Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutElfin Cove Reconnaissance Study Of Energy Requirements & Alternatives-Appendix Elfin Cove 1984Alaska Power Authority LIBRARY COPY RECONNAISSANCE STUDY OF ENERGY REQUIREMENTS AND ALTERNATIVES APPENDIX: ELFIN COVE FEBRUARY 1984 PREPARED BY Ait _ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY_| a VIL-A on TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page a) is ' Part Conclusions and Recommendations .......2..2.2.2e-. acu Part B - Demographic and Economic Conditions .........2.+-./7 OQ wo ' ; Part Community Meeting Report. ...... Sell etoile et ion i Part D - Existing Power and Heating Facilities ....... ... 10 | Part E - Elfin Cove Energy Balance. .......222e.... ell 1 Part F - Energy Requirements Forecast. ........24.6-. sr ws ol Part G - Village Energy Resources Assessment .........2e44.- 51 Part H - Energy Plan Descriptions and Assumptions. ..... ov ye) 4 Part I - Economic Evaluation of Alternatives. ..........-. 62 1 Part J - Comments and Discussion. ........24+4.24.2e26-. of «G4 1 Alaska Power Authority 1983 Project Evaluation Procedure | 2 Hydrologic Calculations for "Roy's Creek" Drainage at Elfin Cove I, ATTACHMENTS page A_- CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A.l - General After an analysis of the information gathered from Elfin Cove, the re- commendations which are most appropriate to the existing village condi- tions and the wishes of village residents are as follows: a. The construction of a micro-hydro (20 to 60 kW) plant has been found to be the most economical means of providing the village with electric power. The hydro plant would be installed in conjunction with a village-wide power distribution system. A diesel generator would be provided for peaking energy and backup for the hydro plant. The construction of a village-wide power system which would be pro- vided with diesel-generated electricity would, from an economic standpoint, be an improvement of the system now in existence. Use- rs of electricity must now provide their own generators. The small generators used are tremendously inefficient producers of electric- ity. Usually ‘gasoline powered, they are incapable of producing More than about 4 kWh of electricity for each gallon of fuel con- sumed. A more realistic figure, considering their operating con- ditions, would be 3 kWh/gal. A village-wide system would be able to make use of a more efficient diesel generator. It is expected that a diesel in an Elfin Cove power system could produce about 6 kWh/gal if operated properly. Even this figure is low for diesel plants, most of which produce between 8 and 11 kWh per gallon, but most other systems are large enough to make use of units larger than 200 kW. It is not likely that wind energy could compete successfully against the available hydroelectric resource in Elfin Cove. How- ever, wind-generated electricity could be more economical than the presently used gasoline-powered generators. This may mean that wind energy systems could be used when there was an inadequate sup- ply of hydro power (during times of low stream flow). Unfortunately, the "state of the art" in wind turbines is such that the machines of the small size which is appropriate for Elfin Cove are not sufficiently reliable for use in a "public" system. The wind turbines installed around the state (other than those install- ed by individual homeowners) are machines which were installed as pilot or experimental projects. They have not proven to be especially reliable. These topics are covered in more detail in Part G of this report. One of the recommendations of this study is that an anemometry site page be established at some relatively exposed location near the village to gather detailed wind data. Presently, there is a National Weather Service weather site in the village, but it is sheltered by surrounding trees and terrain features. Data from this site would be expected to give unrealistically low wind speed readings. Good locations for anemometry stations would include the bluff to the west of the village and above treeline on the mountains to the east. The residents of Elfin Cove are unusually enthusiastic about help- ing their own community develop. During a visit to Elfin Cove by Acres' staff, much time was spent talking with local residents about "doing it themselves," especially with reference to the de- velopment of the hydroelectric plant and the village power distri- bution system. It is the opinion of Acres' staff that the resi- dents of Elfin Cove posess most of the skills necessary to succes- sfully install the relatively simple generation and distribution system examined in this report. They should be given some oppor- tunity to put their skills to work to help out their own community. A.2 - Alternative Plan Descriptions A.2.1 - Base Case The base case studied for Elfin Cove assumes no change from current practice: if a user wants electric energy, they are responsible for generating it. Most homeowners have their own generators, usually about 3.5 kW gasoline units; commercial enterprises have either die- sel or gasoline generators. As new homes or businesses or public buildings are built, they each must include provisions for power generation. This results in the installation of excess generator capacity which cannot be used and the use of very inefficient small generator sets. This plan has been calculated to have a total net present worth of $2,231,840 (in 1983 dollars) for the period 1983 through 2034. A.2.2 - Alternative Plan "A" This plan examines the construction of the "typical" bush power system: a village-wide distribution system supplied with energy from a diesel generator. This arrangement has the advantage of freeing consumers from the task of operating and maintaining their own power plants. It allows them access to more efficient sources of power production and allows for the installation of less aggre- gate generating capacity (thus less capital cost) than in the case where each user must provide their own generators. This system was assumed to come into being in 1985, about as early as could be ex- pected if state funding is to be expected. This plan has been calculated to have a total net present worth of $1,855 630 (in 1983 dollars) for the period 1983 through 2034. 2 page A.2.3. - Alternative Plan "B" This plan examines the economics of the Elfin Cove power system as described under Plan "A" with a diesel generator, plus a small hydro plant. It should be noted that this plan does not eliminate the diesel or its fuel requirements. Instead, it allows the diesel to operate at a lower power output and even to be shut down from time to time, thereby using less fuel. Initial examinations of the Elfin Cove area show that there are a number of arrangements which could provide a significant savings in diesel fuel, perhaps as much as 50 percent. Assuming the incorporation of simple hydro plant components and the availability of moderately skilled local labor, this plan has been calculated to have a total net present worth of $1,498,290 (in 1983 dollars) for the period 1983 through 2034. A.2.4. - Alternative Plan "C" This plan examines the economics of the continued use of home gener- ators to back up a small hydro plant. This plan has the disadvan- tage of requiring a fairly sophisticated control system. This con- trol system would compare village power needs and the hydro plant's available output. It would then identify those homes which would be dropped from the power system if available power was inadequate for the village. : The total net present worth of this plan has been calculated to have a total net present worth of $1,701,640 (in 1983 dollars) for the period 1983 through 2034. A.2.5 - Alternative Plan "D" This plan examines the economics of the use of both the hydro plant described in Alternative Plan "B" and a small (30 kW) wind turbine. It is possible that the time of year when Elfin Cove experiences its lowest levels of streamflow is a time when the area winds are blow- ing the strongest. This being the case, it is possible that the wind turbine could also help to hold village fuel consumption down. This alternative assumes the existence of a centralized diesel sys- tem to be used as a back-up power supply. Many of the small wind turbines presently available use induction or “asychronous" generat- ors aS a means of saving costs. These generators require that there be an operating utility system from which to draw magnetizing current. The use of home generators in for such a purpose would be unacceptable. The total net present worth of this plan has been calculated to have a total net present worth of $1,538,790 (in 1983 dollars) for the period 1983 through 2034. 3 page Comparative costs of electrical energy produced by each of the alterna- tive plans available to Elfin Cove are shown on Table 1. Comparisions between the costs of electricity and thermal energy available in Elfin Cove are shown in Figure 1. It is worth noting that the energy cost in $/kWh is not necessarily the cost which would be billed to the ultimate consumers. This figure, ex- pressed in 1983 dollars, does not take into account costs associated with the administration of the utility system, which could add as much as $0.10/kWh to the customers' costs. There was some discussion with Elfin Cove residents regarding local volunteer work to manage any util- ity system. While such an arrangement may not be workable in many other communities, it should be pointed out that many of the functions of a government are already done this way in Elfin Cove, so it may be possible that the administrative costs could be kept very low. Our costs also do not show the effect of the various subsidy and grant pro- grams which may be available. These programs are available only to the extent that the responsible government entities see them to be appro- priate and they may be discontinued at any time. TABLE 1 COMPARATIVE ESTIMATED ELECTRICAL ENERGY PRICES IN ELFIN COVE FOR BASE CASE PLANS AND ALTERNATIVES: 1983 TO 2002 page 5 VILLAGE-WIDE BASE CASE PLAN BASE CASE PLAN ALTERNATIVE "A" ALTERNATIVE "B" ALTERNATIVE "C" ALTERNATIVE "D" ENERGY RESIDENTIAL ENERGY COMMERCIAL ENERGY VILLAGE-WIDE ENERGY VILLAGE-WIDE ENERGY VILLAGE-WIDE ENERGY VILLAGE-WIDE ENERGY PRICE PRICE PRICE PRICE PRICE PRICE YEAR (1,000 kWh) ($/kWh) ($/kWh) ($/kWh) ($/kWh) ($/kWh) ($/kWh) 1983 61 0.73 0.59 0.52 0.52 0.64 0.52 1984 69 0.79 0.54 0.52 0.52 0.64 0.52 1985 75 0.79 0.52 0.73 0.68 0.75 0.68 1986 84 0.79 0.51 0.69 0.63 0.68 0.63 1987 92 0.77 0.48 0.65 0.59 0.64 0.59 1988 99 0.78 1,12 0.64 0.56 0.62 0.56 1989 104 0.78 -07 0.63 0.54 0.59 0.54 1990 112 0.79 1.03 0.62 0.52 0.57 0.52 1991 117 0.80 1.00 0.61 0.50 0.56 0.50 1992 123 0.83 0.97 0.60 0.50 0.54 0.50 1993 132 0.84 0.94 0.58 0.48 0.56 0.52 1994 133 0.84 0.96 0.59 0.47 0.56 0.53 1995 135 0. 86 0.96 0.60 0.48 0.56 0.52 1996 136 0.86 0.97 0.61 0.49 0.57 0.51 1997 139 0.89 0.97 0.61 0.49 0.57 0.53 1998 141 0.89 0.99 0.62 0.49 0.57 0.52 1999 141 0.91 0.99 0.62 0.49 0.57 0.52 2000 141 0.93 1.00 0.64 0.50 0.58 0.52 2001 141 0.96 1.01 0.65 0.50 0.59 0.52 2002 141 0.98 1.01 0.65 0.50 0.60 0.53 Notes: 1. The energy consumption projections given in this table assume the presence of a central utility system. costs to individual power producers. of this report. The energy prices given in the "Base Case Plan" cost columns reflect For a detailed discussion of this topic, see Part F 200 150 LL $/MILLION Btu ($1983) $/kWh ($1983) 50 -00 page 6 1983 (988 1993 Is98 2003 ENERGY COSTS FOR ELFIN COVE 1983 - 2002 RESIDENTIAL ELECTRICITY COSTS UNDER “BASE CASE" COMMERCIAL ELECTRICITY COSTS UNDER "BASE CASE" VILLAGE- WIDE ELECTRICITY COSTS UNDER “ALT A" VILLAGE-WIDE ELECTRICITY COSTS UNDER "ALT. B" VILLAGE-WIDE ELECTRICITY COSTS UNDER "ALT. c" VILLAGE-WIDE ELECTRICITY COSTS UNDER "ALT. D" COST OF HEAT FROM WOOD AT $150/CORD COST OF HEAT FROM OIL PAGE 7 B - DEMOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS B.1 - Location Elfin Cove is located approximately 65 nautical miles west of Juneau on the northern end of Chicagof Island. The village is sited in a small cove which protects it from the weather of the adjacent Gulf of Alaska. B.2 - Population Data obtained from the Community and Regional Affairs office in Juneau showed the following populations: 1970 . . . . . 49 residents 1980 . ... . 28 residents Further, C&RA data indicated that there were 13 "households" in Elfin Cove in 1980. Conversations with village residents raised some question of the valid- ity of these figures. The basic problem in identifying the "popula- tion" of Elfin Cove is that such a large percentage of its residents are active in the area's fishing industry and are only present during the fishing season: May to September. General numbers which those in- dividuals contacted in Elfin cove seemed to agree upon were that there were 29 "homes" in the village, most of which are occupied for most of the summer and only about 5 homes are occupied through the winter. It would appear that C&RA's data is valid if some consideration is made for the wildly fluctuating seasonality of the village population. Ad- ditional discussion of this phenomenon is included later in this report under the section dealing with energy use forecasts. B.3 - Economic Base The Elfin Cove economy has historically been dependent upon the fisher- ies industry, with most of the heads of households being involved with the harvest of salmon, bottomfish, and crab. With the declining health of the Alaska salmon industry, it is not likely that the contribution of the fisheries industry to the Elfin Cove economy will be an increas- ing one. Recently, there has been some activity in the village to attract some tourist trade. There is a small (4 bed) inn in the village, and some charter boat/fishing guide/hunting guide services are available. It is possible that the expansion of the tourist industry in Elfin Cove could mitigate the effect of the declining fishery harvests. It is also con- ceivable that the village could be increasingly attractive to weekend and holiday visitors from the Juneau area. PAGE 8 In addition to the fishery activities in the village, there are two general stores (one of which houses the Elfin Cove post office), an inn, a laundromat (which also has showers and a hot tub), a fish-buying scow, and a fuel depot. All of these businesses are closed outside of the fishing season, but one of the general stores has tenative plans to remain open on a year-round basis. One Elfin Cove resident has plans to construct a small machine shop there to provide services to the fishing fleet which operates in the area. An opening date for this machine shop is undetermined. { There are\ no schools\or government agency offices in Elfin Cove. \ B.4 - Local\Government The residents of Elfin Cove are organized as a nonprofit corporation, the most simple form of recognized government in the state. All prop- erty owners, whether or not they maintain a residence in the village, are given voting rights in village elections and referenda. The corporation owns and maintains a small community building/telephone building as well as the one telephone in the village. B.5 - Transportation Elfin Cove is accessible only by boat and float-equipped aircraft. The surrounding terrain is so rugged as to make the construction of a land airstrip rather impractical. Regular air service to the village is provided by Channel Flying Service which operates out of Juneau, ap- proximately 45 minutes away by air. There are also a number of charter flying services in Juneau which provide service to Elfin Cove. Most goods are transported to the village by small freight vessels which can make the trip from Juneau in about 12 hours. For some of these boats, access to some of the dock facilities is dependent upon tide conditions. There are no roads in the village or surrounding area due to the rugged terrain. All businesses and most homes in the village are connected to a rather extensive boardwalk system. Access to homes away from "down- town" Elfin Cove is usually by small skiff. PAGE 9 C_- COMMUNITY MEETING REPORT Acres personnel James Landman and Wayne Dyok arrived in Elfin Cove in the afternoon of May 11, 1983. Some time on the llth and 12th was spent in informal discussions with a number of Elfin Cove residents ex- plaining the purpose of the study and trying to develop an understand- ing of the residents' opinions on energy use in the village. A "formal" meeting was advertised and held on the morning of May 13 on the boardwalk outside the telephone building. About 8 village resi- dents (a third of the population at that time of year), turned out for the meeting, which lasted nearly an hour. Messrs. Landman and Dyok explained the reconnaissance study process and what results could be expected by the village. They then began a two- way discussions with the village residents on a number of topics relat- ed to energy use in the village. Of most interest to Elfin Cove residents seemed to be the possibility of developing a utility system based on a micro-hydro plant in the vil- lage. There was an impression that such a system could provide "free" electricity, which would obviate the need for a bureaucratic structure to collect payment for the energy. The potential drawbacks to "free" energy were then the subject of some discussion. It was agreed that a key condition to having a central utility system in Elfin Cove was that its electricity be reasonably priced. Most homes now have individually owned and operated gasoline or diesel generating plants. Residents who have these plants do not consider them especially expensive to operate, but some mentioned that they would sometimes appreciate the convenience of a centrally operated utility system. Because of the close relationship Elfin Cove residents have with the sea, they are especially conscious of the tidal velocities in and out of their cove. A number of residents reported tidal velocities on the order of 8 - 12 knots. The idea of tidal power plants was raised re- peatedly during the study team's visit to the visit. A brief discus- sion of the impracticality of using the velocity of a tidal current (as opposed to having a storage basin to provide a large head of water) was given by Mr. Dyok whenever the issue arose. Due to Elfin Cove's proximity to the Gulf of Alaska, it could be ex- pected that exposed hilltops could experience significant winds and make the village a logical site for a wind turbine. Some interest was expressed in exploring the potential for wind energy developément in the village. An concern of a number of the people in Elfin Cove was that if a cen- tralized utility system was constructed, people who would otherwise not choose to live in the village would begin to move there. PAGE 10 D_- EXISTING POWER AND HEATING FACILITIES Elfin Cove presently has no centralized generation facilities. People in the village who want or need electric power own individual generator sets. Homes were most commonly equipped with gasoline powered generat- ors of approximately 3.5 kW capacity. Some homeowners have small die- sel sets and one individual had a small wind generator. There were a number of homes which had small battery banks to operate lights and some small appliances (radios, clocks) when the generators were off- line. A single 60 kW generator was being installed to serve one gener- al store, the inn, and the laundromat/shower/hot tub facility. The general store/post office has its own generator (of unknown rating). Boat owners who need power to perform maintenance on their vessels must take their own generators to the docks A new telephone system was being installed which would apparently have an sattelite earth station. There was some concern over how much ener- gy the new system would require at the village telephone building and at the earth station site (which was located some distance away from the village). It was unknown whether the system would require its own generator(s) or if some centrally installed system could provide the required energy. Most homes are heated with wood, which is abundant in the area. Some woodstoves are equipped with heat exchangers to provide hot water in the homes. In addition to wood heat, some homes use oi] stoves to pro- vide home heat, hot water, and cooking energy. PAGE 11 E - ELFIN COVE ENERGY BALANCE In Elfin Cove, most of the energy consumed goes toward powering the fishing vessels. A study of that end use is beyond the scope of this report, which addresses only the energy used for electricity and heat. Of these two categories, most of the energy used in Elfin Cove goes toward heating (both space heating and water heating). The use of electricity in the village is very minor. The development of the energy balance for Elfin Cove presented some difficulties for a number of reasons. First, because there is no cen- tral power generation system, there is no metering of either the fuel used to produce the electricity or of the electric energy consumed, our data on electricity uses are very rough estimates. Secondly, because the fuel dealer does not differentiate between diesel fuel sold to be used for transportation and fuel used for power generation or heating, the space heating requirements are estimates also. It is hoped that the review of this draft report by Elfin Cove residents will help to refine the data presented here. TABLE 2 ENERGY BALANCE FOR ELFIN COVE - 1983 (An Estimate of the Village's Energy Sources and Uses) FUEL ESTIMATED TY PICAL QUANTITY NET ENERGY TYPE COST END USES CONSUMED ANNUALLY (million Btu) WOOD (see note 1) HOME HEATING, 29 cords 174 WATER HEATING, 10 cords 60 COOKING 2 cords 12 FUEL $1.39/gal TRANSPORTATION 22? 