Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Atqasuk Reconnaissance Study Of Energy Requirements & Alternatives- Appendix B Atqasuk 1982
VIL-A 002 Atqasuk RECONNAISSANCE STUDY OF ENERGY REQUIREMENTS AND ALTERNATIVES APPENDIX B: ATQASUK MAY 1982 PROPERTY OF: Alaska Power Authority 334 W. 5th Ave. Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Prepared by: hin i ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY __ @ ATKASOOK (ATQASUK) FAIRBANKS BETHEL ° oo KODIAK ? VILLAGE SPECIFIC REPORT B, ATQASUK TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page A = SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........cseeeeeeeeees B-1 Acl, GENERA ooo. crews rotetorsisis ties 9 ee io lo" os of oi )-oorwls (61 1019) 9/010 Wo fe8 1519101 2191 B-1 Av2 = Altennative Plan DeScriptionss 211-54... sisisivicie oye eicse'sinie B-3 B - DEMOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS ......... cece eeeeeeeenees B-5 Boils = HOGAETON) sieveretesc; ese) «oie oi 1ofor ei ol 4101 s\10 ois iolsisisis) 9) ole wiefexele] 190 sisiele ss B-5 Bee) = BODUIN ACTON sio1e1e)e1¢ 1c ele etelotelorer sist tivo lclelere! ofefel oc olelede! hele) oie (elete ssi B-5 Bie3) =P ECONOMY) tss01ere c(orel oso v0) 01 ceo (ole sor ofei cle) la(elererelelelel oe ietleislerelo) os) eie os B-5 Bis4i = GOVERMMEN CL colerersielorarejet ole lolole sicierololie eto lefolelsi bie oels(eloisiale/slolnielele B-5 es gs eee TT Peer re rr ree rrr TTT TT rer iT Te B-6 G = COMMUNITY, MEEMING IREPORT \cijet 5 occ ioseiere) se eieieiotele)suslaiei sisleie) si sele)e B-7 D - EXISTING POWER AND HEATING FACILITIES .......... ccc cceececee B-9 Did = Existing Power Facilities’ csi. acsmrisciss cleie)+ oer wieietela9 B-9 Di2ieaHeating hactlWities! w.e-m oscees alee acest cecieiess sei csiele B-9 E = ERERGT BALAMS jee rccnecnnenseeee tess se een een sewn eK KM Biswas, Book d, F = ENERGY REQUIREMENTS FORECAST coc... 2c curcieccs sic sisvie denice B-13 Fol, = Capital, Projects! FOreCaSt. 214.50) 001 is sicicis sis jcters olere) oo) o1eeieie B-13 eZ = ECONGMICH FORECAST 21516). ore ere ois) sieieiee 1810) s\0) 0 e/e\er.eie ie ole) 3) 16) «ae B-13 FG > POPOVEENON FOGECASE doje ec cietcicisieie were eicrcie) croieiaieieisins) ieee B-13 F.4 = Electrical Energy Forecast) mic ciscce. -cicie vcreiewielereisis oino's B-14 F345) = thetmall ‘Energy Forecast sciercicic.. cc cicicicieneeis serie aalclaa B-15 G = VILLAGE TEGHNOLOGY (ASSESSMENT S.... rec cwwwice acisecis sess ciciess B-19 H - ENERGY PLAN DESCRIPTIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS ........ecceeeeeeeee B-21 Hepls = 1BASEY CASE Kisreie coe clereleloleterels]e 6a isielelotel s1el1s (es sielelejessiese cio lolerer® B-21 H.2@ = Alternative Plan “AY .xcnwseueness tc evisereewanenenses om B-22 I = ENERGY PLAN EVALUATIONS .....scccsccscccccccccscccescsscveces B-29 Tiel, = BASE CASE) io se se tareres 9) x01 0110 nsoie, v1.01 9) Ole bole leres ole) n\n lekaie (oleisieie) 0 elevere B-33 Tne = Alternative’ Plan “AP ce steisicis.s:015 cece midicidecinmisisls osiaviee lee B-37 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Section 0 = (COMMENTS! AND) DISCUSSTON [oe rcteleteis1e101¢ sore isielotelsiela selec isieter » Broriererers J.1 - Comments Received From Mr. Joe Murphy, Director of Utiltties, North ‘Slope! Borough | )sic.ciclereisere: sooo iercreie) 9/3106 J.2 - Comments Received From The Alaska Power Administration el rvercietorcvers steleisisrelel clolelelsilete elste! oe) sloteieisustels) erase J.3 - Comments Received From The State of Alaska, Department of Natural Resources, Division of Parks, Office! of History and ACheONOGY, |.lasersstrcre cc sisielcielers J.4 - Comments Received From The State of Alaska, Department, of (Rlish) and!) Game: ccccicisislelssisle ners cieieveles reieteleterors J.5 - Comments Received From U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) AMVANChHORAGE) © crererexersreyoreys cele cssserci elie e ele leiois) o/s} a falors J.6 - Comments Received From U.S. Bureau of Land PRNGUONERE 4. ae cwucnecesunsancepens nee eNdnane KER eS Page B-38 B-39 B-60 No. oOo On DO FW LY PRP re wn re © LIST OF TABLES Title Comparative Estimated Electrical Energy Prices For Base Case and Alternatives ............. Energy Use Profile for Atqasuk ..............0. Village Electric Energy Use Forecast .......... Net Thermal Requirements ........cccececeeeceee Village Technology Assessment ..............00. Transinission Line Cost. SUMMARY | camieleis s:ss:sc10-¢ 101010 Conductor and Po lenCostsercrxcctcfeletelers aieleieroteeterereiele Substation Costs (Barrow and Wainwright) ...... Substation Costs (Atgasuk and Junction) ....... Estimated Costs of Atqasuk Base Case .......... Estimated Non-Electrical Benefits of Base Case Estimate Costs of Alternative Plan "A" ........ Estimated Non-Electrical Benefits of Alitemativer Pian) WAT 2c sissicpclslsioleieiieis cle seoveloteietatets Page B-2 B-11 B-15 B-18 B-20 B-25 B-26 B-27 B-28 B-30-31 B-32 B-34-35 B-36 LIST OF FIGURES No. Title Page 1 ENGRGY COS CieSUMMAIY sero) ore 0501s rons) clay i olaievetolstet sieroucieierercictstel eleicieis B-4 2 Energy sBall anGe raacietatcterscoc arise ieieisisvel ste isiclelsiere orators ie-sichslsiotcreresete B-12 3 Electric EnengyaUs em oyecasGrinqierroroielstoiesslererorerereletaleloleieleretelors B-17 4 AGANSMASSTON LINESROUCE MAD cicre.s!sic16/oreie\oio1e1orer cjersroicieieleloleleie/exe B-24 ATQASUK B-1 A_- SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS A.1 - General Atqasuk is located in the North Slope Borough approximately 60 miles southwest of Barrow. Two electric power alternatives were evaluated for this village - central diesel with waste heat recovery (base case) and transmission intertie with Barrow power grid (alternative plan "A"). These were the only alternatives for electric power that appeared appropriate for Atqasuk within the planning period of this study (1982 through 2001). The conclusion of this analysis is that the electric transmission line appears to be the preferred approach to meet the power needs of the village. Since its founding five years ago, Atqasuk has experienced rapid population growth which has caused power supply problems. Distribution system voltages have been upgraded several times, operation and maintenance costs have been rising fast, and finding and keeping qualified technicians to perform routine maintenance and oversee general power plant operations has been an ongoing problem for the North Slope Borough. It was also anticipated that Atqasuk would continue to experience substantial population growth. Under these conditions, the transmission line appears to be in the best interests of the people of Atqasuk and of planners for the North Slope Borough. Benefits of the transmission line include relatively low operations and maintenance costs, reliable power that is needed for Atqasuk's future growth, and reduction of the village's dependence on fuel oil. Power can be generated in Barrow at a much lower cost while using the abundant natural gas fields in the region as an energy source. The transmission line is also consistent with future projects (i.e., coal mining) that may need an abundance of power. As coal reserves were acknowledged by the village as being abundant and capable of being mined, the North Slope Borough should proceed with plans to open a mine for access by residents if residents indeed intend to use it. Coal could substantially reduce dependence on fuel oi] for home space heating. New homes have coal burning stoves in anticipation of future coal use. Atqasuk has been identified as having areas of historic and archeological significance. If feasibility level work is done there, the State's Division of Natural Resources, Office of History and Archeology, should be contacted for further information. Evaluation of alternatives suggests impacts on electric power costs as indicated in Table 1. The economic analysis is started in 1983 as this is when the new power plant is projected to come on line. Electric power costs represented in the table are busbar costs, which excludes the costs COMPARATIVE ESTIMATED ELECTRICAL ENERGY PRICES FOR BASE CASE PLAN AND ALTERNATIVES TABLE 1 Energy Base Case Plan Alternative "A" Production Energy Price (a) Energy Price (b) Year (MWh) ($/kWh) ($/kWh) 1982 489 = a 1983 637 1.13 1.13 1984 666 1.00 1.00 1985 691 0.88 0.98 1986 721 0.81 0.83 1987 731 0.77 0.77 1988 742 0.74 O71 1989 756 0.71 0.66 1990 767 0.70 0.62 1991 778 0.68 0.58 1992 789 0.67 0.54 1993 794 0.66 0.52 1994 806 0.65 0.50 1995 810 0.67 0.48 1996 822 0.67 0.46 1997 834 0.67 0.44 1998 839 0.67 0.42 1999 852 0.67 0.40 2000 865 0.67 0.39 2001 879 0.68 0.37 (a) Central diesel with waste heat recovery (b) Transmission intertie with Barrow 2-€ YNSWOLY ATQASUK B-3 of power distribution, administration, and the benefits of power subsidy programs. Prices of the base case include the benefit of heating fuel savings with diesel waste heat recovery. Figure 1 illustrates projected costs of energy resources available to Atqasuk. A.2 - Alternative Plan Descriptions A.2.1 - Base Case A new power plant is scheduled to start generating power for Atqasuk in 1983. The power plant will be built in conjunction with a new school. A jacket water waste heat recovery system will supplement school space heating. The plan has a net present worth of $23,609,000 for the period of 1982 through 2004. A.2.2 - Alternative Plan "A" Starting in 1985, a transmission line constructed between Atqasuk and Barrow delivers electric power to Atqasuk from the gas-fired gas turbines in Barrow. Diesel standby is maintained in Atqasuk with capacity equal to peak demand in the village. This plan has a net present worth of $17,863,000 for the period 1982 through 2004. ATQASUK B-4 BASE CASE @ ° 200 = jo Pp NT ‘J ENERGY COST($/10® BTU) ENERGY COST ($/KWh) / VALU IN ATQASUK- FIGURE | ATQASUK B-5 B - DEMOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS B.1 - Location Atqasuk is located on tne west bank of the Meade River near Imakrat Lake, approximately 60 miles southwest of Barrow. The area has traditionally been used for seasonal subsistence hunting and fishing, but permanent occupancy was very low. In 1977, the Arctic Slope Regional Corporation re-established the village with the construction of 13 homes and a school. Development has progressed rapidly ever since. B.2 - Population The U.S. census recorded no persons residing in Atqasuk in 1970. In 1977, the North Slope Borough Planning Department estimated the population at 86. As of December 1981, the population was 204 and expected to increase further in 1982 when eight homes under construction are completed. B.3 - Economy Economic conditions in Atqasuk are influenced greatly by its geographic proximity to Barrow, and also because most residents are from Barrow. Presently, the major employer in the village is the Atqasuk Company (a subsidiary of the North Slope Borough) which is responsible for ongoing construction of homes and other buildings. A school, health clinic, store, public works department, church, post office, and PSO office in the village provide additional employment. An air charter service operates out of the village. Most residents hunt, fish and trap for supplementary income and food. Some residents depend on periodic migrations to Barrow for temporary jobs. Native residents are shareholders of Atqasuk Corporation, which was formed in accordance with the Alaska Native Land Claims Settlement Act of 1971. B.4 - Government Atqasuk is an unincorporated village within the North Slope Borough. A village council exists; since there is no organized government at present, the North Slope Borough provides all public services allowed by State statutes. ATQASUK B-6 B.5 - Transportation Tnere are no roads to Atqasuk, and Meade River is too shallow for barge access. Transportation to Atqasuk is by air and snowmachine from Barrow. Cape Smythe Airlines makes daily flights from Barrow; an air charter service, Jenair, is located in Atqasuk. ATQASUK B-7 C_- COMMUNITY MEETING REPORT The scheduled community meeting was not held as a result of the airport being out of service, forcing the field reconnaissance personnel to return to Barrow for the night. The following summarizes discussions held with a number of village residents including the mayor, construction superintendent, power plant manager, and school principal. The population of Atqasuk is currently 206 persons with approximately 25 to 40 more people moving in this spring when eight new residences are completed. Construction activities will then focus on the new school which is sorely needed. Additional electric power will also be required in the village to supply projected needs. Typical residential fuel use in Atqasuk was estimated at 2-1/2 to 3 barrels of oil per month during winter. The water supply is drawn from the lake adjacent to the village. A major interest lies with capital improvement projects for which the lack of gravel is of primary concern. No substantial gravel deposits are located near Atqasuk (a minor deposit is near the lake, but is insufficient to cover the runway). Fairly good gravel lies some 7 to 8 miles south of the village, but this bed has never been examined to determine quantity. Residents would like to see gravel used for the airport and for roads, possibly even for a road connecting Atqasuk to Barrow, which is 60 miles and a 5-hour snowmachine ride away. Field staff talked with the mayor about the coal deposits near Atqasuk and he was interested in developing this resource. He supported the installation of coal furnaces and demonstration boilers in the homes with the hope that coal would be available in the future for home heating. He believed the natives would support a coal mining project. Several times the mayor mentioned the dramatic changes that have occurred in the North Slope Borough over recent years and his concern about the ability of his people to assimilate these changes. One resident commented that two things are important to village life: (1) The native village council must be consulted and make decisions on all matters regarding their village. (2) The subsistence lifestyle must be protected. ATQASUK 8-8 With regard to changes in the villages such as the introduction of a new technology (e.g., a coal-fired power plant) the natives must know what the impact will be on their lives. Any new technology or major change to the village must meet two criteria: (1) The villagers must know it won't endanger their lives. (2) The technology must have some significant advantages and not require excessive free time to operate. There are three runways available near Atgasuk. One, which is immediately adjacent to town, is primarily used by a local resident who operates a charter service. The runway length is about 1,200 feet, but a berm on one end reduces the working length to about 900 feet. A second runway, which is the most heavily used, is located on the frozen lake about 1/4 mile from the village. The runway is long enough (6,000 feet) to land a Hercules (C-130) aircraft. A third runway is located about 1-1/2 miles from the village, but it is rarely used. Though the climate is severe, construction of homes in Atqasuk has proceeded year round. In terms of foundations, homes are relatively stable compared to those in other parts of the state such as the Bethel region. The active layer is only to about 14 inches deep so there is little problem with frost heave. Homes are constructed on pilings inserted in drilled holes to an 8 foot depth and backfilled with frozen earth. A substantial skilled and unskilled labor force exists in Atqasuk as the natives have been largely responsible for the construction of their own homes. ATQASUK B-9 D - EXISTING POWER AND HEATING FACILITIES D.1 - Existing Power Facilities Atqasuk is served power by a village operated central utility system owned by the North Slope Borough. Present capacity of the plant is 295 kW provided by the following three units: Caterpillar 3306, 1,800 rpm, 155 kW Caterpillar 3304, 1,800 rpm, 90 kW Caterpillar 3304, 1,800 rpm, 55 kW The two 3304 units were installed in 1977 and are housed in a trailer module. The smaller unit was inoperable at the time of the site visit. The 3306 unit was installed about 1-1/2 years ago and provides most of the power to the village. The unit is housed in a separate building of plywood construction with no space for expansion. Peak load for the village was estimated at 150 kW. Power is sold to the village at rates of $0.15/kWh for the first 600 kWh and $0.50/kWh for purchases above 600 kWh per month. The largest consumers of electricity in the village are the school and public works department. Homes are supplied with many major appliances, including washing machines in some cases, and electricity use per household is high even compared to urban Alaska areas. It was estimated that over 6,000 kWh is typical for annual household electrical energy use. Present consumption levels are high for a number of reasons. The cost of electricity is artificially low by Borough subsidies and the income level of residents is very high as a result of ongoing construction work. The HUD homes are well electrified, and the prolonged darkness increases dependency on electricity for lighting. 0.2 - Heating Facilities The 13 HUD homes built in the first phase of construction are heated by oil-fired forced air systems. In these homes, home heating fuel is also used for cooking. All homes built in the second phase of construction, which is ongoing, are heated by baseboard hot water systems. According to the construction superintendent, these hydronic systems have proved superior. The second phase homes are also being equipped with combination wood and coal stoves (manufactured by Schrader) with the anticipation that some time in the future coal may be used to heat the homes. No wood is available in Atqasuk for space heating. In four residential units slated for construction next year, small coal-fired boilers are planned as part of a demonstration program. In the newer homes, propane is used as the cooking fuel. ATQASUK B-10 0i1 consumption for space heating in Atqasuk varies widely depending on the living patterns of the family. A typical home uses approximately 1,350 gallons of oi] annually for space heating. During peak winter season household consumption averages between 2-1/2 and 3 barrels per month with some homes using over 4 barrels. The Public Works Department of Atqasuk assumes responsibility for the disbursement of fuel oi] in Atqasuk. Fuel is purchased from the North Slope Borough and is delivered by air in 2,000 gallon shipments. The price of oi] is approximately $2.97 per gallon delivered and $3.20 per gallon as sold in Atqasuk. Fuel is stored in a tank farm consisting of eight 30,000 gallon tanks. Seven tanks store #1 fuel oil and one tank stores gasoline for snowmachines, etc. Atqasuk has no central water supply in the village and no piping distribution system. Water is obtained from Imakrak Lake and Meade River that border the village. A water-haul truck is used to distribute water to the households. Each house is equipped with a water holding tank and water heater. ATQASUK 8-11 E _- ENERGY BALANCE Table 2 presents an energy balance for Atqasuk based on information available in 1981. Figure 2 shows how this energy is distributed throughout the village. TABLE 2 