is about 4,600 kWh/yr. The figure is well in line with present consumption patterns observed in other bush villages studied. No change in the report text is needed. NEW CHENEGA J-47 J.3 - Comments Received From Ms. JoAnn Holmes, Community/Natural Resource Planner, The North Pacific Rim - NEW CHENEGA J-48 RECEIVED Valdez BD a APR - 8 1982 -Eyak ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY Chenega eee 4 Seward 7 eee stax he NOMA Pacific rm April 7, 1982 Mr. Eric P. Yould, Executive Director Alaska Power Authority 334 W. 5th Ave. Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Dear Mr. Yould: I would like to thank you for the opportunity to review and make comments on the draft Reconnaissance Study for the community of New Chenega. (attached). I believe that the three alternatives provided in the study are based on sound and valid assump- tions. However, I feel that the study is lacking in that it does not make projections for the community's immediate future. All three plans are based -on the size of the community in the year 2001. It is impossible for the members of the community to look at the report and identify alternatives and make plans during the critical stages of development of New Chenega in the next five years. I would like to have the opportunity to discuss this with you further and am avail- able upon request. Sincerely, A, ow eb ye JoAnn Holmes Community/Natural Resource Planner jm 903 W. Northern Lights Blvd., Suite 203 / Anchorage / Alaska 99503 / Ph. (907) 276-2121 The Non-Profit Corporation Serving The People Of The Chugach Native Region NEW CHENEGA J-49 Now : These cre nol COMMENTS ON DRAFT REPORT Power Pres <i RECONNAISSANCE STUDY OF ENERGY Foadulas » ont i een! Tacs || NEW CHENEGA John Litee, A. Summary of Findings and Recommendations Generally: Due to a lack of specific information in the main report regarding the primary objectives of this reconnaissance study, it is somewhat difficult to make comments. It is not clear what the purpose of the study is. However, the Draft Reconnaissance Study performed by Northern Tech. Services for Aniak, Atka, etc, was very clear: "The primary objectives of the reconnaissance studies was to identify existing and future power production needs of the communities and to investigate potential alternative sources of energy and new technologies to meet these needs in the least costly manner". Discussion should exist in the report to indicate the purposes of the Recon- naissance Stuay. Specifically, is this report designed so the community can make decisions to meet present and future meeds or is it designed so they will need "professional advice and consultation..during all phases of development"? (p.J-L). The New Chenega draft report does not address the possible uses of alternative energy to supplement the diesel generation system mentioned in Alternative A. To reduce the cost per KWH for electrical generation, other alternatives should be discussed in detail. Example, do present technologies allow for the use of wind generation systems with the recommended 150 KW generators. Is there is potential for the use of State Power Cost Assistance to lower the cost of power to consumers? Can conservation be discussed as a form alternative energy? What advantages does the community have since they will be starting anew? The main report explains in detail wind system technology and discusses the use of a generator as back-up to the wind energy conversion system. However, it does not discuss the use of a wind energy system (or any other form of alternative energy) as a supplement to diesel generation. If there are not supplemental energy al- ternatives for diesel generation it should be stated. In addition, because there is a lack of "any meaningful wind data for this community does not mean that it should not receive further consideration" (p. J-2). I believe the community expressed an interest in this and was looking for it's use as a supplement rather than a means for electrifying the entire community. This report indicates waste heat recovery as a means of harnessing wasted energy. A detailed discussion of the phases this community will be going through over the next 5 years is critical. Alternative A consists of providing two 150 KW diesel gen- erators. Obviously, the community would not have an electrical generation demand such as this for quite some time. The community would need to know what alter- | native diesel generators are available that would meet short term needs and provide NEW CHENEGA J-50 for expansion without waste of fuel and waste of money. For example, would it make more sense to have a small generator during initial community building with a capacity for a turbocharger "step-up" as the community grows. This generator could then be used later as a back-up generator and during periods of time when demand is low. B. Demographic and Economic Conditions: No particular comments on this section. C. Community Meeting Report It appears that even though the community expressed an interest in alternatives, that the contractor made decisions to not discuss in detail supplemental energy. It is not apparant if this is a miscommunication between the parties. It is questionable whether or not a 5 hour trip to a community is adequate to prepare an accurate site specific of this sort. Not much time was spent in New Chenega. D. Existing Power & Heating Facilities "There are obviously no existing power and heating facilities at the site". No one can dispute this fact. However, a discussion about potential location of the diesel generators might be in order or a historical perspective on Chenega's energy use. A detailed explanation of the hatchery's energy production and use is included and is very