22? OIL : * HOME HEATING 1,600 gal 107 OCOMM'L HEATING 1,500 gal 100 POWER GEN. 6,000 gal 120 GASOLINE $1.50 TRANSPORTATION 22? 22? POWER GEN. 8,000 gal 82 PROPANE $0.45/1b COOKING 3,000 Ib <5 Note 1. Individual Elfin Cove residents may apply different values to the time and effort used to harvest their own firewood. A value of $150 per cord was used to develop Figure 1 (in Part A). ELFIN COVE ENERGY BALANCE - - 1983 2it MBtu eae HOME 281 MBtu ang ste FUEL OIL - 198 MBio ENERGY 201 MBtu 423 MBtu WSABLE HEAT COMM'L. HTG _100 MBtu (98. MBtu 98 MBtu @WASTED ENERGY ELECTRICITY 202 MBtu POWER GENERATION GASOLINE 1,792 MBtu 1,000 MBtu WASTED ENERGY 4 1,590 MBtu Wood 697 MBtu ABLE HEA WATER HTC. 60 Mei) a 170 MBtu 10 MBtu 98 tWASTED HEAT = PROPANE <5. MBtu COOK! (7 MBtu Ar [Sete Coe er oeecencee | IS AIRE ENERGY PAGE F - ENERGY REQUIREMENTS FORECAST F.1 - General The estimates provided here for future energy requirements in Elfin Cove are based on a number of assumptions regarding the future economic state of the village, population increases or decreases, and the sea- sonality of that population. Where it is possible, a discussion of the rationale upon which the various assumptions were based will be included. F.2 - Capital Projects Forecast F.2.1 - Known Future Capital Improvements (a) New telephone system (1983) (b) Machine shop (1988 ???) F.2.2 - Potential Future Capital Improvements (a) Community building (1985 ??7) (b) School (1988 ??7) (c) New lodge (or other expansion of tourist facilities) (1988 ??7?) F.2.3 - Economic Forecast Elfin Cove's raison d'etre is its role as a service port for fishing vessels operating in the nearby Gulf of Alaska waters. The recent declining health of the Alaska fishing industry may very well con- tinue into the future. If this is the case, the village could cease to exist without some other source of economic support. There is some likelihood that an effort to develop a tourist industry in the area could offset the loss of fishing jobs. No other sources of en- ployment in Elfin Cove are forseen. F.3 - Population Forecast As was mentioned before, figures provided by Community & Regional Af- fairs showed a drastic decrease in the village's population between 1970 and 1980. It is worth repeating that, due to the seasonality of the village's population, the validity of the C&RA numbers is dependent upon what time of year their surveys were taken. Unfortunately, this is not known. For purposes of this report, population forecasts will be based on the number of homes in the village and their occupancy in different times of the year. This is a reasonable approach, since our interest lies in the energy uses of individual homes (and businesses), rather than the energy consumed by each person in those homes. One local source told the visiting study team that there were presently 29 homes or apart- ments (dwelling units) in Elfin Cove. Another told us that of these, HS PAGE only about five had been used on a year-round basis recent years. It was reported that several years ago, as many as ten or twelve homes were used throughout the year. During the fishing season, the occupan- cy rate rises dramatically. Some Elfin Cove residents said that all of the homes were occupied in the summers; some said that an occupancy rate of about 75 percent was more realistic. Because of the wide swings in village population with the season, it was necessary to de- velop forecasts of households for both summer (May through September) and winter (October through April) seasons. It ‘is the opinion of Acres' staff that the decline of the fishing in- dustry in Elfin Cove will be relatively slow and that any loss of vil- lage residents due to this decline will be made up for by an expanding tourism industry. We therefore assume a fairly slow growth in the village. TABLE 3 Projections of Number of Homes in Elfin Cove Homes Occupied Homes Occupied Total May - September October - April Year Homes Percent Number Percent Number 1983 29 8 % 25 17 % 5 1984 31 87 27 16 5 1985 31 87 27 16 5 1986 32 88 28 19 6 1987 32 88 28 22 7 1988 32 88 28 22 7 1989 32 88 28 22 7 1990 33 91 30 ral 7 1991 33 91 30 21 7 1992 34 91 31 21 7 1993 34 91 31 24 8 1994 34 91 31 24 8 1995 34 91 31 24 8 1996 34 91 31 24 8 1997 35 91 32 23 8 1998 35 91 32 23 8 1999 35 91 32 23 8 2000 35 91 32 23 8 2001 35 91 32 23 8 2002 35 91 32 23 8 14 page F.4 - Electrical Energy Forecast The lack of a central generation system in Elfin Cove complicates the forecast of future electrical energy needs somewhat. The procedure used was to develop two forecasts: one projecting energy needs as if the present situation (individually supplied power) continued, the other assuming that a centralized system of some sort is installed. Elfin Cove residents presently practice a very high degree of electric energy conservation: they simply use very few electrical devices. Most homes use electricity for a few lights and perhaps a CB radio. Even though no television stations can be received in Elfin Cove, some homes have televisions, either for use with VCR's or with video games, a few other homes have washing machines. Even with no central utility, it can be expected that the per-household use of electric energy in Elfin Cove will increase in the future. This growth is expected to be very slow. If a centralized system is installed which makes electricity available at the flip of a switch, the increase in electricity use can be expect- ed to be much more rapid. This effect is to be expected: regardless of the source of the electric power (diesel, hydro, wind, etc). There was some discussion by Elfin Cove residents about "free" electricity from a hydroelectric facility at the village. It is the opinion of Acres' staff that if there were no charge for electric energy in the village, sO many uses would be found for the power that the small hydro poten- tial there would quickly be used up. Therefore, the load forecasts which assume the existence of a central utility also assume that a "reasonable" amount will be charged for the use of the electricity. A starting point in the electric energy forecast is an estimate of how much electricity will be used this year (1983). Without the metering capabilities of a central utility from which historic data could be gathered, this task becomes a bit of guesswork. The approach taken by Acres is to make estimates of how many homes have certain energy con- suming appliances. Knowing a "typical" appliance's energy consumption, we can estimate how much electricity a "typical" home will use. Our forecasts of appliance saturation are shown on the following page. 15 page 16 TABLE 4 Market Penetration Levels of Various Appliances at Elfin Cove (Assuming NO Central Utility ("Non-Random" and "On-Line" Appliances (note 1)) SATURATION (note 2) Typical Annual Appliance Demand Energy Use 1983 198 1993 1998 2003 Lights (note 3) 400 W 2,500 kWh 1.0 1-0 10 1.0 130 Refrigerator 400 900 0.0 0.2 032 0.3 0:3 Freezer 400 900 0.1 O72 O33) ORS) 0.3 Kitchen Appliance (note 4) 1,000 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 Televisions 70 150 On2 0.5 Bz Oo7 Ofa7) ("Random" and "Occasional-Use" Appliances (note 5)) Appliance 1983 1987 1992 1997 2003 Washing Machine 300 W 100 kWh Onl 0.1 052 0.2 022 Clothes Iron 1,000 60 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 Radio/Stereo 20 100 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.9 Sewing Machine 150 10 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 Clock 2 20 1.0 1.0 10) 1.0 1.0 Power Tools 750 300 0.9 1.0 L320 150 1.0 Notes: I. Appliances termed "Non-Random" and "On-Line" are those appliances which are either in service at all times (refrigerators, freezers, etc) or are in use at fairly predictable times (kitchen appliances such as coffee pots, televisions, lights, etc). The energy use of appliances such as refrigeratars which cycle on and off is’ calculated using an assumed load factor for those appliances 2. The term "Saturation" is used to describe the extent to which particular devices are used by village residents. It is expressed in terms of the fraction of homes which use those particular devices. 3. Lights are all assumed to be 100 W, with 4 in use in the "typical" home. 4. The generic "kitchen appliance" is assumed to be some commonly-used appliance such as a coffee pot, toaster, waffle iron, hot plate, etc. 5. Appliances termed "Random" and "Occasional-Use" are those appliances which used so infrequently that predicting the time of day they are likely to be used is impractical or appliances which consume miniscule amounts of electricity. page Considering the data presented on Table 4 and the seasonal population of Elfin Cove, we may now develop residential electric energy use fore- casts for 20 years hence (to 2002), assuming that no central utility system will be installed in the village. These forecasts are presented on the following pages. The first set of tables (Table 5a through 5j) shows the assumptions used to develop the daily consumption patterns of a “typical" Elfin Cove home assuming that there will be no centralized utility available from which power will be available on demand. These residential load models are developed for both winter and summer conditions at 5-year intervals over the next 20 years, ending in 2003. The model assumes that virtually every home generator will be shut down at about 10:30 pm and not restarted until 6:00 am the following morning (It is presumed that freezers will be well enough insulated that their contents will not spoil under such conditions.). Following these load models is a projection of future residential elec- trical energy use on a village-wide basis. Using the summer and winter projections at 5-year intervals, linear interpolations are made for the intervening years. This data is presented on Table 6. V7, re = roe men ~— “ o = TABLE 5a page 18 RESIDENTIAL LOAD MODEL "Typical" Residence: May - September 1983 (5 months) (Assuming NO Central Utility) Equivalent Units Per Power Demand Power Demand Hours of Energy Time of Day Consuming Item(s) Home Per Unit Saturation Per Home Operation Consumption mo — 6:00 am (no load) 1 Oo. 1.0 ow 6.0 hr -00 kWh 6:00 - 8:30 am lights 3 100 1.0 300 1.5 245 freezer 1 400 0.1 40 0.8 . 03 6:30 - 7:00 am kitchen appliance 1 1,000 0.8 800 0.5 40 8:30 am - 4:30 pm lights 1 “100 1.0 100 8.0 - 80 freezer 1 400 0.1 40 2.4 10 television 1 70 0.2 14 2.0 - 03 4:30 - 10:30 pm lights 3 100 1.0 300 6.0 1.80 freezer 1 400 0.1 40 1.8 .07 5:00 - 6:00 pm kitchen appliance 1 1,000 0.8 800 1.0 - 80 6:00 - 10:00 pm television 1 70 0.2 14 4.0 - 06 10:30 - mn (no load) 1 0 1.0 0 Less -00 Daily Use: 4.54 kWh Monthly Use: 136.20 Random Loads: 14.20 TOTAL MONTHLY USE: 150.40 kWh page 19 TABLE 5b RESIDENTIAL LOAD MODEL "Typical" Residence: October - April 1983 (7 months) (Assuming NO Central Utility) Equivalent Units Per Power Demand Power Demand Hours of Energy Time of Day Consuming Item(s) Home Per Unit Saturation Per Home Operation Consumption mn = - 6:00 am (no load) 1 ow 1.0 ow 6.0 hr -00 kWh 6:00 - 8:30 am lights 4 100 1.0 400 1.5 -60 freezer 1 400 0.1 40 0.8 -03 6:30 - 7:00 am kitchen appliance (?) 1 1,000 0.8 800 0.5 40 8:30 am - 4:30 pm lights 2 100 1.0 200 8.0 1.60 freezer 1 400 0.1 40 2.4 -10 television 1 70 0.2 14 2.0 - 03 4:30 - 10:30 pm lights 4 100 1.0 400 6.0 2.40 freezer 1 400 0.3 120 1.8 -22 5:00 - 6:00 pm kitchen appliance 1 1,000 0.8 800 1.0 - 80 6:00 - 10:00 pm IV 2 70 0.2 4 4.0 06 10:30 - mn (no load) 1 0 1.0 0 1.5 -00 Daily Use: 6.24 kWh Monthly Use: 187.20 Random Loads: —_ 14.20 TOTAL MONTHLY USE: 201.40 kWh page 20 TABLE 5c RESIDENTIAL LOAD MODEL "Typical" Residence: May - September 1988 (5 months) (Assuming NO Central Utility) Equivalent Units Per Power Demand Power Demand Hours of Energy Time of Day Consuming Item(s) Home Per Unit Saturation Per Home Operation Consumption mo = 6:00 am (no load) 1 ow 1.0 o WwW 6.0 hr -00 kWh 6:00 - 8:30 am lights 3 100 1.0 300 1.5 245 refrigerator 1 400 0.2 80 1.0 . 08 freezer 1 400 0.2 80 0.8 06 6:30 - 7:00 am kitchen appliance (?) 1 1,000 0.9 900 0.5 45 8:30 am - 4:30 pm lights 1 100 1.0 100 8.0 -80 refrigerator 1 400 0.2 80 3.2 - 26 freezer 1 400 0.2 80 2.4 -19 television 1 70 0.5 35 2.0 -O7 4:30 - 10:30 pm lights 3 100 1.0 300 6.0 1.80 refrigerator 1 400 0.2 80 2.4 19 freezer 1 400 0.2 80 1.8 -14 5:00 - 6:00 pm kitchen appliance 1 1,000 “0.9 900 1.0 -90 6:00 - 10:00 pm IV 1 70 0.5 ° 35 4.0 14 10:30 - mn (no load) 1 0 1.0 0 1.5 00 Daily Use: 5.53 kWh Monthly Use: 165.90 Random Loads: 15.10 TOTAL MONTHLY USE: 181.00 kWh "Typical" Residence: Boa TABLE 5d RESIDENTIAL LOAD MODEL (Assuming NO Central Utility page 21 October - April 1988 (7 months) Equivalent Units Per Power Demand Power Demand Hours of Energy Time of Day Consuming Item(s) Home Per Unit Saturation Per Home Operation Consumption mn - 6:00 am (no load) 2: ow 1.0 ow 6.0 hr .00 kWh 6:00 - 8:30 am lights 4 100 1.0 400 TS 0 refrigerator 1 400 0.2 80 1.0 08 freezer 1 400 0.2 80 0.8 06 6:30 - 7:00 am kitchen appliance al 1,000 0.9 900 0.5 45 8:30 am - 4:30 pm lights 2 100 1.0 200 8.0 1.60 refrigerator 1 400 0.2 80 3.2 - 26 freezer z 400 0.2 80 2.4 19 television 1 70 0.5 35 2.0 07 4:30 - 10:30 pm lights 4 100 1.0 400 6.0 2.40 refrigerator 1 400 0.2 80 2.4 19 freezer 1 400 0.2 80 1.8 14 5:00 - 6:00 pm kitchen appliance 1 1,000 0.9 900 1.0 -90 6:00 - 10:00 pm_ IV 1 70 0.5 35 4.0 14 10:30 - mn (no load) 1 0 1.0 0 15 .00 Daily Use: 7.08 kWh Monthly Use: 212.40 Random Loads: _ 15.10 TOTAL MONTHLY USE: 227.50 kWh ma s _— « _ En" oan _ —— _ om _ page 22 TABLE 5e RESIDENTIAL LOAD MODEL "Typical" Residence: May - September 1993 (5 months) (Assuming NO Central Utility) Equivalent Units Per Power Demand Power Demand Hours of Energy Time of Day Consuming Item(s) Home Per Unit Saturation Per Home Operation Consumption mo == 6:00 am (no load) 1 ow 1.0 Oo oW 6.0 hr -00 kWh 6:00 - 8:30 am lights 3 100 1.0 300 1.5 245 refrigerator 1 400 0.2 80 1.0 -08 freezer 1 400 0.3 120 0.8 -10 6:30 - 7:00 am kitchen appliance 1 1,000 0.9 900 0.5 45 8:30 am - 4:30 pm lights 1 100 1.0 100 8.0 -80 refrigerator 1 400 0.2 80 3.2 26 freezer 1 400 0.3 120 2.4 29 television i 70 0.7 49 2.0 -10 4:30 - 10:30 pm_ lights 3 100 1.0 300 6.0 1.80 refrigerator X 400 0.2 80 2.4 19 freezer 1 400 0.3 120 1.8 +22 5:00 - 6:00 pm kitchen appliance 1 1,000 0.9 900 1.0 90 6:00 - 10:00 pm TV 1 70 0.7 49 4.0 -20 10:30 - mn (no load) 1 0 1.0 0 1.5 . 00 Daily Use: 5.84 kWh Monthly Use: 175.20 Random Loads: _ 16.10 TOTAL MONTHLY USE: 191.30 kWh . ~ = Sa _— _— — _ —, — page 23 TABLE 5f RESIDENTIAL LOAD MODEL "Typical" Residence: October - April 1993 (7 months) (Assuming NO Central Utility) Equivalent Units Per Power Demand Power Demand Hours of Energy Time of Day Consuming Item(s) Home Per Unit Saturation Per Home Operation Consumption mn = - 6:00 am (no load) 1 Ow 1.0 ow 6.0 hr -00 kWh 6:00 - 8:30 am lights 4 100 1.0 400 1.5 60 refrigerator 1 400 0.2 80 1.0 08 freezer 1 400 0.3 120 0.8 -10 6:30 - 7:00 am kitchen appliance 1 1,000 0.9 900 0.5 45 8:30 am - 4:30 pm lights 2 100 1.0 200 8.0 1.60 refrigerator 1 400 0.2 80 3.2 26 freezer 1 400 0.3 120 2.4 29 television 1 70 0.7 49 2.0 -10 4:30 - 10:30 pm lights 4 100 1.0 400 6.0 2.40 refrigerator 1 400 0.2 80 2.4 19 freezer 1 400 0.3 120 1.8 22 5:00 - 6:00 pm kitchen appliance 1 1,000 0.9 900 1.0 90 6:00 - 10:00 pm TV 1 70 0.7 49 4.0 -20 10:30 - mn (no load) 1 0 1.0 0 1.5 - 00 Daily Use: 7.39 kWh Monthly Use: 221.70 Random Loads: _ 16.10 TOTAL MONTHLY USE: 237.80 kWh Time of Day mn = 6:00 am 6:00 - 8:30 am 6:30 - 7:00 am 8:30 am - 4:30 pm 4:30 - 10:30 pm 5:00 - 6:00 pm 6:00 - 10:00 pm 10:30 - mn "Typical" Residence: TABLE RESIDENTIAL LOAD MODEL (Assuming NO Central Utility) May - September 1998 (5 months) page 24 Equivalent Units Per Power Demand Power Demand Hours of Energy Consuming Item(s) Home Per Unit Saturation Per Home Operation Consumption (no load) 1 Ow 1.0 ow 6.0 hr -00 kWh lights 2 100 1.0 300 T35 45 refrigerator 1 400 0.3 120 1.0 212 freezer 1 400 0.3 120 0.8 -10 kitchen appliance 1 1,000 0.9 900 0.5 45 lights 1 100 1.0 100 8.0 .80 refrigerator. 1 400 0.3 120 3.2 38 freezer 1 400 0.3 120 2.4 29 television 1 70 0.7 49 2.0 -10 lights 5 100 1.0 300 6.0 1.80 refrigerator 1 400 0.3 120 2.4 29 freezer 1 400 0.3 120 1.8 22 kitchen appliance 1 1,000 0.9 900 1.0 90 WV 1 70 0:7 49 4.0 -20 (no load) 1 0 1.0 0 15) 00 Daily Use: 6.10 kWh Monthly Use: 183.00 Random Loads: _ 16.90 TOTAL MONTHLY USE: 199.90 kWh _—_ - ms —_— - =e fr a _—- — — — — page 25 TABLE 5h RESIDENTIAL LOAD MODEL "Typical" Residental Unit: October - April 1998 (7 months) (Assuming NO Central Utility) Equivalent Units Per Power Demand Power Demand Hours of Energy Time of Day Consuming Item(s) Home Per Unit Saturation Per Home Operation Consumption mn = 6:00 am (no load) 1 ow 1.0 ow 6.0 hr .00 kWh 6:00 - 8:30 am lights 4 100 1.0 400 1.5 -60 refrigerator 1 400 0.3 120 1.0 ol?) freezer i 400 0.3 120 0.8 -10 6:30 - 7:00 am kitchen appliance 1 1,000 0.9 900 0.5 45 8:30 am - 4:30 pm lights 2 100 1.0 200 8.0 1.60 refrigerator iu 400 0.3 120 3.2 38 freezer 1 400 0.3 120 2.4 29 television 1 70 0.7 49 2.0 .10 4:30 - 10:30 pm lights 4 100 1.0 400 6.0 2.40 refrigerator 1 400 0.3 120 2.4 29 freezer 1 400 0.3 120 1.8 222 5:00 - 6:00 pm kitchen appliance 1 1, 000 0.9 900 1.0 90 6:00 - 10:00 pm ITV 1 70 0.7 49 4.0 -20 10:30 - mn (no load) 1 0 1.0 0 1.5 -00 Daily Use: 7.65 kWh Monthly Use: 229.50 Random Loads: _ 16.90 TOTAL MONTHLY USE: 246.40 kWh "Typical" Residence: TABLE 5i RESIDENTIAL LOAD MODEL (Assuming NO Central Utility) May - September 2003 (5 months) page 26 Equivalent Units Per Power Demand Power Demand Hours of Eneray Time of Day Consuming Item(s) Home Per Unit Saturation Per Home Operation Consumption mn = - 6:00 am (no load) 1 ow 1.0 ow 6.0 hr ~00 kWh 6:00 - 8:30 am lights 3 100 1.0 300 1.5 45 refrigerator 1 400 0.3 120 1.0 12 freezer 1 400 0.3 120 0.8 -10 6:30 - 7:00 am kitchen appliance 1 1,000 0.9 900 0.5 45 8:30 am - 4:30 pm lights 1 100 1.0 100 8.0 . 