HomeMy WebLinkAboutGustavus Appendix G Reconnaissance Study of Energy Requirements & Alternatives 5-1982| VIL-A
002
Gustavus
RECONNAISSANCE STUDY OF ENERGY
REQUIREMENTS AND ALTERNATIVES
APPENDIX G: GUSTAVUS
MAY 1982
Prepared by:
Hi | ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
a
VIL-A
002
Gustavas
Chae
DATE ISSUED TO
HIGHSMITH = 42-225 PRINTED INU.S.A.
FALRBANKS
BETHEL
Qo o&
“oar GUSTAVUS
G
VILLAGE SPECIFIC REPORT
&. GUSTAVUS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
A - SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..............eeeeeee G-1
Acl = GENE Al 2... cece cece cee c ccc cee veccececnescceecersece G-1
A.2 - Alternative Plan Descriptions .......... cece eee eee ee G-2
B - DEMOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS ................e eee eeee 6-5
Bh Iisa an oe oo eo os oka ees 60 e ses e sconces ss G-5
B.2 - Population ... cece cece cece eee eee eee eee eect eeee G-5
B.3 - ECONOMY 2... cece ccc cece eect ee teeter e et ee eee eees G-5
B.4 - Government ....... ccc cece ce cee cece cece cece teen neces G-6
B.5 = Transportation ..... ccc ccc cece ee eee ee eee eees G-6
C - COMMUNITY MEETING REPORT ........ ccc cece eee eee eee ee eee eee G-7
D - EXISTING POWER AND HEATING FACILITIES .............. essen eee 6-8
D.1 - Existing Power Facilities ......... cc cece cece G-8
D.2 - Existing Heat Facilities ....... cece cece eee ee eee G-9
E = ENERGY BALANCE ...... ccc ccc cece cee cece eee eee e eee eens G-10
F =J2ENERGY REQUIREMENTS FORECAST ........ 2000 cc cewwccscccccascves G-12
F.1 - Capital Projects Forecast
F.2 - Population Forecast 2... ... cee cece ce cece cece eee eens
F.3 - Electrical Energy Forecast
F.4 - Thermal Energy Forecast ......... cece cece ccc e eee tenes
G - VILLAGE TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT ....... cece eee eee eee ee ee eee G-17
H - ENERGY PLAN DESCRIPTIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS .............--0000- G-20
H.1 - Base CaS€ 1... cece cece cee cee cee eee e eee eens enes G-20
H.2 - Alternative Plan "A" .oo ccc ccc cece cee eee eee eens G-21
H.3 - Alternative Plan "BY co... cece cece ce cee eee eee eens G-22
I - ENERGY PLAN EVALUATIONS .......... eee ccc eee cence cee e eens G-24
I.1 - Base CaS€ occ eee ec eee cece eee cece teen ee enee G-27
1.2 - Alternative Plan "A" . oo. cc cee ccc ccc cee cee eee e ee ences G-30
1.3 - Alternative Plan "BY... . ccc ccc cece eee eee e teens G-33
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Management
Section
d: =. COMMENTS AND-DISCUSSION fics ce eel eee aula wees.
J.1 - Comments Received From Concerned Gustavus Residents ...
J.2 - Comments Received From U. S. Department of the Army,
Alaska District, Corps of Engineers ...............005-
J.3 - Comments Received From The Alaska Power
PGMENUSEVACIOR, 6.00 cas oie es owt ow cw welll ow SU oe ws
J.4 - Comments Received From The State of Alaska,
Department of Fish and Game ........... cece cece eee ee eee
J.5 - Comments Received From U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service in Anchorage ........ cece cece eee cee cece eens
J.6 - Comments Received From U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service iM JUNEAU .... eee cece cece eect eee eee eeees
J.7 - Comments Received From U.S. Bureau of Land
LIST OF TABLES
No. Title Page
1 Comparative Estimated Electrical Energy Prices
For Base Case and Alternatives ............. eee eee eens G-3
2 Energy Use Profile for Gustavus - 1981 .................. G-10
3 Village Electric Energy Use Forecast ...............2005- G-13
4 Net Thermal Requirements .......... cece eee eee ee ee eee eee G-16
5 Village Technology Assessment .......... ccc cece e eee ene G-19
6 Estimated Costs of Gustavus Base Case ..............00005 G-25-26
7 Estimated Costs of Gustavus Alternative Plan "A" ........ G-28-29
8 Estimated Costs of Gustavus Alternative Plan "B" ........ G-31-32
LIST OF FIGURES
Title
Energy Cost Summary
Energy Balance
Electric Energy Use Forecast
Page
6-4
G-11
6-14
GUSTAVUS G-1
A_- SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
A.1 - General
Gustavus presently generates its heat using oi] and wood stoves, with a few
homes using passive solar techniques. The findings of this assessment
pinpoint no better alternatives than these for heating.
Commercial electric power in Gustavus is generated by the proprietor of
several local businesses for supply to those businesses, three homes and
six commercial customers. All other residents desiring electric power
produce it using their own generator sets. The present arrangement appears
to be largely by choice. The local proprietor does not wish to add a
single additional customer, as this would bring him under the jurisdiction
of the Public Utilities Commission and require detailed recordkeeping.
Many of the local residents have stated that they would prefer to either
generate their own or go without power.
This study has included an evaluation of the costs of power with three
different systems. These include the existing dispersed generation
approach; expansion of the commercial system to include all presently
electrified homes; and construction of a small hydroelectric project on
nearby Falls Creek to supply both the town and the Bartlett Cove section of
Glacier Bay National Park.
The findings of the electric power evaluation indicate that central
distribution with power generation from a Falls Creek hydro installation
may be attractive. This approach could reduce annual costs of power
production presently paid by residents and commercial users, with the
residents receiving the greater benefit. The attractiveness of this site
is highly dependent upon actual flow characteristics of Falls Creek and
costs associated with construction of the hydro installation. A stream
flow study for Falls Creek is recommended and should be started as soon as
possible. Any controversy over installation of the plant will be of little
significance until actual potential of the watercourse is known. It is
further recommended that government agencies work closely with residents to
obtain community support for future actions.
Expansion of the commercial diesel generating plant with a central
distribution system appears to involve essentially the same annual costs as
the existing dispersed generation approach. Thus, village-wide central
diesel does not appear to offer sufficient incentive to justify the
investment and the administrative costs.
GUSTAVUS G-2
If the hydro alternative is not adopted, cost savings may be provided to
the commercial enterprises in the village with the installation of a diesel
waste heat recovery system. Insufficient data were available to evaluate
this alternative.
The analysis of the central power alternative has been based on use of
underground distribution lines to minimize visual impact, as the character
of the town appears to be its greatest asset.
Table 1 and Figure 1 summarize the results of the analysis of energy
alternatives.
A.2 - Alternative Plan Descriptions
A.2.1 - Base Case
Base case assumes no changes in the present methods of generating
power in Gustavus. Residents provide their own and the commercial
facility continues to serve nine customers. The present worth of
this plan is $4,550,000 for the period 1982 through 2035.
A.2.2 - Alternative Plan "A"
Alternative "A" involves replacement of the existing diesel units
with three 75 kW diesels, installation of underground distribution
and service lines, metering, switchgear and associated hardware.
Operation of the revised system is assumed to begin in 1983. The
present worth of this plan is $4,922,000 for the period 1982 through
2035.
A.2.3 - Alternative Plan "B"
Alternative "B" involves construction of a concrete diversion
structure on Falls Creek, a pipe penstock, powerhouse, switchyard and
an underground transmission line. Plant capacity is 820 kW with a
single unit. The plant operates on a continuous basis with no
storage provided by the diversion structure. Diversion structure
height is 5 feet. Distribution of power was assumed to require
construction of the same underground distribution system contained in
plan B, in addition to establishment of power connections with
Bartlett Cove. The present worth of this plan is $3,920,000 for the
period 1982 through 2035.
