HomeMy WebLinkAboutUnalakleet Reconnaissance Study of Energy Requirements & Alternatives Appendix Q 1982VIL-A 002
Unal
RECONNAISSANCE STUDY OF ENERGY
REQUIREMENTS AND ALTERNATIVES
APPENDIX Q: UNALAKLEET
MAY 1982
Prepared by:
Ai
__ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
wet
ws
UNALAKLEET mA nan
Ay’
BETHEL
e
° o@ KODIAK
?P
VILLAGE SPECIFIC REPORT
Q@. UNALAKLEET
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
A - SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..............eeeeeee Q-1
ASL) th General) leleisicsesicraveie eovsieies sco ers aalisceleretes okelci cross ivieresciatel sais ieieisleie Q-1
A.2 = Alternative Plian| Desert ption’s, | ci icieversteis c.g soreieis exelas eae aie Q-1
B. = DEMOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC) (CONDITIONS: ..0.0.c:0)..erocic cre sicis ce wisi Q-5
Belen Oc atOmicrmrcrrercrersrekee rier seretelerstertelelereterere cic teretersteverete Q-5
Be = FORM GEION sencceewdanswonesdcuunses cuekkess3ecReeeERas Q-5
Bi3) <:EGONOMY; isco se 1 s10 5 014 61 toro te tersts} ayo) atone rye ters 1 010) soiree i (ois, 31 2-010 Q-5
wg TTT TT PPeCerITITTrrerer i Titer ieee Q-6
BL 5) = Transportation) icc cre ieie.sshraaaieroroloieia sisie) «a1 aye ols|s) «1512/01 Q-7
G t= COMMUNITY MEETING REPORT | ex ervercieiesocreie eelereye) serine eietersl sietsiorecicios Q-8
D) = EXTS TING POWER) AND) HEATING) EAGCTISET Tesi ere crete or clelerseicreseleyerstol lets Q-10
E; = ENERGY) BALANGE) (.ccrorais soe 5 21 reis.crin as osvetslere cielo) sereie etoleiensies a oreleles Q-11
F = ENERGY, REQUIREMENTS) FORECAST: irc cic si sr0e)srcte'ecjs1s. 1) 01510 <a ola so 01010; 1 Q-13
Fel “Gani eal): PrOJECtS IFOECASE | sc) ercisisiererelelel sciclowicsieleretcleisieielers Q-13
Ried) =) Population) iFOnecast: cares is.cicre)<rerelosavelesovsss| scars) o.01 ele eieheyelel<le\ Q-13
Fes) Electrical) Energy Gonecast iy... cj-iirel stoi ores toletelei relejere Q-13
F54ii=) lhermal Energy FOneCaSts | savsiareis cls cclsis)arejeielersrs c/clcielcielerstelelors Q-14
G = VILLAGE TECHNOWOGY: ASSESSMENT, 2 ccc cnc cieicieci pee ccmncsc esses Q-19
H - ENERGY PLAN DESCRIPTIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS .............20e000- Q-22
Heil) 4) BASE) Casey rerssesese: 4 oeiter tole rors: $101 e) sy sila ro atcasayst-oc 6] oy 1 or alioio a <autio\ 8) 010) 2Ve/o/ - Q-22
H.2 ~~ Aeon Fie SE acasssccccccuvensscceucesussssenex Q-23
H.3 = Alternative Plan “BY .. ccc cnceccccccerscvcvcssecssesess Q-25
TS ENERGY, PAN) EVALUATIONS 2 cocci aiererasateiels)oleletetelstelere) a cietevelecleletelener Q-27
Dsl) = Base). Case) cisco sine cowie rein scale ole loretele| sta cieeie@clemie tees Q-30
1 2) =) Al tennatid vel PVan GAS | crete cereicierss see 4/sicierolotoselel steel sie lololelelstel1 Q-34
[3 = Alternative) Pilar) MB) tei avecs, oreo eites tosis, s] 01 e\sielotolet.0) 51s)e19) e110 Q-37
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Management ............
Section
J - COMMENTS AND DISCUSSION .............-4- a iewwisisialsisisiete'elelotele¥elsis BG
J.1 - Comments Received From Mr. Ken Ritchie of
Matanuska Electric: Assoctation. ....0<0¢ccicinevcceeciciciecive
J.2 - Comments Received From Mr. Phil Kaluza ............000e
J.3 - Comments Received From The Alaska Power
Administration ..... asdunee SPRUCE SENS Sseees Kees eneehe
J.4 - Comments Received From The State of Alaska,
Department of Fish and Game .........ceeececees eaeeene
J.5 - Comments Received From U.S. Fish and Wildlife
SEVVACE “IN ANGNOMAGE icioteior01<151010101515151010\s1o1e loc o:cisit19)0 6 e\elolelerela
J.6 - Comments Received From U. “8: Bureau of Land
Page
Q-38
Q-39
Q-46
No. NOOO PW MY LIST OF TABLES
Title
Comparative Estimated Electrical Energy Prices
For Base Case and Alternatives ............ccceeeeee
Energy Use Profile for Unalakleet - 1981 .............
Village Electric Energy Use Forecast ..............000-
Net. Thermal) Requtrements ...cc0 snaascemscsicisisde seas ec
Village Technology Assessment ...........ccceeecccceeee
Estimated Costs of Unalakleet Base Case ...............
Estimated Costs of Unalakleet Alternative
Bilan) TAs Garcrerere etele re olelefetel efelelereioraeelelelsi sie) ieieiel-leleieisi iso
Estimated Non-Electrical Benefits of Alternative
Para TA Tereleseiers oie elec tele lolel hel sheers refers cle} ol 9 a1 = eloretoicicrel loratale\
Estimated Costs of Unalakleet Alternative
Piling Biraitetoreyoterareveloreroretolersisislcrslereole(ololsletsistars ajeierelelolelereseielsiere
LIST OF FIGURES
Title
Energy Cost; Summary! qa6 occ ciciictqoie ct eeieie nso. clolelaisisel\ea
Energy! Balance Sssasqcverer ierescrct loieye = le lounicisl oo oie eels eieisisivioloieie
Electric Energy Use Forecast ....0522 6c. ccc ccccecwccsece
Page
Q-4
Q-12
Q-16
UNALAKLEET Q-1
A_- SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
A.1 - General
After an analysis of the information gathered on the village of Unalakleet,
the recommendations which seem to be most appropriate to the existing
village conditions and the wishes of the village residents are as follows:
1. The undertaking of an aggressive energy audit program aimed at
significantly reducing energy needed to keep residences heated. The
program should address energy conservation needs of all types of homes
in the village, not just those which are older.
There is significant interest in the village of Unalakleet on the part
of some individuals in being trained and certified as energy auditors.
A program should be established to produce energy auditors who are
themselves bush village residents.
2. With respect to the electrical energy needs of the village of
Unalakleet, it appears that the most significant step which can be
taken to reduce the cost of electricity is the installation of a water
jacket waste heat recovery system on the UVEC generators with the sale
of the captured heat to nearby city, federal, REAA, and native
corporation buildings. Preliminary estimates show that such a system
could deliver the heat equivalent of nearly 85,000 gallons of fuel oil
in 1982, with deliverable heat rising annually as village electrical
production rises.
3. The analysis of the Unalakleet system when a pair of large wind
turbines were included showed that energy costs would be slightly
higher than with just the UVEC diesels. This technology is, however,
one which must be monitored carefully. The economic analysis of wind
turbine impact on the utility system is sensitive both to the capital
and installation costs of the wind turbines and to the assumed fuel
costs and the amount of energy which can be expected to be delivered
from such a machine. These interrelated factors must be closely
monitored in the future with the economic merits of the wind turbines
reevaluated as more appropriate data are brought to light.
A.2 - Alternative Plan Descriptions
A.2.1 - Base Case
For the village of Unalakleet, the base case is the continuation of
UVEC service to the village, with no changes in its operation except
UNALAKLEET Q-2
as required to serve additional load caused by village growth
(expansion of distribution system and, if needed, increase in
installed generator capacity). It is not expected that UVEC will
have to increase the installed capacity of its plant beyond its 1982
size. This plan has a net present worth of $15,660,000 for the
period 2002 through 2005.
A.2.2 - Alternative Plan "A"
In this alternative, in addition to providing electricity to the
village, the UVEC generators will be fitted with water jacket waste
heat recovery equipment. The heat captured in this way will be piped
to the PHS water tank, the city headstart building, the city offices,
the village corporation office, the Euksavik clinic, the new REAA
administration building and the Unalakleet high school and elementary
school complex to supplement their heating fuel requirements. In
this way, the costs of purchasing the oil for the UVEC diesels can be
shared by a larger group of users, which should help to keep down the
price of electricity. This plan has a net present worth of
$12,181,000 for the period 1982 through 2005.
A.2.3 - Alternative Plan "B"
In this alternative, the UVEC diesels will be regarded as the primary
source of electrical energy to the village, with no waste heat
recovery system installed. In addition to the UVEC diesels, there
will be two relatively large (100 kW) wind turbines installed near
the village. When there is sufficient wind to operate the wind
turbine, the UVEC diesels can run at a lighter load and thus consume
less fuel. It is not anticipated that such a wind turbine will be
able to replace the diesel sets. This plan has a net present worth
of $15,912,000 for the period 1982 through 2005.
Comparative costs of electrical energy produced by each of three
alternatives available to Unalakleet are shown in Table 1. Projected costs
of energy resources available in Unalakleet are illustrated in Figure 1.