80 refrigerator 1 400 0.3 120 3.2 38 freezer 1 400 0.3 120 2.4 229 television 1 70 0.7 49 2.0 -10 4:30 - 10:30 pm_ lights 3 100 1.0 300 6.0 1.80 refrigerator 1 400 0.3 120 2.4 29 freezer 1 400 0.3 120 1.8 22 5:00 - 6:00 pm kitchen appliance 1 1,000 0.9 900 1.0 -90 6:00 - 10:00 pm TV 1 70 0.7 49 4.0 -20 10:30 - mn (no load) 1 0 1.0 0 1.5 .00 Daily Use: 6.10 kWh Monthly Use: 183.00 Random Loads: 16.90 TOTAL MONTHLY USE: 199.90 kWh page 27 TABLE 5. RESIDENTIAL LOAD MODEL "Typical" Residental Unit: October - April 2003 (7 months) (Assuming NO Central Utility) Equivalent Units Per Power Demand Power Demand Hours of Energy Time of Day Consuming Item(s) Home Per Unit Saturation Per Home Operation Consumption mn = 6:00 am (no load) 1 ow 1.0 ow 6.0 hr -00 kWh 6:00 - 8:30 am lights 4 100 1.0 400 135 0 refrigerator 1 400 0.3 120 1.0 12 freezer 1 400 0.3 120 0.8 -10 6:30 - 7:00 am kitchen appliance 1 1,000 0.9 900 0.5 45 8:30 am - 4:30 pm lights 2 100 1.0 200 8.0 1.60 refrigerator 1 400 0.3 120 3.2 38 freezer 1 400 0.3 120 2.4 -29 television 1 70 0.7 49 2.0 -10 4:30 - 10:30 pm lights 4 100 1.0 400 6.0 2.40 refrigerator 1 400 0.3 120 2.4 29 freezer 1 400 0.3 120 1.8 22 5:00 - 6:00 pm kitchen appliance 1 1,000 0.9 900 1.0 90 6:00 - 10:00 pm IV 1 70 0.7 49 4.0 -20 10:30 - mn (no load) 1 0 1.0 0 5 -00 Daily Use: 7.65 kWh Monthly Use: 229.50 Random Loads: _ 16.90 TOTAL MONTHLY USE: 246.40 kWh Year 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 “2002 Homes 25 27 27 28 28 28 28 30 30 31 ol 31 31 31 32 32 32 32 32 32 TABL E 6 Forecasts of Residential Electric Energy Use (Assuming NO Centra Utility) May to September kWh/home Total kWh Homes 150. 156. 162. 168. 174. 181. 183. 18. 187. 189. 191. 193. 194. 19%. 198. 199. 199. 199. 199. 199. wwwww NON O WwW NNR rO OND LS 18 ,800 a1 ,128 21,951 23 ,618 24 486 25 ,340 25 ,034 27 , 765 28 ,080 29 ,326 29 ,652 29 ,915 30,179 30 , 458 sls7i2 31 , 984 31,984 31 ,984 31,984 31 984 NOOO NSNNN™N @ 00 @ 000% October to April kWh/home Total kWh Annual kWh 201. 206. abe 217 222. 227. 229. 23L. 233% 235. 237. 239. 241. 243. 244. 246. 246. 246. 246. 246. 4 NN ODO wroaon NOM M0 PHPRPHHL 7,049 ' 7,231 7,413 9,118 10 ,893 11,148 11,250 11,348 11,451 11,549 13 5317 13,412 13,507 13 ,608 133703 13,798 13,798 13,798 13,798 13 ,798 page 28 Total 25 ,849 28 ,359 29 ,364 32 ,736 35 ,379 36 ,488 36 ,884 39 ,113 39 ,531 40 ,875 42 ,969 43 ,327 43 ,686 44 ,066 45 ,415 45 ,782 45 ,782 45 ,782 45 5782 45 ,782 page 29 The residential load models can be used to forecast peak residential power demand. For example, in the winter season of 1998, our "typical" home will have a peak power demand of 1,540 W (1.54 kW) during the time when dinner is likely to be prepared, 5:00 to 6:00 pm. Keeping in mind that not all households will be busy fixing dinner at that time, we will apply a "diversity factor" of 0.8 to the village as a whole to arrive at a peak residential demand in Elfin Cove during the winter of 1998: 1.54 kW/home x 8 homes x 0.8 = 9.9 kW By applying this technique, we calculated the residential loads in the other years as follows: YEAR SUMMER WINTER 1983 1.14 x 2 x 0.8 = 22.8 kW 1.32 x5 x 0.8 = 5.3 kW 1988 1.36 x 28 x 0.8 = 30.5 1.46 x 7 x 0.8 = 8.2 1993 1.40 x 31 x 0.8 = 34.7 1.50 x 8 x 0.8 = 9.6 1998 1.44 x 32 x 0.8 = 36.9 1.54 x 8 x 0.8 = 9.9 2003 1.44 x 32 x 0.8 = 36.9 1.54 x8 x 0.8 = 9.9 In addition to this residential load, the village will have to supply various commercial and community loads. These are estimated to be as follows: i 1983 LOAD SUMMER LOAD WINTER LOAD ANNUAL kWh General Store 10 kW 1,800 kWh/mo 10 kW 1,440 kWh/mo 19,080 General Store 10 1,800 0 0 9,000 Inn 3 540 0 0 2,700 Laundromat 3 430 0 0 2,150 Telephone System 3 216 3: 216 2,590 TOTALS 29 kW 4,786 kWh/mo 13 kW 1,656 kWh/mo 35,522 1988 LOAD SUMMER LOAD WINTER LOAD ANNUAL kWh General Store 10 kW 1,800 kWh/mo 10 kW 1,440 kWh/mo 19,080 General Store 10 1,800 0 0 9,000 Machine Shop 20 1,150 20 800 11,350 Inn 3 540 3 540 6,480 Laundromat 3 430 0 0 2,150 Telephone Syst. 3 216 3 216 2,592 Community Bldg. 2 30 ne) 30 360 TOTALS: 51 kW 5,966 kWh/mo 38 kW 3,026 kWh/mo 51,012 page 30 1993, 1998, AND 2003 LOAD SUMMER LOAD WINTER LOAD ANNUAL kWh General Store 10 kW 1,800 kWh/mo 10 kW 1,440 kWh/mo 19,080 General Store 10 1,800 0 0 9,000 Machine Shop 20 L150 20 800 1155350 School (note 1) 0 0 8 1,600 14,400 Inn 3 540 8 540 6 ,480 Lodge 3 540 0 0 2,700 Laundromat 3 430 0 0 2,150 Telephone Syst. 3 216 3 216 2,592 Community Bldg. _2 30 12! 30 360 TOTALS: 5 £ kW 6,506 kWh/mo 46 4,626 kWh/mo 68,112 The likelihood of actually experiencing the peak loads shown (54 kW in the summer months in the table above, for example) is actually quite low. Again, a “diversity factor" is applied to these demands to pro- duce a village average load for the commercial/institutional sector. This time, the diversity factor selected will be 0.6. This will give peak loads of: YEAR SUMMER WINTER 1983 29 kW x 0.6 = 17.4 kW 13 kW x 0.6 = 7.8 kW 1988 51 x 0.6 = 30.6 38 x 0.6 = 22.8 1993 - 2003 54 x 0.6 = 32.4 46 x 0.6 = 27.6 To produce demand estimates of intermediate years, linear interpolation will be performed on these "snapshot" estimates. We are now in a position to provide a comprehensive forecast of the electrical energy needs of Elfin Cove for the 20-year scope of this study. The table on the following page shows this forecast. Note Ll. It is expected that the school will be in session for 9 months (September through May) even though it is listed in the table as an October-April load. The school's annual consumption shown is calculated as being 9 times its winter monthly use. page 31 TABLE 7 Electric Energy Consumption in Elfin Cove 1983 - 2003 (Assuming NO Central Utility) | SUMMER I WINTER || ANNUAL | lI || ENERGY | tennant al | Commercial | Total lI tender iy 1 | Conmereiel | Total || _use__ YEAR | kW Wh | kW kWh | kW kWh | kW Wh | kW Wh | kW kWh | kWh | 1983 | 23 18,800] 17 23,900 40° 42,700|| 5 7 “ool 8 ll “ool 13 18,600 || 61,300 1984 | 24 21,100] 20 25,100 | 44 46,200|| 5 7,200] 1 13,500 | 16 20,700 || 66,900 1985 | 26 22,000| 23 26,300 | 49 48,300|| 6 7,400| 14 15,400] 20 22,800 || 71,100 1986 | 27 23,600| 25 27,400 | 52 oe 6 9,100] 17 17,400] 23 26,500 || 77,500 1987 | 29 24,500| 28 28,600 | 57 53,100|| 7 10,90| 20 19,300| 27 30,200 | 83, 300 1988 | 30 25,300] 31 29,800 | 61 55,100|] 8 1,100] 23 21,200] 31 32,300 || 987,400 1989 | 31 25,600| 31 30,300 | 62 55,90|| 8 io | 24 24,100| 32 35,300 || 91,200 1990 | 32 27,800| 31 30,900 | 63 58,700|] 8 11,300| 25 27,000] 33 38,300 || 97,000 1991 | 33 28,100] 31 31,400 | 64 a 9 00 | 26 29,800] 35 41,200 100,700 1992 | 34 29,300] 32 32,000 66 61, 300 9 11,500] 27 32,700] 36 44,200 105, 500 1993 | 35 29,600| 32 32,500 | 67 62,100|| 10 oe 28 ©35,600| 38 48,900 111,000 1994 | 35 29,90] 32 32,500 | 67 62,400|| 10 13,400] 28 35,600| 38 49,000 111, 400 1995 | 35 30,200] 32 32,500 67 62,700|| 10 13,500] 28 ee 38 49,100 || 111,800 1996 | 36 30,400] 32 32,500 68 62,900 || 10 an 28 35,600] 38 49,200 || 112,100 1997 | 36 31,700| 32 32,500 | 68 64,200]| 10 13,700] 28 35,600| 38 49,300 || 113,500 1998 | 37 32,000] 32 32,500 | 69 64,500|| 10 13,800| 26 35,600] 38 49,400 | 113,900 1999 | 37 32,000| 32 32,500 69 64,500|] 10 13,800| 28 35,600] 38 49,400 || 113,900 2000 | 37 32,000] 32 32,500 | 69 64,500]] 10 13,800| 28 35,600| 38 49,400 || 113,900 2001 | 37 32,000| 32 32,500 | 69 64,500|| 10 13,800| 28 35,600] 38 49,400 || 113,900 2002 | 37 32,000] 32 32,500 | 69 64,500]] 10 13,800] 28 35,600] 38 49,400 || 113,900 page /32/ The procedure for developing load forecasts which assume that a cen- tralized utility systen does exist in Elfin Cove is identical to that employed for the no-utility case. The differences between the scenar- jos come largely from the greater reliance on electrical appliances and the more rapid penetration of electric appliances in the household. The tables below show the greater rate of appliance use when electric- ity is available "on demand". TABLE 8 Market Penetration Levels of Various Appliances at Elfin Cove (Assuming the Existence of a Central Utility) ("Non-Random" and "On-Line" Appliances (see note 1)) SATURATION (note 2) Typical Annual Appliance Demand Energy Use 1983 1988 1993 1998 2003 Lights (note 3) 400 W 7 kW 1.0 T.0 T.0 T.0 T.0 Refrigerator 400 900 0.0 0.4 0.7 0.9 0.9 Freezer 400 900 0.1 0.3 O.5 0.6 0.6 Kitchen Appliance (see note 4) 1,000 0.8 0.9 O.9 O.9 0.9 Electric Heaters 1,500 0.0 0.3 O.8 0.6 0.6 Televisions 70 150 0.2 06 0.9 O.9 0.9 Microwave Ovens 1,000 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 Notes: 1. Appliances termed "Non-Random" and "On-Line" are those appliances which are either in service at all times (refrigerators, freezers, etc) or are in use at fairly predictable times (kitchen appliances such as coffee pots, televisions, lights, etc). The energy use of appliances such as refrigerators which cycle on and off is calculated using an assumed load factor for those appliances 2. The term "Saturation" is used to describe the extent to which particular devices are used by village residents. It is expressed in terms of the fraction of homes which use those devices. 3. Lights are all assumed to be 100-W, with 4 in use in the "typical" home. 4. The generic "kitchen appliance" is assumed to be some commonly-used appliance such as a coffee pot, toaster, waffle iron, hot plate, etc. 5. The "Random" loads are assumed to be the same as used in the non-utility forecasts. page 33 TABLE 9a RESIDENTIAL LOAD MODEL "Typical" Residence: May - September 1983 (5 months) (Assuming the Existence of a Central Utility) Equivalent Units Per Power Demand Power Demand Hours of Energy Time of Day Consuming Item(s) Home Per Unit Saturation Per Home Operation Consumption mn = - 6:00 am (no load) 1 0 1.0 ow 6.0 hr .00 kWh 6:00 - 8:30 am lights 3 100 1.0 300 1.5 45 freezer 1 400 0.1 40 0.8 - 03 6:30 - 7:00 am kitchen appliance (?) 1 1,000 0.8 800 0.5 -40 8:30 am - 4:30 pm lights 1 100 1.0 100 8.0 . 80 freezer 1 400 0.1 40 2.4 -10 television 1 70 0.2 14 2.0 - 03 4:30 - 10:30 pm lights 3 100 1.0 300 6.0 1.80 freezer al 400 0.1 40 1.8 .07 00 - 6:00 pm kitchen appliance Z 1,000 0.8 800 1.0 -80 6:00 - 10:00 pm television 1 70 0.2 14 4.0 - 06 10:30 - mn (no load) 1 0 1.0 0 1.5 -00 Daily Use: 4.54 kWh Monthly Use: 136.20 Random Loads: 14.20 TOTAL MONTHLY USE: 150.40 page 34 TABLE 9b RESIDENTIAL LOAD MODEL "Typical" Residence: October - April 1983 (7 months) (Assuming the Existence of a Central Utility) . Equivalent Units Per Power Demand Power Demand Hours of Energy Time of Day Consuming Item(s) Home Per Unit Saturation Per Home Operation Consumption mn == 6:00 am (no load) 1 ow 1.0. ow 6.0 hr -00 kWh 6:00 - 8:30 am lights 4 100 1.0 400 1.5 -60 freezer 1 400 0.1 40 0.8 - 03 6:30 - 7:00 am kitchen appliance (?) 1 1,000 0.8 800 0.5 40 8:30 am - 4:30 pm lights 2 100 1.0 200 8.0 1.60 freezer 1 400 0.1 40 2.4 -10 television 1 70 0.2 14 2.0 - 03 4:30 - 10:30 pm lights 4 100 1.0 400 6.0 2.40 freezer 1 400 0.3 120 1.8 222 5:00 - 6:00 pm kitchen appliance 1 1,000 0.8 800 1.0 -80 6:00 - 10:00 pm ITV 1 70 0.2 14 4.0 - 06 10:30 - mn (no load) 1 0 1.0 0 1.5 -00 Daily Use: 6.39 Monthly Use: 191.70 Random Loads: 14.20 TOTAL MONTHLY USE: 201.40 page 35 TABLE 9c RESIDENTIAL LOAD MODEL "Typical" Residence: May - September 1987 (5 months) (Assuming the Existence of a Central Utility) Equivalent Units Per Power Demand Power Demand Hours of Energy Time of Day Consuming Item(s) Home Per Unit Saturation Per Home Operation Consumption mn - 6:00 am refrigerator u 400 W 0.4 160 W 2.4 br - 38 kWh freezer 1 400 0.3 120 1.8 -22 6:00 - 8:30 am lights 3 100 1.0 300 1.5 45 refrigerator 1 400 0.4 160 1.0 16 freezer al 400 0.3 120 0.8 -10 6:30 - 7:00 am kitchen appliance 1 1,000 0.9 900 0.5 45 microwave oven 1 1,000 0.2 200 0.2 04 8:30 am - 4:30 pm lights 1 100 1.0 100 8.0 -60 refrigerator 1 400 0.4 160 3.2 31 freezer 1 400 0.3 120 2.4 29 television 1 70 0.6 42 2.0 - 08 4:30 - 10:30 pm lights 3 100 1.0 300 6.0 1.60 refrigerator al 400 0.4 160 2.4 - 38 freezer 1 400 0.3 120 1.8 22 5:00 - 6:00 pm kitchen appliance 1 1,000 0.9 900 1.0 90 microwave oven 1 1,000 0.2 200 0.3 - 06 6:00 - 10:00 pm TV 1 70 0.6 42 4.0 a7 10:30 - mn refrigerator 1 400 0.4 160 0.6 -10 freezer 1 400 0.3 120 0.4 .05 Daily Use: 7.16 kWh Monthly Use: 218.70 Random Loads: 15.10 TOTAL MONTHLY USE: 229.90 kWh "Typical" Residence: TABLE 9d RESIDENTIAL LOAD MODEL October - April 1987 (7 months) (Assuming the Existence of a Central Utility) Units Per Power Demand Equivalent Power Demand Hours of page Energy 36 Time of Day Consuming Item(s) Home Per Unit Saturation _ Per Home Operation Consumption mn - 6:00 am refrigerator I 400 W 0.4 160 W 2.4 hr -38 kWh freezer 1 400 0.3 120 1.8 22 electric heaters 1 1,500 0.3 450 2.0 90 6:00 - 8:30 am lights 4 100 1.0 400 1.5 6 refrigerator 1 400 0.4 160 1.0 16 freezer 1 400 0.3 120 0.8 -10 electric heaters 1 1,500 0.3 450 0.6 oer 6:30 - 7:00 am kitchen appliance 1 1,000 0.9 900 0.5 45 microwave oven 1 1,000 0.2 200 0.2 04 8:30 am - 4:30 pm lights 2 100 1.0 200 8.0 1.60 refrigerator il 400 0.4 160 5.2 eal freezer 1 400 0.3 120 2.4 29 electric heaters 1 1,500 0.3 450 0.0 .00 television 1 70 0.9 63 2.0 15) 4:30 - 10:30 pm lights 4 100 1.0 400 6.0 2.40 refrigerator 1 400 0.4 160 2.4 38 freezer 1 400 0.3 120 1.8 -22 electric heaters 1 1,500 0.3 450 0.0 -00 5:00 - 6:00 pm kitchen appliance iL 1,000 0.9 900 1.0 -90 microwave oven 1 1,000 0.2 200 0.3 - 06 6:00 - 10:00 pm IV 1 70 0.9 63 4.0 <29 10:30 - mn refrigerator 1 400 0.4 160 0.6 -10 freezer 1 400 0.3 120 0.4 05 Daily Use: 10.01 kWh Monthly Use: 300.30 Random Loads: 15.10 TOTAL MONTHLY USE: 315.40 kWh TABLE 9e page 37 RESIDENTIAL LOAD MODEL "Typical" Residence: May - September 1993 (5 months) (Assuming the Existence of a Central Utility) Equivalent Units Per Power Demand Power Demand Hours of Energy Time of Day Consuming Item(s) Home Per Unit Saturation Per Home Operation Consumption mn = - 6:00 am refrigerator 1 400 W 0.7 280 W 2.4 br -67 kWh freezer 1 400 0.5 200 1.8 36 6:00 - 8:30 am lights 3 100 1.0 300 1.5 45 refrigerator 1 400 0.7 280 1.0 28 freezer 1 400 0.5 200 0.8 16 6:30 - 7:00 am kitchen appliance 1 1,000 0.9 900 0.5 45 microwave oven 1 1,000 0.2 200 0.2 04 8:30 am - 4:30 pm lights 1 100 1.0 100 8.0 -80 refrigerator BE 400 0.7 280 3.2 90 freezer 1 400 0.5 200 2.4 -48 television 1 70 0.9 63 2.0 13 4:30 - 10:30 pm lights 3 100 1.0 300 6.0 1.80 refrigerator 1 400 0.7 280 2.4 67 freezer 1 400 0.5 200 1.8 36 5:00 - 6:00 pm kitchen appliance 1 1,000 0.9 900 1.0 90 microwave oven 1 1,000 0.2 200 0.3 06 6:00 - 10:00 pm_ TV it 70 0.9 63 4.0 25 10:30 - mn refrigerator 1 400 0.7 280 0.6 ol freezer 1 400 0.5 200 0.4 08 Daily Use: 9.01 kWh Monthly Use: 270.30 Random Loads: 16.10 TOTAL MONTHLY USE: 286.40 kWh TABLE 9f page 38 RESIDENTIAL LOAD MODEL "Typical" Residence: October - April 1993 (7 months) (Assuming the Existence of a Central Utility) Equivalent Units Per Power Demand Power Demand Hours of Energy Time of Day Consuming Item(s) Home Per Unit Saturation Per Home Operation Consumption mn = - 6:00 am refrigerator 1 400 W 0.7 280 W 2.4 br -67 kWh freezer 1 400 0.5 200 1.8 36 6:00 - 8:30 am lights 4 100 1.0 400 1.5 -60 refrigerator 1 400 0.7 280 1.0 28 freezer XZ 400 0.5 200 | 0.8 16 electric heaters 1 1,500 0.5 750 0.6 45 6:30 - 7:00 am kitchen appliance i 1,000 0.9 900 0.5 45 ' microwave oven 1 1,000 0.2 200 0.2 04 8:30 am - 4:30 pm lights 2 100 1.0 200 8.0 1.60 refrigerator 1 400 0.7 280 a2 90 freezer 1 400 0.5 200 2.4 -48 electric heaters 1 1,500 0.5 750 0.0 -00 television uf 70 0.9 63 2.0 15 4:30 - 10:30 pm_ lights 4 100 1.0 400 6.0 2.40 refrigerator 1 400 0.7 280 2.4 -67 freezer 1 400 0.5 200 1.8 36 electric heaters 1 1,500 0.5 750 0.0 - 00 5:00 - 6:00 pm kitchen appliance 1 1,000 0.9 900 1.0 90 microwave oven Z 1,000 0.2 200 0.3 - 06 6:00 - 10:00 pm ITV 1 70 0.9 63 4.0 25 10:30 - mn refrigerator 1 400 0.7 280 0.6 17 freezer 1 400 0.5 200 0.4 -08 Daily Use: 11.01 kWh Monthly Use: 330.30 Random Loads: _ 16.10 TOTAL MONTHLY USE: 346.40 kWh TABLE 9g page 39 RESIDENTIAL LOAD MODEL "Typical" Residence: May - September 1998 (5 months) (Assuming the Existence of a Central Utility) Equivalent Units Per Power Demand Power Demand Hours of Energy Time of Day Consuming Item(s) Home Per Unit Saturation. Per Home Operation Consumption mn = — 6:00 am refrigerator 1 400 W 0.9 360 W 2.4 hr 86 kWh freezer 1 400 0.6 240 1.8 43 6:00 - 8:30 am lights 3 100 1.0 300 1.5 245 refrigerator 1 400 0.9 360 1.0 36 freezer 1 400 0.6 240 0.8 19 6:30 - 7:00 am kitchen appliance 1 1,000 0.9 900 0.5 45 microwave oven 1 1,000 0.3 300 0.2 . 06 8:30 am - 4:30 pm lights 1 100 1.0 100 8.0 -80 refrigerator 1 400 0.9 360 5.2 1.15 freezer 1 400 0.6 240 2.4 -58 television 1 70 0.9 63 2.0 13 4:30 - 10:30 pm lights 3 100 1.0 300 6.0 1.80 refrigerator 1 400 0.9 360 2.4 - 86 freezer 1 400 0.6 240 1.8 43 5:00 - 6:00 pm kitchen appliance 1 1,000 0,9 900 1.0 90 microwave oven 1 1,000 0.3 300 0.3 09 6:00 - 10:00 pm TV li 70 0.9 63 4.0 <i25: 10:30 - mn refrigerator 1 400 0.9 360 0.6 22 freezer 1 400 0.6 240 0.4 -10 Daily Use: 10.11 kWh Monthly Use: 303.30 Random Loads: 16.90 TOTAL MONTHLY USE: 320.20 kWh "Typical" Residental Unit: fis TABLE 9h _ RESIDENTIAL LOAD MODEL October - April 1998 (7 months) (Assuming the Existence of a Central Utility) Equivalent Units Per Power Demand Power Demand Hours of Time of Day Consuming Item(s) Home Per Unit Saturation Per Home mn —- 6:00 am refrigerator a: 400 W 0.9 360 W 2.4 br freezer 1 400 0.6 240 1.8 6:00 - 8:30 am lights 4 100 1.0 400 1.5 refrigerator L 400 0.9 360 1.0 freezer 1 400 0.6 240 0.8 electric heaters 1 1,500 0.6 900 0.6 6:30 - 7:00 am kitchen appliance 1 1,000 0.9 900 0.5 microwave oven 1 1,000 0.3 300 0.2 8:30 am - 4:30 pm lights 2 100 1.0 200 8.0 refrigerator 1 400 0.9 360 3.2 freezer 1 400 0.6 240 2.4 electric heaters 1. 1,500 0.6 900 0.0 television iL 70 0.9 63 2.0 4:30 - 10:30 pm lights 4 100 1.0 400 6.0 refrigerator 1 400 0.9 360 2.4 freezer 1 400 0.6 240 1.8 electric heaters 1 1,500 0.6 900 0.0 5:00 - 6:00 pm kitchen appliance 1 1,000 0.9 900 1.0 microwave oven 1 , 000 0.3 300 0.3 6:00 - 10:00 pm_ TV 1 70 0.9 63 4.0 10:30 - mn refrigerator 1 400 0.9 360 0.6 freezer 1 400 0.6 240 0.4 Daily Use: Monthly Uses Random Loads: TOTAL MONTHLY USE: page 40 Energy Operation Consumption -86 kWh 43 -60 36 -19 54 245 -06 1.60 1.15 -58 -00 13 2.40 - 86 43 -00 90 -09 225 -22 -10 12.20 366.00 16.90 382.90 kWh kWh TABLE 9i page 41 RESIDENTIAL LOAD MODEL "Typical" Residence: May - September 2003 (5 months) (Assuming the Existence of a Central Utility) Equivalent Units Per Power Demand Power Demand Hours of Energy Time of Day Consuming Item(s) Home Per Unit Saturation Per Home Operation Consumption mo - 6:00 am refrigerator 1 400 W 0.9 360 W 2.4 br - 86 kWh freezer 1 400 0.6 240 1.8 43 6:00 - 8:30 am lights 3 100 1.0 300 1.5 45 refrigerator 1 400 0.9 360 1.0 36 freezer 1 400 0.6 240 0.8 19 6:30 - 7:00 am kitchen appliance 1 1,000 0.9 900 0.5 45 microwave oven 1 1,000 0.3 300 0.2 - 06 8:30 am - 4:30 pm lights 1 100 1.0 100 8.0 -80 refrigerator J 400 0.9 360 3.2 1.15 freezer 1 400 0.6 240 2.4 58 television Z 70 0.9 63 2.0 Lb 4:30 - 10:30 pm lights 3 100 1.0 300 6.0 1.80 refrigerator 1 400 0.9 360 2.4 - 86 freezer 1 400 0.6 240 1.8 43 5:00 - 6:00 pm kitchen appliance 1 1,000 0.9 900 1.0 90 microwave oven 1 1,000 0.3 300 0.3 -09 6:00 - 10:00 pm IV 1 70 0.9 63 4.0 225 10:30 - mn refrigerator 1 400 0.9 360 0.6 222 freezer 1 400 0.6 240 0.4 -10 Daily Use: 10.11 kWh Monthly Use: 303.30 Random Loads: _16.90 TOTAL MONTHLY USE: 320.20 kWh "Typical" Residental Unit: RESIDENTIAL LOAD MODEL TABLE 9j Units Per Power Demand Equivalent October - April 2003 (7 months) (Assuming the Existence of a Central Utility) Power Demand Hours of page 42 Energy Time of Day Consuming Item(s) Home Per Unit Saturation Per Home Operation Consumption mn - 6:00 am refrigerator 1 400 W 0.9 360 W 2.4 br - 86 kWh freezer 1 400 0.6 240 1.8 4 6:00 - 8:30 am lights 4 100 1.0 400 1.5 -60 refrigerator 1 400 0.9 360 1.0 36 freezer 1 400 0.6 240 0.8 oe electric heaters 1 1,500 0.6 900 0.6 54 6:30 - 7:00 am kitchen appliance ir 1,000 0.9 900 0.5 745 microwave oven iz 1,000 0.3. 