ENERGY USE PROFILE FOR ATQASUK - 1981 Total Heat Content Type of Fuel Cost End Uses Quantity (109 Btu) Fuel 071 $2.97/gal Space Heating Residential (38%) 150,000 gal 20.7 Commercial/ Institutional (31%) Electricity Generation (27%) Transportation (4%) Motor Gasoline N/A Transportation 3,000 gal 0.4 Aviation Fuel N/A Transportation Emergency Storage Only Propane N/A Cooking 8,000 1b 0.2 ENERGY RESOURCE RESIDENTIAL SYSTEM SPACE HEATING LOSSES (6.76) (4.39) USEABLE HEAT (2.37) SYSTEM LOSSES COMMERCIAL/ (193) INSTITUTIONAL SPACE HEATING USEABLE HEAT (5.52) (3.59) FUEL OIL (20.6) SYSTEM LOSSES ELECTRIC & POWER {662) GENERATION USEABLE HEAT (8.28) (166) GASOLINE (0.40) TRANSPORTATION (1.11) PROPANE (0.20) (0.20) COOKING (0.20) NOTES ALL UNITS IN 109BTU/YR. ATQASUK ENERGY BALANCE (1981) FIGURE 2 BRUNING 44 132 42222 21-@ YNSVOLY ATQASUK B-13 F - ENERGY REQUIREMENTS FORECAST F.1 - Capital Projects Forecast F.1.1 - Scheduled Capital Projects New school (1983) Power line from Barrow (1983) Sewage lagoon Water facility Warm storage for utility vehicle Airport runway lights Washeteria F.1.2 - Potential Developments Coal mine (1982) Road to Barrow More homes Village corporation hotel Gravel landing strip New office buildings New homes F.2. - Economic Forecast Because Atqasuk is still in the process of establishing itself as a village, economic activity can be expected to slow down once the construction phase has ended. For the next five years, however, construction and the establishment of services will provide jobs to many of the villagers. Fishing and hunting are very good near Atqasuk, so the subsistence economy can be expected to continue. F.3 - Population Forecast Atqasuk can be expected to grow rapidly within the next five years as people are attracted to the village because it is new, relatively close to Barrow, and has good hunting and fishing. Caribou migrate through the area. A new school is also planned with capacity for 1060 students. The proposed transmission intertie may also attract residents by providing reliable electric power. Proposed coal mine development providing low cost coal for home space heating could also attract new residents. However, with present income of residents relatively high (construction workers ATQASUK B-14 being paid approximately $75,000 annually), the convenience of oil, although expensive, may be more desirable than coal. A coal deposit exists about 1-1/2 miles from the village. Once the village is established, population growth rate is anticipated to slow down. In light of the past growth trend and given the economic activity forecast for Atqasuk, the population was projected to expand 10 percent annually from 1982 to 1986, 6 percent from 1986 to 1991, and 3 percent from 1991 to the end of the planning period. The population forecast for the village of Atqasuk is shown below. 1982 1986 1991 1996 2001 Population 246 360 482 559 647 #Res idences 44 72 107 124 144 #Commercial 4 6 8 9 11 #Gov't/Other 8 12 14 16 18 F.4 - Electrical Energy Forecast Present load in Atqasuk is estimated at 150 kW with annual energy consumption at 456 MWh. Residential electrical energy consumption averages between 500 and 525 kWh per month. Residential energy use is increasing as evidenced by the recent request of the city council to have the rate structure changed (i.e., removal of the 600 kWh per month ceiling where rates jump from $0.15/kWh to $0.50/kWh). Typical home appliances include lights, refrigerator, television, microwave oven, water heater, power tools, summer freezer, and miscellaneous items. New homes are equipped with washer and dryer hookups and some residents have these appliances. With rising home energy use and projected capital improvement projects, an electrical energy forecast (Table 3) was developed based on the following assumptions: o All households in Atqasuk receive electrical power with present annual consumption averaging 6,300 kWh per year per residence. o Average household electricity use was projected to increase 3 percent annually to 1986 and then 1 percent annually through the end of the planning period. o Consumption in the commercial sector was projected to increase at an annual rate of 30 percent from 1982 to 1986, 10 percent from 1986 to 1991, and 7 percent thereafter. o Peak load demand for the village was estimated based on 0.40 load factor except for the school. TABLE 3 VILLAGE ELECTRIC ENERGY USE FORECAST Residential Schools Other Total Year kW MWh kW Muh kW MWh kW Muh. 1982 79 277 20 45 66 231 165 489 1983 96 337 70 162 86 301 252 800 1984 114 401 70 162 112 392 296 955 1985 128 447 70 162 145 508 343 1117 1986 146 511 70 162 189 662 405 1335 1987 164 573 70 162 208 729 442 1464 1988 182 637 70 162 229 802 481 1601 1989 198 694 70 162 252 883 520 1739 1990 213 745 70 162 277 971 560 1878 1991 227 797 70 162 304 1065 601 2024 1992 236 828 70 162 326 1142 632 2132 1993 247 867 70 162 348 1219 665 2248 1994 256 898 70 162 373 1307 699 2367 1995 266 931 70 162 399 1398 735 2491 1996 277 971 70 162 427 1496 774 2629 1997 289 1013 70 162 457 1601 816 2776 1998 301 1055 70 162 489 1713 860 2930 1999 313 1098 70 162 523 1833 906 3093 2000 326 1141 70 162 560 1962 956 3265 2001 338 1185 70 162 599 2099 1007 3446 Sl-a NSVOLY ATQASUK B-16 With these assumptions, Atqasuk was projected to increase its electrical energy consumption fourfold over the next 20 years. Figure 3 shows graphically the electric energy and peak load forecast for Atqasuk. F.5 - Thermal Energy Forecast A thermal energy forecast for electricity generation and space heating was projected for Atqasuk. Results of this forecast are shown in Table 4 in terms of net heating requirements. An advantage of presenting net rather than gross heating needs is that the quantity of electricity required to displace oi] for space heating can be readily determined. Because the efficiency of electric resistance heating is always 1.0, the electricity required to heat a village would be equivalent to the net heating requirements shown in the table using the conversion factor 3,413 Btu/kWh. Gross heating values can be estimated for the village by simply dividing the projected composite heating efficiency of the village into the net heating requirements for any given year. The forecast does not project energy consumed by the transportation sector. For the thermal energy forecast, existing residences in Atqasuk were estimated to have an annual net space heating requirement of 121 MBtu. Because the homes in Atqasuk are relatively well constructed (airtight, reasonably good insulation, arctic entrances), present oi] consumption levels for space heating are maintained throughout the planning period. New commercial structures were assumed to have an annual net space heating requirement of four homes. The small school was estimated to consume 20,000 gallons of oi] annually, while the larger school projected for 1983 was assumed to require 50,000 gallons. ATQASUK B-17 VILLAGE POWER CONSUMPTION ( MWh) T + I VILLAGE POWER DEMAND (KW) 8 | | = x 2 Zz < = Wi a ENERGY CONSUMPTION (MWh) ATQASUK - FIGURE 3 ATQASUK B-18 TABLE 4 NET THERMAL REQUIREMENTS Electricity Residential Schools Other Total Year (10°Btu) (10°Btu) (10%ptu) _(10°Btu) _(10°Btu) 1982 Lad: 5:3 1.8 1.8 10.6 1983 2.7 5.8 6.3 3.6 18.4 1984 3.3 6.3 6.3 3.6 19.5 1985 3.8 6.7 6.3 3.7 20.5 1986 4.6 7 6.3 4.7 22.7 1987 5.0 7.3 6.3 5.2 23.8 1988 5.5 7.5 6.3 5.7 25.0 1989 5.9 8.0 6.3 5.7 25.9 1990 6.4 8.5 6.3 6.2 27.4 1991 6.9 9.0 6.3 6.6 28.8 1992 7.3 9.2 6.3 7.1 29.9 1993 7.7 9.6 6.3 7.1 30.7 1994 8.1 9.8 6.3 7.6 31.8 1995 8.5 10.0 6.3 7.6 32.4 1996 9.0 10.4 6.3 8.1 33.8 1997 9.5 10.5 6.3 8.6 34.9 1998 10.0 10.8 6.3 9.1 36.2 1999 10.6 10.9 6.3 9.1 36.9 2000 11.1 11.0 6.3 9.5 37.9 2001 11.8 11.3 6.3 10.0 39.4 ATQASUK B-19 G - VILLAGE TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT 6s de 8. Coal. Large coal reserves exist throughout the western areas of the North Slope Borough. A surface coal seam exists approximately 1-1/2 miles from Atqasuk and was once mined for heating fuel. Local plans are to reopen this mine for residents. Regional plans have considered development of coal for a coal-fired power plant and for commercial export. Because of the new gas discoveries southwest of Barrow and severe operating problems of coal power plants in cold climates, construction of this plant is not likely to occur within the planning period. No further consideration of this resource is necessary. Wood. This resource is not available in Atqasuk. Geothermal. There are no known geothermal sites near Atqasuk. Hydroelectric. No potential for hydroelectric development exists on the North Slope. Wind. Average wind speed is reported to be about 12 mph in Barrow. Residents of Atqasuk are not interested in this resource until wind generator technology is proven under North Slope conditions. No further consideration of this alternative is warranted. Photovoltaic. This technology is presently too expensive for utility and home applications in Alaska. Fuel Oi]. Fuel oil is delivered year-round by airplane from Barrow. Availability and storage facilities in Atqasuk are good. Transport- ation mode and remote locations cause this village to have extremely high fuel costs. Transmission Line. An intertie connecting Atqasuk to Barrow is proposed for the near future. This arrangement was evaluated in alternative "A". Table 5 presents the results of the preliminary evaluation of resources and technologies as applied to the community. Methods and criteria used in developing this table are covered in Section C of the main report. The results of this preliminary assessment were used as guidance in development of plans evaluated in the final stages of the study. ATQASUK B-20 TABLE 5 VILLAGE TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT FOR —ATQASUK RESOURCE FACTORS TECHNOLOGY Electric Coal Fired Steam Wood Fired Steam Geothermal Diesel (base) Gas Turbine Hydroelectric Wind Photovoltaic www pe Pe FP Nr FP NYY RP Re nor RF YOM FY OO OO oO ON FO CO CO ororroOo Fe wWwwwooeoen on PrP Won n OO 0 er OO NOOO Oo Te Ce 3 4. 