It should be noted that the energy cost figure in $/kWh is not necessarily
the cost which would be billed to the ultimate customer. This figure,
expressed in terms of 1981 dollars, does not take into account costs
associated with distribution of energy within the village, which can add
about $0.10/kWh to the customer's cost. The costs shown also do not
indicate the effects of various government subsidy and grant programs which
may be available.
TABLE 1
COMPARATIVE ESTIMATED ELECTRICAL ENERGY PRICES
FOR BASE CASE PLAN AND ALTERNATIVES
Energy Base Calse Plan Alternative "A" Alternative "B"
Production Energy Price Energy Price Energy Price Year (MWh) _($/kWh) ($/kWh) ($/kWh)
1982 3000 0.21 0.18 0.21
1983 3000 0.22 0.18 0.22 1984 3100 0.22 0.18 0.22 1985 3200 0.22 0.18 0.22 1986 3300 0.22 0.18 0.22
1987 3400 0.22 0.18 0.22 1988 3500 0.22 0.18 0.22 1989 3600 0.23 0.18 0.23 1990 3700 0.23 0.18 0.23 1991 3800 0.23 0.18 0.24
1992 3900 0.23 0.18 0.24 1993 4000 0.24 0.18 0.25
1994 4000 0.24 0.19 0.25 1995 4100 0.28 0.19 0.25 1996 4200 0.25 0.19 0.26
1997 4300 0.25 0.19 0.26
1998 4300 0.26 0.20 0.27 1999 4400 0.27 0.20 0.27 2000 4500 0.27 0.20 0.28 2001 4600 0.27 0.20 0.28
€-b LIFDVIVNA
(umy$) 150) A9Y3NI Q OIL AS USED AT 920.65
0.10
OIL AS DELIVERED CoA NY a NAN NI ET ~~ & S&S Rk BB Ee 8B (nig ,01/$) 1509 1993N3 WOOD AS USED AT 20.35
UNALAKLEET- FIGURE |
UNALAKLEET Q-5
B - DEMOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS
B.1 - Location
Unalakleet is located on Norton Sound at the mouth of the Unalakleet River
in the Nulato hills. It is 148 miles southeast of Nome and 400 miles from
Anchorage.
B.2 - Population
Date: 1880 1910 1930 1960 1970 1980
Population: 100 247 261 574 434 623
In the past, Unalakleet's location at the terminus of an ancient winter
route from Anvik, on the Yukon, resulted in a mix of Indian and Eskimo
inhabitants. The present population is 92 percent Unaligmuit Eskimo. The
1980 U.S. census reports a population of 623.
B.3 - Economy
Both commercial and subsistence fishing, as well as subsistence hunting,
are major components of Unalakleet's economy. Approximately half the
commercial fishing permits issued for Norton Sound in 1980 were held by
Unalakleet residents. A small fish processing plant employs as many as 50
persons from May through August, selling primarily to other Alaskan
buyers.
Unalakleet is also a takeoff point for sport fishing in Norton Sound and
the Unalakleet and North rivers. Unalakleet Lodge has five rooms, a large
bunkroom, and provides meals; and a commercial fishing lodge (Silvertip
Lodge) is located on the Unalakleet River eight miles above the village.
The Unalakleet River above Chiroskey has been nominated as a National Wild
and Scenic River.
There are two general stores in the village, the Unalakleet Native Store,
employing five persons, and the Alaska Commercial Company Store, which
employs eight persons. The Eastwinds Trading Company is a small family-run
candy shop. There are two snowmachine service businesses (ACC and the
Unalakleet Native Corporation). The Unalakleet Native Corporation employs
fifteen persons, with five at the store, five at the garage and five at
their offices. Ryan Air Service is based in Unalakleet and employs twelve
persons, and Wien Air Alaska has five employees in Unalakleet. There is
also a small private trucking firm in the village.
UNALAKLEET Q-6
A herd of 100 musk ox shed their rich underwool, called quiviut
(ki-vee-ute), which is shipped to spinning mills in Anchorage. The
resulting yarn is shipped to several villages, including Unalakleet, where
natives hand knit caps, scarves and sweaters. The musk ox farm employs two
persons.
The State of Alaska employs a district court magistrate, a food stamp agent
(part-time), an airport manager and two maintenance persons and plans to
station a state trooper in Unalakleet soon. The federal government employs
a postmaster and a National Weather Service meteorologist.
The City of Unalakleet employs eight persons. The Unalakleet Valley
Electric Cooperative employs three persons full-time and one part-time, and
the Euksavik Health Clinic is staffed by a physician's assistant and three
full-time health aides. The IRA Council has three employees.
Native residents of Unalakleet are shareholders in the Unalakleet Native
Corporation, incorporated in accordance with the terms of the Alaska Native
Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA).
The Bering Straits Rural Education Attendance Area (REAA) has recently
moved its administration offices to Unalakleet from Nome. It is expected
that there will be approximately 30 people employed at this facility.
B.4 - Government ‘
Unalakleet was incorporated in 1974. The city government functions under
the authority of a mayor elected from the seven-member council. Regular
elections are held annually on the first Tuesday in October. The city
employs a city administrator, clerk/typist (CETA), mechanic/operator,
program administrator, chief of police, two patrolmen, two utility
employees and a billing clerk at the clinic (CETA). Unalakleet has a
volunteer fire department with ten volunteers, two trucks and a garage at
the airport.
Unalakleet received $46,595 in state revenue sharing funds for fiscal year
1980. As a second class city, it is able to assume diverse powers,
including levying taxes. Voters at Unalakleet approved a 3 percent sales
tax, which is the only city tax levied.
For nonmunicipal programs and services, Unalakleet's native population is
represented by a five-member IRA council. The council administers a
variety of federal programs, including local health care, employment
assistance, college assistance, social services and tribal operations. In
Unalakleet, many of these services are provided by regional organizations
such as Kawerak, Inc., and the Norton Sound Health Corporation.
UNALAKLEET Q-7
B.5 - Transportation
The Unalakleet airport is located immediately north of the city. It has a
6,200 foot northwest/southeast gravel runway and a 2,300 foot strip that
runs east/west. The airport is equipped with a slope indicator and runway
lights on the north/south runway. Frequent crosswinds sometimes make it
difficult to land larger aircraft at Unalakleet. Wien Air Alaska operates
three scheduled flights a week handling passengers and freight to Anchorage
by Boeing 737 jet. Wien has subcontracted with Ryan Air Service to provide
scheduled service three days per week to Stebbins, Saint Michael, Koyuk,
Shaktoolik and Nome. Ryan Air Service also operates charter service from
Unalakleet. Ryan owns eight aircraft and there are four privately owned
aircraft in Unalakleet.
Unalakleet is served by the BIA cargo ship North Star III annually. The
ship delivers fuel 011, gasoline and supplies to the school. Several
private barge companies from Nome (Arctic Lighterage), Saint Michael (Black
Navigation), and Seattle (PAL and Alaska Cargo) serve Unalakleet. Norton
Sound is too shallow for the large barges to come directly in to dock, so
freight must be lightered the last half mile into shore. Black Navigation
from Saint Michael has its own unloading area along the Kouwegok Slough.
The many small fishing boats owned by residents are also kept along the
slough.
The only roads in the city are local streets and trails. A road runs north
past the airport and continues some 15 miles to the White Alice Site, the
musk ox farm, and along the shoreline. It is maintained year-round to the
airport. People also drive along the beaches. There are over 60 cars and
trucks in the village. Overland travel is mainly by snowmachine and
dogsled in winter, and all-terrain vehicles are popular for off-road
travel. The Iditarod Trail runs through Unalakleet.
UNALAKLEET Q-8
C_- COMMUNITY MEETING REPORT
Field reconnaissance personnel arrived in Unalakleet in the afternoon of
November 23, 1981. The city manager advised them that a meeting had been
scheduled for that evening in the Unalakleet High School.
The meeting was held in the high school library. It was well attended,
with an audience of about 23 persons, who stayed for most of the program.
Some interesting discussion was generated with regard to attractive
alternatives for use at Unalakleet.
Field personnel described the reconnaissance study and asked the meeting
attendees to describe their ideas on the energy needs and resources of
Unalakleet. The city of Unalakleet is served by Unalakleet Valley Electric
Cooperative (UVEC) which used to be a part of the Matanuska Electric
Cooperative (MEA). Virtually all of the residences and all of the
commercial and government buildings in the village are served by UVEC.
Meeting participants advised field staff that, as the cost of fuel oil has
gone up, the number of people in the village using wood to heat their homes
has increased dramatically. Those at the meeting seemed to feel that about
half of the residences were wood heated. They estimated the value of a
cord of wood at $125.
Unalakleet has a running water system, unlike most of the villages in the
Norton Sound/Seward peninsula. It was remarked that the split between oi]
and electric water heaters was about 80-20.
Unalakleet is the site of a Division of Energy and Power Development wind
demonstration project. Three 10 kW Jacobs wind turbines have been
installed on the beachfront in the village, but at the time of the site
visit had not been put into operation. The meeting attendees seemed
generally cynical about the wind project, possibly due to some of the
delays involved in getting the system working. The project coordinator was
at the meeting. He said that the three machines cost about $100,000 to
purchase and install, not counting his time which had been donated to the
city in return for $1. He estimated his time and efforts to be worth
$30,000 to $40,000.
Many of the people at the meeting wanted to know why the State's royalty
oil could not be delivered to rural villages for use rather than having to
purchase all petroleum products from Chevron in Seattle. The point was
made that it seemed reasonable that it would be cheaper to refine fuels at
Fairbanks and barge those fuels down the Yukon River and on around Norton
Sound than to ship the fuels up from the lower 48.