TABLE 1
COMPARATIVE ESTIMATED ELECTRICAL ENERGY PRICES FOR BASE CASE PLAN AND ALTERNATIVES
Energy Base Case Plan Alternative "A" Alternative "B" Alternative "B" Production Energy Price Energy Price Energy Energy Price Year Mh $/kWh $/kWh Production / kWh
1982 256 0.39 0.60 256 0.39 1983 272 0,38 0.39 272 0.38 1984 285 0.37 0.41 285 0.37 1985 288 0.37 0.40 288 0.37 1986 289 0.38 0.40 639 0.38
1987 292 0.38 0.40 642 0.38
1988 295 0.38 0.40 645 0.38 1989 298 0.38 0.40 648 0.38 1990 301 0.38 0.41 651 0.37 1991 302 0.40 0.41 652 0.37
1992 305 0.40 0.41 655 0.37 1993 308 0.40 0.40 658 0.37 1994 311 0.41 0.42 661 0.37 1995 314 0.41 0.42 664 0.37 1996 317 0.42 0.43 667 0.37
1997 319 0.43 0.43 669 0.36 1998 322 0.43 0.44 672 0.36 1999 325 0.44 0.44 675 0.36 2000 328 0.44 0.45 678 0.36 2001 331 0.45 0.45 681 0.36 €-9 SNAVLSND
GUSTAVUS G-4
K
| ! "ENERGY COST (¢/kWh) 3 OIL AS USED AT
Ss | { i ' ENERGY COST ($/i0® BTU) _ ee ies rae ie ete
$ 0.10 OIL AS USED AT
20.65
WOOD AS USED AT [A 120.35 = 0,05 ees ee ——
a wood As | DELIVERED
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
GUSTAVUS - FIGURE |
LNT Ton To ! AChE
GUSTAVUS G-5
B - DEMOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS
B.1 - Location
Gustavus is located on a broad, flat plain on the north side of Icy Strait in southeast Alaska 48 miles west of Juneau. The community is surrounded
by the St. Elias mountains and is just outside the boundaries of the
Glacier Bay National Park.
B.2 - Population
Date: 1960 1970 1980 19811
Population: 107 64 98 115
The population of Gustavus fluctuates significantly from summer to winter due to the influx of vacationers during the summer months. Many of the
summer residents come from Juneau and remain in Gustavus for one to three months each year, and the population exceeds 300 at the height of summer.
The community is non-native with about one-half descendents of early homesteaders and one-half in-migration of young adults during the 1970's.
There are about forty permanently occupied homes.
B.3 - Economy
Gustavus is primarily a subsistence fishing and farming community with a
substantial amount of labor export. The year-round population supports
itself through some commercial fishing (+15 jobs); road maintenance crew (1-1/2); store (2); U.S. Park Service (3); school (3); post office (1). In
the summer months, Gustavus Inn employs several people, as do Alaska Airlines and Glacier Bay Airlines. A portion of the population works for
wages in Juneau or elsewhere during part of the year.
1 local census
GUSTAVUS G-6
B.4 - Government
Gustavus is not an incorporated city. Some residents want the community to incorporate while other residents are opposed to incorporation.
B.5 - Transportation
There are two paved airstrips in Gustavus, one 6,800 feet and one 5,000
feet. Glacier Bay Airlines is located in Gustavus, and Alaska Airlines provides additional daily air service from Juneau during the summer. Local
charter service is available. Visitors enroute to Glacier Bay National Park deplane at Gustavus and are bused to Gustavus Inn or Glacier Bay
Lodge.
Barges bring bulk supplies to Gustavus about four times a year. A minimum purchase of 70,000 pounds is required to obtain general barge deliveries.
Fuel is delivered separately by Chevron with a minimum purchase of 10,000 gallons required. Access to the main dock is open year round.
GUSTAVUS G-7
C_- COMMUNITY MEETING REPORT
A community meeting was held in the school on the evening of December 7,
1981. Approximately 30 people attended. The purpose of the meeting was
fourfold: to explain the objectives of the study, to briefly describe
energy alternatives, to obtain background on the village, and to solicit
public comment regarding community preferences.
In the general discussion, the topic of most interest and controversy was
the future of electric power in the community. There is a decided split
among community residents--those who are strongly against central power and
those who are equally desirous of it. In the middle is a large body who
would consider central power, but want an alternative to diesel
generators.
The leading alternative to diesel is the hydroelectric potential at Falls
Creek about 4 miles from the village. The development of Falls Creek into
a hydro site has been a subject of controversy for several years. No
information exists on the flow characteristics of this stream; therefore,
no specific evaluations have been possible to determine the true hydro
potential. As part of this reconnaissance effort, we offered to include
the hydro site as one of the alternatives for Gustavus so that residents
could have a better fix on the potential cost of electricity from this
source.
In later conversations, several residents expressed objections to
centralized power. They were concerned about the negative impacts central
power would have on the community, particularly the pressure it would bring
on population growth. With this in mind, many residents are apprehensive
regarding the future of Gustavus. These people did express interest in the
reconnaissance study, hoping it could provide more information on the
hydro plant so that reasonable discussion can proceed regarding the pros
and cons. However, a snowball effect was feared by opponents of central
power. It was proposed that a recommendation be made that the Power
Authority hold a public meeting prior to any initiation of a feasibility
study with the purpose of fully discussing the ramifications of such a
study.
In general, the residents of Gustavus are well informed on energy matters.
Most have independent power systems, several have constructed windmills for
power generation (but without success), and others are incorporating
passive solar concepts into their home designs.
GUSTAVUS G-8
D_- EXISTING POWER AND HEATING FACILITIES
D.1 - Existing Power Facilities
The existing commercial system was constructed in 1966 by the Federal Aviation Administration and is now owned and operated by a local business- man. The system includes two 100 kW diesel generator sets (D342, 1,200 rpm, Caterpillars) supplying power to eight commercial entities and three government employee quarters. Peak load ranges between 40 and 50 kW. Fuel consumption takes about one gallon to generate 8 kWh. Typical life of the diesels is 40,000 to 50,000 hours between overhauls. System condition appears excellent. The powerhouse (28x40x12 feet, steel frame with concrete slab foundation) was among the finest observed in Alaskan villages visited in this study. Present power rate is $0.40/kWh, but this is expected to increase soon.
Power distribution is single phase 2,400 V with about 3.5 miles of distribution lines. One line extends from the power plant to the boundary of Glacier Bay National Monument, a distance of about 2 miles. Practically all distribution lines are disconnected and would need repair or replacement if ever returned to service. Present consumers are sited near the power plant. Expansion of services is not planned, as nine connections are the maximum allowed by the Alaska Public Utilities Commission to qualify for exemption from state regulation. Complying with state requirements for annual reports was viewed as an onerous task.
Those residents who use electric power generate their own supply. A variety of engine generators are reported to exist in the community and the skills are there to maintain them. Residents appear to take pride in the operation and maintenance of their own systems, which promotes the independent lifestyle that many seek.
A separate power facility is maintained by the U.S. National Park Service at Bartlett Cove of Glacier Bay National Monument. The plant provides power to park facilities only. The park and village are not intertied. The park system consists of three units as follows:
100 kW 0342 Caterpillar 1,200 rpm
185 kW 3406 Caterpillar 1,200 rpm
150 kW Caterpillar 1,200 rpm (no nameplate)
Peak power at the park occurs during the summer months when tourism is at a peak. Estimates of peak load by residents place it somewhere between 125 kW and 250 kW. Electric energy consumed between October 1980 and October 1981, was reported as 351,360 kWh, generated from 39,758 gallons of fuel oil. Expansion of park facilities is not planned. Distribution is three phase in buried cable.
GUSTAVUS G-9
D.2 - Existing Heat Facilities
Heating is provided to residences using 011 or wood stoves, or furnaces.
At least one home is known to use partial passive solar heating and it was
implied others existed. Commercial buildings are heated by oi] furnaces
and a small oil-fired steam district heating system. Three homes are also
connected to the district heating system. Wood, however, is the
predominant heating fuel for the community.
Fuel storage capacity in the community is 60,000 gallons which goes
primarily to commercial interests. Expansion of 20,000 gallons is planned
for the summer of 1982, to supply the community with motor vehicle fuel.
The park maintains separate storage facilities and dispenses gasoline and
fuel oil to residents of Gustavus for motor vehicles, electric power
generators, boats, and miscellaneous engines.
