Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Yakutat Reconnaissance Study of Energy Requirements & Alternatives Appendix R 1982
VIL-A 002 Yakutat RECONNAISSANCE STUDY OF ENERGY REQUIREMENTS AND ALTERNATIVES APPENDIX R: YAKUTAT MAY 1982 Prepared by: _ ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY a | lees oe FALRBANKS BETHEL | NCHORAGE La BN YAKUTAT MY, & a\N Ge \\ VILLAGE SPECIFIC REPORT R, YAKUTAT TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page A - SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..............eeeeeee R-1 And, = General) casas asissiziss.ssis:0 00100 ate nsisisieaieiaiees seisidiasicwn-seis R-1 A.2 - Alternative Plan Descriptions 22.0 icc csccmcss sce cies R-2 B - DEMOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS ............c eee eeeee cease R-6 Bik. = (LOCATION cox. secccleineiciees sine soee rinse Ao dssecmenstaaeae R-6 Be = POU TRET cxenencwie biveneng esse ee eceee deeb eeekeeses R-6 B..3'-= ECONOMY? soiis rans ceesenns, sausisesseien sc ramamemes 615% c0% R-6 Bcd: = GOVERNMENE cisi5 0 sicie to iiss.s, revs gimwieiee ocreireisicicion s cisie sieieiete els R-7 BUS = TRUMTCRAG cece we cicaas ceccccedsdes pep peneeeeur ress R-7 C - COMMUNITY MEETING REPORT ....... cece cece cee eect ee eee e eae R-8 D - EXISTING POWER AND HEATING FACILITIES .............. cece eens R-9 EB = ENERGY BALANCE, cn.cc csqnncwewars sisi noe eis side sicit 00m else's siseisicinias R-10 F = ENERGY REQUIREMENTS FORECAST sci ss casasenew ss csssicimmeswwesie se R-12 F.1 = Capital Projects Forecast .........cscesenececcsscncess R-12 F.2 ~ POPU ION FOPRGASE accena ass cemmen ead Cec de ee eee ye ere R-12 feo — Electrical Energy Fonecast, joc.ccrcis jaemeiacis > saeco. R-13 Fo4) = thermal Energy FORCCASt, (ejtr6 orci) sree 01 lores cel ssievectotereies vats R-16 G - VILLAGE “TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT sccscccssccsss ssc nsmee ses one R-18 H - ENERGY PLAN DESCRIPTIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS ............. eee eeee R-21 Hels =IBASG) GASEH tarcncystsicrelcretepele i rcvalevereiclefel so cioleletetelel aslorereine tara) iar R-21 H.@ =~ Atterant ive Pla fA cnaccaess tp cuensne ss ee cnewedas op R-22 Hid + BRISSPAREINN Flan "6" covcteerenesunnaas Coennew uses EREO R-23 = ENERGY RUAN EVALUATIONS vjersrersscle sietelclevete/tonelelielereleirera eerie R-25 mae. 2 PeePrreTTrrTrrrrreerirvrrrer Lerner it irrereriT ce R-28 E.2 = Alitennative) PVan SAW sioccecuer an-acdsmomwnml aaneommnte. © 9 R-32 Lad = APG Fl cece cdc kee ideas st ctewneodegs rene R-35 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Section Page J) = (COMMENTS -AND! DISCUSSION anna oawen acs sammie ess vase sieiemclaesler J-36 J.1 - Comments Received From The Alaska Power AMAniis thatel OM seistersrercvorsyercrsieietetcrelelctetelel ci cteleveretsl orerercre cereters terete J-37 J.2 - Comments Received From The State of Alaska, Department: of Fish ard (Game) se <:s1s)0 10s iste rn ereisics wisjstors oie J-42 J.3 - Comments Received From U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service tn ANCHO A oki ccnanss cxcccesenccipenecacaasss J-45 J.4 - Comments Received From U.S. Fish and Wildlife SerViAGE! MMA GUNS AL) [sat everevarsraicieeiclsisl slats siolsisestus cise <1 el eheleletele |e J-50 J.5 - Comments Received From U.S. Bureau of Land Man agemeniG: errs aiiclelercictetelarassichelsiaiefeleleleveleloteisterer years eiacletesere J-54 No. NO On fF W PY LIST OF TABLES Title Comparative Estimated Electrical Energy Prices For Base Case and Alternatives ..............0e00e Energy Use Profile For Yakutat - 1981 ............... Village Electric Energy Use Forecast ................ Net Thermal Requirements ...........c cece eee cece eens Village Technology Assessment .........ce cee ee eee eeee Estimated Costs of Yakutat Base Case ................ Estimated Costs of Yakutat Alternative él Bee TEEPE TEEPE R TTT TITTCITELE Tre LiTrre ce Estimated Non-Electrical Benefits of Alternet ivé Flag ee ova ev ieee eave wekeenwaw ca kee Estimated Costs of Yakutat Alternative Fy Wii v aw beebbaunae CRE Ranbeddseceerpeessa freee R-4 R-10 R-14 R-17 R-20 R-26-27 R-29-30 R-31 R-33-34 LIST OF FIGURES Title EnengyaCos taSUunmanyaorrrr cree tle ENENGY (BalliANCe) iciersrsseciese acre cielsfocate love) of-11e)e\els Sotelo wil ele snes iets Electric “enekey se Forecast 3... ..c.ssannasemn anaemic R-5 R-11 R-15 YAKUTAT R-1 A_- SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A.1 - General After an analysis of the information gathered on the village of Yakutat, the recommendations most appropriate to the existing village conditions and wishes of the village residents are as follows: 18 With respect to the electrical energy needs of Yakutat, the most significant step which can be taken to reduce the cost of electricity in the village is the installation of a water jacket waste heat recovery system on the Yakutat Power Company generators. Heat energy recovered by this equipment would then be piped to nearby buildings such as the school and other structures which would be constructed in the area. In order to utilize greater portions of the available waste heat from the generators and thereby realize greater savings, the village should undertake to encourage new construction in the area around the generating plant. Preliminary estimates indicate that waste heat recovered from the Yakutat Power Company generators could replace as much as 150,000 gallons of fuel oi] in 1982; and, as generator output increases through the years, this fuel replacement could rise to as much as about 230,000 gallons of fuel oil. Many residents of Yakutat expressed interest in the development of wind energy for the village. Analysis of the wind energy resource at Yakutat and wind turbine equipment which would become available throughout the study period indicates this alternative to be uneconomical. With the current low cost of diesel fuel in Yakutat and the relatively high efficiencies with which the Yakutat Power Company diesels operate, the energy supplied by the diesel system is of such low cost that any wind turbine system would have difficulty competing. It is further noted that one of the windiest points in the Yakutat area is at Ocean Cape, about 6 miles distant from the villge site. Wind turbines constructed at Ocean Cape require that a transmission line be constructed at an estimated cost of roughly $100,000 per mile. At the public meeting held in Yakutat by field team members, considerable interest was expressed in old exploration work which had been done near the Yakutat airport in search of oil and natural gas deposits. Drilling records of the Colorado 0i1 and Gas Company which did the exploration work were made available to Acres' personnel by city administrators from Yakutat. Examination