useful information for Chenega's plans to meet future energy demands. E. Energy Balance Table 2, Energy Use Profile (p.J-9) does not appear to be well tied-in with the narrative of this section. The narrative fails to explain the relevance of the table and vice versa. The table and narrative also does not statei:the period of time the quantities of fuel indicated will be consumed. F. Energy Requirements Forecast F.3 - Electric Energy Forecast: The concept that because a person is used to "relatively high energy" consumption in the city, that they "will most likely elect to retain these standards of living", is in direct opposition to the Village Councils committment to energy conservation. One might rather assume that because the community people are used to inexpensive energy bills in the city, that they would elect to retain the same relatively low home heating and electrical bills, thereby setting relatively low energy requirements. This community is unique in the aspect that they will be able to avoid many problems that are occuring in communities already built. The village council is aware of this and looks to this study to help identify their alternatives. Would it be more beneficial to discuss the various high and low projections and provide a guide to the community to show how much energy can be saved by implementation of conservation. F.4 Thermal Energy Forecast: No mention is made of the use of waste heat recovery to heat the school or com- munity buildings. It should be noted that the use of the system would substan- ially reduce the consumption of diesel for heating purposes. NEW CHENEGA J-51 ACRES' RESPONSE 1. Comment: "It is not clear what the purpose of the study is." Response: The purpose of the study is addressed in Section A of the main report. No change in the report text is needed. 2. Comment: "The ... report does not address ... alternative energy to supplement the diesel generation system mentioned in Alternative 'A'." Response: Alternative "A" evaluates the performance of a diesel/ generator set equipped with a water jacket waste heat recovery system. Diesel/generator sets are much better suited to the production of heat than electricity. The units available to New Chenega are assumed to be only about 20 percent efficient. If alternatives are available to supplement the generator's electricity production, waste heat production will also be diminished. The result of this is that fuel oil must be purchased to make up for the lost waste heat. In general, the savings in diesel fuel is not sufficient to make up for the extra heating oi] required. Alternative "B" examines the suitability of developing a small hydroelectric site at the existing San Juan Aquaculture hatchery. This operates as a complement to a diesel system not equipped with a waste heat system. Such a combination was found to be attractive. No change in the report text is needed. 3. Comment: "... other alternatives should be discussed in detail." Response: The alternatives studied are those which are most appropriate to New Chenega as it is described by the Chenega council. Diesels are the obvious choice for the community as it is starting out and hydro development at the San Juan site should be seriously considered for the future needs of the village. Wind power is a possible alternative for the distant future, but with the present low cost of diesel fuel available to the village and the expense involved in installing a wind turbine of any significant size, it cannot be justified for consideration in the near future. The report text will be edited to more fully describe the reasons for dropping wind as an alternative to be studied in detail. 6. Comment : Response: Comment : Response: Comment : Response: NEW CHENEGA J-52 "Is there ... potential for the use of the State Power Cost Assistance to lower the cost of power to consumers?" Of course this is a possibility. The report deliberately avoids including this subsidy. The object of the study is to develop data on the relative costs of a number of alternative electric generation technologies. Subsidy programs do not change the costs of a particular alternative, they just change who pays. No change in the report text is needed. "Can conservation be discussed as a form [of] alternative energy?" One way of thinking of conservation is to visualize it as an energy alternative. The Chenega council has repeatedly stated its position that the new village is to be commited to energy efficiency. This will have the most noticeable impact on the heating requirements of village structures. Data on heating needs of the village buildings were taken directly from the AETAP report on New Chenega. It is the opinion of Acres' staff that electrical energy conservation is a direct function of electric energy cost and is inversely related to disposable income: consumers will Purchase and use 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 a perceptible impact on the village's energy or demand forecast. No change in the report text is needed. "... it would make sense to have a small generator during initial community building ..." This is a valid point. The reason that the 150 kW units were chosen is due in large part to the Alaska Power Authority's criterion that diesel sets have economic lives of 20 years. Such a requirement dictates that diesels "installed" in our study in 1982 be kept in the alternative plan through 2001, unless they can be sold during that period to recover their prorated remaining value. This recovery was not considered realistic due to difficulties associated with taking the diesel sets out of New Chenega once they were installed. Within these constraints, it would seem that the 150's were an appropriate choice. NEW CHENEGA