There was considerable interest in the State energy audit program. A few
of the meeting attendees wanted to know who they could contact to become
certified as energy auditors. Field staff personnel provided the address
of the Division of Energy and Power Development and suggested that they be
contacted as a first step. Those at the meeting said that no energy audits
UNALAKLEET Q-9
had been carried out in Unalakleet. Information gathered later indicates
that by the spring of 1982, about half of the village homes had been
audited. The remainder should be audited in 1982. There is also now a
certified energy auditor living in Unalakleet. This is a program in which
most of the people at the meeting expressed an interest in participating.
The concept of waste heat recovery and utilization was explained and
discussed. Many of the meeting participants suggested that such an
approach would be appropriate for Unalakleet because there are a number of
major public buildings fairly close to the village power plant which could
use the heat.
A few people mentioned an exposed coal seam at Coal Mine Creek, which they
said was about 10 miles south of Unalakleet. After heavy storms, coal
sometimes washes up on the beach at Unalakleet.
After about an hour and a half of discussion and questions, the meeting
was concluded.
UNALAKLEET Q-10
D - EXISTING POWER AND HEATING FACILITIES
UVEC is presently in the process of performing a major modernization of its
power plant due largely to the deterioration of the existing aging units.
There are scheduled to be three new 500 kW diesel sets installed by the end
of 1982.
There are back-up generators installed in the BIA school, the Bering
Strait's REAA facility, the PHS water supply building, and at the State's
airport faciltiies.
Most of the commercial and public buildings in the village are heated with
gun-fired oil heaters. About half of the homes are heated with wood; the
rest are heated by oil. About 80 percent of the home hot water systems are
heated by oil; the rest are electric.
E - ENERGY BALANCE
UNALAKLEET Q-%1
In Unalakleet, as in most of the other villages studied, most of the energy
consumed was put to use heating homes and schools.
staff shows the following energy uses:
TABLE 2
Data gathered by field
ENERGY USE PROFILE FOR UNALAKLEET - 1981
Total
Heat
Content
Type of Fuel Cost End Uses Quantity (109 Btu)
Fuel Oil $1.93/gal Home Heating 120,000 gal 16.6 (Sold by Village Home Water Heating
Corporation)
Fuel Oi] $1.65/gal Electric Energy 190,000 gal 26.2
(Used by UVEC) Generation
Fuel Oi1 $1.93/gal Space Heating 77,000 gal 10.6
(Used by Schools) Water Heating
Motor Gasoline $2.03/gal Transportation 30,000 gal 3.75
Wood $125/cord Home Heating 490 cords 8.4
Figure 2 illustrates the source and use of the various energy forms in
Unalakleet.
BRUNING 44 132 42222
ENERGY RESOURCE ——> END USE
SPACE AND WATER LOSSES
| S S SS ee 2 ween
(25.0) USEABLE HEAT (8.75)
SYSTEM LOSSES (3.71) ' SCHOOL SPACE AND UEC OIL (10.6) WATER HEATING USEABLE HEAT (53.4) (10.6) (689
ELECTRIC POWER SYSTEM
GENERATION LOSSES
(26.2) (18.34)
USEABLE HEAT
(7.86)
GASOLINE (3.75) (3.75) TRANSPORTATION (3.75)
NOTES:
ALL UNITS IN 10° BTU/YR.
UNALAKLEET ENERGY
FIGURE 2 BALANCE (1981)
ACRES AMERICAN INCORPORATED. 21-b L3ITVIVNN
UNALAKLEET Q-13
F - ENERGY REQUIREMENTS FORECAST
F.1 - Capital Projects Forecast
F.1.1 - Scheduled Capital Projects
None
F.1.2 - Potential Developments
None
F.1.3 - Economic Forecast
Unalakleet may see some growth in its commercial fishery and its
sport fishing industry. The REAA relocation of ten to twelve
families to Unalakleet is an indication the village may become a
regional center on a small scale.
F.2 - Population Forecast
Unalakleet lost population from 1960 to 1970, dropping from 574 to 434.
However, during the decade of the Native Claims Settlement Act, the 1970's,
Unalakleet's population increased from 434 to 623, an annual growth rate
for that ten-year period of 3.7 percent. In anticipation of the
aforementioned economic activity, an annual growth rate of 4 percent is
assumed for the period 1982 to 1991, slowing to 3 percent annually for 1992
to 1996, and 2 percent annually for 1997 to 2001. These figures are used
to develop the table below:
1960 1970 1980 1986 1991 1996 2001
Population 574 434 623 790 960 1,100 1,200 #Residences NA 120 200 250 310 350 390
#Commercial NA NA 15 20 24 27 30
#Gov 't/Other NA NA 18 20 22 23 24
F.3 - Electrical Energy Forecast
Unalakleet has been served by its electric utility (either UVEC or MEA)
since the 1960's and, as such, has had a chance to grow into what may be
considered a "saturated" condition with regard to residential electricity
consumption. Unalakleet is one of the more sophisticated bush villages and
its per-residence electrical consumption demonstrates the relative health
UNALAKLEET Q-14
of its economy. It is estimated that the "typical" Unalakleet home uses
about 3,000 kWh of electrical energy each year. It is expected that, with any reasonable development in the village, employment levels and family incomes will sustain some slow growth in residential use. The projections
of this study show that per-residence electric use may grow to about 4,100 kWh per year by the year 2001.
The consumption patterns of other non-residential users will not be
expected to change with time as did those of the residential users. The
annual usage of the schools, stores, and other public buildings will not
likely vary with time except as new users are brought on-line. The
expected electrical energy use of non-residential customers is shown in the
table below:
Loads KWh_per_year KW demand
Airport 298,000 50
REAA School 110,000 30
REAA Administration Offices 180,000 40
Covenant School 40,000 10
Others 453,000 75
Commercial 589,000 95
In those cases where electricity can be produced at a cost less than that
of heat delivered by fuel oil, it can be expected that some users will
convert to electric space heat, driving up electric demand. In
alternatives studied for Unalakleet, no sources of electricity were found
which could produce such cheap electricity.
The village electric energy use forecast for Unalakleet is shown in Table 3 and Figure 3.
F.4 - Thermal Energy Forecast
In the village of Unalakleet, the largest single users of heating energy
are the schools. It is estimated that together the three schools consume
nearly 74,000 gallons of fuel oi] annually.
Of the total residential use of net thermal energy, about 75 percent goes
toward space heating, with the remaining 25 percent used for water heating.
It is estimated that, if the typical Unalakleet home had to rely
exclusively on oi] for its heating needs, it would consume just over 700
gallons of fuel oil per year. It is hoped that new homes will be built to
be more energy efficient than those existing in Unalakleet. For purposes
of this study, it was assumed that any homes built after 1985 will be 20
percent more efficient in the use of heating energy than those presently
existing. This is certainly an attainable reduction in energy use. Better
design and more rigorous construction inspection could help to meet such a
goal.
TABLE 3
VILLAGE ELECTRIC ENERGY USE FORECAST
Year
1982
1982
1984 1985 1986
1987
1988 1989
1990 1991
1992
1993
1994 1995
1996
1997
1998
1999 2000 2001
Residential Schools Other Total
kW Mh kW Muh kW MWh kW MWh
40 150 370 2180 560 3000
ren ae 40 150 370 2220 560 3000
160 740 40 150 370 2220 570 3100
190 790 40 150 380 2260 610 3200
200 840 40 150 390 2300 630 3300
210 900 40 150 400 2370 650 3400
220 960 40 150 410 2410 670 3500
230 1020 40 150 410 2450 680 3600
240 080 40 150 420 2480 700 3700
250 1150 40 150 430 2520 720 3800
40 150 430 2580 720 3900
560 12 40 150 440 2620 740 4000
270 1270 40 150 440 2620 750 4000
270 1320 40 150 440 2650 750 4100
280 1360 40 150 450 2690 770 4200
40 150 460 2730 790 4300
590 Lt 40 150 460 2730 790 4300
300 1490 40 150 470 2800 810 4400
300 1540 40 150 470 2800 810 4500
310 1600 40 150 480 2850 830 4600
SL-b L33TAVTWNN
UNALAKLEET Q-16 8 8 8 ERE LN TCC. LAKAI TRS RAITT NWI I~ AL TENS VILLAGE ENERGY
CONSUMPTION (MWh (MY) GNVW3G VILLAGE POWER DEMAND(KW)
UNALAKLEET-FIGURE 3
UNALAKLEET Q-17
The remainder of the space heating requirements are taken up by the various
commercial and governmental consumers. A summary of heat use projections
is given in Table 4. The figures given in these tables are expressed in
terms of net thermal energy. Net thermal energy is the amount of energy
actually delivered to some end use such as building heating after
conversion losses have occurred.