of these records indicated no potential for natural gas finds in the area. The rock formations downhole are too impervious to permit the migration of gas, if there were any, to a well casing. Most of the notes recorded by the Colorado Oil and Gas geologist indicated no signs of gas down to depths in excess of 10,000 feet. Reports by village residents of natural gas "bubbling up" around the airport area are likely to be observations of marsh gas. a — J YAKUTAT R-2 Yakutat residents are in the fortunate position of having access to some of the least expensive energy resources found anywhere in rural Alaska villages. They have an abundance of wood for home heating; the Chevron bulk plant in town provides relatively inexpensive petroleum fuels. Also, the present management of the Yakutat Power Company has kept the utility company debts to a very low level and has maintained a very serviceable and efficient generating operation with low overhead costs. Interest was expressed by city administrators and native corporation members about acquiring the Yakutat Power Company facilities. In the opinion of the study aroup, the basic impact that such a move would have on the typical utility consumer would increase electricity prices. There may very well be potential for greater control over management decisions made by the utility, which may outweigh the disadvantages of the higher costs. A.2 - Alternative Plan Descriptions A.2.1 - Base Case The Yakutat base case assumes continued service by Yakutat Power Company in a manner similar to its past activities. It will use diesel units only for electrical energy production and expand the system only to the point needed to keep up with increasing demand in the village. It is expected that the diesel sets presently installed in Yakutat will not be of sufficient size to carry the load through the end of the study period, and it will be assumed that new units will be brought on line as needed. Existing units will be retired at the end of their economic lives. This plan has a net present worth of $18,630,000 for the period 1982 through 2012. A.2.2 - Alternative Plan "A" In this alternative, the impact of the installation of a water jacket heat recovery system on the Yakutat Power Company generators is examined. It is anticipated that the waste heat recovered by this equipment will be delivered to some structures in the area adjacent to the power plant. Presently, the only structure close enough to the power plant to consider running waste heat lines is the Yakutat school complex which could absorb about 25 percent of the waste heat generated by the power plant. With proper planning, newly YAKUTAT R-3 developed buildings which may require large amounts of heat energy could be located adjacent to the power plant property so as to make utilization of waste heat economic. This plan has a present worth of $13,750,000 for the period 1982 through 2012. A.2.3 - Alternative Plan "B" In this study, the impacts of two large wind generators installed at Ocean Cape are examined. In those instances where there is sufficient wind to operate the wind turbine, the Yakutat Power Company diesels will be able to be throttled back and, in so doing, conserve fuel. This plan has a present worth of $18,838,000 for the period 1982 through 2012. Projected costs associated with various electric energy alternatives are shown on Table 1. Costs associated with various fuel resources available to Yakutat are shown on Figure 1. TABLE 1 COMPARATIVE ESTIMATED ELECTRICAL ENERGY PRICES FOR BASE CASE PLAN AND ALTERNATIVES Energy Base Case Plan Alternative "A" ~ Alternative "B" Production Energy Price Energy Price Energy Price Year (MWh) ($/kWh) ($/kWh) __($/kWh) 1982 3500 0.17 0.14 0.17 1983 3600 (oes 7 0.14 Onl7 1984 3700 0.17 0.14 Onn7 1985 3800 0.17 0.14 0.17 1986 3900 0.17 0.14 0.17 1987 4100 0.18 0.14 0.18 1988 4200 0.18 0.14 0.18 1989 4300 0.18 0.14 0.18 1990 4400 0.18 0.14 0.18 1991 4600 0.19 0.14 0.19 1992 4600 0.19 0.14 0.19 1993 4700 0.20 0.14 0.20 1994 4800 0.20 0.15 0.20 1995 4800 0.20 0.15 0.20 1996 4900 0524 0.15 0.21 1997 5000 0.21 0.15 0.21 1998 5100 0.21 0.15 0.22 1999 5100 0.22 0.16 0.22 2000 5200 0.22 0.16 0.23 2001 5300 0.23 0.16 0.23 bry LV LAA YAKUTAT R-5 O ty rv) BASE /ALT. CASE/ "8" 0.20 on < = —— 0.30 & K n o o > oO az w 2 OiS — OIL AS USED AT “720.35 O10 OIL AS USED AT 120.65 470,05 W000 AS, DELIVERED 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 YAKUTAT - FIGURE | YAKUTAT R-6 B_- ECONOMIC AND DEMOGRAPHIC CONDITIONS B.1 - Location Yakutat is an isolated Gulf of Alaska community, approximately 200 air miles northwest of Juneau and 190 air miles southeast of Cordova. It is the only settlement along a 400-mile stretch of the Gulf of Alaska coastline. Yakutat sits on the northwestern edge of an extensive outwash plain, the Yakutat Forelands, and is surrounded by the mountains of the Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve and the woodlands of the Tongass National Forest. Yakutat is in the Sealaska region, and the village Native corporation is Yat-Tat-Kwan. B.2 - Population Date: 1960 1970 1980 Population: 230 190 449 Tne Native people of Yakutat constitute roughly 62 percent of the population and represent one of the northernmost extensions of the Tlighit culture. The 1980 U.S. Census shows a population of 449 in Yakutat, with 175 households. City officials concurred with the population figure but stated the number of households is 145. This gives a size of household figure of 3.08. The 1970 population was 190, giving an annual growth rate of 8.9 percent for the 1970-80 period. The U.S. Census states that out of 449 people, 279 (62 percent) are Native. B.3 - Economy Yakutat's economy is based on fishing and fish processing. Tourism, forestry and wood products, and government activities all play a role. The school district and the health clinic are both relatively large employers. Yakutat District Coastal Management Program, January 1981, gives the following breakdown of employment in Yakutat in 1977: government (82 persons), agriculture, forestry and fish (38), mining (8), contract construction (13), manufacturing (32), transportation, community and public utilities (30), trade (32), finance and real estate (5), service (17) which totals 257 persons. YAKUTAT R-7 B.4 - Government Yakutat was incorporated in 1948 and is now a first class city with a mayor-council form of government. The council consists of six council- persons with the mayor elected at large. The city has a manager, a local magistrate, a state trooper, and a volunteer fire department. 