300 0.2 06 8:30 am - 4:30 pm lights 2 100 1.0 200 8.0 1.60 refrigerator 1 400 0.9 360 3.2 1.15 freezer 1 400 0.6 240 2.4 58 electric heaters 1 1,500 0.6 900 0.0 .00 television 1 70 0.9 63 2.0 3 4:30 - 10:30 pm lights 4 100 1.0 400 6.0 2.40 refrigerator 1 400 0.9 360 2.4 - 86 freezer 1 400 0.6 240 1.8 43 electric heaters 1 1, 500 0.6 900 0.0 00 5:00 - 6:00 pm kitchen appliance 1 1,000 0.9 900 1.0 -90 microwave oven 1 1,000 0.3 300 0.3 09 6:00 - 10:00 pm IV 1 70 0.9 63 4.0 ~25 10:30 - mn refrigerator 1 400 0.9 360 0.6 22 freezer 1 400 0.6 240 0.4 -10 Daily Use: 12.20 kWh Monthly Use: 366.00 Random Loads: _ 16.90 TOTAL MONTHLY USE: 382.90 kWh Year Homes 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 As in 25 27 27 28 28 28 28 30 30 31 31 31 31 31 32 32 32 32 32 32 May to September kWh/home Total kWh Homes 150. 166. 182. 198. 214. 229. 241. 252. 263. 275. 286. 293. 299. 306. 313. 320. 320. 32. 320. 320. FPOMmNnNWw OrNW SL PNONM PM MH MMP 18,800 22,451 24,597 27 ,734 29 ,960 32,186 33,768 37 875 39,570 42,641 44 ,392 45 , 446 46 ,485 47 539 50,144 51 , 232 51,232 51 , 232 51,232 51 232 TABLE 10 Forecasts of Residential Electric Energy Use (Assuming the Existence of a Central Utility) © CO 0 © CO © 09 CO 00 CO NDOOMN SNNN™N October to April kWh/home Total kWh Annual kWh loads are as shown in the table below: YEAR 1983 1988 1993 1998 2003 NYRR rR Sete site BE@eae oo of <x «KK OK OK SUMMER 25 x 0.8 28 x 0.8 31 x 0.8 32 x 0.8 32 x 0.8 201. 224. 247. 269. 292. 315. 321. 327. 334. 340. 346. 353. 361. 368. 375. 382. 382. 382. "382. 382. TABLE 11 an SRB ww . . monnc NOODn +f Hoon - woNWDnww Dwonh, 1.32 2.23 2.73 3.10 3.10 7,049 7,847 8,645 11 ,332 14 ,337 15 , 455 15,758 16 ,062 16 ,366 16,670 19,398 19 ,807 20,216 20 ,625 21 ,034 a ,442 21 ,442 a ,442 21 ,442 a ,442 WINTER x5 x 0.8 x7 x 0.8 x 8 x 0.8 x8 x 0.8 x 8 x 0.8 page 43 Total 25 ,849 D ,298 33 ,242 39 ,066 44 ,297 47 ,641 49 526 53 , 937 55 ,936 59,311 63,790 65 , 253 66,701 68,164 71,178 72,674 72,674 72,674 72,674 72 ,674 the case where there was no central utility, the residential load models are used to compute the peak residential power demand. These It is expected that the commercial/institutional loads will not change from those estimated in the case where no utility system was available. It is believed that those customers will use electricity for the same end uses whether they have to generate their own power or buy it from a utility company. page 45 40 ia ELFIN COVE RES eee USE FORECAST 140 (NO UTILITY) | oo = 120 x= x 8 100 A y nn 8 80 » RESIDENTIAL USE 5 eer a) USE Wi 3 40 ae s ae <q 20 COMMERCIAL USE 0 1983 1988 1993 1998 2002 = ELFIN COVE ENERGY USE FORECAST 140 (WITH UTILITY) = = 120 < 8 3 100 WW 8 80 & ui TOTAL 60 a USE ral <x =) = a = 7X ens a [5 Op cy [SO COMMERCIAL 1983 1988 (993 1998 2002 ANNUAL PEAK POWER DEMAND (kW) ANNUAL PEAK POWER DEMAND (kW) 30 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 ite} (983 ELFIN COVE POWER” |. | +4Y DEMAND FORECAST NO UTILITY)_|— (ses ( RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL 1993 998 DEMAND ___| 2002 TOTAL DEMAND page 46 ELFIN COVE POWER DEMAND FORECAST (WITH UTILITY) 1983 : rk 988 1993 \s98 RESIDENTIAL DEMAND COMMERCIAL DEMAND 2002 TOTAL DEMAND page F.5 - Thermal Energy Forecast As a result of the relatively mild weather in southeast Alaska and the fact that so few of the Elfin Cove homes are occupied through the win- ters, the amount of energy used to provide heat in the village is quite small. Acres' staff estimates that about 70 percent of all home space heat is “provided by woodstoves (the rest being provided by oi] stoves). Those year-round residents who were asked, consistently identified wood use as 5 to 8 cords of wood per year, depending upon the severity of the winter. The comment was made by some that most of the wood is burned while still somewhat green, thereby diminishing the heat the woostoves can give off. A figure commonly used for the heat content of dry wood is about 17 million Btu per cord. If we can assume that the use of green wood will cut the amount of heat given off by 30 percent, this leaves about 12 million Btu per cord. A good wood stove can burn wood with about 50 percent efficiency, thus allowing each cord to put 6 mil- lion Btu of heat into the homes. This means that if a home uses 5 to 8 cords per year, its heat load is about 30 to 48 million Btu, a reason- able figure for a home in Southeast. Some wood is burned in the summer to "take the chill off", to heat water, or to cook food. It is esti- mated that this use is quite minor, possibly 10 percent of a home's an- nual need. It is assumed that those homes which are occupied only in the summer would use no more than 0.8 cords over the period of May through September. Keeping in mind that 30 percent of Elfin Cove's residential heat is presumed to come from oil, we can see that homes occupied year-round will use an average of 5.6 cords per home, with those homes occupied only in the summer using 0.56 cords per year. On an annual basis, the village's use of wood is: Number of Homes Cords Per Home Total Wood Used 5 homes year-round 5.6 per year 28 cords 24 homes summer only .56 per year 13 cords 41 cords Many of the wood stoves are equipped with heat exchangers used to pro- vide hot water in the homes. It is not possible in a study of this type to determine what proportion of the wood energy is used to heat water or to cook with. The figures given in the energy balance table in Section 2 represent arbitrary allocations of the energy. One resident, when asked by Acres' personnel for his personal valuation of a cord of wood delivered to his doorstep, quoted a figure of $500. He explained that this price made allowances for the ae of travelling to harvest the wood, the cost of his skiff, amd—his time away from things he would rather be doing. The price of $500/cord re- presents a price of about $83 per million Btu in heat delivered. By contrast, fuel oi] at $1.39 per gallon only costs about $30 per million Btu delivered (assuming 132,000 Btu/gallon and an oi] stove efficiency of 35 percent). When asked why he didn't simply use oil instead of 47 page wood at $500 per cord, he explained that his family disliked the smel] of the oil stoves and did not wish to take the chance of oi] spills on their property like some other Elfin Cove residents have had. It is not likely that every homeowner would value wood at $500 per cord. They would most likely consider it to be less expensive than oil. For purposes of this study, Acres will consider wood to cost $150 per cord, or $25 per million Btu delivered. Oil is assumed to carry about 30 percent of the residential heating load in Elfin Cove. This requires about 2,300 gallons (92 million Btu of delivered heat at 35% efficiency) of heating oil each year for the village. Qi] also is used to provide heat in all of the non- residential buildings (the stores, the inn, laundromat, etc). This is expected to continue to be the case as new non-residential structures are added in the village. It is estimated that heating the commercial buildings in Elfin Cove presently requires 1,500 gallons (69 million Btu of delivered heat) of heating oil. As the number of non- residential buildings in the village increases and as more of those buildings are kept in operation throughout the winter, these heating demands will increase considerably. It is assumed’that each new com- mercial building will require 2,000 gallons (92 million Btu of deliver- ed heat) of oil if it is kept open all winter. Buildings open only in the summer are assumed to require only 300 gallons (14 million Btu of delivered heat) of oil. Many homes in Elfin Cove are fairly old, and appear not to have been built with an emphasis on energy conservation. Some of the newer homes are build with the expense of heating taken into account. It will be assumed that all homes built after 1983 will be 25 percent more energy efficient than those now existing. Thus, all new homes will require no more than 36 million Btu per year (6 cords of wood). A forecast of the thermal energy needs of Elfin Cove is given in Table 13. 48 eee a page 49 TABLE 13 Thermal Energy Use in Elfin Cove 1983 - 2003 RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL VILLAGE Number Energy Use (M Btu) Number Energy Use (M Btu) (M Btu) YEAR | Summer Winter | Summer Winter Total Summer Winter | Summer Winter Total Total 1983 24 5 115 - 240 355 3 2 69 184 =253 608 1984 26 5 122 240 362 3 2 69 184 = 253 615 1985 26 5 122 240 362 3 2 69 184 =253 615 1986 26 6 122 276 «=. 3398 3 2 69 184 = 253 651 1987 25 7 118 312 430 3 2 69 184 =253 683 1988 25 7 118 312 430 2 5 55 460 515 945 1989 25 7 118 312 = 430 2 5 55 460 515 945 1990 26 7 122 312 434 2 5 55 460 515 949 1991 26 7 122 312 434 2 5 55 460 515 949 1992 27 7 126 312 = 438 2 5 55 460 515 953 1993 26 8 122 348 470 3 6 69 552 ~—s«621 1,091 1994 26 8 122 348 470 3 6 69 552 = «621 1,091 1995 26 8 122 348 470 3 6 69 552 «621 1,091 1996 26 8 122 348 470 3 6 69 552 ~=s«621 1,091 1997 27 8 126 348 474 3 6 69 552 ~—s«61 1,095 1998 27 8 126 348 474 3 6 69 552 621 1,095 1999 27 8 122 348 470 3 6 69 552-621 1,091 2000 27 8 122 348 8470. 3 6 69 552-621 1,091 2001 27 8 122 348 470 3 6 69 552 ~=s«6621 1,091 2002 27 8 122 348 470 3 6 69 552621 1,091 Note: Structures identified as "Summer" are occupied only in the summer; those identified as "Winter" are in use throughout the year. The total of these two categories should yield the total number of residential or commercial buildings in the village in any given year. page 50 TABLE 14 SUMMARY OF THE TOTAL ENERGY NEEDS OF ELFIN COVE 1983 - 2002 ELECTRICAL ENERGY THERMAL ENERGY TOTALS YEAR _ (kWh) (equiv. MBtu) (MBtu) (equiv. kWh) (MBtu) (kWh) 1983 61,300 209 608 178 19% 817 239,495 1984 68,800 235 615 180 ,246 850 249,046 1985 74,900 256 615 180,246 871 255,146 1986 83 ,800 286 651 190 ,797 937 274,597 1987 92 , 200 315 683 200 ,176 998 292,376 1988 98,700 337 945 276 ,964 1,282 375 ,664 1989 104,000 355 945 276 , 964 1,300 38,964 1990 111,900 382 949 278 ,136 1,331 390,036 1991 117,200 400 949 278 136 1,349 395,336 1992 123,400 421 953 279 308 1,374 402,708 1993 131,900 450 1,091 319 , 754 1,541 451,654 1994 133,300 455 1,091 319,754 1,546 453,054 1995 134,800 460 1,091 319 , 754 1,551 454,554 1996 136,200 465 1,091 319,754 1,556 455,954 1997 139,200 475 1,095 320 , 926 1,570 460,126 1998 140,700 480 1,095 320 ,926 1,575 461,626 1999 140,700 480 1,091 319 , 754 1,571 460,454 2000 140,700 480 1,091 319,754 1,571 460,454 2001 140,700 480 1,091 319 , 754 1,571 460,454 2002 140,700 480 1,091 319,754 1,571 460,454 page 51 G - VILLAGE ENERGY RESOURCES ASSESSMENT This section briefly examines the sources of energy (both thermal and electrical) which are available to Elfin Cove to identify those tech- nologies which must be considered in the development of the future en- ergy plans for the village. 1. Coal. There is no practical means of providing coal to Elfin Cove for widespread use. There are no adequate storage areas or barge off-loading facilities. It is likely that the potential for water and air pollution from the burning of coal in the village would be objectionable to residents. No further consideration of this al- ternative is warranted. 2. Wood. Wood is abundant, with large areas of high-grade timber in the area. Land status precludes the harvest of timber on any ap- preciable scale since most land in the area is National Forest; with much of the rest being private property. Wood is widely used for home heating, a practice which will undoubtedly continue into the future. The use of wood as a fuel to produce electricity is impractical in Elfin Cove for reasons of limited storage and handl- ing space. Additionally, the technologies needed for such a scheme on a small scale are undeveloped. No further consideration of this alternative is warranted. 3. Geothermal. There are no known geothermal resources in close prox- imity to Elfin Cove. No further consideration of this alternative is warranted. 4. Hydroelectric. Elfin Cove is located at the base of hills which range in elevation from sea level to more than 1,000 ft MSL. A number of small creeks are present in the area, making a sizable head available for the development of hydroelectric energy. There is widespread village support for the serious consideration of this . alternative. The implementation of a hydroelectric system is ad- dressed as “Alternative B" later in this report. 5. Photovoltaic. This technology is presently too expensive to con- sider for Alaska utility use. 6. Wind. Available data on the wind resource available at Elfin Cove is encouraging. The University of Alaska's Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center (AEIDC) has produced the Alaska volume of the "Wind Energy Resource Atlas," which is available through the National Technical Information Service (NTIS). The Wind Energy Atlas shows Elfin Cove to be in an area of “Wind Class 3," or a mean annual wind speed of 12 mph. The Atlas shows that the area experiences "Class 6" winds in the fall and "Class 7" winds in the winter. These levels represent seasonal mean wind speeds of 17 mph and 21 mph, respectively. page In 1981, the state Department of Transportation and Public Facili- ties (DoTPF) released the "Alaskan Wind Energy Handbook." This publication provides data for the weather station at Point Spencer. We believe that this refers to Point Spencer, about 20 miles north of Elfin Cove. The Handbook shows a mean annual wind speed of 15 mph for that station. Areas with mean wind speeds in excess of 12 mph are frequently regarded as candidate sites for wind energy systems. Skagway, with a mean wind speed of only about 10 mph is the site of a Division of Energy and Power Development (a now- defunct state agency) 10 kW wind turbine. This installation has not been without its problems. The National Weather Service maintains a weather station in Elfin Cove, but this station (located along the western shoreline of the cove) is much too sheltered to provide usable data for estimating the potential of wind energy in Elfin Cove. There is some possi- bility that the more exposed hilltops around Elfin Cove are sub- jected to fairly strong winds. It seems appropriate that an ane- mometry site be installed at Elfin Cove to obtain detailed data on the wind resource available. A number of wind turbines have been installed at remote sites around the state, establishing a rather unimpressive operating record aS a group. For the most part, these units have been "pilot," “demonstration," or "“expermental" installations. The state of the art in wind turbine manufacture has not progressed to the point where their application to Alaska utility systems can be routinely recommended. As more experience is gained with wind turbines in Alaska and as detailed data on Elfin Cove's wind resource is obtained, this resource sould be reconsidered some years in the future. As a hypothetical exercise, the economics of wind turbine operation in conjunction with a hydro system at Elfin Cove are examined in "Alternative D" later in this report. Fuel Oil. This resource is available by barge and is presently used in the village to produce electricity and heat for the non- residential structures and some of the homes. Its use as a fuel for a village-wide diesel electric utility system is explored as "Alternative A" later in this report. Table 14 on the next page presents the results of the preliminary eval- uation 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 are used as guidance in de- velopment of the plans evaluated in the later stages of the study. 52 VILLAGE TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT page 53 ON DO FWY 10. Tihs 12. 13. 14. Ns. 6. 7. Ng. No. it FOR ELFIN COVE TECHNICAL COST RESOURCE FACTORS FACTORS FACTORS = a = = x couse i Sir = ned So Se lj =a So Se ne Sin <= _ = a Ss = o (=) za iS sleola 3S B Seles) a |e) | ae I eo x|zZ|a = & 2 S> toe = TECHNOLOGY SSeS eS Sn: H|\S|\3 S222 323882 2 (re) =_ a Oo lu — Oo a lu nn a a Electric Coal Fired Steam 3} l}o}o};ojo/jojojo Wood Fired Steam vi 2) llojo}o] t}o];o}o Geotherma] * 2)) 01/7 0} 0 3 0 jo | 0 4 Diesel (base) * Mil 2] 27 3 4 1) aha 2) | 6344 Gas Turbine * 8) 2 | 2/0) {0 e 7 | 9} 22 i Hydroelectric * 4 2|2}/1]3 (3) 5] 2] 48 Wind * S(T 212 21a, alata Photovoltaic * Zul eels 8/3] 1/118 Heating Diesel Waste Heat Recovery SL | ey ea ea leet reat en eo Electric Resistance *1 4) 2) 2)4 4; 0] 4]{ 2144 Passive Solar SSH 2a | ey | 2 BSS ney adil Wood SUS HS (aL oa 2 7 2) 169 Coal eS Oe 3h Ono) tas Oil (base) Sia mca | ela Sel elds Ti ney ied Wak Other Coal Gasification ee YO |) 0 0) | 10) 10} 10) 0 Wood Gasification - Diesel} * 1 Wy |) OOS HOS Biogas S20 On si iO) 2 9 Waste Fired Boiler ee a TO OO | OW Ol iO) 0 Peat ee a Ly) Os 0 HO | 10) | Oi) 0) |) .0 Binary Cycle Generator * Saiz OC wisein sil Siala) 1) i|150) Conservation Sei St) 24 24 4 |) 41 13) 9 1) 2 | 100} 2 page 54 H - ENERGY PLAN DESCRIPTIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS H.1 - Base Case The base case plan, which could also be called the "do nothing" plan assumes that things in Elfin Cove will go on as they are now, with each user of electricity responsible for providing and operating their own generator. The cost of this arrangement will be the standard against which all other plans are to be compared. One village resident told visiting Acres' staff that their gasoline powered home generator could produce electricity for about 7 cents per kWh in fuel costs. When asked why they would want a central utility system if their home generation was so inexpensive, those homeowners replied that they desired the convenience of a utility system which could supply electricity on demand. Later investigation by Acres show- ed that under the best of conditions, small (3 to 5 kW) gasoline gener- ators are not capable of producing more than about 4 kWh per gallon of gasoline consumed. Under more normal home operating conditions, with less than full load on the generator, and less than optimum air and fuel temperatures a more reasonable figure would be about 3 kWh per gallon. With a fuel cost of $1.50 per gallon of gasoline, we can see that home-generated electricity in Elfin Cove now costs about 50 cents per kWh. This figure does not make allowances for the cost of the gen- erator or its maintenance. The assumptions used when examining this base case plan are as follows: * All homes will be equipped with their own gasoline powered generator of about 3.5 kW capacity. These generators will be assumed to cost $1,500 installed in Elfin Cove (data based on Alaska Industrial Hardware cost of $1,299 for a 3.5 kW Winco 305BH-1M plus an extra $200 for shipping to Elfin Cove). * The home generators will produce 3 kWh of electricity for each gal- lon of gasoline consumed. * Gasoline is assumed to cost $1.50 in 1983 and its cost will escal- late at an annual rate of 2.5 percent above the rate of inflation. * The home generators are expected to have lifetimes of 10 years, after which, they are to be replaced with identical units. * All non-residential structures will be furnished electricity with individual diesel generators. These generators will be assumed to have an initial cost of $1,000/kW including the costs of fuel stor- age facilities, generator building, power and control wiring. page 55 The diesel units will produce 6 kWh of electricity for each gallon of diesel fuel consumed. Diesel fuel is assumed to cost $1.39 in 1983 and its cost will es- callate at an annual rate of 2.5 percent above the rate of inf lation. The diesel generators are expected to have lifetimes of 10 years, after which they are to be replaced with identical units. Each home generator will require $50 of maintenance each year, with the labor done by the homeowner at “no cost"; the commercially oper- ated diesel sets will require $5,000 of maintenance, considering supplies and labor charges. No “major" overhaul work is anticipated as necessary for either type of unit over their lifetime. page H.2 - ALTERNATIVE PLAN "A" This alternative is only a simple step from the existing arrangement. Instead of each home having its own generator, users would buy energy from a village-wide power distribution system. This centralized system would use a diesel generator to produce electric power. There are at least two obvious advantages of such an arrangement: (1) The conveninece of having electricity available in the home at the flip of a switch and (2) more efficient use of fuel. Instead of producing only 3 kWh per gallon of gasoline, the diesels should be capable of generating about 6 kWh per gallon of diesel fuel. A less obvious ad- vantage is that less generator (and engine) capacity is needed under this arrangement than when each home has its own unit. If each home has a 3.5 kW unit, and there are 29 homes in the village, there is more than 100 kW of installed capacity. A centralized system would require a generator of about 75 kW capacity to meet the needs of the village for the next 10 years. In a departure from conventional utility planning practices, no reserve units will be provided. Since the ownership of individual generators is widespread in Elfin Cove, these units will be regarded as the "backup" for the system. In the event that the village generator breaks down, individual homeowners would be expected to start their own “units until repairs could be made. The assumptions used when examining this alternative plan are as follows: * Beginning in 1985, the village will be supplied with energy from a centralized power system. In 1985, a 80 kW unit will be installed at a cost of $1,000 per kilowatt ($80,000) including fuel storage facilities, generator building, and control equipment. This unit will be assumed to have a lifetime of 10 years. In 1995 it will be replaced with a 90 kW unit at a cost of $1,000 per kilowatt ($90,000 in 1983 dollars). * The diesel unit will produce 6 kWh of energy with each gallon of diesel fuel consumed. Diesel fuel is assumed to cost $1.39 per gal- lon in 1983 and its cost will escallate at an annual rate of 2.5 percent greater than inflation. * A village-wide power distribution system will also be installed in 1985 at a cost of $70,000 including all home and business hookups and metering equipment. This system is expected to have a lifetime of 20 years, with a replacement in kind scheduled for 2005, which is beyond the horizion of this study. As new customers come on-line, their new hookups are estimated to cost $1,000 each in 1983 dollars. 