5. 6. qe 8. Heating Diesel Waste Heat Recovery Electric Resistance Passive Solar Wood Coal Oil (base) Other Coal Gasification Wood Gasification - Diesel Biogas Waste Fired Boiler Peat Binary Cycle Generator Conservation Regional Coal/Steam POF FF F&F We WwW mM mM FP FY he ON NOON rF OO - FOO OOO Oo yn FMA ON OF mM wwooeda0en oN PrP OOF OO me oo Oo O00 0 0 NOTE: Higher numbers are more favorable. ATQASUK B-21 H_- ENERGY PLAN DESCRIPTION AND ASSUMPTIONS H.1 - Base Case The base case begins with the present central utility svstem as described in Section D (i.e., three diesel units with capacities of 155 kW, 90 kW, and 55 kW). Projections show that the existina capacity will soon be insufficient to meet new loads and that immediate expansion of facilities is required. The North Slope Rorouah has recognized this need and plans to build a new power plant in conjunction with the new school. The power plant is projected to come on-line in 1983. Selection of unit sizes is not finalized, but the forecast presented in Table 3 suggests that three 350 kW diesel units with paralleling gear would be sufficient to meet village requirements through the year 1994. The basic criterion assumed for utility planning is that the system's largest machine can be out of service and the load will still be met. In keeping with this criterion, a fourth 350 kW unit is installed in 1995. In anticipation of expansion, the powerhouse should be constructed to allow room for at least four units in addition to waste heat recovery equipment, spare parts, tools, etc. With these machines, capacity should be sufficient to meet projected loads through the year 2001 based on projections. The following assumptions were used to calculate present worth and the busbar cost of generating power: 0 Costs are in 1981 dollars. ° Utility planning is carried out as previously described. 0 Construction of the new generating plant costs $3,500,000 including electrical and mechanical equipment, waste heat recovery system, and building structure. This estimate was based on information provided by the North Slope Borouah. 0 The diesel plant is amortized over a 20-year lifetime. The real discount rate (net from inflation) is assumed to be 3 percent annually. oO The waste heat recovery system costs $450,000 and is amortized over a 10-year lifetime. The real discount rate (net from inflation) is assumed to be 3 percent annually. 0 Fuel efficienty of the diesel generators is 9 kWh per gallon. ATQASUK B-22 ° Operation and maintenance of the power plant and waste heat recovery system is $400,000 per year excluding fuel based on utility operating experience for North Slope conditions. 0 Overhaul costs are $50,000 per year. ° Addition of a fourth unit in 1995 costs $400,000. 0 For the period 1982 through 2001, fuel escalates in price at 2.6 percent per year from a present cost of $2.97 per gallon. Its price is assumed constant thereafter. 0 The waste heat recovery system delivers to the school the equivalent of 12 percent of the input heat energy to the diesel generators. This is based on the assumption that 27 percent of the input fuel energy is recovered from the jacket water, 10 percent is lost from the waste heat recovery system, and 50 percent is available to the school. The school is assumed to have a heating efficiency from its oil-fired boilers of 65 percent. 0 The fuel savings benefit is roughly estimated as follows: (kWh ) (0.27) (0.90) (0.50) ($/gal) (9 gal )(0.65 eff) Table 10 in Section I presents the power cost and present worth calculations of the base case. Table 11 presents the fuel savings benefit of this plan. The net present worth of the base case is $23,609,000 for the period 1983 through 2002. The first year of the planning period (1982) was omitted from the economic analysis as the new power plant is anticipated in 1983. The power costs shown reflect the actual busbar -costs of producing electricity in Atqasuk. H.2 - Alternative Plan "A" Alternative "A" addresses the plan, currently favored by the North Slope Borough, that connects Atqasuk to the gas turbine powered grid in Barrow via a 25 kV transmission line extending approximately 70 miles across arctic tundra. Part of the cost of the transmission line is shared with Wainwright. The transmission line is projected to come on line in 1985. Diesel backup is maintained in Atqasuk with the system as described in the base case. Because of its backup role, a fourth machine is not required in 1995. When the transmission line comes on line, the waste heat recovery system to the school is shut down. Groundwork for this plan is scheduled to begin in April 1982. The intertie would supply Atqasuk with its most reliable source of power. ATQASUK B-23 A conceptual construction cost estimate of the transmission line is presented in Tables 6 through 9. The estimate is based on current construction costs. The estimator's contingency of 20 percent was included. The estimate is for construction cost only and does not include design fee, consultant fees, land acquisition, administration, or any other off-site costs. Total cost of the system was projected at $26,269,200. Figure 4 shows the anticipated route of the transmission line intertying Wainwright and Atqasuk with Barrow. Assumptions used for the present worth and power cost calculations of alternative "A" include the following: 0 Annual costs of the transmission line from Barrow to the junction are prorated based on projected energy consumption for Wainwright and Atqasuk. Annual costs of the transmission line from the junction to Atqasuk are borne solely by Atqasuk. 0 Annual costs of the Barrow substation are prorated between Atqasuk and Wainwright based on their respective energy use. Cost of the Atqasuk substation is borne solely by Atqasuk. 0 As an average over thew planning period, 35 percent of the energy transmitted goes to Atqasuk. 0 Transmission line cost is amortized over a 20-year lifetime. The real discount rate (net from inflation) is assumed to be 3 percent annually. 0 Operation and maintenance cost is prorated to Atqasuk at $19,000 per year for periodic inspection and maintenance of lines and substations. No overhaul costs are assumed. 0 Diesel backup is maintained in Atqasuk at an annual cost of $75,000. 0 Diesel capital costs continue to be amortized as defined in the base case. Table 12 in Section I presents the power cost and present worth calculation of alternative "B" (transmission intertie). Table 13 presents the fuel savings benefit of this plan prior to the waste heat recovery system being shut down by the intertie coming on line in 1985. The net present worth of this plan is $17,863,000 for the period 1983 through 2002. ATQASUK B-24 CHUKCHI SEA 1 7 Point fronklin = |Z“, Seothore Islands ringrasagres tavensgapee™ | PEARD BAY "5 WAINWRIGHT FIGURE 4 TRANSMISSION LINE ROUTE MAP From: Jack West Associates, R. W. Retherford Associates/IECO, and HGA, "Trans- mission Line: Barrow-Atqasuk-Wainwright", 1981 TABLE 6 TRANSMISSION LINE COST Barrow to Junction Transmission Line Wainwright to Junction Transmission Line Atqasuk to Junction Transmission Line Barrow Substation Wainwriaht Substation Atqasuk Substation Junction Equipment Subtotal: Transportation (Lump sum) -- Equipment Allow -- Construction Camp/Air Support (Lump sum) -- Subtotal: Overhead and Profit 35 percent: Total: Contingency: Total: SUMMAR Y $3,265,000 5,515,000 2,885,000 230,000 208, 000 208 , 000 130,000 $12,441,000 1,600,000 500,000 1,675,000 $16,216,000 5,675,600 $21,891,600 4,378,320 $26,269,920 ATQASUK B~-25 TABLE 7 CONDUCTOR AND POLE COSTS Backup Information Barrow: Conductor, ACSB Linnet Type HPT-1 Poles 500-foot spacing Wainwright: Conductor ACGR Linnet Type HPT-1 Single Poles 500-foot spacing Atqasuk: Conductor, ACSR Linnet Type HPT-1 Single Poles 500-foot spacing Quantity 37 400 63 570 350 Unit MILE EACH MILF EACH MILF EACH ATQASUK B-26 Total Cost $1,665,000 1,600,000 $2,835,000 2,680,000 $1,485,000 1,400,000 TABLE 8 SUBSTATION COSTS (Barrow and Wainwright) BARROW SUBSTATION Substation Equipment Comprising: AC instantaneous-time over current relay and aground fault relay Air circuit breaker Transformer, wye-wye, delta connected tertiary winding, 1 phase, 24.9 kV/4.16 kV Allow for grounding grid and connections Security fence TOTAL WAINWRIGHT SUBSTATION Substation Equipment Comprising: AC instantaneous time over current relay and ground fault relay Pad mounted oil circuit breaker with bypass switch and cut-out isolation, 7.2/12.5 kV, 4 wire with multi-around neutral Transformer, wye-wye, delta connected tertiary winding, 1 phase, 24.9 kV/12.49 kV Allow for grounding grid and connections Security fence TOTAL: ATQASUK B-27 3 each 3 each 4 each Item -- Allow -- $239,000 3 each 3 each 4 each Item -- Allow -- $208,000 TABLE 9 SUBSTATION COSTS (Ataasuk and Junction) ATQASUK SUBSTATION Substation Equipment Comprising: AC instantaneous-time over current relay and ground fault relay Pad mounted oi] circuit breaker with bypass switch and cut out isolation Transformer, wye-wye, delta connected tertiary winding, 1 phase, 24.9 kV/4.16 kV Allow for grounding grid and connections Allow for fence TOTAL JUNCTION SUBSTATION Substation Equipment Comprising: 0i1 circuit recloser Connection at Junction TOTAL: ATQASUK B-28 3 each 3 each 4 each Item -- Item -- $288, 000 2 each Allow -- $130,000 ATOASUK B-29 I_- ENERGY PLAN EVALUATIONS TABLE 10 ESTIMATED COSTS OF ATQASUK BASE CASE FUEL COSTS SYSTEM ADDITIONS FIXED COSTS Energy Diesel Fue’ Fuel Capital Annual Overhaul Total Fixed Production | Fuel Used x Price = Costs Costs Costs + Fund + O&M = Costs Year (MWh) (1,000 gal) __($/gal) ($1,000) Component ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000) 1982 2.97 1983 800 89 3.05 271 o Install new diesel power 3,500 235 50 400 685 plant with waste heat 1984 055 106 3.13 332 recovery (plant consists 235 50 400 685 of three 350 kW units). 