UNALAKLEET Q-18
TABLE 4
NET THERMAL REQUIREMENTS
Ary aoe Ua Schools Other Total
Year (10%Btu) ——(10°Btu) ———(10%Btu) ——(10%Btu)———(10°Btu)
1982 10.2 8.6 6.9 2.3 28.0
1983 10.2 8.9 6.9 2.4 28.4
1984 10.6 9.3 6.9 2.4 29.2
1985 10.9 9.7 6.9 2.5 30.0
1986 WWe2 10.0 6.9 226 30.7
1987 11.6 10.4 6.9 2.7 31.6
1988 12.0 10.8 6.9 2.8 3205
1989 1253 1153 6.9 2.9 33.4
1990 12.6 7 6.9 2.9 34.1
1991 13.0 12.1 6.9 350 35.0
1992 13:3 12.4 6.9 3.0 35.6
1993 13.6 12.6 6.9 3.1 36.2
1994 13.6 12.9 6.9 3.1 36.5
1995 14.0 13.2 6.9 3x2 373
1996 14.3 13.5 6.9 3.3 38.0
1997 14.7 1337 6.9 3.4 38.7
1998 14.7 14.0 6.9 3.4 39.0
1999 15.0 14.2 6.9 3.5 39.6
2000 15.3 14.5 6.9 3.5 40.2
2001 1537 14.8 6.9 3.5 40.9
UNALAKLEET Q-19
G - VILLAGE TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT
1. Coal. In spite of the coal deposits at Coal Mine Creek (about 9 miles
south of Unalakleet), coal is not used as an energy source at
Unalakleet. The Coal Mine Creek site is not developed as a mine, and
no plans are in the works to do so. There are presently no practical
means to move coal to Unalakleet. Additionally, it is not likely that
the village has sufficient numbers of skilled personnel to staff a
coal-fired power plant. For this reason, the coal-fired power plant
alternative was not examined further.
2. Wood. Wood does not grow naturally in the Unalakleet area. A few
residents gather beachwood (driftwood) to help heat their homes, but
this is not widespread. There is no practical way to satisfy the
requirements of a wood-fired power plant at Unalakleet. For this
reason, a wood-fired power plant was not studied as an alternative.
3. Geothermal. There are no known geothermal resources in the Unalakleet area. This alternative does not warrant further consideration.
4. Hydroelectric. There are no river or creek drainages within a
reasonable transmission distance of Unalakleet (15 miles or so) capable
of providing the hydraulic head and sustained flow conditions needed
for economic power production. Therefore, the alternative was not
pursued further.
5. Photovoltaic. This alternative is presently too expensive to consider
for utility application in Alaska.
6. Wind. Unalakleet has a substantial wind resource available to it. The
State of Alaska's Division of Energy and Power Development built three
10 kW wind turbines in Unalakleet in the summer of 1981. As of this
writing, the electrical work on the generators had not been completed,
so the performance of the turbines could be evaluated. There is an FAA
station at Unalakleet which has maintained hourly wind speed records
since at least 1952. The anemometer used by the FAA is installed about
25 feet off the ground. As such, it can provide a general indication
of the wind resource available. Before large amounts of money are
committed to a large-scale program of wind power development at
Unalakleet, a more sophisticated anemometry system should be installed
to gather data on wind conditions at the hub height of a large machine:
about 100 feet. This alternative was examined in case "B".
7. Fuel Oil. Fuel oil is available by barge to Unalakleet. It is the
most widely used fuel in the village, used for both space heating and
electric power generation.
UNALAKLEET Q-20
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.
UNALAKLEET Q-21
TABLE 5
VILLAGE TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT
FOR
UNALAKLEET
TECHNOLOGY
Electric
Coal Fired Steam
Wood Fired Steam
Geothermal]
Diesel (base)
Gas Turbine
Hydroelectric
Wind
Photovoltaic wOwor PE BE MFP FP DY PH eB DPE MMOH OO COON ROO Oo OFF RP BBP BB wwworoocnr NNONN COW mm ONMNM COCO 1.
(es
3.
4.
3.
6.
Tie
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.
UNALAKLEET Q-22
H_- ENERGY PLAN DESCRIPTIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS
H.1 - Base Case
The base case plan, which uses the UVEC diesel system to only produce
electricity, will use new diesel sets which are being installed in 1982 to
meet system load through the year 2001. The machines presently in place
have about used up their useful lives and are unreliable and difficult to
service. These machines are scheduled to be replaced in 1982, the
beginning of the study period. It is expected that at the time the diesels
are changed out, the existing switchgear will also be replaced with a more
modern set of switchgear to permit automatic startup, synchronizing, and
loading of the diesels. This will permit two (or even all three) of the
machines to be run together. Such an operation will reduce the need for
installation of larger, more expensive generator equipment, while
maintaining UVEC's ability to met any anticipated load with any one of its
diesels out of service.
Assumptions made when calculating future electricity costs and present
value figures for the base case are as follows:
- The generators have the following capacities:
o Three 500 kW machines
Any combination of two of these machines is sufficient to carry any
anticipated load through the study period.
- The diesel sets will be valued at a purchase price of $300/kW plus
$500/kW for installation, for a total of $800/kW installed.
- As long as UVEC operates the generation plant (and this is assumed to be
the case throughout the study period), each diesel set will require an
overhaul costing one-third of its purchase price or $100/kW every seven
years.
- UVEC employees will carry out virtually all maintenance on the
equipment. There are presently two employees working for UVEC. Such
service is valued at $125,000 per year including all fringe benefits and
overhead expenses.
UNALAKLEET Q-23
- The data available from UVEC shows that their existing diesels have been
operating at a fuel consumption rate of about 11 kWh/gal. Manufacturer's
date for the new units show a consumption rate of about 14 kWh/gal for
two of the units and 12 kWh/gal for the other. Recognizing that these
figures were obtained under carefully controlled conditions, it will be
assumed that the new machine will operate at about 12 kWh/gal overall.
- Annual costs of the diesel sets are calculated as follows:
1. The initial cost of the diesel sets is amortized over 20 years. The
real discount rate (net from inflation) is assumed to be 3 percent
annually.
2. The annual costs of the overhaul work are the result of the
establishment of a 3 percent sinking fund designed to provide
$100/installed kW every seven years.
3. General operation and maintenance adds $125,000 to the annual
expenses.
- Annual variable costs associated with diesel set operation are calculated
as follows:
1. Fuel in 1982 is assumed to cost $1.65 per gallon with its real (1981)
price rising 2.60 percent annually, to $2.69 per gallon by the year
2001 and remaining constant thereafter.
A tabulation of the results of these calculations is shown in Section I.
It should be noted that the energy cost figure in $/kWh is not necessarily
the cost which would be billed to the ultimate customer. This 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"
Alternative "A" uses the diesel sets as described in the base case, except
that equipment is installed to recover otherwise wasted water jacket heat.
This heat will then be distributed, through underground insulated pipes, to
the city's headstart building, the city offices, the PHS water system, the
village corporation office, the Euksavik clinic, the new REAA
administration building, and the Unalakleet high school and elementary
school complex.
UNALAKLEET Q-24
With the energy production forecasts as shown in Section F, the waste heat
which will be available from the waste heat recovery system will be
equivalent to about 85,000 gallons of fuel oi] in 1982. By the end of the
study period, as generator production increases, waste heat system recovery
also increases. By the year 2001, the deliverable waste heat is the
equivalent of about 130,000 gallons of fuel oil.
While it is doubtful that such a system could entirely eliminate the
heating needs of those buildings that it served, it would reduce the total
consumption by the amounts noted above.
Assumptions made when calculating future costs of the diesel/waste heat
system were as follows:
- Beginning in 1982, and continuing for the term of the study, the
aggregate capacity of the UVEC plant is 1,500 kw.
- Beginning in 1982, a waste heat recovery system will be installed in
conjunction with the UVEC generators. Heat exchanger equipment installed
at the generators is valued at $50,000. The heat will be piped to those
buildings mentioned above. It is estimated that about 1,000 feet of
piping will be required on both outgoing and return parts of the water
circulation. There is a pipe available which combines two pipes in one
insulated casing. This pipe is estimated to cost $250 per foot
(installed). The total piping cost is, therefore, estimated to be
$250,000.
- The heat exchanger equipment will be required in the seven buildings
served by the waste heat system at a cost of $25,000 per building, or a
total of $175,000.
- Those buildings which do not now have baseboard hot water systems (the
clinic and one other (as yet unknown)), will require the installation of
baseboard heaters, estimated to cost $5,000 per building for a total of
$10,000.
- The total system cost as estimated above is $485,000. This figure is
rounded to $500,000 for calculation purposes.
- The waste heat system cost ($500,000) will be amortized over a 10-year
period. The real discount rate (net from inflation) is assumed to be 3
percent annually. At the end of the first 10-year period, the system
will be replaced in its entirety.
- The existence of the waste heat equipment is not expected to affect the
annual costs associated with UVEC operation and maintenance or overhaul
expenses.
Tables in Section I illustrate the costs and benefits associated with the
operation of this system.
UNALAKLEET Q-25
H.3 - Alternative Plan "B"
Alternative "B" uses the UVEC diesel sets as described in the base case as
the primary sources of village power. In addition to these three units, it
will be assumed that two 100 kW wind turbines will be installed near the village. At those times when there is sufficient wind to operate the wind
turbines, their electrical output will be fed into the Unalakleet power
system. For purposes of this study, these wind turbines will be assumed to
have plant factors of 25 percent, with availability factors of 90 percent.
The expected annual output of these machines is then:
2 X 100 kW X 8760 hr/yr X 0.5 X 0.90 = 394,200 kWh/yr
This represents about 13 percent of Unalakleet's electrical energy needs in
the year 1982, and only about 9 percent of their needs in 2001, but would
nonetheless provide a reasonable savings in diesel fuel.
Assumptions made when calculating future costs of the diesel/wind turbine
systems were as follows:
- Beginning in 1982 and continuing for the term of the study, the aggregate
capacity of the UVEC plant is 1,500 kW.
- The capital cost associated with the purchase of a large wind turbine
such as the one described in this alternative is $2,600/kW. The costs
associated with wind turbine installation are also estimated at
$2,600/kW, for a total installed cost of 2 X 100 kW X $5,200/kW =
$1,400,000.
- 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.