56 Cetomal ee * page No waste heat equipment will be considered for the village because of its small size and the shutdown of many of the facilities for the winter. Maintenance on the diesel unit will be assumed to cost $6,000 per year. It is further assumed that no "major" overhaul work will be required over the 10 year life of the unit. 57 page H.3 - ALTERNATIVE PLAN "B" It is expected that the analysis of this plan will of considerable in- terest to the Elfin Cove residents. The basic power system will be identical to that described in Alternative "A" with the addition of a small hydroelectric plant installed near the mouth of “Roy's Creek". It is anticipated that a plant of 40 to 60 kW capacity could be easily installed there to make use of the 320 foot head which is developed as the creek comes down the hillside. The creek is a very small one, with flows on the order of only 1 to 3 cubic feet per second (cfs) being the norm. Nevertheless, this flow is adequate to generate 20 to 40 kW which should easily accomodate the village's needs except at times of daily peak demand (breakfast and dinner times) or at times of low water flow conditions. Then, the diesel unit would be started and run until the demand eases. This procedure should be accomplished automatically by means of a small computerized controller. It is expected that this type of an arrangement could save 60 percent of the village utility's diesel fuel requirements each year for its lifetime. . The assumptions used when examining this alternative plan are as follows: * All assumptions regarding the cost and scheduling of the installa- tion of the diesel system are still used. * Assumptions regarding the village-wide distribution are retained. 58 * In 1985 a 40 kW hydroelectric plant costing $200,000 is installed at. "Roy's Creek". The plant will easily produce more energy than can) be used in the village and it will’ be assumed to displace 60 percent of each year's fuel requirements. The hydro plant will -be assumed to have a useful -lifetime ea and a term of financing of 35 years. —— * The maintenance of the hydro plant will cost $2,000 per year, assum- ing that local labor will be available to carry out all repair tasks. page H.4 - ALTERNATIVE PLAN "C" This alternative was developed at the request of Elfin Cove residents after their review of the draft report. It examines the economics involved in the construction of a small hydroelectric plant (as described in Alternative Plan "B," but without the construction of a central diesel generation system to work as a backup. The existing home gasoline-powered generators would be used to provide electricity when the hydro plant could not. This plan is complicated by the fact that the small gasoline generators commonly used in Elfin Cove are not intended to be operated in para- lell with one another. Such a condition would exist if some accomoda- tion were not made to switch the individual homes "off-line" when their generators were operating. For reasons of safety, it is also imprudent to allow home-operated generators to feed their energy into a village- wide distribution grid. This being the case, the costs of Alternative Plan "C" will have to include (in addition to the hydro plant, the home generators, and the distribution system) the costs for a control system which would con- tinuously estimate both the available power from the hydro plant and the power demand of all of the homes "on-line." The control system would work to supply as many of the homes with hydro power as possible. As demand begins to reach the supply of hydro power available, no additional loads would be permitted. If the supply then declines (from reduced water availability), the control system would begin to trip homes and other loads off of the system. The assumptions used when examining this alternative plan are as follows: * All assumptions regarding the cost of the hydro plant, the village- wide distribution system, and the operation of the home gasoline- powered generators are still used. * The control system will cost $25,000 for equipment installed at the hydro plant, plus $750 per home for transfer switch equipment and installation. * Assumptions of energy use are retained. 59 page 60 H.5 - ALTERNATIVE PLAN "D" Like "C", this alternative was developed at the request of Elfin Cove residents after their review of the draft report. It examines the economics involved in the construction of a small hydroelectric plant (as described in Alternative Plan "B,") plus a small wind turbine. Like alternatives "A" and "B," the plan assumes the existence of a central deisel plant to provide backup electricity. Small wind turbines have been constructed around the state as pilot or “experimental” installations, usually with state funding. These installations have not had a particularly high degree of reliability. More than one wind turbine project has been abandoned within only a few years of its completion because of operating difficulties. For this reason, the wind turbine will not be scheduled to come "on-line" until 1993, giving the industry a chance to “mature” beyond its present state. The winds in the Elfin Cove are the strongest in the fall and winter. This has both advantages and drawbacks. Its advantage is that fall and. winter is when the stream flows available to a hydro plant are the lowest. Thus, wind-generated electricity could supplement the hydro plant in reducing the village's need for fuel. The drawback to the timing of the wind energy availability is that the fall and winter is also the time of year when the least people live in Elfin Cove. Thus, the demand for energy is less, making each unit (kWh) of electricity More expensive. = Many manufacturers of small wind turbines have marketed their equipment using the sales pitch to buyers that they could "sell" electricity back to their utility company when the turbine generated excess energy. The connection of their generators to a large utility has enabled the manu- facturers to make use of induction or "asynchronous" generators. These are no more than common induction motors driven by the wind turbine. Unfortunately for many applications in Alaska, these asychrounous gen- erators do not work at all without a connection to an outside source of energy. There are a number of approaches which could be considered to overcome this problem in a rural Alaska application: 1. A diesel generator can be run to provide the necessary external power supply for the wind turbine. This is the approach which will be assumed in our studies at Elfin Cove. 2. The wind turbine supplier could be required to provide a "synchro- nous" generator (as compared to the asychronous generators commonly used). This would add considerably to the cost of the installation. However, the use of such a generator in isolation (no operating util- ity systen to connect to) would result in widely fluctuating system frequency (departures from the normal 60 Hz). This is due to the constantly varying wind velocity and the inability of the wind page turbines' governor systems to maintain a constant rate of blade rotation. Common electricity-using devices such as motors and equip- ment with transformers require power to be delivered at very nearly 60 Hz, although small (+ 5 Hz) departures may be tolerated. Some devices, such as resistance heaters, incandescent lights, and small “universal" motors are not particularly sensitive to frequency changes. However, it would be impractical to install two distribu- tion systems in Elfin Cove to permit the use of only these devices. In villages having a central water supply and a need to keep the water from freezing during cold winters, a power source having wide frequency swings could be used to heat the water. Elfin Cove has neither a central water supply nor cold winters. Thus, this approach may not appropriate to Elfin Cove. 3. The wind turbine could be equipped with a dc generator. In early wind energy systems, dc generators were supplied as _ standard equipment. Used on isolated installations, such as farms, the gener- ators charged batteries for use in water pumps or lights. Batteries are expensive and also provide only dc energy, which is as unusitable for many home applications as a supply which has wide departures from 60 Hz. Devices known as “inverters" can be used to change dc power to ac. Inverters are fairly sophisticated electronic systems which are quite expensive and generally available for only the smaller applications, such as individual homes. The use of a de generator on a village- wide basis will not be considered further. The assumptions used when examining this alternative plan are as follows: \ * All assumptions regarding the cost of the hydro plant, the village- wide distribution system and the central diesel system are still used. * In 1993, a 30 kW wind turbine will be installed. It will have a cap- ital cost of $200,000 (in 1983 dollars). Although a 30 kW unit may seem "oversize" in relation to the Elfin Cove system, it should be kept in mind that the unit will only produce 30 kW during especially strong winds. As wind speed decreases, output of a wind turbine falls off rapidly. The wind turbine will have a lifetime of 15 years. At the end of its lifetime(s) it will be replaced. * The wind turbine will displace an additional 20 percent of the fuel used in the village to generate electricity. If the windy part of the year were in the summer, when more of the homes were occupied, the fuel displacement could be higher. * Assumptions of energy use will be retained. 61 page 62 I_- ECONOMIC EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES = — et -_—— sc main (met —_ te — —_ TABLE 15 page 63 ESTIMATED FUEL COSTS FOR ELFIN COVE BASE CASE | RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL | RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL | COMMERCIAL | COMMERCIAL COMMERCIAL | TOTAL | ENERGY ENERGY | FUEL USE X FUEL PRICE = FUEL COSTS | FUEL USE X FUEL PRICE = FUEL COSTS| FUEL COSTS | CONSUMPTION CONSUMPTION | (@ 3kWh/gal) | (@6kWh/gal) | YEAR| (1,000 kWh) (1,000 kWh) | (1,000 gal) ($/gal) ($1,000) | (1,000 gal) _($/gal) ($1, 000) (1,000) | | | 1983 | 26 36 | 9 1.50 13 | 6 1.39 a | 21 1984 | 28 39 | 9 1.54 14 7 1.42 9 | 23 1985 | 29 42 | 10 1.58 15 7 1.46 io =| 25 1986 | 33 45 | ll 1.62 18 | 8 1.50 ll | 29 1987 | 35 48 | 12 1.66 19 | 8 1.53 iz | 31 | | | | 1988 | 36 51 | 12 1.70 20 | a) 1.57 13 | 33 1989 | 37 54 | 12 1.74 21 | 9 1.61 14 | 35 1990 | 39 58 | 13 1.78 23 | 10 1.65 16 | 39 1991 | 40 61 | 13 1.83 24 | 10 1.69 17 | 41 1992 | 4l 65 | 14 1.87 26 | ll 1.74 19 | 45 | | | | 1993 | 43 68 | 14 1.92 28 | ll 1.78 20 | 48 1994 | 43 68 14 1.97 28 ll 1.82 21 49 1995 | 44 68 15 2.02 30 ll 1.87 2 51 1996 | 44 68 | 15 2.07 30 | ll 1.92 2. «| 52 1997 | 45 68 | 15, 2.12 32 vt 1.96 22 | 54 | | 1998 | 46 68 15, 2.17 33 ll 2.01 23 | 56 1999 | 46 68 | 15 2.23 34 ll 2.06 23 | 57 2000 | 46 68 | 15 2.28 35 | ll 2.12 24 | 59 2001 | 46 68 | 15, 2.34 36 | ll 2.17 2 | 61 2002 | 46 68 | 15 2.40 37 | ll 2.22 | 62 NOTES: 1. Residential and Commercial "Energy Consumption" levels are taken from Table 7. — baal oe — ea a tao me a TABLE léa page 64 ESTIMATED COSTS OF ELFIN COVE BASE CASE (COSTS OF RESIDENTIAL ELECTRICITY) | SYSTEM ADDITIONS AND CAPITAL EXPENDITURES | ANNUAL O&M TOTAL FUEL TOTAL ELECTRIC | | costs + costs = FIXED + COSTS = COSTS ENERGY = ENERGY | AMOUNT —| costs INCURRED CONSUMPTION costs YEAR| _ DESCRIPTION ($1,000) _| ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000) _($1, 000) ($1,000) (1,000 kWh) ($/kWh) | | 1983 | *29 EXISTING UNITS @$1, 500 44 | Sir 1 6 3» | 19 26 | .73 1984 | *2 NEW UNITS 3 | 6 2 | 8 | 22 28 | .79 1985 | | 6 2 8 is | 23 29 | .79 1986 | *1 NEW UNIT 2 6 2 8 is | 26 33 | .79 1987 | 6 2 | 8 io | 27 35 | a7 | | 1988 6 2 8 20 28 36 | .78 1989 6 2 8 21 29 37 .78 1990 | *1 NEW UNIT 2 6 2 8 23 31 39 79 1991 6 2 8 24 32 40 - 80 1992 | *1 NEW UNIT 2 6 2 8 26 34 4l -83 1993 | *REPLACEMENT OF 1983 UNITS 44 6 2 8 28 36 43 - 84 1994 | *REPLACEMENT OF 1984 UNITS 3 | 6 2 | 8 28 | 36 43 | .84 1995 | | 6 2 | 8 30s 38 44 | .86 1996 | *REPLACEMENT OF 1986 UNIT 2 | 6 2 | 8 30s 38 44 | .86 1997 | *1 NEW UNIT 2 | 6 2 | 8 ya 40 45 | .99 | | | | | 1998 | | 6 2 | 8 33—i| 4l 46 | .89 1999 | | 6 2 | 8 34 42 46 |. 2000 | *REPLACEMENT OF 1990 UNIT 2 | 6 2 | 8 35 43 46 | .93 2001 | 6 2 | 8 36 Ci 44 46 | .96 2002 | *REPLACEMENT OF 1992 UNIT 2) 6 2 | 8 37s 45 46 | .98 NOTE: 1, "Annual Costs" are the result of capitalization (or "loan payments") for fixed equipment such as home generators at an annual interest rate of 3.5 percent. 2. “Fuel Costs"-are taken from Table 15. TABLE 16b page 65 ESTIMATED COSTS OF ELFIN COVE BASE CASE (COSTS OF COMMERCIAL ELECTRICITY) | SYSTEM ADDITIONS AND CAPITAL EXPENDITURES | ANNUAL O&M TOTAL FUEL TOTAL ELECTRIC | | costs + COSTS = FIXED + COSTS = COSTS + ENERGY = ENERGY | AMOUNT — | costs INCURRED CONSUMPTION costs YEAR | DESCRIPTION ($1,000) ($1, 000) ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000) (1,000 kWh) ($/kWh 1503 *EXISTING DIESEL UNIT 60 | 7 5 | 13 | 21 36 | .59 1984 | | 7 5 | 12 9 (| 21 39 | .54 1985 | | 7 5 | 12 lo | 22 42 | .52 1986 | 7 5 12 nu | 23 45 | .51 1987 | | 7 5 12 12 | 24 50 | -48 al *NEW UNITS IN SCHOOL, MACHINE 100 | 19 25 44 3 | 57 51 | 1.12 1989] SHOP, AND LODGE | 19 25 44 | 58 54 | 1.07 1990 | | 19 25 44 1 | 60 58 | 1.03 1991 | 19 25 44 wv | 61 61 | 1.00 1992 | | 19 25 | 44 19 | 63 65 | 97 1993 | *REPLACEMENT OF 1983 UNITS 60 | 19 25 | 44 20 «| 64 68 | .9%4 1994 | | 19 a | 44 “2 | 65 68 | .%6 1995 | | 19 2 | 44 a | 65 68 | .96 1996 | - | 19 a | 44 22 | 66 68 | .97 1997 | 19 25 | 44 22 | 66 68 | 97 1998 | *REPLACEMENT OF 1988 UNITS 100 | 19 25 | 44 23 =| 67 68 | .99 1999 | | 19 a | 44 | 67 68 | .99 2000 | | 19 2 | 44 a | 68 68 | 1.00 2001 | | 19 25 44 25 69 68 | 1.01 2002 | | 19 25 44 25 69 68 | 1.01 NOTES: 1. "Annual Costs" are the result of capitalization (or "loan payment") for fixed equipment such as diesel generators at an annual interest rate of 3.5 percent. 2. "Fuel Costs" are taken from Table 15. TABLE léc page 66 ESTIMATED COSTS OF ELFIN COVE BASE CASE NET PRESENT WORTH CALACULATIONS | TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL | PRESENT | RES. COSTS + COMM'L COSTS = VILLAGE-WIDE costs | WORTH YEAR i ($1,000) ($1, 000) ($1,000) ($1,000) 1983 | 19 21 40 38.65 1984 | 22 21 43 40.14 1985 | 23 22 - 45 40.59 1986 26 23 49 42.70 1987 27 24 51 42.94 1988 28 57 85 69.15 1989 | 29 58 87 | 68.38 1990 | 31 60 91 | 69.11 1991 | 32 61 93 68.23 1992 | 34 63 97 | 68.76 | 1993 | 36 64 100 | 68.49 1994 | 36 65 lol | 66.84 1995 | 38 65 103 | 65.86 1996 | 38 66 104 | 64.25 1997 | 40 66 106 | 63.27 1998 | 41 67 108 | 62.28 1999 | 42 67 109 | 60.73 2000 | 43 68 if | 59.76 2001 | 44 69 113 |. 58.78 2002 | 45 69 114 | 57.30 2003 - 2034 45 69 114 1,055.63 NET PRESENT WORTH OF THIS PLAN: 2,231.84 NOTE: Present Worth values calculated using an interest of 3.5 pct. page 67 I.1 - Base Case I.1.1 - Social and Environmental Evaluation Because the individual generators are already in place, there is no possibility of local employment for either construction or op- eration work. As new homes are built with their own generators in place, the purchase of these units will not produce any em- ployment either. The construction of commercial buildings, if done by outside contractors, will undoubtedly employ the crews of those contractors to install the required generators. This al- ternative requires individual homeowners to become acquainted with the workings of their generator plants to a greater degree than would be the case in a centralized system. There are pres- ently no “repair shops" per se in Elfin Cove, so the reliability of each home's power system depends largely on the skills of its owner. Diesel and gasoline generators are relatively benign enviroment- ally. Internal combustion engines emit small quantities of car- bon monoxide, carbon dioxide, nitrous oxides, sulfur dioxide, and unburned hydrocarbons. With the small population at Elfin Cove, there will not likely be any noticeable buildup of any of these pollutants. The engine lubricating oi] must be changed periodic- ally ad the waste oil disposed of properly. In remote villages such as Elfin Cove, this can be a significant problem. Diesel and gasoline engines are significant sources of noise, but with adequate muffler systems, this problem can be minimized. In Elfin Cove, there have been incidents of fuel spills from the in- dividual generators and this is expected to continue to be a problem in the village. : I.1.2 - Technical Evaluation The diesel and gasoline engines are typically the best understood means of producing electricity in bush villages today. Neverthe- less, these engines require frequent attention and regular main- tenance which can sometimes require highly skilled personnel. In the case of equipment in Elfin Cove, this could mean that a broken-down engine would have to wait for parts or skilled per- sonnel to arrive from Juneau or Anchorage. It is important to note that the economics of the base case are developed using a very low level of electricity consumption. The other alternatives all assume a significantly higher use of electricity in the village. If the demands of those higher use rates were to be met using the gasoline-fueled home generators, it can be seen that the costs would be even higher than shown by this base case. This difference in the economics of the base case should be kept in mind while evaluating the alternative plans. TABLE 17 page 68 ESTIMATED FUEL COSTS FOR ELFIN COVE ALTERNATIVE "A" | VILLAGE-WIDE | DIESEL | ENERGY | FUEL x FUEL PRICE = FUEL COST | CONSUMPTION | CONSUMPTION YEAR| (1,000 kWh) t (1,000 gal) ($/gal) ($1,000) | 1983 | 61 | 10 1.39 14 1984 | 69 | 12 1.42 16 1985 | 75 | 13 1.46 18 1986 | 84 | 14 1.50 21 1987 | 92 | 15 1.53 23 | | 1988 | 99 | 17 1.57 26 1989 | 104 17 1.61 28 1990 112 19 1.65 31 1991 117 20 1.69 33 1992 | 123 21 1.74 36 | 1993 | 132 | 22 178 39 1994 | 133 | 22 1,82 40 1995 | 135 | 23 1.87 42 1996 | 136 | 23 1.92 44 1997 | 139 | 23 1.96 45 1998 | 141 | 24 2.01 47 1999 | 141 | 24 2.06 48 2000 | 141 | 24 21.12) 50 2001 | 141 | 24 2017 51 2002 | 141 | 24 21422 52 NOTE: "Village-Wide Energy Consumption" data is taken from Table 12. r ‘a a — ee — oo - foe a ees = TABLE 18a page 69 ESTIMATED COSTS OF ELFIN COVE ALTERNATIVE "A" (COSTS OF ELECTRICITY DELIVERED BY VILLAGE-WIDE DIESEL SYSTEM) | ANNUAL O&M TOTAL FUEL TOTAL ELECTRIC | SYSTEM ADDITIONS AND CAPITAL EXPENDITURES | COSTS costs FIXED cosTs cosTs ENERGY ENERGY | AMOUNT | = COSTS = INCURRED + CONSUMPTION = COSTS YEAR| DESCRIPTION ($1,000) | ($1,000) ($1,000) _ ($1,000) _ ($1,000) ($1,000) (1,000 kWh) ($/kWh) | | | | | 1983 | *EXISTING GEN. EQUIP. 