1985 1,117 124 3.21 398 235 50 400 685 1986 1,335 148 3.29 487 235 50 400 685 1987 1,464 163 3.38 551 235 50 400 685 1988 1,601 178 3.46 616 235 50 400 685 1989 1,739 193 3.55 685 235 50 400 685 1990 1,878 209 3.65 763 235 50 400 685 1991 2,024 225 3.74 842 235 50 400 685 1992 2,152 237 3.84 910 235 “50 400 685 1993 2,248 250 3.94 985 o Replace waste heat 450 235 50 400 685 recovery system 1994 2,367 263 4.04 1,063 235 50 400 685 1995 2,491 277 4.15 1,150 o Add new 350 kW diesel 400 262 67 400 729 1996 2,629 292 4.25 1,241 262 67 400 729 1997 2,776 308 4.36 1,343 262 67 400 29 1998 2,930 326 4.48 1,460 262 67 400 729 1999 3,093 344 4.59 1,579 262 67 400 729 2000 3,265 363 4.71 1,710 262 67 400 729 2001 3,446 383 4.84 1,854 262 67 400 729 2002-2004 3,446 383 4.84 1,854 262 67 400 729 of-8 yNSyOLY TABLE 10 (Cont'd) Total Discounted Fuel Fixed Annual Annual Energy Costs + Costs = Costs Costs Costs Year ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000) ($/kWh) 1982 1983 271 685 956 901 1.13 1984 332 685 1,017 931 1,00 1985 398 685 1,083 962 0. 88 1986 487 685 1,172 1,011 0.81 1987 551 685 1,236 1,035 0.77 1988 616 685 1,301 1,058 0.74 1989 685 685 1,370 1,081 0.71 1990 763 685 1,448 1,110 0.70 1991 842 685 1,527 1, 136 0.68 1992 910 685 1,595 1,152 0.67 1993 985 685 1,670 1,171 0. 66 1994 1,063 685 1,748 1,190 0.65 1995 1,150 729 1,879 1,242 0.67 1996 1,241 729 1,970 1,265 0.67 1997 1,343 729 2,072 1,291 0. 67 1998 1,460 729 2,189 1,324 0.67 1999 1,579 729 2,308 1,356 0. 67 2000 1,710 729 2,439 1,391 0.67 2001 1,854 729 2,583 1,430 0. 68 2002-2004 1,854 729 2,583 4,046 0. 68 TOTAL $26,083 Total present worth of non-electrical benefits ($2,474) Net present worth $23,609 All costs shown in thousands of dollars Note 1: Diesel fuel use is calculated at a consumption rate of 9 kWh produced per gallon of fuel used. Note 2: Diesel fuel price is expressed in terms of 1981 dollars, with prices escalated at 2.6 percent above general inflation. Note 3: Total annual fixed costs include funds for equipment amortization (calculated at 3%), a sinking fund for equipment overhaul and replacement, and general O&M work. L€-@ YNSVOLY ATQASUK B-32 TABLE 11 ESTIMATED NON-ELECTRICAL BENEFITS OF BASE CASE Total Annual Benefits Discounted Space Heating Fuel Savin Benefits 1982 - - 1983 51 48 1984 62 57 1985 74 66 1986 91 78 1987 103 86 1988 115 94 1989 128 101 1990 142 109 1991 157 LZ 1992 170 123 1993 184 129 1994 199 : 136 1995 208 138 1996 213 137 1997 218 136 1998 224 136 1999 230 135 2000 236 135 2001 242 134 2002 242 379 through 2004 TOTAL: $ 2474 All cost figures shown are in thousands of dollars. ATOASUK B=33 I.1 - Base Case 1.1.1 - Social and Environmental Evaluation If the central utility continues to develop as described here, there will be no adverse environmental or social impacts above what have already been described for diesel systems in the technology assessment section of the main report. 1.1.2 - Technical Evaluation No technical barriers are foreseen to the construction of the new central utility to meet future electricity demands. However, Atqasuk has experienced operatina problems from the beginning as a result of inattentive maintenance. Employment and retention of local skilled technicians qualified to service the diesels is a major ongoing problem of the North Slope borough utility department. For example, operation of a diesel plant for Ataasuk requires the full-time employment of four persons. The North Slope Rorough has had little success with its waste heat recovery systems. Problems resulting from poor design, fluid selection, and poor maintenance have occurred at many sites. The utility generally installs these systems as a service to the school, but in some cases the fuel savings benefit does not justifv the waste heat recovery system operation. 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Energy Production (MWh) 800 955 1,117 1,335 1,464 1,601 1,739 1,878 2,024 2,132 2,248 2,367 2,491 2,629 2,776 2,930 3,093 3, 265 3,446 2002-2004 3,446 FUEL COSTS Diesel Fuet (a) Fuel Used (1,000 gal) 89 106 0.09 0. 09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 x TABLE 12 ESTIMATED COSTS OF ATQASUK ALTERNATIVE PLAN "A" SYSTEM ADDITIONS FIXED COSTS Fuel (b) Capital Annual Overhaul Total Fixed Price = Costs Costs Costs + Fund + O&M = Costs ($/gal) ($1,000) Component ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000) 2.97 3.05 271 o Install new diesel power 3,500 235 50 400 685 plant 3.13 332 235 50 400 685 3.21 101 o Install transmission line 8,771 900 0 94 994 intertie. Retire waste 3.29 120 heat recovery system 900 0 94 994 3.38 132 900 0 94 994 3.46 144 900 Oo 94 994 3.55 157 900 0 94 994 3.65 169 900 0 94 994 3.74 182 900 0 94 994 3.84 192 o Amortization of retired 870 0 94 964 waste heat recovery 3.94 202 system ends 870 0 94 964 4.04 213 870 0 94 964 4.15 224 870 0 94 964 4.25 237 870 0 94 964 4.36 250 870 0 94 964 4.48 264 870 0 94 964 4.59 278 870 0 94 964 4.71 294 870 0 94 964 4.84 310 870 0 94 964 4.84 310 870 0 94 964 ve-@ ANSWOLY TABLE 12 (Cont'd) Total Discounted Fuel Fixed Annual Annual Energy J Costs + Costs = Costs Costs Costs Year ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000) ($/kWh) 1982 1983 271 685 956 901 1,13 1984 332 685 1,017 931 1.00 1985 101 994 1,095 975 0.98 1986 120 994 1,114 961 0.83 1987 132 994 1,126 943 0.77 1988 144 994 1,138 925 0.71 1989 157 994 1,151 909 0.66 1990 169 994 1,163 891 0.62 1991 182 994 1,176 875 0. 58 1992 192 964 1,156 835 0.54 1993 202 964 1, 166 818 0. 52 1994 213 964 1,177 802 0. 50 1995 224 964 1,188 785 0.48 1996 237 964 1,201 7m 0.46 1997 250 964 1,214 757 0.44 1998 264 964 1,228 743 0.42 1999 278 964 1,242 730 0. 40 2000 294 964 1,258 77 0. 39 2001 310 964 1,274 705 0.37 2002-2004 310 964 1,274 1,996 0. 36 TOTAL $17,968 Total present worth of non-electrical benefits ($ 105) Net present worth $17,863 All costs shown in thousands of dollars Note (a) Electrical energy delivered from Barrow grid cost $0.09/kWh. Note (b) Costs of electricity provided from Barrow. Note 1: Diesel fuel use is calculated at a consumption rate of 9 kWh produced per gallon of fuel used. Note 2: Diesel fuel price is expressed in terms of 1981 dollars, with prices escalated at 2.6 percent above general Inflation. Note 3: Total annual fixed costs include funds for equipment amortization (calculated at 3%), a sinking fund for equipment overhaul and replacement, and general O&M work. Se-@ NSYOLY ATQASUK B-36 TABLE 13 ESTIMATED NON-ELECTRICAL BENEFITS OF ALTERNATIVE "A" Total Annual Benefits Discounted Year (Space Heating Fuel Saving) Benefits 1982 - 1983 51 48 1984 62 57 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 eoo000 oooo°o oo 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 oO ooOoO0°0 ooo°o°o ooo°o°o oo oO ooo0o°o 2002 through 2004 TOTAL: $ 105 All cost figures shown are in thousands of dollars. ATQASUK 8-37 1.2 - Alternative Plan "A" 1.2.1 - Social and Environmental Evaluation A detailed environmental assessment of the Barrow to Atqasuk transmission line was performed by Howard Grey & Associates, Inc. for the North Slope Borough. The conclusion of this study stated that the transmission line would have very minor impact, if any, on the various environments of the North Slope. The report also concluded that the benefits far outweighed the almost negligible environmental dangers. No disruptions to animal habitat are anticipated. Atqasuk has been identified as an area of archeological importance, and this should be considered in the routing of the transmission line. 1.2.2 - Technical Evaluation Construction of the transmission line should not encounter major barriers due to the environment. The terrain is flat and free of surface obstacles. Right-of-way should present no problems. Construction must be performed during the winter to avoid permafrost damage. The North Slope Borough considers conditions excellent for transmission line construction. ATOASUK B- 38 J_- COMMENTS AND DISCUSSION ATQASUK B-39 J.1 - Comments Received From Mr. Joe Murphy, Director of Utilities, North 5 ope Borough {Original Letter Retyped Here For Clarity] ATQASUK B-40 - INTERIM MEMORANDUM - April 19, 1982 TO: Patty DeJong ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY (APA) FROM: Joe Murphy Director of Utilities NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH (NSB) SUBJECT: COMMENTS, DRAFT REPORT (MARCH 1982) RECONNAISSANCE STUDY "ATQASUK" ACRES AMERICAN The following preliminary comments are provided to expedite APA/Acres review of the subject draft report. An official NSB letter will follow shortly which may include additional com- ments: GENERAL COMMENTS 1. The Draft Report (DR) was not submitted to the NSB in a timely manner (minimum 30 days for comment) and not sub- mitted at all to the NSB consultant JWA/RWRA. 2. The reasons for APA involvement are unclear since this is presently an NSB project not involving solicitation for funds from APA. 3. The NSB Utilities Department records of actual Atqasuk power costs (OSP and fuel) were not solicited or reviewed by Acres. 