This represents an annual cost of about $87,000.
- Operations and maintenance of the wind turbines will require attention of skilled personnel brought in from Anchorage. It is estimated that this
service will require four visits per year, each visit costing about
$3,000. Total O&M charges, therefore, are $12,000 per year.
- The on-line data of the wind turbine should be delayed until such time as
the savings in fuel use by the UVEC diesels is sufficient to pay for the
wind turbine. This would occur when the price of fuel reaches the level
calculated below:
394,200 kWh/yr_ 29,100 gallons of UVEC fuel
12 kWh/gal displaced each year
$99, 000/yr
29,100 gal/yr $3.40/gal
UNALAKLEET Q-26
The price of diesel fuel is not expected to reach such a high price (in
1981 dollars) within the study period. Normally, such a finding would be
sufficient reason to drop wind from further consideration as a possible
alternative. However, in the case of Unalakleet, where the State installed
three small wind turbines in 1981 (although they are not yet operational),
interest in wind power is high. An investigation of the economic impacts
of wind turbine operation on the UVEC system may be of value. For purposes
of this study, the large wind turbines will be assumed to come on-line in
1991.
A tabulation of the costs associated with the implementation of this
alternative is shown in Section I.
UNALAKLEET Q-27
I_- ENERGY PLAN EVALUATIONS
TABLE 6
ESTIMATED COSTS OF UNALAKLEET BASE CASE
FUEL COSTS SYSTEM ADDITIONS FIXED COSTS
Energy Diesel Fuel Fuel Capital Annual Overhaul Total Fixed
Production | Fuel Used x Price = Costs Costs Costs + Fund + O&M = Costs
Year (MWh) (4,000 gal) ($/gal) ($1,000) Component ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000)
1982 3,000 250 1.65 410 o Installation of new UVEC 1,200 81 20 125 226
diesel generator
1983 3,000 250 1,69 420 3-500 kW units) 81 20 125 226
1984 3,100 260 1.74 450 81 20 125 226
1985 3,200 270 1.78 480 81 20 125 226
1986 3,300 280 1.83 510 81 20 125 226
1987 3,400 280 1.88 530 81 20 125 226
1988 3,500 290 1.92 560 81 20 125 226
1989 3,600 300 1.98 590 81 20 125 226
1990 3,700 310 2.03 630 81 20 125 226
1991 3,800 320 2.08 660 81 20 125 226
1992 3,900 320 2.13 680 81 20 125 226
1993 4,000 330 2.19 720 81 20 125 226
1994 4,000 330 2.24 740 81 20 125 226
1995 4,100 340 2.30 780 81 20 125 226
1996 4,200 350 2.36 830 81 20 125 226
1997 4,300 360 2.42 870 81 20 125 226
1998 4,300 360 2.49 900 81 20 125 226
1999 4,400 370 2.55 940 81 20 125 226 e
= 2000 4,500 380 2.62 1,000 81 20 125 226 =
> 2001 4,600 380 2.69 1,020 81 20 125 226 Zz
o Replacement of 1982 try
2002-2005 4,600 380 2.69 1,020 generator sets 1,200 81 20 125 226 m
OD 1 n @
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 410 226 636 617.5 0.21
1983 420 226 646 608.9 0.22
1984 450 226 676 618.6 0.22
1985 480 226 706 627.3 0.22
1986 510 226 736 634.9 0.22
1987 530 226 756 633.2 0.22
1988 560 226 786 639.1 0.22
1989 590 226 816 644.2 0.23
1990 630 226 856 656.0 0.23
1991 660 226 886 659.3 0.23
1992 680 226 906 654.5 0.23
1993 720 226 946 663.5 0.24
1994 740 226 966 657.8 0.24
1995 780 226 1,006 665.1 0.25
1996 830 226 1,056 677.8 0.25
1997 870 226 1,096 683.0 0.25
1998 900 226 1,126 681.2 0.26
1999 940 226 1, 166 684.9 0.27
2000 1,000 226 1,226 699.2 0.27
2001 1,020 226 1,246 689.9 0.27
2002-2005 1,020 226 1,246 2,564.4 0.27
Total net present worth $15,660
All costs shown in thousands of dollars
Note 1: Diesel fuel use is calculated at a consumption rate of 12 kWh produced per gallon of fuel used.
Note 2: Diesel fuel price is expressed in terms of 1981 dollars, with prices escalated at 2.6 percent above general inflation.
Note 3: Total annual fixed costs include funds for equipment amortization (calculated at 3%), a sinking fund for equipment
overhaul and replacement, and general 08M work. 62-0 L33TVIVNN
UNALAKLEET Q-30
I.1 - Base Case
I.1.1 - Social and Environmental Evaluation
During the period in 1982 when the new UVEC generators are being
installed, there will be the potential for the employment of a number
of local construction workers. There will likely be a need for
riggers, welders, electricians, and general laborers. There will
also be potential for two or more Unalakleet residents to be employed
as maintenance personnel. UVEC personnel generally are skilled
enough to perform any required maintenance activities, including
major equipment overhauls.
Diesel plant equipment is relatively benign environmentally. Diesel
engines emit small quantities of carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide,
water vapor, nitrous oxides (NO,), sulfur dioxide (S09) and
unburned hydrocarbons. With the installation at Unalakleet, there
will not likely be any noticeable buildup of any of these pollutants.
The engine lubricating oil must be changed periodically and the waste
oil must be disposed of properly. In remote villages such as
Unalakleet, this can be a significant problem. Diesel engines are
also significant sources of noise; but, with proper siting and with
adequate muffler systems, this problem can be minimized.
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
requires highly skilled personnel. Unalakleet is fortunate to have
what appears to be one of the most skilled on-site maintenance staffs
of all the bush villages visited.
Modernization of the existing plant equipment is an investment which
could not be postponed much longer. The existing diesels are nearing
the end of their service lives; the power plant building is cluttered
with an abandoned exhaust gas waste heat recovery system; the
switchgear lineup is an obsolete line of equipment for which parts
are likely not available; there appears to be no automation in any of
the system's operation.
The UVEC system, even in its present condition, is providing
Unalakleet with relatively (for bush Alaska) inexpensive electricity.
With some modernization work, it will be able to continue this
service.
y
TABLE 7
ESTIMATED COSTS OF UNALAKLEET ALTERNATIVE PLAN "A"
FUEL COSTS SYSTEM ADDITIONS FIXED COSTS
Energy Diesel Fuet 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 3,000 250 1.65 410 o Installation of new 1,700 114 20 125 259
UVEC diesel sets with
1983 3,000 250 1.69 420 waste heat system 114 20 125 259
(three 500 kW units)
1984 3, 100 260 1.74 450 114 20 125 259
1985 3,200 270 1.78 480 114 20 125 259
1986 3, 300 280 1.83 510 114 20 125 259
1987 3,400 280 1.88 530 114 20 125 259
1988 3,500 290 1.92 560 114 20 125 259
1989 3,600 300 1.98 590 114 20 125 259
1990 3,700 310 2.03 630 114 20 125 259
1991 3,800 320 2.08 660 114 20 125 259
1992 3,900 320 2.13 680 o Replacement of 1982 500 114 20 125 259
waste heat system
1993 4,000 330 2.19 720 114 20 125 259
1994 4,000 330 2.24 740 114 20 125 259
1995 4,100 340 2.30 780 114 20 125 259
1996 4,200 350 2.36 830 114 20 125 259
1997 4,300 360 2.42 870 114 20 125 259
1998 4,300 360 2.49 900 114 20 125 259 Ss >
1999 4,400 370 2.55 940 114 20 125 259 = zw
2000 4,500 380 2.62 1,000 114 20 125 259 a m
2001 4,600 380 2.69 1,020 114 20 125 259 aA o Replace. of 1982 gen. aD
2002-2005 4,600 380 2.69 1,020 & 1992 waste heat sys. 1, 700 114 20 125 259 ds al
All costs shown in thousands of dollars
Note 1:
Note 2:
Note 3:
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 410 259 669 649.5 0. 18
1983 420 259 679 640.0 0.18
1984 450 259 709 648.8 0.18
1985 480 259) 739 656.6 0.18
1986 510 259 769 663.3 0.18
1987 530 259 789 660.8 0. 18
1988 560 259 819 665.9 0. 18
1989 590 259 849 670.2 0.18
1990 630 259 889 681.3 0.18
1991 660 259 919 683.8 0. 18
1992 680 259 939 678.3 0. 18
1993 720 259 979 686.7 0.18
1994 740 259 999 680.3 0.19
1995 780 259 1,039 686.9 0.19
1996 830 259 1,089 699.0 0.19
1997 870 259 1,129 703.6 0.19
1998 900 259 1,159 701.2 0.20
1999 940 259 1,199 704.3 0.20
2000 1,000 259 1,259 718.8 0.20
2001 1,020 259 1,279 708. 1 0.20
2002-2005 1,020 259 1,279 2,632.3 0.20
TOTAL $16,220
Total present worth of non-electrical benefits $ 4,039
Net present worth $12,181
Diese! fuel use is calculated at a consumption rate of 12 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. ze-b LA3STAVIWNA
UNALAKLEET Q-33
TABLE 8
ESTIMATED NON-ELECTRICAL BENEFITS OF ALTERNATIVE PLAN "A"
Total Annual Benefits Discounted
Year Space Heating Fuel Saving) Benefits
1982 140 135.9
1983 140 132.0
1984 150 13723 1985 160 142.1 1986 170 146.7
1987 190 159.1 1988 190 154.5 1989 200 157.9
1990 220 168.6
1991 230 171.1
1992 230 166.1
1993 240 168.3
1994 250 170.3
1995 270 178.5
1996 280 179.7
1997 300 187.0
1998 310 187.6
1999 320 188.0
2000 340 193.9
2001 350 193.8
2002 through 350 720.3
2005
TOTAL: $4039
All cost figures shown are in thousands of dollars.