8.5 - Transportation Yakutat is exclusively dependent upon water and air transportation. Pacific Western out of Seattle provides barge service from March to November with 3 to 4 stops per year. The airport is 2-1/2 miles from the city center, and Alaska Airlines make 14 stops per week. YAKUTAT R-8 C - COMMUNITY MEETING REPORT Field reconnaissance personnel arrived in Yakutat on the afternoon of November 8, 1981. A meeting nad been scheduled in the city building for the evening of November 9. The meeting was well attended with an audience of nearly 30 people who stayed for virtually all of the program. A great deal of interest was expressed by the audience in alternative resources such as natural gas, wind, and biomass. The suggestion that solar energy might be of interest to the village of Yakutat was greeted with laughter by those attending the meeting. Field personnel described the reconnaissance study and asked meeting attendees to describe their ideas on the energy needs and resources of Yakutat. This generated considerable discussion about many types of energy options which could be available to the village. Most of the interest in energy alternatives had to do with-wind energy. It was generally felt that Yakutat had, perhaps not in the village but in the surrounding area, the potential for the development of wind power. Some residents who were familiar with the seas in the area report that it requires nearly a 25 knot wind to produce whitecaps and said that "there are whitecaps out on the Gulf of Alaska all the time." This implies a significant wind resource. Yakutat itself and the surrounding area are heavily wooded. There are plans by the native corporation Yak-Tat Kwan to proceed with harvesting of lumber in the area. If this is the case, it is entirely possible that some of the timber slash may be available for use for home heating in place of firewood or may be used in wood gasification systems. At the present time, wood gasification systems have not been developed to the point where they are commercially available, and no further consideration was given to these systems. The suggestion of the development of hydroelectric power in the Yakutat area was not favorably received. All of the streams in the area are habitat for anadromous fish and it is felt that the damming of these streams would destroy that habitat and the fisheries they provide. The meeting lasted nearly an hour and a half. YAKUTAT R-9 D - EXISTING POWER AND HEATING FACILITIES The Yakutat Power Company presently has four diesel generators installed. These include one 250 kW diesel, one 375 kW diesel, one 600 kW diesel and one 800 kW diesel for a total aggregate capacity of 2,025 kW. The utility company is privately owned and is operated by a husband and wife team with one additional employee who serves as general lineman and maintenance worker. The Yakutat Power Company serves approximately 240 customers--al] of the village of Yakutat. Residential heating is accomplished to a significant degree by wood burning in the village. As oil prices have increased, the consumption of fuel oil has decreased in the village. It is estimated that presently two-thirds of home heating is by wood. Most public buildings are heated with fuel oi] which is burned in gun type burners. E_- ENERGY BALANCE YAKUTAT R-10 Yakutat has a much higher per-capita energy use than any of the other This is due to its position as a major port of call for large numbers of fishing boats during the summer. Transportation accounts for more than 30 percent of the total energy used in Yakutat. villages studied. Major quantities of energy are consumed for space heating and for electric power production. Table 2 below describes some of the energy uses in Yakutat. TABLE 2 ENERGY USE PROFILE FOR YAKUTAT - 1981 Type of Fuel Cost End Uses Fuel Oi] $1.20/gal Space Heating Fuel Oi] $1.22/gal Electric Power Generation Fuel 071 $1.22/gal Transportation Gasoline $1.32/gal Transportation Aviation Fuel NA Transportation Wood $100/cord Space Heating (est.) Total Heat Content Quantity (102 Btu) 313,000 gal 43.2 367,000 gal 50.6 244,000 gal 33.7 187,000 gal 23.4 213,000 gal 27.7 500 Cords 8.5 ENERGY RESOURCE —> END USE wooD (8.5) [ (85) RESIDENTIAL SYSTEM LOSSES SPACE HEATING 15 36) (23.62) USEABLE HEAT (8.26) (15.12) (15.12) INSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM LOSSES (9.83, SPACE HEATING(I5.12) OSE RELE-REATISZ1-> (12.96) FUEL OIL (127.5) SYSTEM_LOSSES(8 42) USEABLE HEAT (4.54) COMMERCIAL SPACE HEATING (12.96) ELECTRIC POWER SYSTEM GENERATION LOSSES (50.58) (37.20) USEABLE HEAT (13.38) GASOLINE (23.4) TRANSPORTATION (84.82) AVIATION FUEL (27.7) NOTES: ALL UNITS IN 109 BTU/YR. YAKUTAT ENERGY BALANCE (1981) FIGURE 2 BriiNine 44 132 42222 ACHES AWERICAN NCOMPOMATED LL-Y LVLANWA YAKUTAT R-12 F_- ENERGY REQUIREMENTS FORECAST F.1 - Capital Projects Forecast F.1.1 - Scheduled Capital Projects None F.1.2 - Potential Developments LORAN Coast Guard Station Oil and Gas Drilling in OCS Upland Oi] and Gas Drilling Tourism Development Bottomfish Industry Development Timber Industry Development Mineral Development a OF anvnanvca Se SS ESS F.1.3 - Economic Forecast Yakutat has potential for economic development, but it is not known how much will actually occur. The three most economically important possibilities are fisheries development, a timber industry, and OCS drilling for oil and gas in the Gulf of Alaska near Yakutat. Tourism will probably have a larger role in the future, both attracting in-migration and stimulating the service sector of the economy. F.2 - Population Forecast Yakutat's average annual growth rate for the period 1970 to 1980 was about 9 percent. For purposes of this study, it is assumed that this growth rate will not continue. For the time period 1982 to 1990, population growth rates will be assumed to be about 3 percent annually. For the years between 1991 and 2001, the growth rate will be slowed to 1.5 percent annually. Population data used in this study are as follows: + LO ® yt oy V / YY vv A) Wy? YAKUTAT R-13 ; y v 1960 1970 1980 1986 1991 1996 2001 Population 230 190 449 521 603 650 700 #Residences NA 63 146 174 201 217 233 #Commercial NA NA 23 26 28 30 30 #Gov't/Other NA NA 15 15 16 16 17; F.3 - Electrical Energy Forecast Electrical energy forecasts should consider the maturity of the existina power system, the quality and cost of service available, and anticipate new loads. In Yakutat, central power has been available for longer than any of the other villages visited in this energy reconnaissance study. Yakutat also has one of the lowest electricity costs ($0.19/kWh) of any of the villages visited for this study. Yakutat is a market which is saturated and will grow only gradually except as new users are brought on-line. Electrical energy use initially grows rapidly when a central utility service becomes available. As major users are put in place and as residential users satisfy their basic desires for electrical necessities or convenience, the rate