GUSTAVUS G-10
E - ENERGY BALANCE
Table 2 presents an estimated energy use profle for Gustavus. Figure 2
illustrates the distribution and use of energy in the village.
TABLE 2
ENERGY USE PROFILE FOR GUSTAVUS - 1981
Total
Heat
Content
Type of Fuel Cost End Uses Quantity (102 Btu)
Wood Residential Space 296 Cords 5.0
Heating
Fuel Oi] $1.26/gal Space Heating
Residential (20%)
Commercial Institutional (14%)
Electric Power 63,000 gal 9.4
Generation (53%)
Transportation (13%)
Gasoline Transportation 20,000 gal 2.5
Propane Cooking 10,000 1b 0.20
ENERGY RESOURCE
wooo
(5.0)
FUEL OIL
(9.4)
GASOLINE
(2.50)
PROPANE (0.20)
NOTES:
ALL UNITS IN 10° BTU/YR.
FIGURE 2
END USE
RESIDENTIAL SYSTEM
SPACE LOSSES
HEATING (4.47)
(6.68)
USEABLE HEAT (2.41)
DOMESTIC WATER HEATING (094)
SySTEM LOSSES
USEABLE HEAT (086
COMMERCIAL /INSTITUTIONAL A ATIN
ELECTRIC POWER
SYSTEM LOSSES (4.03)
GENERATION
(5.03) ELECTRICITY 1.00
TRANSPORTATION
(3.67)
COOKING (0.20)
GUSTAVUS ENERGY
BALANCE (1981) LL-9 SNAVLSNS
GUSTAVUS G-12
F - ENERGY REQUIREMENTS FORECAST
F.l - Capital Projects Forecast
A new school is anticipated by 1985. A gasoline station may also be
constructed in the near future.
F.2 - Population Forecast
No major population growth is anticipated for Gustavus. The 1980 census indicated a permanent population of 98 persons. An estimated growth of
1 percent is anticipated through the year 2000.
F.3 - Electrical Energy Forecast
Present combined peak load in Gustavus is estimated at 102 kW, (40 residential, 12 school, 50 commercial) with annual energy consumption
estimated at 256 MWh. Residential peak load is anticipated to grow at 0.5 percent per year, with energy demand growth at 1 percent per year.
Houses which are presently without power are assumed to remain non-
electric. Commerical peak demand and energy are projected to grow at an
average of 2 percent per year. Annual use forecasts are shown in Table 3 and Figure 3.
Because power generation in Gustavus is dispersed, residential use varies
widely depending on individual preference. Energy use is difficult to
predict. Some homeowners have many appliances and generate power
throughout the day. Others turn their generators on for short periods to
power stereos, lights, and electric tools. Many homeowners choose not to
have electric power, and use kerosene lanterns for lighting. Typical home
appliances include power tools, lights, some minor kitchen equipment,
possibly washing machines in a few homes, and some freezers. Homes are not
generally equipped with refrigerators, televisions, or dishwashers. Residents have expressed an interest in a community cold storage facility.
Root cellars are widely used for refrigeration. A small commercial washeteria for laundry and showers is provided at the general store.
TABLE 3
VILLAGE ELECTRIC ENERGY USE FORECAST (a)
Residentia Schools . (b) Other otal...
Year kW Mah MW MW kW Fah kW Mh”
1982 40 74 12 22 50 170 102 256
1983 40 75 20 36 50 171 110 272
1984 41 76 20 36 50 173 111 285
1985 41 77 20 36 55 175 116 288
1986 41 77 20 36 55 176 116 289
1987 41 78 20 36 55 178 116 292
1988 41 79 20 36 55 180 116 295
1989 42 80 20 36 55 182 . , 117 298
1990 42 81 20 36 60 184 122 301
1991 42 81 20 36 60 185 122 302
1992 42 82 20 36 60 817 122 305
1993 42 83 20 36 60 189 122 308
1994 43 84 20 36 60 191 123 311
1995 43 85 20 36 65 193 128 314
1996 43 86 20 36 65 195 128 317
1997 43 86 20 36 65 197 128 319
1998 44 87 20 36 65 199 129 322
1999 44 88 20 36 65 201 129 325
2000 44 89 20 36 70 203 134 328
2001 44 90 20 36 70 205 134 331
nn
Notes: (a) Forecast does not include Bartlett Cove which annually consumes approximately 350,000 kWh.
(b) Assumes a new school is added in 1983. €l-9 SNAVLSND
GUSTAVUS G-i4 PETE) CEE PPE PEW Lee ay VILLAGE POWER DEMAND (KW) Add ———__| Lister Tee 100 DEMAND (KW) i ae: P| encase ENener conshverion ww ENERGY CONSUMPTION (MWh) GUSTAVUS -FIGURE 3
GUSTAVUS G-15
F.4 - Thermal Energy Forecast
Present net heating need is estimated at an average of 48.1 milion Btu per
year per home for 41 homes, or 1.972 X 109 Btu/yr. Energy conservation
is expected to reduce this need by 10 percent by the year 2000 in the
existing homes. Approximately ten new homes and two new commercial
structures are projected for construction in the same time period.
Expansion was forecast for permanent residences only. Summer vacation
homes were not included because of the lack of information regarding this
population. New home heating need is anticipated to be 36 million Btu/hr
per home, or 360 million Btu additional. Table 4 presents the thermal
energy forecast.
Net heat refers to the heat energy that actually goes to heating a building
space, thus excluding losses up the stack. Gross heating values can be
estimated by dividing the composite heating efficiency of the community
into the net heating requirement. Typical efficiencies of home heating
systems are 35 percent for wood and oi] stoves, 65 percent for gun-fired
furnaces, and 1.0 for electric resistance. Efficiencies of stoves can be
improved with stack gas robbers, quality construction, and improved
controls. The equivalent electrical energy required to heat a community
can be estimated from Table 4 by using the conversion factor of 3,413
Btu/kWh.
GUSTAVUS G-16
TABLE 4
NET THERMAL REQUIREMENTS
_(a) _(b)
Electricity Residential Schools Other Total
Year -(lo%stu) (10°Btu) (lo%stu) _(10°Btu) —_—(10°Btu).
1982 0.87 1.97 0.5 0.87 4.21
1983 0.93 1.97 0.9 0.87 4.3]
1984 0.97 2.02 0.9 0.87 4.40
1985 0.98 2.02 0.9 1.01 4.91
1986 0.99 2.05 0.9 1.01 4.95
1987 1.00 2.05 0.9 1.01 4.96
1988 1.01 2.08 0.9 1.01 5.00
1989 1.02 2.08 0.9 1.01 5.01
1990 1.03 2.12 0.9 1.01 5.06
1991 1.03 2.12 0.9 1.15 5.20
1992 1.04 2.15 0.9 1.15 5.24
1993 1.05 2.15 0.9 1.15 5.25
1994 1.06 2.19 0.9 1.15 5.30
1995 1.07 2.19 0.9 1.15 5.36
1996 1.08 2.23 0.9 1.15 5.36
1997 1.09 2.23 0.9 1.30 5.52
1998 1.10 2.26 0.9 1.30 5.56
1999 1.11 2.26 0.9 1.30 5.57
2000 1.12 2.30 0.9 1.30 5.62
sagt 1.13 2.33 0.9 1.30 5.66
(a) Full time residents
(b) School is heated by a district heating system. New school is
opened in 1983.
GUSTAVUS G-17
G - VILLAGE TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT
1. Coal. Coal would only be available to Gustavus as an imported fuel.
The residents of Gustavus have no interest in this resource as a
supplement to oil and wood space heating. Coal-fired power is
unacceptable and impractical. No further consideration of this
resource is warranted.
Wood. Wood is readily available to the community. It is used as the
primary fuel for residential space heating. Wood-fired power would be
economically impractical. No further consideration of wood-fired power
plants is warranted.
Peat. Peat is not found near Gustavus.
Geothermal. No geothermal sites are known to exist near Gustavus.
Hydroelectric Power. Hydroelectric potential exists at nearby Falls
Creek. he resource was evaluated in alternative plan "B".