UNALAKLEET Q-34
1.2 - Alternative Plan "A"
1.2.1 - Social and Environmental Evaluation
If this alternative were to be implemented, some local construction
employment might be generated. There would be a need for skilled
workers such as welders, plumbers, carpenters, heavy equipment
operators and general laborers.
The installation and operation of a waste system will have no
noticeable environmental impact. The reduction of fuel oi] burned by
those buildings served by the waste heat system may result in a
lessening in airborne pollutants.
1.2.2 - Technical Evaluation
The waste heat system described is a very simple measure which could
be put into place in one construction season and begin to show
immediate savings to the village utility system. Design of waste
heat systems is well understood, and there is little to go wrong in
their operation.
TABLE 9
ESTIMATED COSTS OF UNALAKLEET ALTERNATIVE PLAN "Bt"
FUEL COSTS SYSTEM ADDITIONS FIXED COSTS
Energy Diesel Fuel Fuel Capital Annual Overhautl Total Fixed
Production | Fuel Used x Price = Costs Costs Costs + Fund + O&M = Costs Year (MWh) (1,000 gal) _($/gal) ($1,000) Component ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000)
1982 3,000 250 1.65 410 o Installation of new UVEC 1,200 81 20 125 226
diesel generators
1983 3,000 250 1.69 420 (three 500 kW units) 81 20 125 226
1984 3, 100 260 1.74 450 81 20 125 226
1985 3,200 270 1.78 480 81 20 125 226
1986 3,300 280 1.83 510 81 20 125 226
1987 3,400 280 1.88 530 81 20 125 226
1988 3,500 290 1.92 560 81 20 125 226
1989 3,600 300 1.98 590 81 20 125 226
1990 3,700 320 2.03 630 81 20 125 226
1991 3,800 290 2.08 600 o Installation of new wind 1,400 168 20 137 325 turbines (two 100 kW 1992 3,900 290 2.13 620 units) 168 20 137 325
1993 4,000 300 2.19 660 168 20 137 325
1994 4,000 300 2.24 670 ‘ 168 20 137 325
1995 4,100 310 2.30 710 168 20 137 325
1996 4,200 320 2.36 760 168 20 137 325
1997 4,300 330 2.42 800 168 20 137 325
1998 4,300 330 2.49 820 168 20 137 325
1999 4,400 340 2.55 870 168 20 137 325
2000 4,500 350 2.62 920 168 20 137 325
2001 4,600 350 2.69 940 168 20 137 325
o Replacement of 1982 1,200 2002-2005 4,600 350 2.69 940 diese! sets 168 20 137 325 se-b LISTIVIVNN
TABLE 9 (Cont'd)
Total Discounted
Fuel Fixed Annual Annual Energy
Costs + Costs = Costs Costs Costs
Year ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000) ($/kWh)
1982 410 226 636 617.5 0.21
1983 420 226 646 608.9 0.22
1984 450 226 676 618.6 0.22
1985 480 226 706 627.3 0.22
1986 510 226 736 634.9 0.22
1987 530 226 756 633.2 0.22
1988 560 226 786 639.1 0.22
1989 590 226 816 644.2 0.23
1990 630 226 856 656.0 0. 23
1991 600 325 926 689.0 0.24
1992 620 325 946 683.4 0.24
1993 660 325 986 691.6 0.25
1994 670 325 996 678.3 0.25
1995 710 325 1,035 684.2 0.25
1996 760 325 1,085 696.5 0.26
1997 800 325 1,125 701.1 0.26
1998 820 325 1,145 692.7 0.27
1999 870 325 1,195 701.9 0.27
2000 920 325 1,245 710.0 0. 28
2001 940 325 1,265 700.4 0.28
2002-2005 940 325 1,265 2,603.5 0.28
Total net present worth $15,912
All costs shown In thousands of dollars
Note 1: Diesel fuel use Is calculated at a consumption rate of 11 kWh produced per gallon of fuel used.
Note 2: Diesel fuel price is expressed in terms of 1981 dollars, with prices escalated at 2.6 percent above general inflation.
Note 3: Total annual fixed costs include funds for equipment amortization (calculated at 3%), a sinking fund for equipment
overhaul and replacement, and general O&M work. ge-d LIITAVIVNN
UNALAKLEET Q-37
1.3 - Alternative Plan "B"
1.3.1 - Social and Environmental Evaluation
If this alternative were to be implemented some local work crews
could possibly assist in the construction of the wind turbines'
towers, foundations, and auxiliary equipment. There would be a need
for skilled workers such as welders, riggers, and electricians, 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
may climb towers which are not secured against this type of 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 those
considered in this analysis, have blades weighing several tons.
There is also the possibility of noise generation and interference
with television signals. These last considerations are generally not
threatening to human life, but are annoying.
1.3.2 - Technical Evaluation
Given the present state of wind turbine development, it does not
appear warranted to pursue further investigation of wind turbine
development at Unalakleet at this time. It is important, however,
that consideration be given to the establishment of a sophisticated
anemometry station at Unalakleet so that data can be assembled which
may be able to show that wind turbine systems are more economically
attractive than was found to be the case in this study.
UNALAKLEET Q-38
J_- COMMENTS AND DISCUSSION
UNALAKLEET Q-39
J.1 - Comments Received From Mr. Ken Ritchie of Matanuska Electric Association
UNALAKLEET Q-40 UN 2g: 190
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
TO: File 4/26/82
FROM: Patti K. DeJong
SUBJECT: Unalakleet Recon Telecon
with Ken Ritchie of
Matanuska Electric Association
Ken called after having a chance to review the Unalakleet recon report by Acres. Acres apparently was not aware that MEA still ran the
Unalakleet utility since they were never contacted during the course of
the study. Ken's comments were as follows:
1. Cost/kwh was given, but no mention of the difference between
this and the cost to the consumers (resulting from Power Cost Assistance) was made.
2. Page Q-7; The Unalakleet utility is still operated by MEA.
3. Regarding the villagers' interest in the State Energy Audit
Program: Approximately 50% of the residences in Unalakleet
have already had energy audits, and there is a certified energy auditor in the community now (Sheldon Katchatag). The
remainder of the energy audits should be completed soon.
4. The load forecast is much lower than utility would predict. (Also similar to Atkasook concerns.)
The 1982 demand figure given by the utility was 420kw as
opposed to 408 used by Acres. The utility expects much more
rapid growth of the community and the electric load than that
projected by Acres. I suggest calling Ken and discussing this
subject with him.
It is not clear that the new REAA administration building has
been included in either the existing load or in the capital
projects forecast. The building went into service in November
of 1982. Ken will be able to provide the load and demand
figures for this building and should be contacted on this
subject as well.
Demand of the community already exceeds system capacity
frequently. When this happens, the school generates.
5. MEA has plans for a major renovation program for the
Unalakleet utility this year.
The Wakesha 500 kw unit is already out of service.
File Memo
June 25, 1982 UNALAKLEET Q-41 Page 2
There is a D398 Cat (500 kw) on order and plans to order two
3412 Cats (500 kw each).
6. Page Q-21: Use of term interest is confusing. Discount rate
better.
7. Page Q-21: the fuel cost presented seems high to Ken.
Ken confirmed that the wind turbines are not yet intertied with the
utility, but should be by June, 1982.
i
ae
33
Comment:
Response:
Comment :
Response:
Comment :
Response:
UNALAKLEET Q-42
ACRES' RESPONSE
"Acres apparently was not aware that MEA still ran the
Unalakleet utility ..."
This is correct. In fact, UVEC personnel remarked to Recon
staff members visiting Unalakleet that MEA was formerly the
owner of the Unalakleet system but had divested itself of the
system.
In a telephone conversation with Mr. Ritchie of MEA on April
28, 1982, he noted that MEA was ultimately responsible for
the management of UVEC's system; UVEC was responsible for the
daily operations details. The relationship was gradually
changing to an arrangement where UVEC would be completely
self-managed, but this was thought to be a number of years away.
The report text will be edited to better explain the
relationship between the two utilities.
"Cost/kWh was given, but no mention of the difference between
this and the cost to the consumers (resulting from Power Cost Assistance) was made."
This omission was deliberate. The reconnaissance report was
intended to provide information on relative costs of various
power generation technologies to the villages studied. This
cost information is intended to be free of influences of
governmental subsidies.
The text will be changed to note that the costs given as a
result of our calculations are not necessarily those which
the ultimate customers see. They will briefly address
administrative and distribution costs as well as the subsidy
programs. No discussion will be attempted regarding the
differences arising due to disparities between Power
Authority economic analysis criteria and real-world
conditions.
“Approximately 50 percent of the residences in Unalakleet
have already had energy audits, and there is a certified
energy auditor in the community now ..."
The text will be edited to note this development. The
original statement that "No energy audits had been carried
out in Unalakleet," will be allowed to stand as this is
something that was mentioned at the public meeting in
November 1981.
4. Comment :
Response:
Comment :
Response:
Comment:
Response:
UNALAKLEET Q-43
"The load forecast is much lower than the utility would
predict."