104 | 12 6 | 18 a | 32 61 | 52 1984] *2 NEW HOME UNITS 3 | 13 7 | 20 | 36 69 | 52 1985 | *NEW VILLAGE-WIDE UTILITY SYSTEM iso | 31 6 | 37 is | 55 5 | .B 1986 | *NEW HOME UNIT + SYSTEM HOOKUP 3 | 31 6 | 37 21 58 84 | 69 1987 | 31 6 37 23 60 92 | -65 | | 1988 | | 31 6 | 37 2 «| 63 99 | 64 1989 | | 31 6 | 37 28 | 65 104 | 63 1990 | *NEW HOME UNIT + SYSTEM HOOKUP 3 | 32 6 | 38 xO 69 112 | 62 1991 | | 32 | 38 33 7 117 | 61 1992] *NEW HOME UNIT + SYSTEM HOOKUP 3 | 32 6 | 38 36 CO 74 123 | -60 | | | | | 1993 | *REPLACEMENT OF 1983 EQUIPMENT 104 | 32 6 | 38 39s 77 132 | 58 1994] *REPLACEMENT OF 1984 UNITS 3 | 32 6 | 38 40 | 78 133 | 59 1995] *UPRATING OF VILLAGE GENERATOR 90 | 33 6 | 39 42 | 81 135 | -60 1996 | *REPLACEMENT OF 1986 UNIT 3 | 33 6 | 39 a 83 136 | -61 1997] *NEW HOME UNIT + SYSTEM HOOKUP 3 | 34 6 (| 40 4 | 85 139 | .61 | | | | | 1998 | | 34 6 | 40 ar | 87 141 | 62 1999 | | 34 6 | 40 4a | 88 141 | 62 2000 | *REPLACEMENT OF 1990 UNIT 3 | 34 | 40 so | 90 141 | 64 2001 | | 34 6 | 40 5. 21 141 | 65 2002 | *REPLACEMENT OF 1992 UNIT | 34 6 (| 40 52 | 92 141 | 65 NOTES: 1. “Annual Costs" are the result of capitalization (or "loan repayment") of fixed equipment such as diesel generators at an annual interest rate of 3.5 percent. 2. "Fuel Costs" are taken from Table 17. page 70 TABLE 18b ESTIMATED COSTS OF ELFIN COVE ALTERNATIVE "A" NET PRESENT WORTH CALACULATIONS TOTAL | PRESENT | VILLAGE-WIDE cosTS | WORTH YEAR | ($1,000) | ($1,000) | 1983 | 32 30.92 1984 | 36 33.61 1985 55 49.60 1986 | 58 50.54 1987 | 60 50.52 | 1988 | 63 | 51.25 1989 | 65 | 51.09 1990 | 69 | 52.40 1991 | 71 52.09 1992 | 74 | 52.46 | 1993 | 77 | 52.74 1994 | 78 | 51.62 1995 | 81 51.79 1996 | 83 51.28 1997 | 85 | 50.74 1998 87 | 50.17 1999 | 88 49.03 2000 | 90 | 48.46 2001 | 91 47.34 2002 | 92 | 46.24 2003 - 2034 92 881.74 NET PRESENT WORTH OF THIS PLAN: 1,855.63 NOTE: Present Worth values calculated using an interest of 3.5 pct. page 71 1.2 - Alternative "A" 1.2.1 - Social and Environmental Evaluation If this alternative were to be implemented, there would be some opportunity for the employment of Elfin Cove residents. In fact, this is to be encouraged so that costs may be held down and so that residents have a better understanding of how their power system in constructed. Such knowlege would be helpful when re- pairs are needed. This alternative could reduce the amount of pollutants in the Elfin Cove air, but this is not much of a problem in the village anyhow. A greater benefit would be from the elimination of a great number of noise sources. While it is true that a central diesel plant can be noisy, with proper siting and adequate muf- fler and building construction techniques, this should create no problem in the village. The likelihood of fuel spills from the individual generators would not necessarily decrease much because it is expected that these units will remain in place as backup units. In such cir- cumstances, they may receive less maintenance than they do now, causing the integrity of their fuel storage systens to deterior- ate. 1.2.2 - Technical Evaluation The construction of a centralized power systen in Elfin Cove would go a long way toward providing residents with economical energy. The maintenance and operation of a diesel system is not particularly complicated and the availability of electricity at any time would be helpful to those residents who are unable, for whatever reason, to operate or repair their own units. As mentioned in Part I.1, the economics of this alternative should be compared against those of the base case while keeping mind the differences between the amount of energy delivered under each of the cases. This alternative is significantly less expensive than the base case while delivering more electric energy. TABLE 19 “page 72 ESTIMATED FUEL COSTS FOR ELFIN COVE ALTERNATIVE “B" (Assuming 50 % Fuel Savings From Hydro Plant) | VILLAGE-WIDE | DIESEL | ENERGY | FUEL x FUEL PRICE = FUEL COST | CONSUMPTION | CONSUMPTION YEAR| (1,000 kWh) | (1,000 gal) ($/gal) ($1, 000) | | 1983 | 61 | 10 1.39 14 1984 | 69 | 12 1.42 16 1985 | 75 | 6 1.46 9 1986 | 84 | 7 1.50 ll 1987 | 92 | 8 1.53 12 | | 1988 | 99 | 8 1.57 13 1989 | 104 | 9 1.61 14 1990 | 112 | 9 1.65 15 1991 | 117 | 10 1.69 16 1992 | 123 | 10 1.74 18 | | 1993 | 132 | ll 1.78 20 1994 | 133 | ll 1.82 20 1995 | 135 | ll 1.87 21 1996 | 136 | il 1.92 22 1997 | 139 | 12 1.96 23 | | 1998 | 141 | 12 2.01 24 1999 | 141 | 12 2.06 24 2000 | 141 | 12 2.12 25 2001 | 141 12 2.17 25 2002 | 141 12 2.22 26 NOTE: "Village-Wide Energy Consumption" data is taken from Table 12. TABLE 20a "page 73 ESTIMATED COSTS OF ELFIN COVE ALTERNATIVE "B" (COSTS OF ELECTRICITY DELIVERED BY VILLAGE-WIDE DIESEL/HYDRO SYSTEM) | ANNUAL O&M TOTAL FUEL TOTAL ELECTRIC | SYSTEM ADDITIONS AND CAPITAL EXPENDITURES | COSTS costs FIXED cosTs costs ENERGY ENERGY | AMOUNT | = COSTS + = INCURRED + CONSUMPTION = COSTS YEAR | DESCRIPTION ($1,000) | ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000) _($1, 000) (2,000 kWh) ($/kWh) 1983 | *EXISTING GEN. EQUIP. 104 | 12 6 | 18 14 | 32 61 | -52 1984] *2 NEW HOME UNITS 3 | 13 7 | 20 1 | 36 69 | 52 1985 | *NEW VILLAGE-WIDE DIESEL/HYDRO SYST. 350 | 37 5 | 42 9 | 51 75 | 68 1986 | *NEW HOME UNIT + SYSTEM HOOKUP 3 | 37 5 | 42 n | 53 84 | 63 1987 | | 37 5 | 42 12 | 54 92 | 59 1988 | | 37 5 | 42 3 | 955 99 | . 56 1989 | | 37 5 | 42 4 | 56 104 | 54 1990 | *NEW HOME UNIT + SYSTEM HOOKUP 3 38 5 43 is | 58 112 | 52 1991 | 38 5 43 a | 59 117 | -50 1992] *NEW HOME UNIT + SYSTEM HOOKUP 3 38 5 | 43 la | 61 123 | 50 1993 | *REPLACEMENT OF 1983 EQUIPMENT 104 | 38 5 | 43 20 | 63 132 | . 48 1994 | *REPLACEMENT OF 1984 UNITS 3 | 38 5 | 43 20 | 63 133 | 47 1995 | *UPRATING OF VILLAGE GENERATOR 90 | 39 5 44 a. | 65 135 | 48 1996 | *REPLACEMENT OF 1986 UNIT 3 | 39 5 44 22 | 66 136 | 49 1997 | *NEW HOME UNIT + SYSTEM HOOKUP 3 | 40 5 | 45 2 | 68 139 | 49 1998 | 40 5 | 45 a | 69 141 | 49 1999 | 5 | 45 mu | 69 141 | wt) 2000 | *REPLACEMENT OF 1990 UNIT 3 40 5 45 25 70 14) | .50 2001 | 5 45 25 70 141 | -50 2002 | *REPLACEMENT OF 1992 UNIT 3 40 5 | 45 2% «| 7 141 | -50 NOTE: 1. "Annual Costs" are the result of capitalization (or "loan repayment") for fixed equipment such as diesel generators and hydro equipment a at an annual interest rate of 3.5 percent. 2. “Fuel Costs" are taken from Table 19. page 74 TABLE 20b ESTIMATED COSTS OF ELFIN COVE ALTERNATIVE "B" NET PRESENT WORTH CALACULATIONS | TOTAL | PRESENT | VILLAGE-wWIDE costs | WORTH YEAR L ($1, 000) + ($1, 000) 1983 | 32 | 30.92 1984 | 36 | 33.61 1985 | 51 | 46.00 1986 | 53 | 46.18 1987 | 54 | 45.47 | 1988 | 55 | 44.74 1989 | 56 | 44.02 1990 | 58 | 44.05 1991 | 59 | 43.29 1992 | 61 | 43.24 | | 1993 | 63 | 43.15 1994 | 63 | 41.69 1995 | 65 | 41.56 1996 | 66 | 40.77 1997 | 68 | 40.59 1998 69 | 39.79 1999 | 69 38.45 2000 | 70 | 37.69 2001 | 7 | 36.93 2002 | 71 | 35.68 2003 - 2034 71 680.47 NET PRESENT WORTH OF THIS PLAN: 1,498.29 NOTE: Present Worth values calculated using an interest rate of 3.5 pct. page 75 1.3 - Alternative "B" 1.3.1 - Social and Environmental Evaluation If this alternative were to be implemented, there would be some opportunity for the enployment of Elfin Cove residents. In fact, this is to be encouraged so that costs may be held down and so that residents have a better understanding of how their power systen in constructed. Such knowlege would be helpful when re- pairs are needed. This alternative could reduce the amount of pollutants in the Elfin Cove air, but this is not much of a problem in the village anyhow. A greater benefit would be from the elimination of a great number of noise sources. Hydroelectric plants are practic- ally silent, and when the diesel plant must be operated, its noise would go unnoticed by most residents. The development of any of the hydroelectric alternatives consid- ered (Roy's Creek, Roy's Creek plus Joe's Creek, raising the ele- vations of the lilly ponds, etc) would have virtually no effect on the environment in the area. There are no fish in any of those streams. Few, if any trees would have to be cut to provide a path for the penstock pipe and little or no land would be in- nundated. The implications of the use of Tongass National Forest land for the penstock "right-of-way" and intake would have to be examined. Elfin Cove residents told Acres' staff that US Forest Service personnel have been very accomodating to village use of the surrounding forest land. The scale of our proposed projects is so small that there would likely be no objection raised by USFS. The likelihood of fuel spills from the individual generators would not necessarily decrease much because it is expected that these units will remain in place as backup units. In such cir- cumstances, they may receive less maintenance than they do now, causing the integrity of their fuel storage systems to deterior- ate. 1.3.2 - Technical Evaluation The construction of a centralized power system in Elfin Cove would go a long way toward providing residents with economical energy. The maintenance and operation of a diesel systan is not particularly complicated and the availability of electricity at any time would be helpful to those residents who are unable, for whatever reason, to operate or repair their own units. TABLE 21 ESTIMATED FUEL COSTS FOR ELFIN COVE ALTERNATIVE "C" (OUTPUT OF HYDRO PLANT ELIMINATES THE NEED FOR 50 PERCENT OF THE VILLAGE'S FUEL USE) page 76 | RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL | RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL | COMMERCIAL | COMMERCIAL COMMERCIAL | — TOTAL | ENERGY ENERGY | FUEL USE X FUEL PRICE = FUEL COSTS | FUEL USE X FUEL PRICE = FUEL COSTS| FUEL COSTS | CONSUMPTION CONSUMPTION | (@ 3kWh/gal) | (@6kWh/gal) | YEAR| (1,000 kWh) (1,000 a (1,000 gal) ($/gal) ($1,000) (1,000 gal) _($/gal) ($1,000) (1,000) ad | 26 36 | 9 1.50 13 | 6 1.39 a | 21 1984 | 30 39 | 10 1.54 15 | 7 1.42 9 -| 24 1985 33 42 | 6 1.58 10 | 4 1.46 6 16 1986 39 45 6 1.62 10 4 1.50 6 16 1987 | 44 48 | 7 1.66 12 4 1.53 6 | 18 | 1988 | 48 51 | 8 1.70 14 | 4 1.57 | 20 1989 | 50 54 | 8 1.74 14 | 4 1.61 6 «| 20 1990 | 34 58 | 9 1.78 16 5 1.65 Bt 24 1991 | 56 61 | 9 1.83 16 5 1.69 8 | 24 1992 | 59 65 10 1.87 19 6 1.74 10 | 29 | 1993 | 64 68 | mn 1.92 21 | 6 1.78 ll | 32 1994 | 65 68 | ll 1.97 22 | 6 1.82 ll | 33 1995 | 67 68 | ret 2.02 22 | 6 1.87 ll | 33 1996 | 68 68 | ll 2.07 23 | 6 1.92 12 | 35 1997 | 2 68 | 12 2.12 25 | 6 1.96 12 | 37 | 1998 | 73 68 | 12 2-17 26 | 6 2.01 12 | 38 1999 | 2B 68 | 12 2.23 27 | 6 2.06 n2e ett 39 2000 | 3B 68 | 12 2.28 27 | 6 2.12 isin 40 2001 | 3 68 | 12 2.34 28 | 6 2.17 2 4l 2002 | 3 68 | 12 2.40 29 | 6 2.22 Pt 42 NOTES: 1. Residential and Commercial "Energy Consumption" levels are taken from Table 12. TABLE 22a ESTIMATED COSTS OF ELFIN COVE ALTERNATIVE "C" (COSTS OF ELECTRICITY DELIVERED BY VILLAGE-WIDE HYDRO SYSTEM WITH INDIVIDUAL BACKUP GENERATORS) page 77 | ANNUAL O&M TOTAL FUEL TOTAL ELECTRIC | SYSTEM ADDITIONS AND CAPITAL EXPENDITURES | COSTS COSTS FIXED costs costs ENERGY ENERGY AMOUNT | = COSTS + = INCURRED + CONSUMPTION = COSTS YEAR| DESCRIPTION ae ($1, 000) ($1,000) ($1,000) _($1, 000) ($1, 000) (1,000 kWh) ($/kWh) ae *EXISTING GEN. EQUIP. 104 | 12 Cl 18 intel 39 61 | 64. 1984 | *2 NEW HOME UNITS 3 13 Tl 20 2h | 44 69 | 64 1985 | *NEW VILLAGE-WIDE HYDRO SYSTEM 320 35 S| 40 eee 56 75 75 1986 | *NEW HOME UNIT + SYSTEM HOOKUP 4 36 S| 41 16 | 57 84 68 1987 | | 36 5 ! 4l 18 59 92 | 64 | : 1988 | | 36 S| 41 2° | 61 99 | 562 1989 | 36 51 | 4l 2 «| 61 104 | 59 1990 | *NEW HOME UNIT + SYSTEM HOOKUP 4 36 5 | 4l 24 64 112 | .57 1991 | 36 5 | 4l 24 65 117 | 56 1992 | *NEW HOME UNIT + SYSTEM HOOKUP 4 | 37 See | 42 29 | 67 123 | 54 | | 1993 | *REPLACEMENT OF 1983 EQUIPMENT 104 | 37 5 | 42 52a | 74 132 | 56 1994 | *REPLACEMENT OF 1984 UNITS 4 | 37 Say 42 S3iit| 75 133 | 56 1995 | | 37 Stal 42 S35 75 135 | 56 1996 | *REPLACEMENT OF 1986 UNIT 4 | 37 Sata 42 35 | 77 136 | 57 1997 | *NEW HOME UNIT + SYSTEM HOOKUP 4 | 37 Sil 42 STi 79 139 | Coll | | | | ; | 1998 | | 37 Chess 42 38s 80 141 | 57 1999 | | 37 Sia 42 591 81 141 | 57 2000 | *REPLACEMENT OF 1990 UNIT 4 | 37 Sul 42 a | 82 141 | 58 2001 | | 37 5 | 42 4 | 83 141 | a) 2002 | *REPLACEMENT OF 1992 UNIT 4 | 37 St 42 a2 84 141 | -60 NOTE: 1. “Annual Costs" are the result of capitalization (or "loan repayment") for fixed equipment such as diesel generators and hydro equipment a at an annual interest rate of 3.5 percent. 2. “Fuel Costs" are taken from Table 21. at ae he —_— a ae Paviews page 78 TABLE 22b ESTIMATED COSTS OF ELFIN COVE ALTERNATIVE "C" NET PRESENT WORTH CALACULATIONS TOTAL PRESENT VILLAGE-WIDE COSTS WORTH YEAR | ($1,000) ($1, 000) | 1983 | 39 | 37.68 1984 | 44 | 40.07 1985 | 56 | 50.51 1986 | 57 | 49.67 1987 | 59 49.68 | 1988 | 61 | 49.62 1989 | 61 | 47.95 1990 | 64 | 48.60 i991 | 65 | 47.69 1992 | 67 47.50 | | 1993 | 74 | 50.68 1994 | 75 | 49.64 1995 | 75 | 47.96 1996 | 77 | 47.57 1997 | 79 | 47.16 | 1998 | 80 | 46.14 1999 | 81 | 45.13 2000 | 82 44.15 2001 | 83 43.18 2002 | 84 42.22 2003 - 2034 84 776.48 NET PRESENT WORTH OF THIS PLAN: 1,701.64 NOTE: Present Worth values calculated using an interest rate of 3.5 pet. page 79 1.4 - Alternative "C" 1.4.1 - Social and Environmental Evaluation In a manner similar to that of Alternatives "A" and "B", the implementation of this alternative could provide some employment in Elfin Cove. Residents could carry out most all of the con- struction work. Oversight of the construction work should be provided by someone experience in this type of project. One advantage of having residents involved in the construction of the project is that there would be a number of people in the vil- lage familiar with the power system. When repairs or changes were needed, there would be no need to call in "specialists" to provide these services. The use of dispersed generators would have no significant environmental impact at Elfin Cove. The residents are already familiar with their use, so there would be no real need for an adjustment in lifestyle to use their own units. 1.4.2 - Technical Evaluation The implementation of this alternative would require the appli- cation of control technology not in wide use in the utility industry. While the remote control of utility loads is not uncommon, the use of long-term load shedding as an energy allo- cation technique is virtually unheard of. In systems where there exists some load shedding control, customers are given the option of participating. For the possible inconvenience of los- ing their energy supply, they are given lower energy prices. The control system which chooses the customers to be dropped off the system will have to be checked out very carefully to ensure that all the users get nearly an equal amount of energy. TABLE 23 page 80 ESTIMATED FUEL COSTS FOR ELFIN COVE ALTERNATIVE "D" (Assuming 50 % Fuel Savings From Hydro Plant Plus 20% Fuel Savings From Wind Turbine) | VILLAGE-WIDE | DIESEL | ENERGY | FUEL x FUEL PRICE = FUEL COST | CONSUMPTION | CONSUMPTION YEAR | (2,000 kWh) (1,000 gal) ($/gal) ($1,000) | 1983 | 61 le 10 1.39 14 1984 | 69 | 12 1.42 16 1985 | 75 | 6 1.46 9 1986 | 84 | 7 1.50 ll 1987 | 92 | 8 a53 12 | 1988 | 99 | 8 1.57 13 1989 | 104 | 9 1.61 ¢ 14 1990 | 112 | 9 1.65 15 1991 117 | 10 1.69 16 1992 | 123 | 10 1.74 18 | | 1993 | 132 | 7 1.78 12 1994 | 133 7 1.82 13 1995 | 135 7 1.87 13 1996 136 7 1.92 13 1997 139 7 1.96 14 1998 141 7 2.01 14 1999 141 7 2.06 14 2000 141 7 2.12 15 2001 | 141 7 2017 15 2002 | 141 | 7 2.22 16 NOTE: "“Village-Wide Energy Consumption" data is taken from Table 12. TABLE 24a page 81 ESTIMATED COSTS OF ELFIN COVE ALTERNATIVE "D" (COSTS OF ELECTRICITY DELIVERED BY VILLAGE-WIDE DIESEL /HYDRO/WIND SYSTEM) | ANNUAL O&M TOTAL FUEL TOTAL ELECTRIC | SYSTEM ADDITIONS AND CAPITAL EXPENDITURES | COSTS costs FIXED cosTs costs ENERGY ENERGY | AMOUNT | = COSTS + = INCURRED + CONSUMPTION = COSTS YEAR| DESCRIPTION ($1,000) | ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000) _ ($1, 000) ($1, 000) (1,000 kWh) ($/kWh) 1983 | *EXISTING GEN. EQUIP. 104 | 12 | 18 14 | 32 61 | = 52 1984 | *2 NEW HOME UNITS 3 | 13 Took 20 a 36 69 | 52 1985 | *NEW VILLAGE-WIDE DIESEL/HYDRO SYST. 350 | 37 Sait 42 9 | 51 75 | - 68 1986 | *NEW HOME UNIT + SYSTEM HOOKUP 51 37 5 | 42 Team | 53 84 | 63 1987 | Ls? 5 | 42 it 54 92 | 259 1988 | | 37 51 I 42 ast 55 99 | 56 1989 | | 37 sil 42 4 | 56 104 | 254 1990 | *NEW HOME UNIT + SYSTEM HOOKUP Sul 38 Suto 43 asl 58 112 | 252 1991 | 38 Suu 43 16 59 117 | -50 1992 | *NEW HOME UNIT + SYSTEM HOOKUP 3 38 5 | 43 18 61 123 | .50 1993 | *NEW WIND TURBINE; REPL. 1983 EQUIP 304 | 52 5 | 57 12° | 69 132 | 52 1994 | *REPLACEMENT OF 1984 UNITS 3 | 52 5 | 57 is | 70 133 | 53 1995 | *UPRATING OF VILLAGE GENERATOR 90 | 52 5 57 13 70 135 | -52 1996 | *REPLACEMENT OF 1986 UNIT 3 | 52 5 57 13 70 136 | 51 1997 | *NEW HOME UNIT + SYSTEM HOOKUP 3 | 54 Sith 59 4 | 73 139 | 53 1998 | | 54 Si 59 4 | 73 141 | 52 1999 | | 54 Suc 59 | 73 141 | 52 2000 | *REPLACEMENT OF 1990 UNIT 3 | 54 Sati 59 itl 74 141 | 52 2001 | | 54 5 | 59 15. | 74 141 | 52 2002 | *REPLACEMENT OF 1992 UNIT 3 | 54 Sal 59 1 | 15 141 | 53 NOTE: 1. "Annual Costs" are the result of capitalization (or "loan repayment") for fixed equipment such as diesel generators and hydro equipment a at an annual interest rate of 3.5 percent. 2. "Fuel Costs" are taken from Table 23. page 82 TABLE 24b ESTIMATED COSTS OF ELFIN COVE ALTERNATIVE "D" NET PRESENT WORTH CALACULATIONS | TOTAL . | PRESENT | VILLAGE-wIDE cosTS | WwoRTH year | ($1,000) | ($1,000) | 1983 | 32 | 30.92 1984 | 36 | 33.61 1985 | 51 | 46.00 1986 | 53 | 46.18 1987 | 54 | 45.47 | 1988 | 55 | 44.74 1989 | 56 | 44.02 1990 | 58 44.05 1991 | 59 43.29 1992 | 61 | 43.24 | 1993 | 69 | 47.26 1994 | 70 | 46.33 1995 | 70 | 44.76 1996 | 70 | 43.25 1997 | 73 | 43.57 | | 1998 | 73 | 42.10 1999 | 73 | 40.68 2000 | 74 | 39.84 2001 | 74 | 38.49 2002 | 75 | 37.70 2003 - 2034 75 693.29 NET PRESENT WORTH OF THIS PLAN: 1,538.79 NOTE: Present Worth values calculated using an interest rate of 3.5 pet. page 83 1.5 - Alternative "D" 1.5.1 - Social and Environmental Evaluation The implementation of this alternative, with its combination of central diesel plant, mirco-hydro site, and wind turbine, could provide the village with a supply of energy derived largely from renewable resources. The construction of the wind turbine, could be done using local people for most of the work. Some assistance may be necessary from helicopter services to move the heavier pieces of wind turbine equipment to its site. Many of the maintenance functions on this system could be carried out by local people. The wind turbine would require periodic lubrication of its moving parts, as would the hydro plant. Maintenance requirements of the diesel plant could be more demanding. 