Wind. At the request of several residents, wind power was considered
briefly for application to Gustavus. The analysis was based upon the
assumption that energy produced displaced home generated power. Credit
was given for fuel not used and greatly reduced diesel generator
maintenance requirements. Construction of a 100 kW wind generator a
few miles from the village was found to require a site with continuous
winds of 18 mph to produce enough energy to be economic at present. No
such site is known to exist in or near Gustavus. Small "home-sized"
units, constructed with donated labor, were estimated to require
continuous winds of 12 mph. Both evaluations ignored maintenance of
the wind generator equipment and used the simple assumption that the
unit ran continuously. More detailed analyses with accurate wind data
are required to confirm actual feasibility for any given site. The
potential of this resource, however, does not appear promising for
Gustavus. No further consideration of the wind resource is needed.
Photovoltaic. This electric energy alternative is presently
uneconomical for Alaska utility and home use application, despite
frequent claims to the contrary.
Fuel Oil. Fuel oil is delivered year round by barge from Ketchikan.
Availability is good and prices are low by rural Alaska standards.
Bulk fuel storage facilities at the community and park are good. Oi]
is presently used for electric power generation, commercial space
heating, and some residential space heating.
GUSTAVUS G-18
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.
GUSTAVUS G-19
TABLE 5
VILLAGE TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT
FOR
GUSTAVUS
TECHNIC COST RESOURCE FACTORS FACTORS FACTORS
=~
TECHNOLOGY
Electric
Coal Fired Steam
Wood Fired Steam
Geotherma1
Diesel (base)
Gas Turbine
Hydroelectric
Wind
Photovoltaic
Heating
Diesel Waste Heat Recovery
Electric Resistance
Passive Solar
Wood
Coal
Oil (base) nr rFP NY NHYHeHY COO oOo Oo NM FOO oO oF FPF RF RF FO WwW OF WwW Ww Be WwW nN NN CO WO WM 4 1
4 1
1 1
4 2
4 2
4 2
3 1
3 2
Other
Coal Gasification
Wood Gasification - Diesel
Biogas
Waste Fired Boiler
Peat
Binary Cycle Generator
Conservation NOTE: Higher numbers are more favorable.
GUSTAVUS G-20
H_- ENERGY PLAN DESCRIPTIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS
H.1 - Base Case
The base case assumes no changes in the present methods of generating
power. Residents provide their own, and the commercial facility continues
to serve nine customers.
The base case evaluation involved a number of assumptions:
° Of the 41 homes in Gustavus, 31 were estimated to use electric
power.
0 The 10 non-electric homes were assumed to remain non-electric.
0 As actual models and manufacturers of the home generators being used
are unknown, as well as their condition, each electrified house was
assumed to be powered by a 3.5 kW air cooled diesel with average fuel
efficiency of 5 kWh per gallon.
0 Annual average home energy use was assumed to be 2,400 kwh.
0 The home generators were assumed to have an initial and replacement
installed cost of $2,800, amortized over 20 years. The real discount
rate (net from inflation) is assumed to be 3 percent annually.
° Annual operation and maintenance of the units was estimated to
require $350 in parts and owner's labor, with labor valued at a
mechanic's rate of $30 per hour.
0 Engine and generator overhauls were assumed to be required every 5
years at a cost of $350 per overhaul, requiring an annual payment to
a sinking fund of $76 per household.
0 Fuel prices escalate from the present price of $1.26/gal at 2.6
percent per year through the year 2001 and remain constant
thereafter.
0 Commercial diesel generators are valued at an installed cost of
$800/kW amortized over 20 years. The real discount rate (net from
inflation) is assumed to be 3 percent annually.
° Commercial diesel generators are overhauled every 7 years at $100/kW.
Annual overhaul costs are established as a sinking fund providing the
the equivalent of $100/kW every 7 years. The real discount rate (net
from inflation) is assumed to be 3 percent annually.
GUSTAVUS G-21
Annual operation and maintenance costs are $50,000.
Investment cost of the commercial distribution systems is valued at
$60,000 which is amortized over 20 years. The real discount rate (net from inflation) is assumed to be 3 percent annually.
Table 6 in Section I presents the present worth and power cost calculations of the base case.
H.2 - Alternative Plan "A"
Alternative plan "A" involves construction of an underground distribution system throughout the community. Power is provided by the expanded commercial generating plant. Assumptions used include:
0 Expansion of the generating plant involves the installation of three 75 kW diesel generators, with paralleling gear, at a cost of $180,000.
The diesel plant is amortized over a 20-year lifetime. The real discount rate (net from inflation) is assumed to be 3 percent annually.
The distribution system is single phase with an initial cost of
$5,000 per residential customer. (Commercial customers are already served.) General distribution line costs $80,000 per mile.
Thirty-one homes are connected to the system.
The system cost is amortized over 20 years. The real discount rate (net from inflation) is assumed to be 3 percent annually.
Fuel efficiency of the diesel system is 8 kWh/gal.
Overhaul of the central diesels is based on a cost of $7,500 per unit occurring every seven years, with funds provided by annual payments to a sinking fund. Distribution system major maintenance is also
funded by this method.
Operation and maintenance of the entire system is estimated to cost
$32,000 per year for time and expenses.
Fuel prices escalate from the present price of $1.26/gal at 2.6 percent per year through the year 2001 and remain constant thereafter.
GUSTAVUS G-22
Table 7 in Section I presents the present worth and power cost calculations
of alternative "A" (central diesel power). The results suggest that the
projected load in Gustavus is inadequate to produce savings in fuel costs
over the costs of installation and operation of a central system. The
evaluation has not included the investment in tools and equipment that will
be required to support the system. The present worth of this plan is
$4,922,000 for the period 1982 through 2035.
H.3 - Alternative Plan "B"
Alternative plan "B" involves construction of a hydro plant at Falls Creek
which comes on-line in 1986. The power plant serves both Bartlett Cove and
the community. A three-phase, underground transmission distribution line
extends from the powerhouse through the community to the junction at
Bartlett Cove Road and the community road, a distance of approximately ten
miles. From the junction, an underground 4.5 mile, three-phase trans-
mission line connects Bartlett Cover to the system. Underground, single
phase takeoffs connect residents. The existing commercial system is
converted to three-phase power.
A present worth comparison of alternatives requires an equal service area.
Since only the community of Gustavus is considered for this study, the
costs of the hydro plant are prorated to the community based on the
percentage of electrical energy consumed by the village as forecasted.
Costs of sections of the system not shared by both park and community,
however, are not prorated and are borne by the end users.
The evaluation of a hydro plant at Falls Creek included the following
assumptions:
° The hydro plant provides all of the village and park's electrical
energy needs. Diesel backup is maintained in the village.
0 Hydro plant installation cost is estimated at $4,300,000 amortized
over 50 years. The real discount rate (net from inflation) is
assumed to be 3 percent annually. Cost development is believed
conservative; actual cost may be overstated but this cannot be
determined without more detailed study. Cost includes transmission
line.
0 Operation and maintenance costs for the hydro plant, transmission
line and distribution systems are $59,000 per year.
° The residential diesel units are retired or kept in operating order
at the owner's discretion.
° Residential takeoffs have an initial cost of $5,000 each.
° Tools, equipment and parts inventory are not included in the
investment cost.
GUSTAVUS G-23
Table 8 in Section I presents the present worth and power cost calculations of alternative "B" (hydropower at Falls Creek). The results indicate that
the hydro alternative is competitive, even with the assumed economic growth
rates and capital cost. Costs of the plant were prorated with the park
based on percentage of projected electrical energy consumption. Energy
consumption in the park was held constant at 351,000 kWh per year. The
present worth of this plan is $3,920,000 for the period 1982 through 2035.