of growth slows. Eventually, the various consumers, particularly in the residential sector, find that they need or want fewer new electrical consuming devices. At this point, the market is considered "saturated" and little per-customer growth is observed. Under these conditions, an electricity forecast was performed with the basic assumption that electrical energy consumption will increase in direct proportion to the expanding population. This assumption seemed reasonable given the state of development and size of Yakutat relative to other rural villages. Introduction of major loads that would disrupt steady growth trends are not anticipated. Peak load demands were projected using a load factor of 0.48, which is typical for the village. Table 3 and Figure 3 present the electrical energy forecast for the village. With these assumptions Yakutat is projected to increase electrical energy consumption 60 percent over the next 20 years. In those cases where electrical energy can be produced for a price which is less than that which would be paid for an equivalent amount of heat produced by fuel oil] or wood, it can be expected that some users will convert to electric space heat, driving electricity demand up. In the examination of alternatives available to Yakutat, nothing was found which could produce such cheap electricity. TABLE 3 VILLAGE ELECTRIC ENERGY USE FORECAST 0 Total Residential Schools ther Year kW Mh — Ww |Mh or = a oe Oa 1982 198 832 65 276 569 2394 834 7 3502. J 1983 204 859 65 276 588 2472 859 3607 1984 211 886 65 276 607 2553 885 3715 1985 216 907 65 276 629 2644 912 3827 1986 224 940 65 276 648 2726 939 3942 1987 230 967 65 276 670 2817 967 4060 1988 236 994 65 276 693 2912 996 4182 1989 244 1026 65 276 715 3005 1026 4307 1990 250 1053 65 276 739 3107 <— 1057> 4436 1991 258 1085 65 276 763 3208 ~1089 4569 1992 262 1102 65 276 775 3260 1105 4638 1993 266 1118 65 276 788 3313 1121 4707 1994 270 1134 65 276 801 3368 1138 4778 1995 273 1150 65 276 814 3423 1155 4849 1996 279 1172 65 276 826 3474 1173 4922 1997 283 1188 65 276 840 3532 1190 4996 1998 286 1204 65 276 854 3590 1208 5070 1999 292 1226 65 276 867 3645 1226 5147 2000 295 1242 65 276 881 3706 1245 5224 2001 299 1258 65 276 896 3769 1263 5303 a Dl-d = LVLANWA YAKUTAT R-15 DEMAND (KW) VILLAGE ENERGY CONSUMPTION (MWh) ENERGY CONSUMPTION (MWh) 1985 YAKUTAT - FIGURE 3 YAKUTAT R-16 F.4 - Thermal Energy Forecast A thermal energy forecast for electricity generation and space heating was projected for Yakutat. Results of this forecast are presented in Table 4 in terms of net heating requirements. Net thermal energy is the energy actually delivered to an end use such as space heating, after all conversion losses have occurred. Existing residences in Yakutat were estimated to have an annual net space heating requirement of 71.7 MBtu. Space heating requirements of existing homes were reduced 2 percent a year for ten years as a result of assumed energy conservation measures placed into effect. For new homes constructed in 1986 and after, space heating requirements were reduced 25 percent to reflect implementation of improved home construction techniques. Other new structures were assumed to have a space heating requirement equivalent to four existing homes. NET THERMAL REQUIREMENTS TABLE 4 YAKUTAT R-17 Electricity Residential Schools Other Total Year (1028tu) (10°8tu) _(10%Btu) (10°8tu) (10°atu) 1982 12.0 11.0 ae 20.0 46.3 1983 123 a 323 20.0 46.9 1984 12.7 11.5 3.3 20.3 47.8 1985 ATS: 11.8 S03) 20.3 46.8 1986 13.5 12.0 Jad 20.6 49.4 1987 13.9 12.3 3.3 20.9 50.4 1988 14.3 12.5 353 20.9 51.0 1989 14.7 12.5 3.3 21.1 51.6 1990 15.1 12.6 3.3 21.1 52.1 1991 15.6 12.9 3.3 21.4 53.2 ~ 1992 1528 13)20 Sac 21.4 53,5 1993 16.11 1Ssk2 Sac ale7 54.3 1994 16.3 13/73. 3:0 2157, 54.6 1995 16.5 13/55) Sa ala? 65). 0) 1996 16.8 13a7 SS 22.0 5508) 1997 Lie 1339 35 22:0 5653) 1998 L753 14.0 33 2203 56.9 1999 17.6 14.3 350 22.3 6715 2000 17.8 14.4 38 22.3 57.8 2001 1S 3 14.6 350 22.03 58.3 1. 4. 1 YAKUTAT R-18 G - VILLAGE TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT Coal. Presently, no practical means exist for shipping coal oy Yakutat. A study of a small coal-fired power plant at Cordovat, about 200 miles northwest of Yakutat, suggested that Healy coal could be delivered at a cost in the neighborhood of $50/ton. Special coal handling facilities would have to be constructed at Cordova, as would be the case if a coal plant were to be considered at Yakutat. The coal plant project at Cordova is currently undergoing additonal studies2, but the municipal utility manager has expressed serious reservations about operations and maintenance details, noting that it is virtually impossible for Yakutat to retain qualified mechanics for their existing diesel generating equipment, in spite of high.wages. The utility system manager at Yakutat has mentioned similar problems. It is unlikely that coal-fired power plant at Yakutat could be adequately staffed by the skilled personnel needed. For these reasons, such a plant was not considered in detail. Wood. Yakutat is surrounded by heavy and productive forests. The village native corporation, Yak-Tat-Kwan, has plans to embark upon a logging enterprise. Wood is used extensively for home heating, with the sale of home heating fuel declining as its price has risen -- indicating heavier reliance on wood by residents. Wood can be used in two ways to produce electricity: it can be burned to produce steam as is coal in a coal-fired power plant; it can be burned in an oxygen- short environment, producing a combustible gas which can then be used to run diesel engines (wood gasification). This latter technology is still experimental and not available for commercial application. Both technologies will suffer from the constraints on plant staffing which limit the usefulness of the coal alternative. For these reasons, study of the wood alternative was not carried further. Geothermal. There are no known geothermal resources in the Yakutat area. Study of this alternative is not warranted. Hydroelectric. As noted in a 1979 report3 there are no potential hydro sites available to Yakutat. This alternative does not warrant further study. R. W. Retherford and Associates, "Final Report: Reconnaissance Study of Energy Requirements and Alternatives for Cordova," 1981. Alaska Power Authority CH2M Hill Engineering of Alaska, Inc., "Regional Inventory and Reconnaissance Study for Small Hydroelectric Power Sites in Southeast Alaska," Anchorage, 1979. YAKUTAT R-19 5. Wind. It is possible that a substantial wind resource exists at Yakutat. While records available on Yakutat winds may not imply a particularly impressive resource, it is noted that this data was gathered at the Yakutat airport by an anemometer about 10 meters (33 feet) high. Such data may be influenced by the surrounding forest sheltering the instrument from some of the winds. Local opinion is that much windier conditions exist along the Gulf of Alaska shore near the village. In order to accurately assess the potential of wind energy along the shoreline, data must be gathered there. For purposes of this study, certain assumptions were made about the wind resource available at Ocean Cape as shown in alternative "B." 6. Photovoltaic. This alternative is presently too expensive for consideration for Alaska utility use. No further examination of this resource is warranted. 