The draft report shows estimated power demand and energy
consumption estimates of:
Year Demand Consumption
1982 408 kW 2,147 kWh
1990 447 kW 2,356 kWh
In a telephone conversation with Mr. Ritchie of MEA, he
advised that their current projections gave the following
figures:
Year Demand Consumption
1982 420 kW (actual) N/A
1990 900 kW 4,000 kWh
There is a substantial difference between the two forecasts.
While it is unlikely that the differences can be totally
reconciled, the final reconnaissance report will be updated
to reflect a more ambitious growth rate in Unalakleet.
It is not to be expected that these changes will affect the
basic report recommendations.
"It is not clear that the new REAA administration building
has been included in ... the ... forecast."
This is indeed an omission which will be remedied in the
final report.
"Demand of the community already exceeds system capacity..."
This is not true. Demand may exceed the capacity of the
single machine which is on-line at any given time, but it
never has exceeded the capacity which Acres has set as its
criteria. That is the capacity available with the largest
single machine out of service. In UVEC's case, this would be
650 kW. With the operation of any combination of two
machines of the three there, this load can be met.
Ts Comment :
Response:
Comment :
Response:
Comment :
Response:
UNALAKLEET Q-44
In some cases, it is not standard operating practice for a utility to run two machines in parallel and such may be the
case in the UVEC system. With the incorporation of the proper governors, switchgear, and control equipment,
synchronized operation is eminently practical.
The three 500 kW units scheduled to be installed in 1982 will
have equipment to permit synchronized operation. The system
capacity will then be 1,000 kW.
"MEA has plans for a major renovation program for the Unalakleet utility this year.
The Wakesha [sic] 500 kW unit is already out of service.
There is a D398 Cat (500 kW) on order and plans to order two
3412 [sic] Cats (500 kW each)."
Such an upgrading is something that will greatly improve the
reliability of the UVEC system, especially if switchgear and
control improvements are undertaken. The Waukesha machine
being replaced operated at a production economy of about
11 kWh/gal. The D398 replacing it is expected to deliver
12 kWh/gal. The other new machines are expected to operate
at nearly 14 kWh/gal (at least that's what their manufacturer
claims).
The report text will be changed to reflect these upgrading
efforts.
"Use of term interest is confusing. Discount rate better."
The referenced text passage reads: "The initial cost of the
diesel sets is amortized over 20 years at an interest rate of
3 percent annually.
It is recognized that this may be confusing to some. The
text will be revised to read: "The initial cost of the
diesel sets is amortized over 20 years. The real discount
rate (net of inflation) is assumed to be 3 percent.
"The cost presented seems high ..."
This may well be true. At the time of the reconnaissance staff's data gathering trip to Unalakleet in late 1981, the
only bulk fuel prices available from UVEC were those for
July 1980. At that time, fuel cost was about $0.99/gal,
which seemed out of line. The village corporation was
selling fuel oi] for about $1.93/gallon in 1980. This may be
a bit high for fuel used by UVEC.
UNALAKLEET Q-45
AVEC's bulk purchases in 1981 in the Norton Sound area had the following costs:
Elim $1.60/gal
Ko yuk $1.64/gal Saint Michael $1.42/gal
Shaktoolik $1.60/gal
Stebbins $1.60/gal
Discarding Saint Michael, since that is where the Chevron
bulk plant is, it seems reasonable to use a figure of
$1.61 x 102.6% = $1.65/gal. This represents the average of
AVEC's 1981 costs plus an escalation of 2.6 percent to get to
1982 prices.
The final report will use these figures.
UNALAKLEET Q-46
J.2 - Comments Received From Mr. Phil Kaluza
UNALAKLEET Q- 47
Eric P. Yould
Alaska Power Authority
334 West 5th Ave.
. Anchorage, AK 99501
RECEIVED
APR - 9 3989
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
Dear Mr. Yould,
I would like to make several comments concerning the Reconnaissance
Studies recently drafted for the villages in the Bering Straits Region.
In nearly all of the villages studied a 100KW wind turbine was used
as an alternative for deisel generation. I question the practicality
of such a large wind system for several reasons. Several of the villages
studied ( Brevig Mission, Golovin) do not even have village wide elec-
tricity and are so small that if and when they do undergo an electrification
project the demand would be much less than the output of the wind system.
I futher question the practicality of such a large wind system in that
it would provide an all or nothing approach to the reliability of wind
generated electricity. In comparsion, several smaller wind systems could
be installed using primarily local manpower which could be trained to
maintain and repair the smaller systems. This would help eliminate the
need for those costly maintenance trips from Anchorage or out of state
personnel. The smaller systems would provide a far better reliability
factor and possibily a better system for load management. The use of
such a large wind system as an alternative will certainly set any potential
of wind energy on a back burner.
Also concerning the wind generator alternative the research group decided
not to incorporate into the alternative a waste heat recovery system for
the diesel generator. Apparently they can not see the potential of a
combonation of many small scale alternatives. ;
Another area covered in the report was the energy efficiency of the housing
stock.In several reports the researchers estimated 20-30% energy savings
through weatherization. As a certified state energy auditor and having
traveled to many of the villages in the study I would agree there is much
room for improvement, even in the recently built houses, but 20 or 30
percent is nothing. An aggressive retrofit program could cut the energy
loss by 80 or 90 percent. This could be done through a loan pronram
that village homeowners would be eligible for.
Sincerely,
Phil Kaluza
Box 843
Nome, AK 99762
I. Comment :
Response:
UNALAKLEET Q--48
ACRES' RESPONSE
"In nearly all the villages studied, a 100 kW wind turbine was used as an alternative for diesel generation. I question
the practicality of such a large wind system..."
The relatively large wind turbine was chosen for use in this
study for a number of reasons:
1. Economy. As turbine size increases, advantage can be taken of their economy of scale: costs in terms of $/kWh
at the turbine equipment tend to decrease. For a given
aggregate wind turbine capacity at any particular site,
the site specific items such as foundations, control
equipment, and electrical hookups are simplified and made
less expensive. The problems associated with maintaining
one 100 kW machine as opposed to, say ten-10 kW units,
are minimized. It is worth noting that the larger units
have room inside the generator nacelle to work on
equipment out of the weather. On-site repair work on
smaller units can be expected to be performed by workers
exposed to high winds and low temperatures.
2. Appropriateness of Size. At a site with a mean wind
speed of [5 mph, a 100 kW wind turbine with an 8 mph
cut-in and a 25 mph rated speed will produce a mean power
output less than 20 kW, not even enough to power a
typical Bering Straits REAA high school. A number of
smaller wind turbines with a similar aggregate capacity
and wind speed/power characteristic, would not do much
better.
3. Reliability. To date, only very small-scale wind turbines have been tried in Alaska with very rare
successes. Two weeks after being put into operation, the
State's $100,000 10-kW demonstration project at Skagway
was shut down due to a blade failure. Many other
small-scale projects have been subject to similar
defects. The 100 kW units have such large costs (on an
absolute basis) that substantial engineering efforts can
be carried out without drastically increasing the $/kW
costs. The development programs undertaken by the
Department of Energy and NASA using large machines have
been largely successful. It is expected that a well
designed large turbine would be more reliable than a
number of small units.
4.
Comment :
Response:
Comment:
Response:
Comment:
UNALAKLEET Q-49
4. Manufacturer's Support. It has been the unfortunate history of wind turbines that many manufacturers start up a business, inflate advertising claims, sell a few
machines which cannot, for whatever reason, perform
satisfactorily, and promptly go out of business, leaving
their customer with no source of information or repair
parts. Only large, well-established companies can raise
the capital needed to tool up for production of large
units. Presently, large units are manufactured by
well-known firms such as Westinghouse and Boeing. It is
presumed that these firms will exist into the foreseeable
future to support their wind turbines. With a few
exceptions, the same cannot be said for makers of the
small units. Larger manufacturers typically have more
depth in their engineering departments to address
problems as they develop.
No change in report text is needed.
"Several of the villages studied (Brevig Mission, Golovin) do
not even have village-wide electricity..." j
All villages studied, including Brevig Mission and Golovin had, or were in the very final stages of getting, village-
wide electric system installations.
No change in report text is needed.
"...demand would be much less than the output of the wind
system."
This is not true. A 100-kW wind turbine will rarely put out
that much power. In winds of less than 18 mph, the wind
turbine described under Comment No. 1 above will not produce
more power than could be used by the typical village school
(20 kW). As refrigerators and TV's become more and more
popular, it is highly probable that even the 100 kW unit will
be able to provide but a fraction of a village's needs. Only
rarely will there be a surplus.
No change in the report text is needed.
",.. such a large wind turbine ... would provide an all or
nothing approach to the reliability of wind generated
electricity."
So
6.
ie
Response:
Comment:
Response:
Comment :
Response:
Comment:
UNALAKLEET Q-50
While it is true that if one large wind turbine were used and
it were out of commission, no wind-generated power would be
available, it is not thought that this disadvantage is
sufficient to make the small units' higher costs attractive.
No change in the report text is needed.
"... several smaller wind systems could be installed using
primarily local manpower which could be trained to maintain
and repair the smaller systems."
The availability of people with the required maintenance skills is something which varies widely from village to
village. Except for a few notable cases, most diesel plants visited in rural Alaska are not good examples of the labors
of highly skilled maintenance personnel. If these diesel
plants show what can be accomplished by "local manpower," it
is not likely that even the simplest wind turbines could be
maintained to provide reliable service. Equipment such as
gearboxes, generators, and inverters would still require attention by personnel from outside the village. The large
units are not so dissimilar and local workers could be
trained to perform routine maintenance tests such as
lubrication, inspection, expendable parts replacement, etc.