GUSTAVUS G-24
I_- ENERGY PLAN EVALUATIONS
TABLE 6
ESTIMATED COSTS OF GUSTAVUS BASE CASE
FUEL COSTS SYSTEM ADDITIONS FIXED COSTS Energy Diesel = Fuel Fuel iI Capital Annual Overhaul” Total Fixed Production] Fuel Used x Price = Costs Costs Costs + Fund + O&M = Costs Year (MWh) (1,000 gal) ($/gat) ($1,000) Component ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000) _($1,000)
1982 256 38.8 1.26 49 o Dispersed residential 306 21 5 61 87 power systems. Existing 1983 272 40.9 1.29 53 commercial power plant 21 5 61 87
1984 285 41.3 1.33 55 o New home with power 2.8 21 5 61 87
1985 288 41.8 1.36 57 21 5 61 87
1986 289 41.9 1.40 59 21 5 61 87
1987 292 42.4 1.43 61 o New home with power 2.8 21 5 62 88
1988 295 42.8 1.47 63 21 5 62 88
1989 298 43.3 1.51 65 21 5 62 88
1990 301 43.7 1.55 68 o New home with power 2.8 21 5 62 88
1991 302 43.8 1.59 70 21 5 62 88
1992 305 44.3 1.63 72 21 5 62 88
1993 308 44.7 1.67 75 o New home with power 2.8 21 5 62 88
1994 311 45.2 1.71 71 21 5 62 88
1995 314 45.6 1.76 80 21 5 62 88
1996 317 46.1 1.80 83 o New home with power 2.8 22 5 63 89
1997 319 46.3 1.85 86 22 5 63 89
1998 322 46.8 1.90 89 22 5 63 89
1999 325 47.2 1.95 92 o New home with power 2.8 22 5 63 89
2000 328 47.7 2.00 95 22 5 63 89
2001 331 48.1 2.05 99 22 5 63 89
2002-2035 331 48.1 2.05 99 22 5 63 89 S2-9 SNAVLSND
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 87 136 132 0.53
1983 53 87 140 132 0.51
1984 55 87 142 130 0.50
1985 57 87 144 128 0.50
1986 59 87 146 126 0.51
1987 61 88 149 125 0.51
1988 63 88 151 123 0.51
1989 65 88 153 121 0.51
1990 68 88 156 120 0.52
1991 70 88 158 118 0.52
1992 72 88 160 116 0.52
1993 75 88 163 114 0.53
1994 77 88 165 112 0.53
1995 80 88 168 Wt 0.54
1996 83 89 172 110 0.54
1997 86 89 175 109 0.55
1998 89 89 178 108 0.55
1999 92 89 181 106 0.56
2000 95 89 184 105 0.56
2001 99 89 188 104 0.57
2002-2035 99 89 188 2,200 0.57
TOTAL $4,550
Net present worth $4,550
All costs shown in thousands of dollars
Note 1: Diesel fuel use is calculated at a consumption rate of 5 kWh/gallon residential and 8 kWh/gallon commercial. Note 2: Diesel fuel price is expressed in terms of 1981 dollars, with prices escalated at 2.6 percent above general inflation. Note 3: Total annual fixed costs Include funds for equipment amortization (calculated at 3%), a sinking fund for equipment overhaul and replacement, and general 08M work. 92-9 SNAVLSND
GUSTAVUS G-27
I.1 - Base Case
I.1.1 - Social and Environmental Evaluation
Continued generation in the present manner appears to conform to the
residents' desires. Consequently, no social impact is foreseen.
Diesel emissions are not considered to be a problem.
1.1.2 - Technical Evaluation
The dispersed generation of residential power involves minimal
technical considerations. Residential demand is limited by the
capacity of the home generator. Reliability is a function of the
owner's level of interest and skill in maintaining his equipment.
No unexpected expenses or problems are foreseen for the commercial
system.
TABLE 7
ESTIMATED COSTS OF GUSTAVUS ALTERNATIVE PLAN "A"
FUEL COSTS SYSTEM ADDITIONS FIXED COSTS
Energy Diese! Fuel Fuel Capital Annual Overhaul Total Fixed
Production | Fuel Used x Price = Costs Costs Costs + Fund + O&M = Costs
Year (MWh) (1,000 gal) _($/gal) ($1,000) _| Component ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000) _ ($1,000)
1982 256 32 1.26 40 o Existing systems 306 21 5 61 87
1983 272 34 1,29 44 o Commercial power plant 815 55 9 50 114
is expanded to serve
1984 285 36 1.33 48 commun ity. : 55 9 50 114
1985 288 36 1.36 49 o New home served 5 55 9 50 114
1986 289 36 1.40 50 55 9 50 114
1987 292 37 1.43 53 o New home served 5 55 9 50 114
1988 295 37 1.47 54 55 9 50 114
1989 298 37 1.51 56 55 9 50 114
1990 301 38 1.55 59 o New home served 5 56 9 50 115
1991 302 38 1.59 60 56 9 50 115
1992 305 38 1.63 62 56 9 50 115
1993 308 39 1.67 65 o New home served 5 56 9 50 115
1994 31 39 1.71 67 56 9 50 115
1995 314 39 1.76 69 56 9 50 115
1996 317 40 1.80 72 o New home served 5 56 9 50 115
1997 319 40 1,85 74 56 9 50 115
1998 322 40 1.90 76 56 9 50 115
1999 325 41 1.95 80 o New home served 5 57 9 50 116
2000 328 41 2.00 82 57 9 50 116
2001 331 41 2.05 84 57 9 50 116
2002-2035 331 41 2.05 84 57 9 50 116 82-9 snAWLsnd
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 87 136 132 0.53
1983 44 114 158 149 0.58
1984 48 114 162 148 0.57
1985 49 114 163 145 0.57
1986 50 114 164 141 0.57
1987 53 114 167 140 0.57
1988 54 114 168 137 0.57
1989 56 114 170 134 0.57
1990 59 115 174 133 0.58
1991 60 115 175 130 0.58
1992 62 115 177 128 0.58
1993 65 115 180 126 0.58
1994 67 115 182 124 0.59
1995 69 115 184 122 0.59
1996 72 115 187 120 0.59
1997 74 115 189 118 0.59
1998 76 115 191 116 0.59
1999 80 116 196 115 0.60
2000 82 116 198 113 0.60
2001 84 116 200 Ww 0.60
2002-2035 84 116 200 2,340 0.60
TOTAL $4,922
Net present worth $4,922
All costs shown in thousands of dollars
Note 1: Diesel fuel use is calculated at a consumption rate of 8 kWh produced per gallon of fuel used.
Note 2: Diesel fuel price is expressed in terms of 1981 dollars, with prices escalated at 2.6 percent above general inflation.
Note 3: Total annual fixed costs include funds for equipment amortization (calculated at 3 percent), a sinking fund for
equipment overhaul and replacement, and general O&M work. 62-9 SNAVLSND
GUSTAVUS G-30
1.2 - Alternative Plan "A"
1.2.1 - Social and Environmental Evaluation
Installation of central power in Gustavus is a point of controversy
among residents at present. Environmental impact of the distribution
system would be minimal, associated primarily with the temporary
disruption of trenching the lines and installing transformer
housings. This work would require importation of both labor and
equipment.
1.2.2 - Technical Evaluation
The most significant benefits would be the reduced need of the
village for diesel fuels (given the assumptions regarding home
generator types and efficiencies) and the increased reliability of
electric power in a given home.