4. Acres selection of the TH-10s design (H-frame) is contrary to recommendation of JWA/RWRA recommendation for HPT-1 (single pole) structure. This results in a capital cost twice (2X) that of HPT-1 by Acres own admission in March 19, 1982 letter to APA. TECHNICAL COMMENTS 5. Acres technical experience in Alaska Transmission line con- struction is in question (any lines in Alaska by Acres?) vs. JWA/RWRA experience of 20 years and 35 years, respec- tively. ATQASUK B-41 ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY April 19, 1982 Patty DeJong Page 2 6. RWRA design criteria reflect proper design for North Slope conditions is possible with HPT-1 construction (i.e., with- stand 100 mph winds). ECONOMIC ANALYSIS COMMENTS 7. Summary & Conclusions: The maintenance intensity of a waste heat recovery system on “Alternate A" is a severe penalty to NSB whose policy it is to build low maintenance cost systems due to the NSB by-laws on revenue use. A similar heat-recovery system at Wainwright has been shut- down due to cost and safety problems. 8. The transmission line is economically viable as indicated in the JWA/RWRA report. 9. Table 1: Energy projects are low vs. JWA/RWRA convserva- tive projections. 1982 projection is below 1980 actual record. 10. Figure 1: In error since based on inaccurate data re- ferred to in following comments. 1l. Page B-10: Electric utility fuel use is wrong. Actual records show more use in 1981. 12. Page B-12 - Paragraph F.1.3.: No evidence for quoted growth "level-off". NSB history of all villages is to contrary. 13. Page B-13 - Paragraph F.3: Unit estimates are low, number of projected units following are low. NSB forecasts 80% growth 1982 alone instead of "80% over next 20 years". 14. Table 3: Projections low, same comments as item 9 (above). The NSB estimates Acres 2001 projections (MW & MWH) will be reached in 1983. 15. Figure 3: Wrong, based on comments. 16. Page b-21: Very unrealistic estimating of diesel instal- lation and maintenance costs and replacement scheduling indicating an appalling ignorance of such costs in rural Alaska. Actual NSB records show 1980 O&M costs to be $254,000 vs. Acres $44,000/year estimate. 17. Page B-22: Fuel escalation figures not realistic (despite APA dictated criteria). 18. Table 6: Fixed costs in error; do not reflect actual NSB records. ATQASUK B-42 ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY April 19, 1982 Patty DeJong Page 3 19. Table 7: In error, based on previous comments. 20. Page B-25: Waste heat installation and annual 0&M costs unrealistically low. Records on Wainwright similar sys- tems verify this comment. 21. Table 8: Errors based on these comments. 22. Page B-29: Transmission line capital cost based on selec- tion of "wrong" line -- see item 4 previous. 23. Cost/kWh wrong due to low (MWH) energy projection. 24. Table 10: wrong, based on these comments. 25. No allowance was made for cost of new Atqasuk powerhouse if transmission line is not constructed (estimated $3 mil- lion). RELATED JWA/RWRA REPORT COMMENTS 26. Actual NSB records were used to develop all MW, MWH and 1980 base cost figures. 27. Line construction costs are conservative (high). ADDITIONAL COMMENTS RELATED TO EVALUATION 28. The NSB policy is to expend monies locally where possible (i.e., locally constructed transmission line vs. "outside" purchased refined oil and generation units). 29. Atqasuk/Wainwright transmission line "sharing" prorata costs not evaluated by Acres. 30. New large gas field discovery along Atqasuk line route supports transmission line concept as development will require power delivery 30 miles southwest of Barrow. 31. Cost of training programs for powerhouse maintenance and operation personnel at Atqasuk not evaluated by Acres. 32. Atqasuk "air only" supplied fuel subject to higher than average annual cost escalation (20% vs. 11%). 33. NSB cannot, by law, expend for annual maintenance as freely as for capital improvements. 34. See attached NSB data for projection of village loads and historic growth. ATQASUK ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY April 19, 1982 Patty DeJong Page 4 35. NSB Utilities Department indorses and supports the JWA/RWRA "Project Planning Report - Barrow, Atqasuk, Wainwright Transmission Line", and specifically the single pole, 3 Phase, HPT-1 design vs. the "twice as costly" H-frame design analyzed by Acres. 36. The village of “Atqasuk" prefers this spelling instead of "Atkasook" used by Acres. 3M B-43 ATQASUK B-44 N.S.B. UTILITY DEPARTMENT ORGANIZATIONAL CHART Bebe Se VdAL tad peed Cried Lb ATQASUK B-45 ee en UTILITY MANAGER ATQASUK B-46 PUBLIC UTILITIES FY 82/83 BUDGET SUMMARY The average peak load for all the villages over 82/83 will be 32%. The average yearly peak load increase since FY 79/80 is 48%. : The project fuel use with increased kilowatt load and the addi- tion of the International Harvester vehicles is over one (1) million gallons of diesel fuel. The average yearly increase since FY 79/80 is 38%. Salaries and wages projected for FY 82/83 are $5.5 million. The average yearly increase since FY 79/80 is 31%. The Utility department projects, that in FY 82/83 over 665 meters will be in use. The average yearly increase in meters since FY 80/81 is 30%. The number of generators and major mobile equipment has increas- ed 125% over FY 80/81. Maintenance and repair costs have nearly doubled since FY 80/81. The Utility department has bought only one new vehicle for the central office use since its inception as a department. Efforts have been made to extend vehicle life by rebuilding engines and drive trains using mechanics already on our payroll. Communication costs, since individual telephones were installed in the villages in FY 81/82 have increased 73%. GENERATORS UTILITY EQUIPMENT ALL VILLAGES ATQASUK PERCENTAGE B-47 INCREASE OF MAJOR MOBILE EQUIPMENT EQUIPMENT —s 81/82 Be a ee 1h Ls ce 5 Pole Lee isa) A T 3 3 Q is a | ee Lea LL | Se ET K A 3 K _- - SEES N a eee] U ioe = ee 16 175% T L Daya yj : | ue Pp Hie teeta ee Be r 1 0 eer ne Occ TELE en 2] nee Ag | eects teed | cot et dda tele | eo eens N el tele Ta) eel GATT Te TOTAL INCREASE IN EQUIPMENT Se ta Se a [IAI ll Lalla ATQASUK B-48 UTILITY COMMUNICATIONS ALL VILLAGES SS i ja Po po ae 20 EO OOOO SS ee *2000 [AVERAGE INCREASE PER YEAR Ag2 [ ** PROJECTED * VILLAGE PHONES INSTALLED UTILITY PERSONAL SERVICES ATQASUK 8-49 VILLAGE_ Atgesuk 79/80 80/81 “81/82 R2/83* 009 L | [ + Teele lal Lae 00 — iat ——L | ikea T | ee | a 000 _ ea »,000 UTILITY PEA LoAD (KW Ltn ATQASUK 8-50 79/80 30/E1 * 81/82 82/83 x 3 i ULE Teo —_- ate --- | — a er | RC eT TY POEL _cONSPTTON eee TT ee ay pan econ Ee 30 *PROJECTED Comment : Response: Comment : Response: Comment : Response: Comment : Response: ATQASUK B-51 ACRES' RESPONSE "The Draft Report (DR) was not submitted to the NSB in a timely manner (minimum 30 days for comment) and not submitted at all to the NSB consultant JWA/RWRA." The following response is provided by APA: The Power Authority called NSB offices in Anchorage to determine to whom the report should be sent and subsequently mailed copies of the Draft Reconnaissance Report to both Anchorage and Barrow offices with a 30 day response period. The Authority regrets that the report apparently did not reach the appropriate persons within the NSB until late in the comment period. "The reasons for APA involvement are unclear since this is presently an NSB project not involving solicitation for funds from APA," The following response is provided by APA: Atqasuk was specifically named by the Legislature in the appropriation requesting reconnaissance studies during FY 82. Additionally, at some time in the past the Office of the Governor was contacted by the NSB with respect to potential State funding for the intertie project. The Governor's office requested the Power Authority to review the proposed intertie for technical and economic merit. “The NSB Utilities Department records of actual Atqasuk power costs (OSP and fuel) were not solicited or reviewed by Acres. Acres visited Atqasuk and obtained what data were available in the village. Acres also visited the North Slope Borough (NSB) December 4, 1981, and talked with several persons in the public utility and public works department. Mr. Murphy was not in town the day of the visit. "Acres selection of the TH-10s design (H-frame) is contrary to recommendation of JWA/RWRA recommendation for HPT-1 (single pole) structure. This results in a capital cost twice (2X) that of HPT-1 by Acres own admission in March 12, 1982 letter to APA." For cost estimating purposes, Acres used the H-frame for the transmission line, which was not the pole structure Si 6. is Comment: Response: Comment: Response: Comment: ATQASUK B-52 recommended by JWA/RWRA. There was a valid reason for this. During the visit of field personnel to the NSB offices in Barrow, they were told that the decision on the design was not finalized and that possibly the H-frame structure would be used. Later, at the time of report preparation, Acres called the Borough to verify the pole design and was told by the utility department that indeed the system would use H-frames. Therefore, the cost estimate was based on H-frames. "Acres technical experience in Alaska Transmission line construction is in question (any lines in Alaska by Acres?) vs. JWA/RWRA experience of 20 years and 35 years, respectively." There was no challenge to the single-pole design, only a revision to the cost estimate based on information provided to Acres by the Borough. Regarding transmission line design, Acres has extensive experience around the world with design and construction management of transmission lines. As the lead contractor in the detailed feasibility study of the Susitna hydroelectric program, Acres is responsible