1.5.2 - Technical Evaluation This alternative is slightly more expensive than the diesel/hydro plan described as Alternative "B." However, this difference is small enough that the construction of a wind turbine system at Elfin Cove should be reconsidered as the small machines become more reliable. The intermittent nature of wind-generated energy may present some problems in the operation of the backup diesel generator. Fre- quent starts and shutdowns of the engine may shorten its life. Leaving the diesel “on-line" would unnecessarily consume fuel and cause the engine to run at light load, an undesirable condition for a diesel. Jd_- COMMENTS AND DISCUSSION page 84 COMMENTS WERE RECEIVED FROM: Mr. Edward S. Bergeron Elfin Cove Community Corporation Alaska Department of Fish and Game Alaska Department of Natural Resources US Fish and Wildlife Service page 85 RECEIVED OCT 19 1983 BL ll caliente Bl Elfin Cove, Alaska 99825 ALASA FO'TR AUTHORITY, October 16, 1983 Alaska Power Authority 334 W Sth Avenue, 2nd Floor Anchorage, AK 99501 RE: Reconnaissance Study of Energy Requirements & Alternatives (Main report dtd July 1983 and Appendix Elfin Cove dtd July 1983, Preliminary Report by ACRES) In response to the subject study, I find the following items were not addressed sufficiently in the report. 1. Tidal action power generation possibilities were not conclusive as no costs or locations were shown of previous tidal generatorsgin our vicinity. or probable Coie 2. Wind generators possibilities were not discussed properly. Costs were not given and the facts that during low water flow w#éhich is caused by long periods of freezing are caused by hard northerly winds and high pressure in our area. 3. A topographic map showing locations of all creeks in the Elfin Cove watershed was not included in the study to show additional waters tha might be diverted to supply power. 4. Other hydro studies were not shown or included, i.e., Port Althorp Cannery Site Study in the mid 1970s. 5. It was not shown in the study that existing private generators could take over during low output from a hydro or wind unit during low generation periods. Cohen A Veege—~ Edward S. Bergeron ACRES' RESPONSE page 86 1. Comment: ". . .I find the following items were not addressed suf- ficiently in the report. 1. Tidal action power generation possibilities were not conclusive as no costs or locations were shown of previ- ous tidal generators or probable costs in our vicinity." | Response: Tidal power is worthy of serious consideration only in those cases where there is both a large tidal range and a large load which can use the power generated from a tidal j power plant. Elfin Cove has neither. Past studies to the contrary, generation of electrical power using only tidal current velocities is impractical. The application { of this alternative at Elfin Cove is not appropriate. No further comment or change in the report text is needed. Comment: "2. Wind generators [sic] possibilities were not discus- : sed properly. Costs were not given and the facts that i during low water flow which is caused by long periods of . freezing are caused by hard northerly winds and high pressure in our area [sic]." L Response: Mea culpa! The report's discussion of wind energy at Elfin Cove has been significantly expanded, with a case (Alternative "D") devoted to its study. The near-term (1984-1990) construction of a wind turbine at Elfin Cove is not recommended for a number of reasons. l First, it is not believed that the reliability of small wind turbines is adequate for use in a bush utility system. Secondly, these small wind turbines are quite | expensive, electricity generated by then is anything but cheap. Elfin Cove, since it is located adjacent to the windy ] Gulf of Alaska, has available to it particularly large wind energy resource, especially in the fall and winter, as the commentator rightly points out. “ While wind energy may not be appropriate for use at Elfin Cove at present, its future use cannot be overlooked. Steps should be taken now to accurately assess the area's ‘ wind energy resource. This would be best accomplished through the installation of an automated anemometry sys- tem at one (or more) of the exposed areas around the village. _— Comment: Response: Comment: Response: ACRES' RESPONSE page 87 "3, A topographic map showing locations of all creeks in the Elfin Cove watershed was not included in the study to show additional waters that might be diverted to supply power." Detailed topographic maps of the Elfin Cove area would be most helpful in estimating the hydroelectric resource available to the village. It is unfortunate that there are no sources of economical maps of the area at a scale which would be helpful in such a study. The most commonly used source of topographic maps is the US Geological Survey. The Elfin Cove area is shown on USGS maps Mt. Fairweather A-1 and A-2 at a scale of approximately 1 inch = 1 mile. At such a scale, the entire Elfin Cove watershed covers an area about the size of a quarter. Under that condition, it is impossible to extract any useful information regarding area creeks. Indeed, the two creeks given serious consideration by Acres' study (Roy's Creek and Joe's Creek) do = show up at all on the USGS maps. The preparation of new and more detailed (larger scale) maps of the Elfin Cove watershed would be extremely expensive. Such a mapping could easily cost more than the construction of a micro-hydro plant itself. No comment or change in the text is required. "4, Qther hydro studies were not included, i.e., Port Althorp Cannery Site Study in the mid 1970s." The rehabilitation of other power facilities, especially those which do not consume fuel (such as the Port Althorp site), is always attractive to planners. Frequently, the re-use of existing plant equipment can be much less expensive than new construction. Unfortunately, the development of hydro sites other than those in the immediate vicinity of Elfin Cove would be very expensive. A particular obstacle to the development of a Port Althorp hydro site is that it would require the construction of about’ 10 miles of power line. In terrain such as that in the Elfin Cove area, such a line can cost upwards of $150,000 per mile ($1.5 million total). For $1.5 million, enough diesel fuel could be purchased enough diesel fuel to last Elfin Cove nearly 100 years at their present rate of fuel consumption. No further comment or change in the report text is needed. Comment: Response: ACRES' RESPONSE page 88 "5, It was not shown in the study that existing private generators could take over during low output from a hydro or wind unit during low generation periods." A new Alternative Plan will be developed to cover this point. In the final report, this will be called Alterna- tive "C". It is doubtful, for a number of reasons that such an option would be cost effective. These reasons will also be discussed in the final report. page 89 Date: October 16, 1983 RECEIVED To: Alaska Power Authority 334 W Sth Avenue, 2nd Floor OCT 19 1983 Anchorage, AK 99501 ALAS" 5 F7"!"R: AUTHORITY, From: Elfin Cove Community Corporation P.O. Box 1 Elfin Cove, AK 99825 Subject: Reconnaissance Study of Energy Requirements & Alternatives (Main report dtd July 1983 and Appendix Elfin Cove dtd July 1983, Preliminary Report by ACRES) At a Corporate meeting held October 4, 1983, a motion was made and passed that the Corporation write a letter saying that at this time we have no comment because the preliminary study presented does not specifically address our questions concerning possible hydroelectric energy in our vicinity. Private citizens will be responding individually. bm FLEE. Jim Wild, Chairman Elfin Cove Community Corporation ACRES' RESPONSE page 90 1. Comment: ". . .the preliminary study presented does not specific- ally address our questions concerning possible hydroelec- tric energy in our vicinity." Response: Acres American was contracted by the Alaska Power Author- ity to conduct a “reconnaissance study" of the energy needs of Elfin Cove and the energy resources available to the village. The content of a reconnaissance study is mandated by state law (AS44.83). The draft study refer- red to in the comment meets all requirements of the state statute. . We realize that the one thing Elfin Cove residents want is action. Unfortunately (or fortunately, as some would claim), there have been constraints placed upon the Power Authority regarding those projects they can actually con- struct. One of these constraints is that they have con- duct a series of studies which justify the expenditure of public monies for the construction of power projects. The reconnaissance study is typically the very first of this series of studies. If a reconnaissance study shows an "alternative" energy source available to a village which could produce elec- tricity at an attractive price, the APA is then required (under most circumstances) to conduct a _ feasibility study. This study is a detailed examination of one pro- ject identified by the reconnaissance study as being most appropriate for the village. As the feasibility study progresses, the Power Authority must contract with another contractor to conduct an independent cost esti- mate of the project. Only after all these steps have been taken can the Power Authority proceed to recommend to the Legislature that funds be appropriated for the construction of power projects. page 91 BILL SHEFFIELD, GOVERNOR DEPART MENT OF FISH AND GA ME ROOT Ae | PHONE: (907) 465-4100 OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER October 20, 1983 RECEIVED 2 4 1983 Mr. Eric P. Yould Executive Director BLASKA POWER AUTHORITY Alaska Power Authority 334 W. 5th Ave. Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Dear Mr. Yould: The Alaska Department of Fish and Game has reviewed the Reconnaissance Study of Energy Requirements and Alternatives for Elfin Cove on the Chichagof Island. Our review focused on how the proposed alternatives could affect the fisheries and wildlife resources of the Elfin Cove vicinity. In brief we perceive minimal effects from any of the recommended alternatives. The two streams which are mentioned in the study .as potentially providing hydroelectric power have not been determined by this Department to be important for the spawning or rearing of anadromous fish nor are they known to support significant resident fish populations. We also believe that any potential effects on wildlife resources associated with dam, pipeline, and powerhouse construction would be minimal due to the limited nature of the proposed project. Therefore, we have no preference among the alternatives displayed, nor any objection to the project. For your information, we note that a segment of the main report between pages 78 and 80 is missing. This portion concerns the specifics of passive solar heating in Southeastern Alaska. We would like to request a second opportunity for review when the project moves from the conceptual to the site-specific design stage. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Sincerely, 0, M7 Collinsworth 1 Commissioner cc: R. Reed D. Hardy K. Imamura M. Bethers i. ACRES' RESPONSE No comment or change in the text are necessary. page 92 — wa page 93 BILL SHEFFIELD, GOVERNOR 619 WAREHOUSE AVE., SUITE 210 DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501 PHONE: (907) 276-2653 DIVISION OF PARKS October 13, 1983 Re: 1130-13 3130-1 (FERC) #6 Cc STR aee Eric P. Yould Kay, fa he Executive Director 4 /9, Alaska Power Authority Meg Sp 334 W. Fifth Avenue : py, Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Fp Dear Mr. Yould: Thank you for submitting a copy of the Elfin Cove Reconnaissance Study of Energy Requirements for our review. At this time, there are no cultural resources listed on the Alaska Heritage Resources Survey for the Elfin Cove vicinity. Discussions with the Chatham Area archaeologist for the Tongass National Forest indicate that there may be prehistoric remains in the Elfin Cove vicinity. The possibility of encountering such remains in the potential project area should be kept in mind. It should be addressed if and when the hydropower alternative is selected and implemented. At that time this office will make appropriate recommendations concerning a possible survey of the project area. Sincerely, Neil C. Johannsen Director Ty L. Dilliplane State Historic Preservation Officer By: DR: clk ALASKA STATE PARKS -- Let's Put Them on the Map! ACRES' RESPONSE page 94 1. No comment or change in the text are necessary. — page 95 United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE IN REPLY REFER TO: P. O. Box 1287 Juneau, Alaska 99802 October 17, 1983 Mr. Eric P. Yould Executive Director 7S “Ep Alaska Power Authority dg, 0 x a 334 West 5th Avenue : Poy SO? Anchorage, Alaska 99501 “? ayy “typ, Dear Mr. Yould The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service has reviewed the Reconnaissance Study of Energy Requirements and Alternatives, Main Report and Appendix: Elfin Cove. We offer the following comments: General Comments These documents provide an interesting evaluation of different approaches to providing energy, primarily electricity, to Alaskan villages. However, the method by which basic heating and electrical production problems are analyzed for “Alaskan Villages” may not be a realistic approach. Although the same technology assessment for each energy source could be conducted for each village, the heterogeneity of villages in terms of climate, availability of on-site resources, transportation access, culture and seasonal population patterns is so great that consideration of all these factors would make the process of ranking technology assessment appear to be overly simplistic. For example, in far northern locations, insulation and local fuels (coal and wood) may be critical factors in determining the energy requirements for a particular household, and in subsistence economies, electricity may be of limited importance because of its expense. In a location like Elfin Cove, where the population is seasonal and maintains a fishing-related economy, electricity is extremely important in powering cold storage equipment and modern appliances. Furthermore, in villages where local industry establishes a cash economy, the energy options are expanded. There exists a greater capacity to invest in centralized energy systems. The evaluation procedure and manufacturer's information provided in the Appendix provide valuable information for persons not directly involved in hydroelectric generation professions. page 96 Specific Comments E.4 Heating Technologies, pages 68-85: Include insulation. In some areas, an occupied super insulated house may require little additional heat to that generated by cooking and human activity. I. 3 - Alternative "B", page 71: It is stated that there are no fish in Roy's Creek or Joe's Creek, the potential hydro sources. Further investigation and documentation may be appropriate since even streams with obstructions or velocity barriers support resident populations of Dolly Varden char and intertidal spawning populations of pink and chum salmon. For other village locations where fishery resources do exist in streams with hydro potential, sensitive design and construction can usually eliminate or mitigate impacts. Perhaps this report could have addressed fisheries mitigation as a factor in discussions of hydroelectric power in the technology assessment sections. Summa ry This assessment of energy requirements and alternatives for Elfin Cove is certainly an interesting and worthwhile study, despite some probable limitations. It provides food for thought to resource agencies who are usually presented with single solution approaches to such problems as energy production. We appreciate the opportunity to examine this document. Sincerely yours, Field Supervisor oo — 1. 2.5 Comment: Response: Comment: Response: Comment: Response: Comment: Response: page 97 ACRES' RESPONSE ", . >.the method by which basic heating and electrical production problems are analyzed for ‘Alaskan Villages' may not be a realistic approach." It is likely that the comment refers to discussions of energy use included in the "Main Report" rather in the Elfin Cove appendix. If this is the case, it is easy to see why the commentator is concerned. The Main Report volume is intentionally generic and is not expected to be useful in any specific situation. The village-specific appendix is a considerably more useful document. “Include insulation. In some areas, an occupied super insulated house may require little additional heat to that generated by cooking and human activity." This change will be made to the main text in its final release. "Further investigation [regarding fish populations] and documentation may be appropriate. . ." Although Acres' investigators do not believe that fish reside in either of the creeks studied at Elfin Cove, further studies may be appropriate at the feasibility study level. "Perhaps this report could have addressed fisheries miti- gation as a factor in discussions of hydroelectric power in the technology assessment section." A short discussion will be included in the final release of the Main Report. _— ATTACHMENT 1 ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY 1983 PROJECT EVALUATION PROCEDURE anal 4 Vucy 8e Servrent 2/13 /¢3 ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY PROJECT EVALUATION PROCEDURE The Power Authority's project evaluation procedure reflects the organization's purpose and philosophy. The Power Authority was established as an instrument of the State to intervene for the purpose of bringing to. fruition worthy projects that would otherwise be excluded from development by the constraints of financial markets. Most, if not all, Alaskan capital intensive power projects would be precluded from conventional financing due to the perception of added risk inherent in building projects in small, isolated Alaska communities. Thus, the Authority's approach to project evaluation does not consist, as some have recommended, of using market financial parameters to determine the ability of the project to generate sufficient sales to cover revenue requirements. Instead, the approach entails first assessing a project's “worthiness" apart from the constraints of financial markets, and, second, determining if there is the ability and political will to intervene to establish financing arrangements and terms that permit the project to be financed. To reiterate, the Authority's purpose is to intervene in financial markets to permit worthy projects to be developed. A project evaluation procedure that requires a project to pass a financing test using market conditions would preclude the Authority from acting in keeping with its purpose. The means that the Authority has adopted to assess a project's worthiness are consistent with traditional federal evaluation methods for. public water resource projects. The goal is to maximize net economic benefits from the state's perspective, tempered by environmental, socioeconomic and public preference constraints. The method attempts to identify the real economic resource costs of all options under study; the magnitude of these costs are independent of the entity that finances and implements the options. The Authority's project evaluation procedure has evolved since 1979 and continues to undergo refinement. Some desired characteristics of the procedures are: 1. Consistency from one study and market area to another. 2. Equity in the treatment of alternatives. 3. Practicality, given data limitations. 