TABLE 8 ESTIMATED COSTS OF GUSTAVUS ALTERNATIVE PLAN "B"
FUEL COSTS SYSTEM ADDITIONS FIXED COSTS
Energy Diesel Fuel Fuel Capital Annual Overhau! Total Fixed Production | Fuel Used x Price = Costs Costs Costs + Fund + 08M = Costs
Year (MWh) (1,000 gal) ($/gal) ($1,000) Component ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000)
1982 256 38.8 1.26 49 o Dispersed residential 306 21 5 61 87
power systems. Existing
1983 272 40.9 1.29 53 commercial power plant. 21 5 61 87
1984 285 41.3 1.33 55 21 5 61 87
1985 288 41.8 1.36 57 21 5 61 87
1986 289 0 1.40 0 o Hydropower plant with 4,540 106 6 30 142
diesel backup
1987 292 0 1.43 0 o New home served 5 106 6 30 142
1988 295 0 1.47 0 108 6 30 144
1989 298 0 1.51 0 108 6 30 144
1990 301 0 1.55 0 o New home served 5 108 6 30 144
1991 302 0 1.59 0 108 6 30 144
1992 305 0 1.63 0 108 6 30 144
1993, 308 0 1.67 0 o New home served 5 Ww 6 30 147
1994 311 0 1.71 0 11 6 30 147
1995 314 0 1.76 0 1 6 30 147
1996 317 0 1,80 0 o New home served 5 113 6 30 149
1997 319 0 1.85 0 13 6 30 149
1998 322 0 1.90 0 13 6 30 149
1999 325 0 1.95 0 o New home served 5 113 6 30 149
2000 328 0 2.00 0 113 6 30 149
2001 331 0 2.05 0 115 6 30 151
2002-2035 331 0 2.05 0 15 6 30 151 LE-9 SNAVLSND
TABLE 8 (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 87 136 132 0.53
1983 53 87 140 132 0.51
1984 55 87 142 130 0.50
1985 57 87 146 130 0.50
1986 0 142 142 122 0.49
1987 oO 142 142 119 0.49
1988 0 144 144 117 0.49
1989 0 144 144 114 0.48
1990 0 144 144 110 0.48
1991 0 144 144 107 0.48
1992 0 _ 144 144 104 0.47
1993 0 147 147 103 0.48
1994 0 147 147 100 0.47
1995 0 147 147 97 0.47
1996 0 149 149 96 0.47
1997 0 149 149 93 0.47
1998 0 149 149 90 0.46
1999 0 149 149 88 0.46
2000 0 149 149 85 0.45
2001 0 151 151 84 0.46
2002-2035 0 151 151 1,767 0.46
TOTAL $3,920
Net present worth $3,920
All costs shown in thousands of dollars
Note 1: Diesel fuel use is calculated at a consumption rate of 5 kWh/gal residentail and 8 kWh/gal commercial.
Note 2: Diesel fuel price is expressed in terms of 1981 dollars, with prices escalated at 2.6 percent above general inflation.
Note 3: Total annual fixed costs include funds for equipment amortization (calculated at 3%), a sinking fund for
equipment overhaul and replacement, and general O8& work. 2€-9 SNAVLSND
GUSTAVUS G-33
1.3 - Alternative Plan "B"
1.3.1 - Social and Environmental Evaluation
Construction of the hydroelectric plant at Falls Creek will not
require removal and relocation of major quantities of soil and rock.
A concrete diversion dam would probably be preferred, from an
engineering viewpoint, though wood diversion structures are feasible.
The powerhouse will require some rock or concrete construction for
its foundation, with a building the size of a small cottage. An
access road would be required to the site to allow periodic
inspection and transport of parts, as well as transport of the hydro
machinery during construction. A number of construction skills
required appear available in the community, although specialist
skills would be required for installation of the main items of
equipment.
No political infrastructure would be required to operate the hydro
plant. It could be administered locally through private enterprise
or at the next highest level of government, since there is no local
government.
Falls Creek is not of economic value to the community as a fishing
stream. The creek supports pink salmon up to the natural falls, a
run of about 0.5 miles. The site is located in Glacier Bay National
Monument and is therefore unavailable for development. Negotiations
between the State and Park Service are ongoing regarding a land
swap.
Many residents are apprehensive of the impact central power would
have on the community. Central power is perceived as a catalyst for
changing lifestyle and rapid population growth, neither of which is
widely desired.
1.3.2 - Technical Evaluation
The evaluation is based upon continuous flow in a run of the river
plant. The actual flow duration characteristics (i.e., actual daily
flow characteristics) for Falls Creek are unknown and must be
investigated before any consideration of plant construction can
proceed. Available flow data will allow for more accurate evaluation
of actual site potential and energy production capability. Stream
measurements by the Corps of Engineers are planned for the summer of
1982.
The evaluation indicates that the anticipated load will not exceed
the assumed capability of the site (based upon available data).
Maximum load anticipated is 384 kW, versus an estimated site
capability of 820 kW.
GUSTAVUS G-34
The hydro plant would consist of a concrete diversion dam (located at
the falls), steel penstock with supports, powerhouse, and underground
transmission line to the community. Transmission line right of way
could take one of several paths. Conceptual design has it following
Icy Passage and entering the village south of the airport. It will
pass through the village and up the road to the junction with
Bartlett Cove Road.
GUSTAVUS G- 35
J_- COMMENTS AND DISCUSSION
GUSTAVUS G- 36
J.1 - Comments Received From Concerned Gustavus Residents
. 7 Tet Sten ws
et! 5 : we April 6, 1942 I <3 ~ GUSTAVUS G-37 SENATOR STEVENS . reer RECEIVED: a ACRES AKGRICAN INC. 7 ALASK& POWER AUPHORITY = ALASSA POWER AUTHORITY APR- 81982 .
Report Makers anc Planners,. ys eee ‘ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
> ‘Residents. of Gustavus have reviewed your Reconnaissance Study of Energy Alternatives for: Gustavus Draft; Report of. March 1962, and tne Main Report covering other places and your methodology. We are concerned about the in- accuracies and contradictions in the Gustavus Specific write-ue, and the lack of sufficient information in the Main Report te substantiate tts figures. At a meeting to review the Reports, we began by noting the glaring errors in the Gustavus Draft, For example, G-5 states that Mailboats come to ovr docks, we have hac only Maihplanes for‘over five years-how old is your data? Ard C-17 lists ll Gustavus homes, 31 of Woich are reported to be electric. Our group's “survey snows these numbers to be way off, so since your cost calculations are based on them, we need to know where you got your figures. J¢ it was a show of hanes at your meetins, we believe that is not accurate enough. A typo~error of no minor importance ig on G5, saying "Gustavus is an incorperated city." Wrong. As for contradicting points, the most obvious is that on G-1, Summary and Recommencations, you state that the analysis of the central pever alternative is "based upon use of underground distribution lines to minimize visual impact, as the character of the town appears to be its preatcst asset." But cn G-16 4l- ternative B, the Falis Creek Hydro Project, is oroposed to be carried by wood poles. why isn't Al‘. 3 concerned with visual impact? Undergroung lines would be Gesirele in Gustavus and required for the Park. If such decisions were colored by the existence of OLD poles in Gustavus, it should be noted that some of them are so rotten that ten years ago Mr, Hose accidentally drove right tarough one with minimal damage to his vehicle. Also, since the 3artlett Cove electrical transmission system has never been on line with the Gustavus system, cemnection costs would involve installation costs of approximately four and a half miles of undex round conductors. In addition, the Bartlett Cove system re- guirss three-phase current. To provide three-phase power, a nird conductor would have to be installed the full jenpth of the Gustavus system. These costs are not represented in the report, and may well debase the cost effectiveness of the hydro project. = Wwe have reviewed both your Main and Custavus Specific Reports, but the basis for many of your figures is not incluced. - For example, nowhere in the reports is tnere data representing the Bartlett Cove electrical demands, Since the Eydro Gevelopment is stated to be contingent on connection with the Gustavus transmissions systems, electrical demand data from tie Bark siiould be fmcluded. And it is unclear in the report now the Hydro projects annyal costs, begianing in 1966 with #€10,060 (table 9), could be met with a cost per kilowatt hourof 3.38 (table 1). with the energy projection of 289,000 kilowatt hours for the community (table 3) in 1956, one can assume that the National Park would assume the remainder that was usec to Cetermine the cost projection. ‘Tiis wae not explained nowever, and #£ a result, the figures are unclear and appear arbitrary, Pernaps the most incorreat assumption in this revort is that the population ‘rowth rete will increzse at an almost negligible 1% per yesr. This, being the sis of your ener,ry and cost projections, is incorrect when a plied to Custavus -ith a central power systen. One of the magor growth limiting factors in Gustavus ge the lack of readily «uvailable electric power, with power, growth would inevitab}yy
Stier GUSTAVUS G-338
cceur until the canacity of the pZant was achieved. For many Gustavus resicents, : tue real issue is not one of electrical power, but population growth. Growth which is inextricably tied in withthe availability of centralized ®@wer., The coment | on G-6 regarding. our concerns about tne negative impacts of centralized power being the influx of television does not begin to accurately communicate the gravity of the apprehensions of those residents who’ are apposed to power development. Then the central issue we see as Power/Accelerated Growth, or No Power/ Accep- table Growth. In your summary,°G-1, you say that "Any controvecsy over installation - of tne plant will be of little significance until actual potential of the water- course ‘is “knicwn" ‘sounds reasonable encagh.. ‘But before anything more than a flow study’ on Falls Creek is done. we highly recommend that a community @#EZ VOTE be taken to include OUR choice in the decision. Going as far esa Feasibility expense we feel would set the project on an unswayable course. ~. Thank you for soliciting and hearing our response.