7. Fuel Oil. This resource is available by ship to Yakutat. Fuel oil is the most widely used energy resource in Yakutat, finding application in both space heating and diesel generation. 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. YAKUTAT R-20 TABLE 5 VILLAGE TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT FOR YAKUTAT TECHNICAL COST RESOURCE FACTORS FACTORS TECHNOLOGY Electric Coal Fired Steam Wood Fired Steam Geotherma] Diesel (base) Gas Turbine Hydroelectric Wind Photovoltaic Own PY FP MFP FP Dw YOY Pe Mor ONMNMH COO OF OW FOF Wwwor Www nw WON YON N OC WO N nyo mF FP YO CO CO OO 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. ds 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 Conservation NOTE: Higher numbers are more favorable. YAKUTAT R-21 H_- ENERGY PLAN DESCRIPTIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS H.1 - Base Case In this case, the village continues to be supplied with electrical energy by Yakutat Power Company. It is noted that Yakutat Power Company presently \") nas one 250 kW diesel, one 375 kW diesel, one 600 kW diesel and one 800 kW )@ diesel. The 250 and 375 kW machines willreach the end of theireconomic / lives in 1986 and must.beretired_at_thattime.. At the time of their retirement, they will be replaced with one new 600 kW diesel which, although adequate for the Yakutat system load at that time, will reduce the installed aggregate capacity from its present 2,025 kW to 2,000 kW. The existing 600 and 800 kW diesels will both be retired in the year 1993. At that time they will each be replaced by new 800 kW diesel sets which will result in an aggregate plant capacity of 2,200 kW. Assumptions used in calculating the energy cost information are as follows. - The purchase price of the diesel units is estimated to be $300/kW. It is estimated that installation costs associated with the generators are $500/kW for a total installed cost of $800/kW. - The capital cost incurred by the purchase of the diesel sets will be amortized over a period of 20 years. The real discount rate (net from inflation) is assumed to be 3 percent annually. - As long as the power plant is privately operated (this is assumed to be the case throughout the study -period);) operation and maintenance of the machines is expected to cost $50,000 per year. - Each diesel set will require an overhaul costing one-third of that unit's purchase price every ten years. - Fuel consumption rate is assumed to be 10.7 kWh/gal. - Annual variable costs associated with diesel set operation are calculated as follows: 1. Fuel in 1982 is estimated to cost $1.25/gal with its real (1981) price rising to 2.60 percent annually to $2.04/gal by the year 2001 and remaining constant thereafter. Data regarding costs associated with the operation of this generation equipment are given in Section I. ae yo & YAKUTAT R~22 oon 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. H.2 - Alternative Plan "A" In this alternative, the impacts of the installation of a waste heat recovery system are examined. The configuration of the diesel plant would be virtually the same as described in the base case except that water jacket heat exchange equipment would be installed at the diesel plant and heat recovered by the equipment would be piped to buildings in the adjacent area to supplement their space heating needs. Presently, the only structure in the area which is close enough to make such a project feasible jis the school. It is anticipated that, with proper encouragement from the municipal government, other development can take place in the area thereby creating a market for all of the heat produced by the diesel generators. Assumptions made in carrying out these calculations are as follows: - Capital costs involved in the waste heat system are equal to half the total value of the installed diesel system. Therefore, in the period beginning 1982 and continuing to 1992 when the installed system capacity js 2,025 kW, the value of the waste heat system will be assumed to be $810,000. (Note that although two diesel units are retired during this time period, reducing the installed capacity of the diesel plant to 2,000 kW, it is assumed that the waste heat system is not affected during this time.) During the time period 1993 and after, when diesel system capacity is 2,200 kW, the waste heat system would be valued at $880,000. - Capital costs associated with the waste heat system shall be amortized over a ten-year period at an annual interest rate of 3 percent. For the period 1982 to 1992 this results in an annual cost of approximately $95,000. For the remainder of the study period, the annual cost is approximately $103,000. It is not anticipated that the installation of the waste heat system at Yakutat will affect either the overhaul costs associated with the diesel system operation or the annual operation and maintenance expenses. ‘Wyeulad td nan amas Lee J - All other costs associated with diesel system operation remain unchanged from those noted in the base case analysis. Summaries of costs associated with the operation of this alternative are given in Section I. YAKUTAT R-23 H.3 - Alternative Plan "B" Alternative "B" uses the Yakutat Power Company diesels as described in the base case as the primary source of village power. In addition to these units, two 200 kW wind turbines will be assumed to be installed at Ocean Cape. When there is sufficient wind to operate the wind turbines, their electrical output will be fed into the Yakutat power system. For purposes of this study, these wind turbines will be assumed to have plant factors of 30 percent with an availability factor of 90 percent. The annual output of the turbines is then: 2 X 200 kW X 8760 hr/yr X 0.30 X 0.90 = 946,080 kWh/yr. This represents roughly 30 percent of Yakutat's electrical energy use in 1982 which could result in a sizeable reduction in fuel use. Assumptions made when calculating future costs of the diesel/wind turbine system were as follows: - The diesels available would be those used in the base case. - The capital cost associated with the purchase of the large wind turbine systems is assumed to be $2,500/kW plus $2,000/kW for installation for a total cost $4,500/kW installed. With the machines assumed to be used for this alternative, this results in an installed cost of $1,800,000. - This capital cost will be amortized over a period of 15 years. The real discount rate (net from inflation) is assumed to be 3 percent annually. - A transmission line will be required to bring the wind turbine output from Ocean Cape to the village of Yakutat. The distance that this line would travel would be about 6 miles. It is assumed that transmission lines such as this would cost about $100,000 per mile for a total capital cost of $600,000. - The capital cost of the transmission line would be amortized over a period of 20 years for an annual cost of about $43,000. The real discount rate (net from inflation) is assumed to be 3 percent annually. Operation and maintenance work associated with the wind turbines is expected to cost about $12,000 per year. - The total annual costs associated with wind turbine operations are, therefore, $205,000 a year. YAKUTAT R-24 - The on-line date of the wind turbine should be delayed until such time as savings in fuel use in Yakutat Power Company generators are sufficient to pay for the wind turbine. This will occur when fuel prices reach the level as calculated below: Ji: 080 kWh/yr 10.7 kWh/gal hos,00 SE 88,000 gal/yr 88,000 gallons per year of displaced fuel $2.32 per gallon This is the price (in 1981 dollars) which fuel should reach before the fuel savings realized by wind turbine operations is sufficient to pay for the wind turbine. Unfortunately, this price is not reached within the study period. For purposes of demonstration, therefore, it was decided to bring the wind turbine on line in 1998. A tabulation of the costs associated with the implementation of this alternative is shown in Section I. YAKUTAT R-25 I _- ENERGY PLAN EVALUATIONS TABLE 6 ESTIMATED COSTS OF YAKUTAT BASE CASE FUEL COSTS SYSTEM ADDITIONS FIXED COSTS Energy Diesel Fuel Fuel Capital Annual Overhaul Total Fixed Production | Fuel Used x Price = Costs Costs Costs + Fund + O&M = Costs Year ____ (Mh) | (1,000 gal) _($/gal) ($1,000) _ Component _ ($1,000) _] ($1,000) ($1,000) _ ($1,000) _ ($1,000) 1982 3,502 327 1.25 410 o Existing YPC diesel sets 1,620 109 18 50 177 (one 250 kW, one 375 kW, ' 1983 3,607 337 1,29 434 one 600 kW, and one 800 109 18 50 77 kW unit) , 1984 3,715 347 1,32 458 109 18 50 177 1985 3,827 358 1.35 485 109 18 50 177 1986 3,942 368 1.39 511 o Existing 250 and 350 kW 480 108 7 50 175 machines replaced by one 1987 4,060 319) 1.42 540 600 kW unit 108 7 50 175 1988 4,182 391 1.46 572 108 7 50 175 1989 4,307 403 1.50 605 108 17 50 175 1990 4,456 415 1.54 639 108 17 50 175 1991 4,569 427 1.58 674 108 17 50 175 1992 4,638 433 1.62 701 108 7 50 175 1993 4,107 440 1.66 731 o Existing 600 kW and 800 1,280 118 19 50 187 kW units replaced by two 1994 4,778 447 1.70 762 800 kW units 118 19 50 187 1995 4,849 453 1.75 7192 118 19 50 187 1996 4,922 460 1.79 825 118 19. 50 187 1997 4,996 467 1.84 860 118 19 50 187 1998 5,070 474 1,89 895 118 19 50 187 -< 1999 5,147 481 1,94 932 118 19 50 187 = 2000 5,224 488 1.99 970 118 19 50 187 3 2001 5,303 496 2.04 1,012 118 19 50 187 59 1 2002-2012 5,303 496 2.04 1,012 118 ey 50 187 PS TABLE 6 (Cont'd) Total Discounted Fuel Fixed Annual Annual Energy Costs + Costs = Costs Costs Costs Year __ ($1,000) ___ (41,000) __($1,000) ($1,000) Z ($/kWh) 1982 410 177 587 569.9 0.17 1983 434 177 611 5715.9 0.17 1984 458 177 635 581.1 0.17 1985 485 Me? 662 588.2 0.17 1986 511 175 686 591.7 0.17 1987 540 eS. 5 598.8 0.18 1988 572 175 747 607.4 0.18 1989 605 175 780 615.7 0.18 1990 639 Mio. 814 623.8 0. 18 1991 674 7D. 849 631.7 0.19 1992 701 175 876 632.8 0.19 1993 731 187 918 643.9 0.20 1994 762 187 949 646.3 0.20 1995 792 187 979 647.2 0.20 1996 825 187 1,012 649.6 0.21 1997 860 187 1,047 652.5 0.21 1998 895 187 1,082 654.6 0.21 1999 932 187 1,119 657.3 0.22 2000 970 187 1,157 659.8 0.22 2001 1,012 187 1,199 663.9 0. 23 2002-2012 1,012 187 1,199 _ 6,143.0 0.23 Total net present worth $18,630 All costs shown in thousands of dollars Hote 1: Diesel fuel use is calculated at a consumption rate of 11 kWh produced per gallon of fuel used. "ote 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. L2-u LWLAAVA YAKUTAT R-28 I.1 - Base Case I.1.1 - Social and Environmental Evaluation Because the Yakutat Power Company generators are already in place, there is no possibility of local employment for plant construction work. However, there is the need for one or two local residents to serve as operating personnel. The present Yakutat Power Company personnel are sufficiently skilled to carry out all overhaul tasks. Diesel plant equipment is relatively benign environmentally. Diesel engines emit small quantities of carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, water vapor, nitrous oxides, sulfur dioxide and unburned hydrocarbons. With the installation at Yakutat, there will not likely be any noticeable buildup of any of these pollutants. The engine lubricating oi] must be changed periodically and the waste oil disposed of properly. In remote villages, this can be a significant problem. Diesel engines are a significant source of noise; but, with proper siting and with adequate muffler systems, this problem can be minimized. In Yakutat the power plant is far enough away from residences that the noise problem is negligible. 1.1.2 - Technical Evaluation Diesel systems are typically the best understood means of producing electricity available to bush villages today. Nevertheless diesel engines require frequent attention and regular maintenance which require highly skilled personnel. The Yakutat Power Company staff is sufficiently experienced to handle all repair operations. Year __ 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1995 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 TABLE 7 ESTIMATED COSTS OF YAKUTAT ALTERNATIVE PLAN "A" 2002-2012 5,303 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 (MWh) | (1,000 gal) — ($/gal) ($1,000) | Component _ = G1, 000) ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000) 3,502 527) 1.25 410 o YPC diesel system as in 2,412 204 18 50 2 Base Case plus waste 3,607 337 1.29 434 heat system 204 18 50 277 3,115 347 1.32 458 204 18 50 277 3,827 358 1.35 485 204 18 50 277 3,942 368 1.39 Si o Existing 250 and 350 kW 480 203 7 50 270 machines replaced by one 4,060 379 1.42 540 600 kW unit 203 7 50 270 4, 182 391 1.46 572 203 7 50 270 4,307 403 1.50 605 203 7 50 270 4,436 415 1.54 639 203 7 50 270 4,569 427 1.58 674 203 7 50 270 4,638 433 1.62 701 o Replacement of 1982 880 203 7 50 270 waste heat system 4,707 440 1.66 731 o Existing 600 kW and 800 1,280 221 19 50 290 kW units replaced by two 4,778 447 1.70 7162 800 kW units 221 19 50 290 4,849 453 1.75 192 221 19 50 290 4,922 460 1.79 825 221 19 50 290 4,996 467 1.84 860 221 19 50 290 5,070 474 1.89 895 221 19 50 290 5,147 481 1.94 932 221 19 50 290 5,224 488 1.99 970 221 19 50 290 5,303 496 2.04 1,012 221 19 50 290 o Replacement of existing 496 2.04 1,012 diesel/waste heat system 2,640 221 19 50 290 62-8 LWLAVA 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 410 277 682 662.2 0.14 1983 434 277 702 661.7 0. 