J-53 In actual bush practice, however, it is not uncommon to find diesel sets that are worn out after three years of operation. This is due largely to ineffective maintenance. While some diesels do last the 20 years required by APA's economic study guidelines, these are the exception. With anything resembling competent maintenance work, a diesel set will likely last through 10 years of steady operation. To reconcile these differences, and to account for the absence of thorough maintenance. a sinking fund is included in the cost calculations to "simulate" the more frequent replacement of the diesels. From this, it would appear that a more realistic choice for New Chenega would be a pair of 100 kW units, which will meet the projected village load through 1992. What effect would such a change have on the New Chenega energy costs? As an example, the following comparison is offered: 1987 Energy Costs A B Generators: Two 150 kW Two 100 kW Generator Lifetime: 20 years 10 years Initial Cost: $240, 000 $160,000 Energy Production: 250,000 kWh 250,000 kWh Annual Cost Required to Pay Back Purchase Loan Over Generator Lifetime at 3 Percent: $16,132 $18,757 Maintenance Costs: $44,000 $44,000 Fuel Efficiency Assumed: 8.0 kWh/gal 8.0 kWh/gal Fuel Used: $67,000 $67,000 Funds to be Set Aside to Allow Thorough Overhaul at 5 Years: $15,000 $10,000 Total Cost for 1987 Operation: $142,132 $139,757 Energy Cost: $0.568/kWh $0.559/kWh Percent Difference: 1.7% No change in the report text is needed. 7. Comment: Response: 8. Comment: Response: 9. Comment: Response: 10. Comment: Response: NEW CHENEGA J-54 . a discussion about potential location of the diesel generators might be in order ..." This is a particularly important item which was missed in the discussion of Alternative "A" which addressed the operation of a waste heat system, in which the proximity of the generator plant to its heat loads becomes relevant. The text will be changed to discuss this. "Table 2... does not appear to be well tied-in with the narrative ..." This is recognized, and the report text will be changed to make the section more useful. "The concept that ... they 'will most likely elect to retain these standards of living,' is in direct opposition to the village Councils [sic] commitment to energy conservation." The Council's stand on energy conservation is well understood and the forecasts made allowances for their commitment. However, it must be recognized that the council has very limited influence over individual energy consumption patterns. There are factors of human nature which will influence the early settlers to want to use those items which are available to them in Cordova and Anchorage.. High energy costs will influence the amount of energy used, but this effect will be limited. No change in the report text is needed. "No mention is made of the use of waste heat ..." This is not the case as Alternative "A" addressed this alternative. No change in the report text is needed. NEW CHENEGA J-55 J.4 - Comments Received From U. S. Department of the Arm Alaska District, Corps of Engineers DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY ub cuaite 7 3-56 ALASKA DISTRICT. CORPS OF ENGINEERS yea PO.BOXx 70¢2 ANCHORAGE. ALASKA 99510 oe REPLY TO ATTENTION OF; - ain ; NPAEN-PL-R os PE MAR igo 2B REGEIveED = APR ~ 2 3982 Mr. Eric Yould 334 West Sth Avenue ‘AVASKA POWER .AUTHDAITY Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Dear Mr. Yould: Thank you for the opportunity to review your draft energy reconnaissance reports for FY 1982. In general, we found the reports to be comgrchensive and potentially helpful in our planning studies for both hydropcwer anu cuar narbors. we would appreciate copies of the Tinal reports when they are available. Wwe have limite¢ our comments to the reports that considered the areas « siost familiar with; however, some of the comnents may apply to tne ctner ports as well. The attached pages list specific comments for verious communities. If we can be of further assistance, please feel free to contact fir. Loren caxter of my staff at 552-3461. Sincerely, Chief, Engineering Division nw n oro om ct o a NEW CHENEGA J-57 [Original Comment Retyped Here for Clarity] New Chenega: The study indicates that it would be possible to construct a hydropower system at the site above the San Juan fish hatchery. It is our understanding that San Juan Aquaculture is going to construct a new hydropower system at this site for their personal use. We suggest you call Mr. Mike Hall with R.W. Retherford Associates at 274-6551. He is involved with the proposed development. 1. Comment : Response: NEW CHENEGA J-58 ACRES' RESPONSE "...San Juan Aquaculture is going to construct a new hydropower system at this site ..." Acres contacted Mr. Mike Hall of R. W. Retherford and Associates on April 21, 1982. He stated that San Juan Aquaculture is only exploring the possibility of obtaining a FERC license under the minor hydropower criteria. They have asked R. W. Retherford to assist them in this endeavor. There is no activity involving the design of a hydropower project or even a serious effort to do so. At the present time, their efforts to submit a FERC application appear to be dormant. No change in report text is needed. NEW CHENEGA J-59 J.5 - Comments Received From The Alaska Power Administration [Original Letter Retyped Here For Clarity] NEW CHENEGA J-60 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 smal] 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. NEW CHENEGA J-61 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: NEW CHENEGA J-62 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 designs which would be implemented in the villages after 1985 will be 