Study's
Sincerely,
Concerned Gustovus Residents P.O. Box 82 Gustavus, Alecko
99826
907 -697 -318h
P.S. Eecause of the short review period allowed tne community of Gustavus, anotner copy of this letter is being circulated for signatures and will oe sent on tne next mailplane, Friday.
Copies to: Senatcr Stevens
alaska Power Authority
ACRES AMERICA
Comment:
Response:
Comment :
Response:
GUSTAVUS G-39
ACRES' RESPONSE
Regarding mailboats - "We have had only mailplanes for over
five years - how old is your data?"
Acres was aware that mail is received via air transport. The
reference referring to mailboats slipped by review. This
oversight was corrected for the final report.
Regarding 41 Gustavus homes, 31 of which are reported to be
electric - "Our group's survey shows these numbers to be way
off, so since your cost calculation are based on them, we
need to know where you got your numbers."
The number of homes used for the analysis was based on census
data and observations. A housing count was not performed,
however. The field personnel received varied responses to
inquiries regarding the number of people and homes in
Gustavus. A complicating factor was the dramatic fluctuation
in population between summer and winter. Acres believed 41
full time residences was a fair estimate. Was this too high
or too low? It would have been helpful if you had provided
this information in your letter.
Regarding the 31 homes having electricity, it was simply an
estimate. The impression of the field reconnaissance team
based on conversations with residents was that many homes had
small diesel generators, of which use varied widely from home
to home.
One of the problems with obtaining information in Gustavus
was the absence of a central record keeping organization.
Throughout the study, local governments have been excellent
sources of information regarding fuel and electricity use,
demographic data, capital improvement projects, etc. This
infrastructure is not available in Gustavus; the lack of
which, however, is a most alluring feature of the community.
GUSTAVUS G-40
3. Comment: "A typo-error of no minor importance is in G-5, saying
‘Gustavus is an incorporated city:' wrong."
Response: Clearly in the context of the next sentence, this was a typo.
It was corrected for the final report.
4. Comment: "As for contradicting points, the most obvious is that on
G-1, you state that the analysis of the central power
alternative is 'based upon use of underground distribution
lines to minimize visual impact, 'as the character of the
town appears to be its greatest asset.' But on G-16,
Alternative B, The Falls Creek Hydro Project, is proposed to
be carried by wood poles. Why isn't Alt. B concerned with
visual impact?"
Response: Your point is valid as the report is obviously in contra-
diction. Acres indeed considered underground transmission
lines for both plans, as the village, in large, voiced this
prerequisite to any consideration of central power develop-
ment. The conceptual design, which was not clearly stated,
was to have an above-ground transmission line extend only
part way from the powerhouse of the hydro plant. It would
follow the old timber road a short distance and then go
underground to cross the flats and enter the village either
south of the airport or on one of the back roads north of the
airport. Trees along the timber road would obscure the line
from view. For the final report, Acres placed the complete
line underground. There would essentially be little, if any,
difference in cost between the plans.
5. Comment: “Also, since the Bartlett Cove electrical transmission system
has never been on line with the Gustavus system, connection
costs would involve installation costs of approximately four
and a half miles of underground conductors. In addition, the
Bartlett Cove system requires three-phase current. To
provide three-phase power, a third conductor would have to be
installed the full length of the Gustavus system. These
costs are not represented in the report, and may well debase
the cost effectiveness of the hydro project.
Response: The hydro plant cost is based on a three-phase distribution
system for the village. The final report provides a brief
description of the conceptual design. Keep in mind that the
cost of this system is very preliminary. Also, an important
assumption was omitted regarding the hydro site. Acres
assumed that once the system was installed, it could provide
year-round power to the community, including park. This is
not necessarily true as run-of-the-stream plants generally
Comment:
Response:
Comment:
Response:
Comment:
GUSTAVUS G-41
have excess power in the summer and inadequate power in the
winter based on the hydrologic cycle. If winter flows are
low, there is a high probability that supplementary diesel
would be required. If so, the conclusions favoring hydro
could be reversed. This is why yearly flow stream data is so
important and why at this point the whole project is
speculative.
"Nowhere in the report is there data representing the
Bartlett Cove electrical demands. Since the hydro
development is stated to be contingent on connection with the
Gustavus transmission systems, electrical demand data from
the Park should be included."
Acres has included greater discussion of the park in the
final report. The economic analysis was also refined and
systems were compared on equal basis (i.e., present worth
calculations), which was not done for the draft report. Costs
of providing energy to the community were prorated between
the park and the community based on energy consumption of
each entity.
"And it is unclear in the report how the hydro projects
annual costs ... could be net with a cost per kWh of $0.38.
. One can assume that the National Park would assume the
remainder that was used to determine cost projection. This
was not explained, however, and as a result, the figures are
unclear and appear arbitrary."
Your assumption was correct. The final report should clarify
the issue.
"Perhaps the most incorrect assumption in this report is that
the population growth rate will increase at an almost
negligible 1% per year. This, being the basis of your energy
and cost projections, is incorrect when applied to Gustavus
with a central power system. One of the major growth
limiting factors in Gustavus is the lack of readily available
electric power. With power, growth would inevitably occur
unit] the capacity of the plant was achieved. For many
Gustavus residents, the real issue is not one of electrical
power, but population growth. Growth which is inextricably
tied in with the availability of centralized power. The
comment on G-6 regarding our concerns about the negative
impacts of centralized power being the influx of television
does not begin to accurately communicate the gravity of the
apprehensions of those residents who are opposed to power
development."
GUSTAVUS G-42
Response: The concerns of the village regarding population growth are
acknowledged. It is probably true that the availability of
low cost power would be another factor to attract new
residents to Gustavus. The plans are based on the same
electrical energy growth rates simply to provide an equal
basis for comparison. If central diesel or hydropower look
favorable under these conditions, then, in all likelihood,
they would be even more favorable over a larger distribution
network as capital costs become shared by a greater number of
users.
In the final report, Acres has noted your concerns regarding
the issue of population growth.
GUSTAVUS G-43
J.2 - Comments Received From U. S. Department of the Army Alaska District, Corps of Engineers
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY ye
ALASKA DISTRICT. CORPS OF ENGINEERS yt
P.O. BOX 7002 vv
ANCHORAGE. ALASKA 99510 GUSTAVUS G-44
REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF: ~ ‘ . NPAEN-PL-R ‘es J 1 MAR i¢g2
REGEIveED
_ APR - 2 3982
Mr. Eric Yould
334 West Sth Avenue ‘ALASKA POWER AUTHOAITY
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 comprehensive and
potentially helpful in our planning studies for both hydropower anu buat
harbors. We would appreciate copies of the final reports when they are
available.
We have limited our comments to the reports that considered the areas we are
most familiar with; however, some of the comments may apply to the other
reports as well. The attached pages list specific comments for various
communities.
If we can be of further assistance, please feel free to contact Mr. Loran
Baxter of my staff at 552-3461.
Sincerely,
1 Incl Keb a
As stated Chief, Engineering Division
GUSTAVUS G-45
{Original Comment Retyped Here for Clarity ]
Gustavus:
The National Park Service has been directed to cooperate with the Corps of
Engineers to determine the feasibility of hydroelectric power on Falls Creek.
An initial field trip and public meeting is tentatively scheduled for
mid-May. We will be installing a streamgage this summer.
1. Comment:
Response:
GUSTAVUS G-46
ACRES' RESPONSE
"The National Park Service has been directed to cooperate
with the Corps of Engineers to determine the feasibility of
hydroelectric power on Falls Creek. An initial field trip
and public meeting is tentatively scheduled for mid-May. We
will be installing a streamgage this summer."
This study work will be mentioned in the final report text.