14 1984 458 277 732 669.9 0.14 1985 485 277 752 668.2 0.14 1986 Sil 270 780 672.8 0.14 1987 540 270 810 678.4 0.14 1988 572 270 840 683.0 0.14 1989 605 2710 870 686.8 0.14 1990 639 270 910 697.4 0.14 1991 674 270 940 699.5 0.14 1992 701 270 970 700.7 0.14 1993 731 290 1,020 71564 0.14 1994 762 290 1,050 715.1 0.15 1995 792 290 1,080 714.0 0.15 1996 825 290 1,110 712.5 0.15 1997 860 290 1,150 716.7 0.15 1998 895 290 1,190 720.0 0.15 1999 932 290 1,220 716.6 0.16 2000 970 290 1,260 718.6 0.16 2001 1,012 290 1,300 719.8 0. 16 2002-2012 1,012 290 1,300 6,660.0 0.16 TOTAL $20,590 Total present worth of non-electrical benefits $(6,841) Net present worth $13,750 All costs shown in thousands of dollars Note Note Note 13 2: 33 Diesel fuel use is calculated at a consumption rate of 11 kWh produced per gallon of fuel used. Diesel fuel price is expressed in terms of 1981 dollars, with prices escalated at 2.6 percent above general inflation. 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. O€-Y LYLMIVA YAKUTAT R-31 TABLE 8 ESTIMATED NON-ELECTRICAL BENEFITS OF ALTERNATIVE PLAN "A" Total Annual Benefits Discounted Year (Space Heating Fuel Saving) | Benefits 1982 190 184.5 1983 200 188.5 1984 210 192.2 1985 220 195.5 1986 230 198.4 1987 250 209.4 1988 260 211.4 1989 280 221.0 1990 290 222.3 1991 310 230.7 1992 320 23132 1993 340 238.5 1994 350 238.4 1995 360 238.0 1996 380 243.9 1997 400 249.3 1998 410 248.1 1999 420 246.7 2000 440 250.9 2001 460 254.7 2002 460 2351 through 2012 TOTAL: $ 6841 All cost figures shown are in thousands of dollars. YAKUTAT R-32 1.2 - Alternative Plan "A" 1.2.1 - Social and Environmental Evaluation If this alternative were to be implemented, there would be potential for local construction labor. There would be a need for skilled workers such as heavy equipment operators, plumbers and carpenters as well as general laborers. The installation and operation of a waste heat system will have no noticeable environmental impact. The reduction of fuel oi] burned by those buildings served by the waste heat system may result in a very slight lessening of airborne pollutants. 1.2.2 - Technical Evaluation The waste heat system described is a very simple measure which could be put in place in one construction season and would begin to show immediate savings in the village utility system. Design of waste heat systems is well understood and there is little to go wrong in their operation. TABLE 9 ESTIMATED COSTS OF YAKUTAT 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) __ | 4,000 gal) ($/gal) ($1,000) Component il ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000) 1982 3,502 327 1.25 410 o Existing YPC diesel sets 1,620 109 18 50 177 (one 250 kW, one 375 kW, 1983 3,607 337 1.29 434 one 600 kW, and one 800 109 18 50 77 kW unit) 1984 DTS: 347 1,32 458 109 18 50 177 1985 3,827 358 1.35 485 109 18 50 77 1986 3,942 368 1,39 511 o Existing 250 and 350 kW 480 108 7 50 175 machines replaced by one 1987 4,060 379 1.42 540 600 kW unit 108 7 50 175 1988 4, 182 391 1.46 572 108 7 50 175 1989 4,307 403 1,50 605 108 7 50 175 1990 4,436 415 1,54 639 108 17 50 175 1991 4,569 427 1.58 674 108 17 50 175 1992 4,638 433 1.62 701 108 7 50 5 1993 4,107 440 1. 66 731 o Existing 600 kW and 800 1,280 118 19 50 187 kW units replaced by two 1994 4,718 447 1.70 762 800 kW units 118 19 50 187 1995 4,849 453 1.75 792 118 19 50 187 1996 4,922 460 1.79 825 118 19 50 187 1997 4,996 467 1.84 860 118 19 50 187 1998 5,070 386 1.89 729 o Install two 200 kW wind 2,400 311 19 62 392 turbines =< 1999 5,147 393 1,94 762 311 19 62 392 oe iS 2000 5,224 400 1.99 7196 311 19 62 392 = i 2001 5,303 408 2.04 832 311 19 62 392 7 1 2002-2012 5,303 408 2.04 832 311 19 62 392 3 TABLE 9 (Cont'd) Total Discounted Fuel Fixed Annual Annual Eneryy Costs + Costs = Costs Costs Costs Year ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1, 000) _ ($1,000) ($/kWh) 1982 410 177 587 569.9 0.17 1983 434 177 611 575.9 0.17 1984 458 177 635 581.1 0.17 1985 485 177 662 588.2 0.17 1986 511 175 686 591.7 0.17 1987 540 175 5 598.8 0.18 1988 572 175 747 607.4 0.18 1989 605 175 780 615.7 0.18 1990 639 175 814 623.8 0.18 1991 674 175 849 631.7 0.19 1992 701 175 876 632.8 0.19 1993 731 187 918 643.9 0.20 1994 162 187 949 646.3 0.20 1995 792 187 979 647.2 0.20 1996 825 187 1,012 649.6 0.21 1997 860 187 1,047 652.5 0.21 1998 729 392 1,121 678.2 0.22 1999 762 392 1,154 677.8 0.22 2000 796 392 1, 188 677.5 0.23 2001 832 392 1,224 677.7 0.23 2002-2012 832 392 1,224 6,271.0 0.23 Total net present worth $18,839 All costs shown in thousands of dollars Note 1: Diesel fuel use is calculated at a consumption rate of 11 kWh produced per yallon 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. vE-Y LVLANVA YAKUTAT R-35 1.3 - Alternative Plan "B" 1.3.1 - Social and Environmental Evaluation If this alternative were to be implemented, there would be the likelihood that local work crews would assist in the construction of the wind turbine's tower, foundation, auxiliary equipment and transmission line. There would be a need for skilled workers such as riggers, electricians, welders, heavy equipment operators and others, as well as for general laborers. Wind turbine equipment is considered to be environmentally safe. There are, however, a number of items which should be considered in this regard. First, there is the possibility that children or others might climb towers that are not secured against such activity, thus exposing themselves to the danger of a fall. Secondly, in the event that a wind turbine blade should fail in operation, it could be thrown several hundred feet. Large machines such as were considered in this analysis have blades weighing several tons. With the isolated Ocean Cape site being considered, however, this should not be a significant problem. There is also the possibility of interference with television signals and the generation of noise. Again, with regard to the remote site, these should not be factors. 