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 share access to a particular technology, such as diesel generation, local conditions including fuel costs, fuel consumption rates, and 0& considerations may make comparisons invalid. The comment is notec 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: NEW CHENEGA J-63 ACRES' RESPONSE "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. NEW CHENEGA J- 64 J.6 - Comments Received From The State of Alaska aepaetnent of Natural Resources, Division of Parks ice 0 istory and Archeology MEMO TO THE RECORD NEW CHENEGA J-65 ALASKA | suavect ACRES' and NORTEC's ENERGY RECONS ay _PKD pate_4/6/82 POWER —TELECON WITH DIANA RIGG, DNR, DIVISION QF SHEETNO.._] ——or_y AUTHORITY | PARKS, OFFICE OF HISTORY & ARCHEOLOGY prosect ENERGY RECONS Diana Rigg called with a personal communication which she will follow with a letter. Eight of our reconnaissance communities for the FY 82 studies have sites of historical or archeological interest which may be affected by potential projects. They are: Chignik Lake Atka At ka sook ; Ivanof Bay Nightmute re Stebbins _ Newtok New Chenega She recommends that if feasibility studies are done for these communities, the contractor should contact their office early in the study. NEW CHENEGA J- 66 ACRES' RESPONSE 1. Comment: "If feasibility studies are done for these communities, the contractor should contact their office early in the study." Response: This request will be noted in the text of the final report. NEW CHENEGA J-67 J.7 - Comments Received From The State of Alaska Department of Fish and Game STATE OF ALASKA / == DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME OFFICE OF THE COMBIISSIOHER io eae oeaee a gobo PHONE: 465-4100 April 8, 1982 RECEIvep FPR 1 2 1989 ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY 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 betm aimee fe Ronald 0. Skoog Commissioner NEW CHENEGA J-69 ACRES' RESPONSE No comment or change in report text is needed. NEW CHENEGA J- 70 J.8 - Comments Received From U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service in Anchorage IN REPLY REFER TO: WAES NEW CHENEGA J-71 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 EIVED APR ~ 9 1989 Beseutive Director ALASKA POWER AuTHoniy Shenae 8 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. 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. 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. Plans for construction activities end project features to minimize damage to fish, wildlife, and their habitats should be devised, e.g., erosion control, revegetation, transmission line siting, construction timing, siting the powerhouse, diversion weir, and penstock above salmon spawning habitat, etc. Losses of fish and wildlife habitat should be held to a minimum, and measures to mitigate unavoidable losses and enhance resources should be devised. If there is to be a diversion of water or if substantial water temperature fluctutations are imminent, then these factors should be addressed because of their possible influence on water quality and fish habitat. Aquatic data collection should at least include the following: NEW CHENEGA J-72 Page 2 (a) Identification of species composition and distribution of resident and anadromous fish within and downstream of the pro- ject area. Standard sampling methods such as fyke netting and minnow trapping, as well as visual observation of spawning and/or redds, should be used. (>) Surveying and mapping of fish spawning, rearing, and over- wintering habitat as defined in the FWS Instream Flow Techniques or similar guidelines. (c) Harvest levels and subsistence use data, if applicable. It should be incumbent upon the APA to document animal species within the project boundary. 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. Terrestrial data collection should include the following: (a) Verification of game and non-game species use and occurrence within the project area. 1. Mannals. a. Historical and current harvest levels and subsistence use data. db. Site-specific wildlife observations, including wild- life sign, denning sites, feeding sites, migration routes, winter use areas, and 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 330-foot protective zone around all active and inactive nests. Compliance with provisions of the Bald Eagle Protecton Act is mandatory. We request that the following be accomplished during the course of the studies: l. 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. The APA shall investigate and document the possible presence of any endangered or threatened species in the project area. If endangered of threatened species are determined to be present, the FWS should be notified. ; NEW CHENEGA J-73 Page 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 the project. This will enable the FWS to accurately determine whether or not Interior managed lands are involved. t is the desire of the FWS to work with the APA to resolve any concerns relating to fish, wildlife, and other resources. If it is determined that the project will result in resource impacts, the FWS will assist the APA in attempting to modify the project to alleviate or mitigate any adverse effects. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions regarding our suggested feasibility studies. Sincerely, Field Supervisor 1. Comment : Response: NEW CHENEGA J-74 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 changé in report text is required. NEW CHENEGA J- 75 J.9 - Comments Received From U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) NEW CHENEGA J-76 REFER TO 2 eeu 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, LAO Uvecinee NEW CHENEGA J-77 ACRES' RESPONSE No comment or change in report text is needed.