GUSTAVUS G- 47
J.3 - Comments Received From The Alaska Power Administration
{Original Letter Retyped Here For Clarity]
GUSTAVUS G-48
April 12, 1982
Mr. Eric P. Yould
Executive Director
Alaska Power Authority
334 West 5th Avenue, Second Floor
Anchorage, Alaska 99802
Dear Mr. Yould:
We have reviewed the two draft sets of reconnaissance reports of energy
requirements and alternatives for numerous small Alaskan villages,
transmitted to us by your March 3 letter. One was prepared by Acres American, Inc. and one by Northern Technical Services (NORTEC).
We agree with the recommendations in the Acres summary report (pp. 0-6
and 0-7), and the individual village NORTEC reports. However, there
appears to be a discrepancy in that the recommendations of the NORTEC
summary report are not presented in the same priority as some of the
individual reports. Specifically the individual reports recommend
investigation before specific action is taken on new projects, while the
summary report recommends immediate installation of central diesel
generators in eight villages.
We offer a few general comments for consideration.
There appears to be a disparity between the two reports in that Acres
assumed that conservation was not within the scope of consideration while
NORTEC did. Neither put a "value" on conservation in terms of energy
reduction.
A summary comparison of energy cost per kWh for each generation
technology would enhance the Acres report. Presentation of costs in
terms of kWh units and a summary by technologies would also enhance the
NORTEC report.
Neither report addresses actual present and projected electric power
costs with or without consideration of the residential subsidy under
AS 44.83.162.
GUSTAVUS G-49
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
GUSTAVUS G-50
ACRES' RESPONSE
1. Comment: "... Acres assumed that conservation was not within the scope
of consideration."
Response: 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 would 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.
2. Comment: "A summary comparison of energy cost per kWh for each
generation technology would enhance the Acres report."
Response: 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 noted to be contradictory to the later comment
that "Extending a single energy cost for a given technology
to several communities leads to risk of invalid comparison
based on local conditions."
No comment or change in report text is needed.
3. Comment:
Response:
GUSTAVUS G-51
"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.
GUSTAVUS G-52
J.4 - Comments Received From The State of Alaska
Department _of Fish and Game
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME
OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER a ae 2 a aaeae aD
PHONE: 465-4100
April 8, 1982 RECEIvep
APR 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, « Or bobunauirT a fo Ronald 0. Skoog
Commissioner
GUSTAVUS G-54
ACRES' RESPONSE
No comment or change in report text is needed.
GUSTAVUS G-55
J.5 - Comments Received From U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service in Anchorage
GUSTAVUS G-56
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE IN REPLY REFER TO: Western Alaska Ecological Services
; 733 W. 4th Avenue, Suite 101 WAES Anchorage, Alaska 99501 REc (907) 271-4575 EIVED
APR ~ 9 1989
Mr. Eric P. Yould AT,
Executive Director ALASKA POWER AUTHORITy
Alaska Power Authority g APR
334 West 5th Avenue 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 and 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.
2. Losses of fish and wildlife habitat should be held to a minimum, and
measures to mitigate unavoidable losses and enhance resources should
be devised.
3. 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:
Page 2 GUSTAVUS G-57
(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 de 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. Mammals.
ae Historical and current harvest levels and subsistence
use data.
b. 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.
(bd) Déscription 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:
1. During the period of project planning, the APA should consult with
federal, state, and local agencies having an interest in the fish and
wildlife resources of the project area, including the Fish and
Wildlife Service, prior to preparing any environmental reports.
2. 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.
‘J age 3 GUSTAVUS G-58
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
l. Comment:
Response:
GUSTAVUS G-59
ACRES' RESPONSE
"Without current site-specific resource information and a more complete description of the proposed project, it is difficult to assess what impacts, if any, will occur to fish
and wildlife resources and associated habitat. Information should be acquired and studies conducted to identify the fish and wildlife resources of the study area, identify adverse
project impacts to those resources, assess alternatives to
the proposed action and devise a mitigation plan that would prevent a net loss to fish and wildlife resources."
The reconnaissance study scope does not provide for any but the most general identification of sites, definition of
project design characteristics, and assessment of environmental consequences. The level of study effort
suggested in the USF&WS letter is appropriate to a feasibility-level study of a project. No change in report
text is required.
GUSTAVUS G60
J.6 - Comments Received From U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service in Juneau
GUSTAVUS G-61
United States Department of the Interior
RECEIVED
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Oo IN REPLY REFER TO: P. O. Box 1287 APR - 9 1982
Juneau, Alaska 99802
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
April 6, 1%2
Mr- Eric Yould, Executive Director
Alaska Power Authority
334 West 5th Avenue Re: Reconnaissance Study of Energy
Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Requirements and Alternatives
Dear Mr- Yould:
We have reviewed the subject report on Yakutat and Gustavus and offer the
following comments:
Yakutat
To reduce the cost of electricity, it was recommended that the village install
a water jacket waste heat recovery system on the Yakutat Power Company
generators. We support this proposal, but would discourage alternatives for
hydroelectric development in this area.
Custavus
The report stated that central distribution with power generation from a Falls
Creek hydro installation may be attractive. Falls Creek lies within a
designated wilderness area of the Glacier Bay National Monument. Construction
of a hydro facility would require congressional approval. However, a land
exchange with the State is being considered. Also, congress has authorized
the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers to study the feasibility of this project.
Little biological or hydrological data are available on Falls Creek. However,
the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers and the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service will
be studying the creek this summer to evaluate the feasibility of this project
and to determine if further study is needed. The following types of data
would be needed to assess project impacts:
1. Proposed design of hydro plant (run-of-the-river or storage dam).
2. Location of project facilities (diversion dam, powerhouse, access roads,
transmission corridor, etc.).-
3. Monthly flow rates.
4. Fishery resources of Falls Creek.
5. Important wildlife in the project area.
ee
Yo 7 GUSTAVUS G-62
2
A preliminary assessment of the proposed project will be provided to the U. S.
Arny Corps of Engineers in August 1®2 with a copy sent to your office.
Sincerely yours,
Haw. E, Cee,
Field Supervisor
Yakutat
1. Comment:
Response:
Gustavus
1. Comment:
Response:
2. Comment:
Response:
GUSTAVUS G63
ACRES' RESPONSE
"We ... would discourage alternatives for hydroelectric
development in this area."
The draft text noted residents' opposition to hydroelectric
development and no further study of this alternative was pursued. The final report discusses a bit more fully why the
hydro alternative was not examined.
"The report stated that ... a Falls Creek hydro installation
may be attractive. Falls Creek lies within a designated
wilderness area of the Glacier Bay National Monument.
Construction of a hydro facility would require congressional
approval. However, a land exchange with the State is being
considered. Also, Congress has authorized the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers to study the feasibility of this
project."
These very salient points will be incorporated in the text of
the final report.
Their existence does not affect the economics of the Falls
Creek site development and thus will not change the report's
conclusions.
"Little biological or hydrological data are available on
Falls Creek ... The following types of data would be needed
to assess project impacts:
Proposed design of hydro plant
Location of project facilities
Monthly flow rates
Fishery resources of Falls Creek a Fw MY Important wildlife in the project area."
Study of these factors is beyond the scope of a
reconnaissance study and is more properly carried out in
later feasibility work. No change in the report text is
needed.
GUSTAVUS 6-64
J.7 - Comments Received From U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
GUSTAVUS G-65 REPLY KEFER TO United States Department of the Interior
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
Anchorage District Office 4700 East 72nd Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 99507 APR 6 1982
RECEIVED
APR - 8 1982
Mr. Eric P. Yould ‘ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY Alaska Power Authority
334 West 5th Avenue
Anchorage, AK 99501
Dear Mr. Yould;
Reference your letter dated 3 March 1982 in which you requested comments concerning your draft FY1982 energy reconnaissance reports.
This agency agrees with the contractors basic conclusions that further feasibility studies of hydro power potential should be evalu- ated at applicable locations.
Generally ‘there is little or no BLM land involved at any sites. Most locations are native selected or Other non-BLM land. When actual construction plans formulate land use and ownership will be determined on a case by case basis.
The opportunity to comment on this report is appreciated. Should you have further questions feel free to contact me.
Sincerely, LAD Uaioe
GUSTAVUS G-66
ACRES ' RESPONSE
No comment or change in report text is needed.