4. Responsiveness to statutory direction. In general terms, the procedure entails (1) forecasting end use requirements on the basis of assumptions regarding economic activity and energy cost trends; (2) formulating various alternative plans to satisfy the forecasted requirements; (3) estimating the capital, operation, maintenance and fuel costs of each plan over its life cycle; (4) discounting the cost of each plan to a common point in time; (5) comparing the total discounted costs of each plan and determining Project Evaluation Procedure Page 2 the preferred plan; (6) evaluating the preferred plan's cost of power under a variety of financing arrangements in relation to anticipated power costs without the plan; and (7) identifying those financing arrangements which result in acceptable power costs. Forecasting Future Requirements. A planning period is first adopted to define the period of time over which forecasts are developed and energy plans are formulated. The length of the planning period is limited by the practical difficulties of forecasting far into the future. A period of 20 years from the present is normally adopted. End use requirements (space heating, water heating, lights and appliances, and industrial processes) are forecast over the planning period for each of three sectors (residential, commercial/government, and manufacturing). The end use requirement forecasts are initially developed irrespective of the form of energy being used to energize the end use. The forecast for each end use reflects a range of economic activity/population forecasts and a range of overall energy prices. With respect to the former, economic base analysis founded on discreet developmental events is used as the basis of forecasting rather than simple trend projections, whenever possible. With regard to the latter, the end use forecasts reflect situations both where energy prices, overall, rise faster than general prices and where energy prices, overall, rise at a rate in keeping with general price levels. (It can be expected that the actual energy costs of the preferred plan will eventually be shown to fall within that range.) An intermediate forecast is used as the basis for the initial planning steps. - For each end use where more than one energy form is available to energize that end use, a mode split analysis is performed. This is accomplished in the course of the following initial screening of alternatives: 1. All reasonable alternative means of providing each end use are identified. 2. The per unit cost of energy is determined for each alternative using the Power Authority's economic evaluation parameters. 3. The amount of energy (or the amount of energy savings) that can be provided by each alternative is estimated. 4. For each end use, cost curves are developed showing relative cost, over time, of providing the end use by each of the reasonable alternatives. 5. The lowest cost means, or combination of means of providing each end use is identified. This determines the mode split after due consideration of the existing mode split and lag time for substitution of energy forms. The results also serve as a tool for formulating energy plans, which is the next step in the analysis. Project Evaluation Procedure Page 3 The forecasts address both energy and peak load requirements. Plan Formulation. The first step in formulating energy plans is identifying and screening all reasonable energy supply and conservation options. These include structural and non-structural alternatives and alternatives that provide intermittent as well as firm energy. This is accomplished in the course of the previous step in the analysis. Existing energy generation facilities and conservation practices are also evaluated for their performance, operation and maintenance costs, condition and remaining economic life. Given the menu of options available, the relative cost and mode split information developed in the course of forecasting energy requirements, and any additional comparative analysis of the options, two or more energy plans are formulated. Each plan must, with a consistent level of reliability, meet the forecasted energy and peak load requirements over the planning period. Whether plans are formulated to meet electrical energy requirements only, or both electrical and thermal requirements, depends upon the results of the mode split analysis. If it is shown that thermal needs should be met to a significant extent by electrical energy, then plans are formulated to meet both thermal and electrical requirements. If it is shown, on the other hand, that electricity should not play a significant part in providing thermal needs, then the bounds of the study are_limited to electrical energy requirements only. One plan is termed the "base case plan"; this plan is developed assuming a continuation of existing practice in the study area and is used as a common yard stick for comparison of the other plans. If opportunities exist, a plan is formulated to improve the base case plan by increasing its efficiency or by other means. One or more additional plans are formulated incorporating various combinations of options with the objective of identifying the lowest cost plan that is environmentally and socially acceptable. The sequence and timing of plan components are optimized as an integral part of plan formulation. This is accomplished by a systematic testing of different sequences and project timing in search of the sequence and timing that results in the lowest present value of plan costs. “—_— Project Evaluation Procedure Page 4 Discussion: 1. The Authority initially confined the forecasting to electrical energy requirements only. There are two problems with this approach. First, electrical energy supply plans often have associated with them certain amounts of waste heat suitable for space, water or process heating. In such cases, a forecast of thermal energy requirements is needed to determine the possibility of effectively utilizing this heat. Second, in forecasting electrical energy alone, the analyst is either explicitly or implicitly assuming a certain mode split in those end uses where more than just electrical energy can provide that end use. It is necessary to make the analysis of mode split explicit, and to do so requires a forecast of end use requirements rather than simply electrical energy needs. 2. In amplification of the procedure for mode split determination, the goal is to determine, based on full economic cost of alternatives and rational economic behavior, the lowest cost way of providing the end use. Estimating Project Costs. Alt costs for all projects are estimated with reference to a base year and in terms of the base year price levels. Costs incurred in future years reflect relative price changes only. Capital cost estimates are “overnight” estimates. Capital costs (in the year they are incurred) are added to annual operation and maintenance costs and any fuel costs to give the total yearly cost of a plan. The series of yearly costs is discounted to a common point in time, typically the first year of the planning period. Discussion: 1. A constant dollar approach has been adopted in the economic analysis to keep from having to forecast a long term inflation rate that would always serve as source of dispute, and to ease the computational burden. As reported by the Water and Energy Task Force of the U.S. Water Resources Council in their December 1981 report entitled “Evaluating Hydropower Benefits," the critical element in an analytical approach is the “use of consistent assumptions about interest rates and future prices." The Task Force endorses either "life-cycle analysis" (which includes inflation) or “inflation free analysis". The Power Authority's approach is specifically cited by the Task Force as an example of the latter. rm — Project Evaluation Procedure Page 5 2. Life cycle analysis dictates, state statute requires, and the long term planning horizon of a state government suggests that the relative plan costs be compared over the economic life of the projects under consideration. When hydroelectric and steam plant projects are being addressed, the economic evaluation period exceeds the 20 (or sometimes 30) year planning horizon. Yet, it is inappropriate to forecast load growth or escalation trends beyond the limits of the planning period. Also, project economic lives differ for varying types of facilities. These problems are handled by addressing costs throughout the economic evaluation period, but by assuming no load growth or cost escalation beyond the planning period. Facilities are replaced throughout the economic analysis period as dictated by their economic lives. Salvage values are included in the final year of the period as necessary. The economic evaluation period extends to the year that the longest lived project (that is added during the planning period) reaches the end of its economic life. For instance, if a hydroelectric project with a 50-year economic life is added in the tenth year of the planning period, the economic evaluation period would be 60 years in duration. Plan Comparison. Plans are compared in terms of total net benefits. Net benefits are equal to the gross benefits associated with a plan, less plan cost. The benefits are defined as the discounted total cost of the base case plan, supplemented: by any subsidiary benefits of a particular plan (see discussion). The plan offering the greatest net benefits is the preferred plan from an economic perspective. A benefit/cost ratio can also be used as an indicator of a plan's cost effectiveness. Discussion: — 1. In the event a plan provides a beneficial output other than that specifically being addressed in the study, incremental costs required to realize that benefit are subtracted from the benefit in each year, and these annual subsidiary net benefits are discounted to the common base date. 2. Consider the following hypothetical example: All cost and benefit figures are the sum of annual amounts discounted to the base date. —— Project Evaluation Procedure Page 6 Plan Base Plan Plan Base Plan Plan Cost Case 100 A 120 B 90 Case Evaluation - benefits: 100 cost: 100 net benefits: 0 benefit/cost ratio: 1 A Evaluation benefits: cost: net benefits: benefit/cost B Evaluation benefits: cost: net benefits: benefit/cost 100 + 10 = 110 120 110 - 120 = -10 ratio: 110/120 = 0.92 100 + 15 = 115 90 115 - 90 = 25 ratio: 115/90 = 1.28 Subsidiary Net Benefit 10 15 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS Analysis Parameters for the 1983 Fiscal Year Economic Analysis Inflation Rate - 0% | Real Discount Rate - 3.5% Real Oi] Distillate Escalation Rate 2.5% - First 20 years 0% - Thereafter | Cost of Power Analysis Inflation Rate -7.0% Project Debt to Equity Ratio - 1:0 ie Cost of Debt - 12.0% i Economic Life and Term of Financing Gasification Equipment 1 Waste Heat Recapture Equipment ~ Under 5 MW : Qver 5 MW Solar, Wind Turbines, Geothermal and ! Organic Rankine Cycle Turbines Diesel Generation* Units under 300 KW | Units over 300 KW Gas Turbines Combined Cycle Turbines | Steam Turbines (Including Coal and Wood-fired Boilers) Under 10 MW Over 10 MW Hydroelectric Projects Economic Life Term of Financing Transmission Systems Transmission Lines w/ Wood Poles Transmission Lines w/ Steel Towers Submarine Cables Oil Filled Solid Dielectric *Diesel Reserve Units will have longer life depending on use. 10 years 10 years 20 years 15 years 10 years 20 years 20 years 30 years . 20 years 30 years 50 years 35 years 30 years 40 years 30 years 20 years economic life is by unit and not total plant capacity. Also this — Inflation Rate For the purpose of the economic analysis there is assumed to be no inflation. Recommendation: The inflation rate should therefore remain at 0%. Discount Rate As previously indicated in the Analysis Parameters of FY 82 the historic inflation free cost of money to the utility industry appears to be approximately 3.0%. Currently national and local economists and financial experts estimate the overall real discount rate to be in the range of 3% to 4% with a likelihood that the real cost of money for utilities is increasing slightly due to the increasing size and cost of electric generation projects currently being undertaken. It is also acknowledged that historically the real cost of money in Alaska contains an "Alaska factor" and is therefore somewhat higher than in the rest of the nation. However, the discount rate is also intended reflect the state opportunity cost of money and reflect long term trends. Recommendation: In regards to the above analysis and review, the Discount Rate should be set at 3.5%. Escalation Rate Based upon a composite research of Energy Consulting Companies, national and local economists, and Investment Brokerage Firms, the forecast of distillate fuels (diesel and fuel oil) are expected to increase at an average real rate of 2.5% per annum for the period from 1982 to 2001. Beyond the year 2001 further increases in fuel are assumed to be zero. This assumption is based upon the belief that although additional increases are expected they are too speculative to quantify. Recommendation: The escalation rate for diesel and fuel oil be set at 2.5% per annum for the first 20 years of the economic analysis. Thereafter, further increases in the rate are assumed to be zero. Inflation Rate For the 1983 Fiscal Year, national and local economists along with Financial Institutions and Energy consulting Firms forecast the National inflation rate between 6 and 8 percent. Recommendation: The inflation rate should be set at 7% per year. Debt to Equity Ratio At the present time and under legislation currently in effect it is difficult to estimate the extent of debt financing for future Power Authority projects. It is also common utility practice to debt finance capital intensive projects. , Recommendation: In spite of the Power Authority's legislation, the debt to equity ratio for power project financing should remain at 1:0. Cost of Debt Cost of Debt is largely determined by the interest rate identified by statute for loans from the Power Project Loan fund. That interest rate is equal to the average weekly yield of municipal revenue bonds for the previous 12 month period as determined from the Weekly Bond Buyers 30 year index of revenue bonds. This average is currently approximately 13%. It is anticipated that the average will decrease only slowly during the 1983 fiscal year. Recommendation: Because of the anticipated slow decrease in the weekly revenue bond index it is recommended that the cost of debt be set at 12% to reflect current long term tax exempt rates with a decreasing participation of the Rural Electrification Administration in providing federal low interest financing. : baad Economic Life and Term of Loan Although in certain instances economic lives of up to 100 years may be warranted for hydroelectric projects, both the State Division of Budget and Management and F.E.R.C. recommend the use of 50 year economic lives for new hydroelectric projects. As a result the economic life of a new hydroelectric project is set at 50 years and the term of financing at 35 years. For all other alternative generation sources, the economic life and the term for which financing can be obtained is assumed to be the same even though they vary for each alternative. The following economic lives and loan terms should be used for various power project alternatives. Economic Life and Term of Financing Gasification Equipment 10 years Waste Heat Recapture Equipment Under 5 MW 10 years Over 5 MW 20 years Solar, Wind Turbines, Geothermal and Organic Rankine Cycle Turbines 15 years Diesel Generation* Units under 300 KW 10 years Units over 300 KW . 20 years Gas Turbines . 20 years Combined Cycle Turbines 30 years Steam Turbines (Including Coal ‘and Wood-fired Boilers) Under 10 MW 20 years Over 10 MW 30 years Hydroelectric Projects Economic Life 50 years Term of Financing 35 years Transmission Systems Transmission Lines w/ Wood Poles 30 years Transmission Lines w/ Steel Towers 40 years Submarine Cables Oil Filled _ 30 years Solid Dielectric 20 years *Diesel Reserve Units will have longer life depending on use. economic life is by unit and not total plant capacity. Also this Inflation Rate Or. Scott Goldsmith TaSeeeks 6.0% Or. David Reaume Economic Consultant 7.0% Lehman Brothers, Kohn Loeb 5.0 - 6.0% Or. Bradford Tuck University of Alaska 6.0% Donald MacFayden Salomon Brothers 6 - 8% Peter W. Sugg URS/Cloverdale & Colpitts- 6.0 - 7.0% Gary Anderson, Stanford Research Institute 7.0% Or. Mike Scott Battelle Pacific N.W. Lab. 5.0 - 7.0% Mr. Thomas Thurber Data Resources, Inc.. 625% Victor A. Perry III Bechtel Corp. 5.0% William L. Randall The First Boston Corp. 7.0 - 8.0% Wm. Micheal’ McHugh Applied Economics Associates 7.0 - 8.0% Fredric J. Prager ~ Smith, Barney, Harris Upnam & Company 5.0 - 6.0% John Delrocali Whartan Econometric Fotcasting Asso. 7.0% Michael G. Moroney Peat, Marwick & Mitchell, Inc. 6.5% Evyvan Carn RK Ne REFERENCE Discount Rate 3.0% 3.0% 3.0 - 3.5% 3.5% 4.0% 4.04% 4.0 = 4.04% 3.0% 2 Ne = 4 0%- Fuel Escalation Rate 2.65% 3.0 - 4.0% 3.0 = 3.5% ATTACHMENT 2 HYDROLOGIC CALCULATIONS FOR "ROY'S CREEK" DRAINAGE AT ELFIN COVE Note: The data upon which the following calculations are based were taken from US Geological Survey records for gaging stations some considerable distance from Elfin Cove. The results of these calculations should be interpreted in light of the considerable error which may result from terrain modification of local meteorologic conditions. Southeast Alaska is characterized by extremely rugged terrain which can produce widely varying micro- climates across relatively small distances. The authors provide this information to make the reader aware of the limitations under which this data may be used. FORM NO. 152 JOB NUMBER FILE NUMBER sHeeT__/ or__4 sy WD pate] JUZ& APP DATE Calculations At ARS SUBJECT: . (OY 5 CREEE Pm Orrin h flr = 0.07/2 jolt? pyle? . yes yer? > 0.0272 (y7al”” (0.43 = 2.65¢8& @ Whar fan @ = 379 (.08L0))*¢72(43) y” a0" G40) = 974 (4,32) (36) (1) (0103) (.079) > 0.49 0 eee : 6 Mra. Ak & = 997 (07670)) 4” a2 gsot™ 240-775 | = 9397 (359) (4i7) (jas) C078) (.0%8) = 183 @ Wha ory = 82 (437°) aa!" 240°* = 192 (44a) (1.32) C.orss) ° pat 109 —./0/ -.399 -.6/7 © Mor Jor = /59 GI") .220°" 850°" 240° 21153 (4/0) (/J62) Cors) (6034) = /.80 = wie ; . _ @ Mea 7b > 2.68 (06( Morr? (47) 358 (9557 090" > 2.88 (2.373) C4ol) (Loce) (1) (3.90) (rte > 5.20 ; . @ Man fun & = .00477 (04 (yo) 7**C43°77") 226°" 950 °°? > 00977 (3.79) (49486) (850) (282) = 203 ton @ Whe. Aly : 000/23 ole)“ 43°” a aso''* -ovol22 C Ibe ») (.46 (84) (26s) = /./F Oe . . d - ) = 1.00/29 (.08(y10))! ° 43 = 4s" S50 ! 540 (9 = 0027 ( 22.4) (.49¢) (107) (92.3) (267) > 3.4) [0 har bya & = 0569 (./2(1/0))'°” 43°77 B50" = 0569 (is.8) (434) (9.9/7) = 3.33 1.26 C.7s(yah? er 440 - poe € se) (912) (.3¢76) < Ro | 370 ~./67 S C Q eS REV. 1 FORM NO. 152 JOB NUMBER Calculations FILE NUMBER SUBJECT: SHEET % or BY Un DATE JJULE? APP DATE @ Mar. Fn-& = ae RS 240° 7°? = 403 (8.68) (4:2) (939) (7/36) > /.73 oe ; @D Preo~ pow Q = /2./ ( 76 (110) 786 43° aaee 290777" = 2.1 (G67) (42) (1.30) (os) @® 2-Yeer Frok Q = [24 ee rT 257 33:7 es0777? = 12,4 (390) (,467) (301) Cot) > 2IF @ FQ2 pL Ley = .459G/0) 43/7779 2407-78? = 459 (3.03) (370) (1) C007) .08 @ whoa Labbe bourly » 43.8 ho? °F gf? | = 7 24907 *°? 43.8 (/a0s) (363). i (0/7) (046) = 14 ; (ZS 7Q2LAanrwn le = _00000/02 110°” ax? Bs0’?? = yooooso2 (ies) (, 4/2)\ (45-9) : Nowe 7.0% /P79 LPs 9 30Q2 Lemna bow & = 00000201 (/10) 93", 2207" B50 =. 0000026) C769) ¢. 42>) (36 ) (2090) > 32 _ z o% Cmeoodenee Q > 372 Wo 78%) (.42°7”* / . OF FO 2do°!?/ = .393 (703) (.440\ Cr) (4e2) = 76 17 2 -.08/9 (D [5 To Ckerrdimesr& = 2/70/10 4x77? 240 = 190 (Jol) (432) (64) > 4.8 (BD GOT. Cxetadins Y= 00397 Yo?” ,437°* 1" Eso = c037 (ys) (.423) U) («w,) Sais GD 6S Peticcardtnec = .90008/6 Vo’ .43° — / 650 = (90008/8 (Jur) (.49) ()) /94 = 0) 7 GG SSF. CrecriclinaQ = -CO00'1T nol? ge ag wears pee 850° 82 > ,ovoo/r (140) (399 (.8%) (;) (252) - 2) +393 764 ¥o 1/8 -7/ REV. 1 FORM NO. 152 JOB NUMBER Calculations al cease SUBJECT: SHEET 3 or 4 BY DATE APP DATE Rey's Creek Flow Durati eon Corve NOTE: This flow duration curve js based vpen extra pol ation oO £ regional regres sion analys/'s, Extreme caution becstldl | See, | lama || ee inter pre ting resulds. o 20 40 60 a0 100 — Percent of Time Flow Exceeded “$20 I39 pS) op pay 2g Avw S301>) ‘syhyeve vosssasfa4 prvoiSes 50 en veda P2svq x yd>s ospAy Jer y .3LON yd 2S os PAN ws 223D 5; ri ddV Ag Dv 433HS ¥y38WNN 3114 ¥38WNN SOF v2) mors Ap eow uve w) ( Dos J 3 5 ow (UN suoiejngjes) @St (ON WHOS t°AaY we