As noted before, the large units have room to work inside
their generator nacelles out of the weather. This is far
less likely to lead to maintenance errors and should be far
safer for the serviceman than clinging to a small system's
tower (in safety belt) in a cold breeze.
No change in report text is needed.
"The use of such a large wind system as an alternative will
certainly set any potential of wind energy on a back
burner."
This opinion is diametrically opposite that of Acres' staff,
who believe that one well-designed and properly functioning
wind turbine system which is capable of supplying significant
amounts of electrical energy to a power system will do more
to promote the use of wind power than will a collection of
marginally engineered and poorly supported machine
installations such as already exist in the State.
No change in the report text is needed.
"... the research group decided not to incorporate [a wind
turbine] into the alternative [using] a waste heat recovery
system for the diesel generator. Apparently, they cannot see
the potential of a combination of many small-scale
alternatives."
8.
Response:
Comment:
Response:
UNALAKLEET Q-51
In fact, Acres does recognize the combination of any number
of power producing technologies, but only where appropriate.
A diesel set is a much more efficient generator of heat than
it is of electricity. In power systems where both
diesel/waste heat and wind turbine systems are in use, as
wind turbine output increases, the waste heat output
diminishes accordingly. The relationship is generally such
that revenues lost from reduced waste heat sales are not
recovered in fuel savings, resulting in a net increased
system cost with greater wind turbine output.
Very appropriate combinations of small-scale and renewable
technologies are those of wind and hydro, or solar
photovoltaic and hydro, and similar combinations in which the
increased output of one element does not degrade the
performance of the others. Unfortunately, few such
combinations were found which were appropriate to the
economic needs of the village.
No change in the report text is needed.
"An aggressive retrofit program could cut the energy loss by
80 or 90 percent."
Without having access to the assumptions used to arrive at
the 80 to 90 percent figure, it is not possible to comment on
the validity of these figures. New housing designs, while
improvements over past efforts, are not expected to be much
more than 25 - 30 percent more efficient than existing
housing.
Presently, there is no indication that the State is prepared
to embark on an “aggressive retrofit program."
No change in the report text is needed.
UNALAKLEET Q- 52
J.3 - Comments Received From The Alaska Power Administration
(Original Letter Retyped Here For Clarity]
UNALAKLEET Q53
April 12, 1982
Mr. Eric P. Yould
Executive Director
Alaska Power Authority
334 West 5th Avenue, Second Floor Anchorage, Alaska 99802
Dear Mr. Yould:
We have reviewed the two draft sets of reconnaissance reports of energy
requirements and alternatives for numerous smal] Alaskan villages,
transmitted to us by your March 3 letter. One was prepared by Acres
American, Inc. and one by Northern Technical Services (NORTEC).
We agree with the recommendations in the Acres summary report (pp. 0-6
and 0-7), and the individual village NORTEC reports. However, there
appears to be a discrepancy in that the recommendations of the NORTEC
summary report are not presented in the same priority as some of the
individual reports. Specifically the individual reports recommend
investigation before specific action is taken on new projects, while the
summary report recommends immediate installation of central diesel
generators in eight villages.
We offer a few general comments for consideration.
There appears to be a disparity between the two reports in that Acres
assumed that conservation was not within the scope of consideration while
NORTEC did, Neither put a "value" on conservation in terms of energy
reduction.
A summary comparison of energy cost per kWh for each generation
technology would enhance the Acres report. Presentation of costs in
terms of kWh units and a summary by technologies would also enhance the
NORTEC report.
Neither report addresses actual present and projected electric power
costs with or without consideration of the residential subsidy under
AS 44.83.162.
UNALAKLEET Q-54
Extending a single energy cost for a given technology to several
communities leads to risk of invalid comparison based on local
conditions.
The description of each technology in each report is a good approach to
inform lay consumers of the basic parameters. It is good to see a
description of the state-of-the art of technologies that are not yet
practical for power generation in remote locations such as wind, biomass,
and geothermal.
Thanks for the opportunity to comment.
Sincerely,
Robert J. Cross
Administrator
FSUMMERS:gs:sr 3/18/82 Yould Letter FLOYD4
1.
2.
Comment:
Response:
Comment:
Response:
UNALAKLEET Q-55
ACRES' RESPONSE
"... Acres assumed that conservation was not within the scope
of consideration."
No such assumption was ever made either explicitly or
implicitly. In a number of village reports, the primary
recommendation was that aggressive energy audit programs be
undertaken forthwith. It was repeatedly noted that village
residents were more concerned about the costs of home heating
and the inefficiencies of their homes than they were about
the supply of electricity within their village. While the
study of the means necessary to achieve any meaningful
savings of space heating energy was beyond the scope of the
study, the effects of such savings were incorporated where
appropriate. It was assumed that new housing 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 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 0&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&M considerations may make
comparisons invalid.
The comment is noted to be contradictory to the later comment
that "Extending a single energy cost for a given technology
to several communities leads to risk of invalid comparison
based on local conditions."
No comment or change in report text is needed.
RE Comment:
Response:
UNALAKLEET Q- 56
"Neither report addresses actual present and projected
electric power costs with or without consideration of the
residential subsidy under AS 44.83.162."
This omission is deliberate at the direction of the Alaska
Power Authority. Study costs given are busbar costs
calculated without governmental subsidy. The availability of
a subsidy does not affect the economics of a power production
facility, it merely shifts the burden of paying the operation
costs to the government. It is also worth noting that the
subsidy programs are continued from year to year at the
pleasure of the legislature.
No comment or change in report text is needed.
UNALAKLEET Q-57
J.4 - Comments Received From The State of Alaska Department of Fish and Game
UNALAKLEET Q-58 STAVE OF ALASKA / DEPART MENF OF FISH AND GAME
OFFICE OF THE CORiKISSIONER P.0. BOX 32000 JUNEAU, ALASKA 99802 PHONE: 465-4100
April 8, 1982 RECEIvep
APR 1 2 3989
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, a
Oe omnes fee Ronald 0. Skoog
Commissioner
UNALAKLEET Q-59
ACRES' RESPONSE
No comment or change in report text is needed.
UNALAKLEET Q-60
J.5 - Comments Received From U. S. Fish and Wildlife
Service in Anchorage
UNALAKLEET Q-61
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
IN REPLY AEFER TO: Western Alaska Ecological Services i 733 W. 4th Avenue, Suite 101 WAES Anchorage, Alaska 99501 B (907) 271-4575 ECEIVED
APR— 9 1989
Mr. Eric P. Yould AT
Executive Director ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
Alaska Power Authority 334 West 5th Avenue @ APR 1982
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Dear Mr. Yould:
We have reviewed the Alaska Power Authority's (APA) Draft FY 1982 Energy
Reconnaissance Reports. If the conclusions and recommendations stated in the
individual reports become those of the APA, and if the APA undertakes feasi-
bility studies in fulfillment of the recommended alternatives, then the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) requests that the information and studies
outlined below be made a part of the feasibility studies.
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.
ae Losses of fish and wildlife habitat should be held to a minimun, end
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
tenperature 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:
UNALAKLEET Q-62
Page 2
(a) Identification of species composition and distribution of resident and anadromous fish within and downstream of the pro-
ject area. Standard sampling methods such as fyke netting and
minnow trapping, as well as visual observation of spawning
and/or redds, should be used.
(>) Surveying and mapping of fish spawning, rearing, and over-
wintering habitat as defined in the FWS Instream Flow Techniques
or similar guidelines.
(c) Harvest levels and subsistence use data, if applicable.
It should be incumbent upon the APA to document animal species within the
project boundary. If it is determined that impacts to terrestrial mammals or
bird habitat is imminent, the APA should gather habitat and population infor-
mation in a manner consistent with the FWS' Habitat Evaluation Procedures.
hs Terrestrial data collection should include the following:
(a) Verification of game and non-game species use and occurrence
within the project area.
1. Manmals.
a. Historical and current harvest levels and subsistence
use data.
db. Site-specific wildlife observations, including wild-
life sign, denning sites, feeding sites, migration
routes, winter use areas, and calving areas.
2. Birds. Raptor nesting surveys within the project area.
(b>) Description of vegetation, cover typing, and areal extent of
each type.
The FWS requests that bald eagle surveys be undertaken. If nest sites are
encountered, the APA should notify the FWS. The FWS seeks to maintain a
330-foot protective zone around all active and inactive nests. Compliance
with provisions of the Bald Eagle Protecton Act is mandatory.
We request that the following be accomplished during the course of the
studies:
als 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.
UNALAKLEET Q-63 Page 3
Ze 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.
It 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 nave any questions regarding our
suggested feasibility studies.
Sincerely, lobe brchr
Field Supervisor
1 Comment:
Response:
UNALAKLEET Q-64
ACRES' RESPONSE
"Without current site-specific resource information and a
more complete description of the proposed project, it is
difficult to assess what impacts, if any, will occur to fish
and wildlife resources and associated habitat. Information
should be acquired and studies conducted to identify the fish
and wildlife resources of the study area, identify adverse
project impacts to those resources, assess alternatives to
the proposed action and devise a mitigation plan that would
prevent a net loss to fish and wildlife resources."
The reconnaissance study scope does not provide for any but the most general identification of sites, definition of
project design characteristics, and assessment of
environmental consequences. The level of study effort
suggested in the USF&WS letter is appropriate to a
feasibility-level study of a project. No change in report
text is required.
UNALAKLEET Q-65
J.6 - Comments Received From U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
UNALAKLEET~ Q+66 REFER 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,
ACRES' RESPONSE
No comment or change in report text is needed.
UNALAKLEET Q-67 Pare a)