1.3.2 - Technical Evaluation Given the present state of wind turbine development and lack of detailed information regarding winds at Ocean Cape, it does not seem warranted to pursue further a program of immediately installing a large wind turbine. It may very well be that the assumption of a 30 percent plant factor as used in this analysis is too low. However, data are not available to indicate if this is the case or not. If wind energy development in Yakutat is to proceed, one of the first steps which must be taken is the establishment of a sophisticated anemometry site in exposed areas such as Ocean Cape. In this way detailed information regarding frequency of the wind speed occurrences can be gathered. YAKUTAT R-36 J_- COMMENTS AND DISCUSSION YAKUTAT R-37 J.1 - Comments Received From The Alaska Power Administration (Original Letter Retyped Here For Clarity] YAKUTAT R-38 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. YAKUTAT R-39 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. a Comment: Response: Comment: Response: YAKUTAT R-40 ACRES' RESPONSE . Acres assumed that conservation was not within the scope of consideration." No such assumption was every 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 wil] 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 O& 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. Se Comment : Response: YAKUTAT R-41 "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. YAKUTAT R-42 J.2 - Comments Received From The State of Alaska Department of Fish and Game YAKUTAT R-43 DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME OFFICE OF THE CORIAIISSIOMER me on yee eicome PHONE: 465-4100 April 8, 1982 RECEIvep Alaska Power Authority 334 West 5th Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Attention: Eric P. Yould, Executive Director Gentlemen: The Alaska Department of Fish and Game has reviewed the Power Authority's Draft FY 82 Energy Requirement Reconnaissance Reports for several Alaska communities. We have no comments to offer.at this time. We wish, however, to review subsequent studies as they become available. Sincerely, « Or Gobir fr Ronald 0. Skoog Commissioner YAKUTAT R-44 ACRES‘ RESPONSE No comment or change in report text is needed. J.3 - Comments Received From U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service in Anchorage YAKUTAT R-45 YAKUTAT R-46 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 Mr. Eric P. Yould Executive Director ALASKA POWER AUTHORITy Alaska Power Authority 334 West 5th Avenue & APR 1982 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Dear Mr. Yould: x wo D ve reviewed the Alaska Power Authority's (APA) Draft FY 1982 Energy issance Reports. If the conclusions and recommendations stated in the reports become those of the APA, and if the APA undertakes feasi- s in fulfillment of the recommended alternatives, then the U.S. life Service (FWS) requests that the information and studies . be made a part of the feasibility studies. 3 © @ a Oo HO “5 128 Eee =m Oto td & bho iy Oe Bets eB he +O rh th t current site-specific resource information and a more complete iption of the proposed project, it is difficult to assess what impacts, » will occur to fish and wildlife resources and associated habitat. stion should be acauired and studies conducted to identify the fish and fe resources of the study area, identify adverse project impacts to resources, assess alternatives to the proposed action and devise a tion plan that would prevent a net loss to fish and wildlife resources. DQ ct Q sa QO 7 @ pt ro) wo my ormation to be collected and studies to be conducted which the FwS cessary to adequately assess potential impacts include the 5, in f + ne rh th” °o o's Yoo 2 fo) Ce a * eo pe Wor @ Oy construction activities and project features to minimize fish, wildlife, and their habitats should be devised, e.g., ntrol, revegetation, transmission line siting, construction iming, siting the powerhouse, diversion weir, and penstock above salmon spawning habitat, etc. s of fish and wildlife habitat should be held to a minimum, and res to mitigate unavoidable losses and enhance resources should to be a diversion of water or if substantial water fluctutations are imminent, then these factors should be cause of their possible influence on water quality and - Aquatic data collection should at least include the My hh WD ch of BD hh YAKUTAT R-47 2 @ (a) on of of the pro- ject area Standard sampling methods such as fyke netting an minnow ¢ ping, as well as visual observation of spawning D 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 D ect poundary. 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. dis Manmals. ae Historical and current harvest levels and subsistence use data. ba Site-specific wildlife observations, i life sign, cenning sites, feeding site routes, winter use areas, and calving 2. Birds. Raptor nesting surveys within the pro (>) 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 -foot protective zone around all active and inactive nests. Compliance with vrovisions of the Bald Eagle Frotecton Act is mandatory. We request that the following be accomplished during the course of the studies: During the period of project 1g, the APA should 1 federal, state, and local agencies having an interest e wildlife rescurces of the project area, including the Fish an Wildlife Service, prior to preparing any environmental reports. YAKUTAT R-48 conduct at project cost, as soon as prac- es in cooperation with the FWS and the a and Game. These studies shall include, but not be limited to, the above aquatic and terrestrial data. The tudies 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 proj Interior managed lands are involved. It is the desire of the FWS to wo 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 eiverse effects. ee to contact me if you have any questions regarding our Please feel fr feasibility studies. é. suggested a e Sincerely, eten bert ? : ield Supervisor L. Comment: Response: YAKUTAT R-49 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. YAKUTAT R-50 J.4 - Comments Received From U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service in Juneau YAKUTAT R-51 United States Department of the Interior RECEIVED FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE _ IN REPLY REFER TO: P. 0. Box 1287 APR - 9 1982 Juneau, Alaska 99802 ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY April 6, 182 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. 5S. Important wildlife in the project area. at YAKUTAT R-52 tN A preliminary assessment of the proposed project will be provided to the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers in August 1®2 with a copy sent to your office. Sincerely yours, are E Old. Field Supervisor YAKUTAT R-53 ACRES' RESPONSE 1. Comment: "We ... would discourage alternatives for hydroelectric development in this area." Response: 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. YAKUTAT R-54 J.5 - Comments Received From U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) YAKUTAT R=55-.. «crew ro 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 fcrmulate 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, ee YAKUTAT R-56 ACRES ' RESPONSE No comment or change in report text is needed.