for a major portion of the transmission line work. Acres has also done extensive transmission line design and construction management throughout Canada and the lower 48. In addition, they have done similar work in Iraq, Kenya, Yugoslavia, Ethiopia, and other countries around the world. Acres also has extensive experience in the design and construction management of substations. "RWRA design criteria reflect proper design for North Slope conditions is possible with HPT-1 construction (i.e., withstand 100 mph winds) ." Again, the draft report did not challenge the design criteria established by RWRA." “Summary & Conclusions: The maintenance intensity of a waste heat recovery system on ‘Alternate A' [sic] is a severe penalty to NSB whose policy it is to build low maintenance cost systems due to the NSB by-laws on revenue use. A similar heat-recovery system at Wainwright has been shut down due to cost and safety problems." Response: Comment: Response: Comment : Response: ATQASUK B-53 Acres reviewed the potential O&M costs of the waste heat recovery system; and, in light of subsequent conversation with NSB, have revised the cost upward for the final report. However, NSB's poor experience with these systems in the past should assist greatly in achieving a proper design and selection of heat transfer fluids for the proposed Atqasuk system. "The transmission line is economically viable as indicated in the JWA/RWRA report." Revisions to the draft report suggest that the transmission line is indeed economically viable. Acres believes, however. that the cost projections in the JWA/RWRA report are low. The final report includes Acres' and Hanscomb Associates' breakdown of costs regarding the proposed transmission line. "Table 1: Energy projects are low vs. JWA/RWRA conservative projections. 1982 projection is below 1980 actual record." The electrical energy forecast projected in the draft report was based on the understanding that Atqasuk was established in part for political reasons regarding land rights. Once established, it was anticipated that construction of homes would not progress as rapidly as in the last several years. Field staff were told by the Atqasuk Construction Company that there were no plans for construction of additional homes in the immediate future. A new school, however, was planned for 1983. For these reasons, Acres originally predicted a slowing down in the growth of the village. Surely, the difficulty in predicting future electrical energy demand when there are no firm long-range construction plans must be acknowledged. Acres' estimate of current energy use was based on information provided by the Atqasuk utility department. The following is the information they provided the field staff in December 1981 regarding fuel use by the power plant for 1981: Power Plant Fuel Use (1981) January 3,200 gal February 3,400 gal March 3,455 gal April 2,700 gal May 2,525 gal June 1,900 gal 10. Comment: Response: 11. Comment: Response: 12. Comment: ATQASUK B-54 July 2,500 gal August 1,850 gal September 2,900 gal October 3,400 gal November 3,850 gal Total 31,680 gal The utility did not provide a monthly breakdown of energy produced, except for November 1981, which was 53,988.3 kWh. Acres believe something was amiss when it was calculated that the efficiency of power generation for November would be 14 kWh/gal, placing Atqasuk power among the most efficient power plants in all Alaska. Acres assumed that the meter would probably be more accurate in revealing energy consump- tion, given that it was read correctly. Therefore, fuel use was estimated for each month assuming a lower machine efficiency. Taking 9 kWh/gal as a reasonable estimate based on experience in the villages, it was calculated that the probable fuel use for November was 5,997 gallons. If each month is increased in a similar manner, one can estimate that the fuel consumption for January through November was probably closer to 49,350 gallons. Adding 6,000 gallons for the month of December, and total fuel use for the year would be about 55,350 gallons and electrical energy production would be 498,000 kWh. Acres assumed that this figure was somewhere in the ballpark. Information provided by NSB after the draft report indicates that utility fuel consumption for the 1981/1982 period was 60,000 gallons, suggesting that the Acres' estimate was close. "Figure 1: In error since based on inaccurate data referred to in following comments." See response to Comment No. 9. "Page B-10: Electric utility fuel use is wrong. Actual records show more use in 1981." Acres' percentage estimate of fuel use in the energy balance table was in error. This was corrected for the final report. "Page B-12 - Paragraph F.1.3.: No evidence for quoted growth ‘Tevel-off'. NSB history of all villages is to contrary." ATQASUK B-55 Response: A leveling off of village population was anticipated. (See response to Comment No. 9.) Since the draft report, NSB has insisted that development of Atqasuk will continue in an ambitious manner. Therefore, the energy forecast was revised upward for the final report. Neverthe- less, Acres' position is that some leveling off (i.e., slower growth rate) should be anticipated before the end of the planning period, especially once major capital improvement projects are in place. "Page B-13 - Paragraph F.3: Unit estimates are low. number of projected units following are low. NSB forecasts 80% growth 1982 alone instead of '80% over next 20 years'.” Energy consumption per household in Atqasuk was estimated at 6,300 kWh per year. This energy use is high even by Alaska urban standards. Most new homes are constructed with the anticipation that immediate electrical energy use will be high. Therefore, it was assumed that market saturation is reached early and continued growth rate is low. (Hence, al percent annual growth rate in per-household consumption was assumed.) In the final report, this was increased to 3 percent annually through 1986 and then 1 percent thereafter. Acres believes that greater energy use in the residential sector will have to come from the addition of more homes rather than anticipated greater use per home. "Table 3: Projections low, same comments as item 9 (above). he NSB estimates Acres 2001 projections (MW & MWH) will be Acres revised the electrical energy forecast for the village based on the assumption that dramatic changes will occur in the next few years. This was based on the position put forth by the NSB utility division. Though Acres used a load factor of 0.40 to forecast peak demand, latest information provided by NSB suggests that a load factor of 0.32 may be more appropriate for future forecasts. This could partly account for the low forecasts that have been presented to NSB in past Figure 3 was revised in accordance with revised electrical 13. Comment: Response: 14. Comment: reached in 1983." Response: studies. 15. Comment: "Figure 3: Wrong, based on comment." Response: energy forecast. 16. Comment: "Page B-21: Very unrealistic estimating of diesel installation and maintenance costs and replacement scheduling iis 18. 19. 20. Response: Comment : Response: Comment: Response: Comment: Response: Comment : ATQASUK B-56 indicating an appalling ignorance of such costs in rural Alaska. Actual NSB records show 1980 O&M costs to be $254,000 vs. Acres $44,000/year estimate." Total annual costs of operating the power plant were divided into capital cost amortization, fuel cost, overhaul cost, and O&M cost. Since the study only dealt with the cost of producing power at the generator, the costs of maintaining the distribution system including vehicles, tools, labor, administration, etc., were neglected. O&M cost was based essentially on the salary of one man working full-time plus minor maintenance items. Acres did not realize that the operation of a plant with one 155 kW unit required the services of four full-time persons for operation and maintenance. However, O&M costs were revised upward for the final report based on data provided by NSB. "Page B-22: Fuel escalation figures not realistic (despite APA dictated criteria) ." Fuel escalation rates are given in real dollars rather than actual dollars. Acres believes that APA's assumption of 2.6 percent inflation for fuel is acceptable. In fact, it could be considered high for the next several years as the world is experiencing an oi] glut and many predict oil prices to stabilize through the mid 80's. Witness postponement this year of many oil-related projects around the world, including the Alaska natural gas pipeline and the Canadian tar sand project. "Table 6: Fixed costs in error; do not reflect actual NSB records." In light of conversations with the NSB utility department, Acres agrees that these costs were underestimated. The final report presents costs as reported by NSB. “Table 7: In error, based on previous comments." Table 7 was revised for the final report. "Page B-25: Waste-heat installation and annual O&M costs unrealistically low. Records on Wainwright similar systems verify this comment." 2l. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. Response: Comment: Response: Comment: Response: Comment : Response Comment : Response: Comment: Response: Comment: Response: Comment: Response: ATQASUK B-57 Waste-heat systems should not be as high a maintenance item as NSB is experiencing. Hopefully, experience gained from past problems will allow design and operation of more cost- effective systems. Acres has increased the allowance for O&M on these systems for the final report. "Table 8: Errors based on these comments." Case studies have been revised for the final report. "Page B-29: Transmission line capital cost based on selection of 'wrong' line -- see item 4 previous." See response to Comment No. 4. "Cost/kWh wrong due to low (MWH) energy projection." All costs have changed as a result of new energy forecast. "Table 10: wrong, based on these comments." Table 10 has been revised for the final report. "No allowance was made for cost of new Atqasuk powerhouse if transmission line is not constructed (estimated $3 million). Allowance was made for construction of the powerhouse, but did not anticipate extraordinary expense of building this structure in Atqasuk. Cost was revised upward. "Actual NSB records were used to develop all MW, MWH and 1980 base cost figures." Acres' estimates for base years are not out of line. See response for Comment No. 7. “Line construction costs are conservative (high)." Acres believes costs of the transmission line, as presented in the final report, are realistic. Earlier cost estimate presented by JWA/RWRA to NSB had some serious omissions, including contractor's overhead and profit, construction contingencies, conductor installation, and construction 28. 29. 30. Sil Sais Comment : Response: Comment : Response Comment: Response: Comment : Response: Comment: Response: ATQASUK B-58 presented by JWA/RWRA to NSB had some serious omissions, including contractor's overhead and profit, construction contingencies, conductor installation, and construction equipment. Substation and junction equipment is not called out as an item in the JWA/RWRA report, but is covered adequately in the 1.2 "debit" factor. "The NSB policy is to expend monies locally where possible (i.e., locally constructed transmission line vs. ‘outside’ purchased refined oi] and generation units) Though such considerations are weighed in any capital investment decision, they should not be factored into the economic analysis of this study. “Atqasuk/Wainwright transmission line 'sharing' prorata costs not evaluated by Acres." Good point. It was a decision made by Acres rather than an oversight. For the final report, all costs were prorated with Atqasuk assuming 35 percent of the shared items. "New large gas field discovery along Atqasuk line route supports transmission line concept as development will require power delivery 30 miles southwest of Barrow. Discovery of the gas fields would affect decisions on constructing the transmission line. Question remains as to when NSB plans to develop them. "Cost of training programs for powerhouse maintenance and operation personnel at Atqasuk not evaluated by Acres." Acres recognizes the problem of finding qualified technicians to operate and maintain diesel generators in the bush villages. Part of the cost of training is accounted for by having units overhauled more frequently and at a higher cost. “Atqasuk 'air only' supplied fuel subject to higher than average annual cost escalation (20% vs. 11%). Acres was bound to APA cost criteria. (See Response #17.) 33. Comment: Response 34. Comment: Response: 35. Comment: Response: 36. Comment: Response: ATQASUK B-59 "NSB cannot, by law, expend for annual maintenance as freely as for capital improvements." This is a political consideration that is out of the scope of the economic analysis. "See attached NSB data for projection of village loads and historic growth." Acres reviewed NSB data. One problem with the data is that forecasts should be based on more than three years of historical data, particularly in villages where power has been recently introduced and the market has not stabilized. It is highly speculative to forecast 20 years from three years of information, especially using the method of linear extrapolation. "NSB Utilities Department indorses [sic] and supports the JWA/RWRA ‘Project Planning Report - Barrow, Atqasuk, Wainwright Transmission Line', and specifically the single pole, 3 phase, HPT-1 design vs. the 'twice as costly' H-frame design analyzed by Acres." See response to Comment No. 4. "The village of 'Atqasuk' prefers this spelling instead of 'Atkasook' used by Acres." Acres noted the preferred native spelling of Atqasuk in the introduction of the report. For the final report, the name was changed to the native spelling throughout. ATOASUK R-60 J.2 - Comments Received From The Alaska Power Administration [Original Letter Retyped Here For Clarity] ATQASUK B-61 April 12, 1982 Mr. Eric P. Yould Executive Director Alaska Power Authority 334 West 5th Avenue, Second Floor Anchorage, Alaska 99802 Dear Mr. Yould: We have reviewed the two draft sets of reconnaissance reports of energy requirements and alternatives for numerous small Alaskan villages, transmitted to us by your March 3 letter. One was prepared by Acres American, Inc. and one by Northern Technical Services (NORTEC). We agree with the recommendations in the Acres summary report (pp. 0-6 and 0-7), and the individual village NORTEC reports. However, there appears to be a discrepancy in that the recommendations of the NORTEC summary report are not presented in the same priority as some of the individual reports. Specifically the individual reports recommend investigation before specific action is taken on new projects, while the summary report recommends immediate installation of central diesel generators in eight villages. We offer a few general comments for consideration. There appears to be a disparity between the two reports in that Acres assumed that conservation was not within the scope of consideration while NORTEC did, Neither put a "value" on conservation in terms of energy reduction. A summary comparison of energy cost per kWh for each generation technology would enhance the Acres report. Presentation of costs in terms of kWh units and a summary by technologies would also enhance the NORTEC report. Neither report addresses actual present and projected electric power costs with or without consideration of the residential subsidy under AS 44.83.162. ATQASUK B-62 Extending a single energy cost for a given technology to several communities leads to risk of invalid comparison. based on local conditions. The description of each technology in each report is a good approach to inform lay consumers of the basic parameters. It is good to see a description of the state-of-the art of technologies that are not yet practical for power generation in remote locations such as wind, biomass, and geothermal. Thanks for the opportunity to comment. Sincerely, Robert J. Cross Administrator FSUMMERS:gs:sr 3/18/82 Yould Letter FLOYD4 i. Ze Comment: Response: Comment: Response: ATQASUK B- 63 ACRES' RESPONSE "... Acres assumed that conservation was not within the scope of consideration." No such assumption was ever made either explicitly or implicitly. In a number of village reports, the primary recommendation was that aggressive energy audit programs be undertaken forthwith. It was repeatedly noted that village residents were more concerned about the costs of home heating and the inefficiencies of their homes than they were about the supply of electricity within their village. While study of the means necessary to achieve any meaningful savings of space heating energy was beyond the scope of the study, the effects of such savings were incorporated where appropriate. It is assumed that new housing designs which would be implemented in the villages after 1985 would be 25 to 30 percent more efficient than existing units. No "value" was placed on such improvements for the reason noted above. It is the opinion of Acres' staff that electrical energy conservation is a function of electric energy cost and is inversely related to disposable income: consumers will purchase and use those electricity-consuming devices for which they feel a need or desire. As the real cost of using these items increases, their use will likely (but not necessarily) decrease. The incorporation of so-called energy efficient lights or motors is not expected to have perceptible impact on any village's energy or demand forecast. No comment or change in report text is needed. "A summary comparison of energy cost per kWh for each generation technology would enhance the Acres report." Without site-specific parameters such as fuels costs, construction costs, and annual O&M charges, such a summary would be meaningless. Not all technologies are appropriate or available to all villages. Even where two villages may share access to a particular technology, such as diesel generation, local conditions including fuel costs, fuel consumption rates, and O&M considerations may make comparisons invalid. The comment is noted to be contradictory to the later comment that "Extending a single energy cost for a given technology to several communities leads to risk of invalid comparison based on local conditions." No comment or change in report text is needed. 35 Comment : Response: ATOASUK R- 64 "Neither report addresses actual present and projected electric power costs with or without consideration of the residential subsidy under AS 44.83.162." This omission is deliberate at the direction of the Alaska Power Authority. Study costs given are busbar costs calculated without governmental subsidy. The availability of a subsidy does not affect the economics of a power production facility; it merely shifts the burden of paying the operation costs to the government. It is also worth noting that the subsidy programs are continued from year to year at the pleasure of the legislature. No comment or change in report text is needed. ATOASUK B-65 J.3 - Comments Received From The State of Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Parks Office of History and Archeoloay 1840 TO THE RECORD ATQASUK B-66 ALASKA susyect ACRES' and NORTEC's ENERGY RECONS sy PKD spate 4/6/82 POWER —TELECON-WITH DIANA RIGG, DNR DIVISION OF SHEETNO.__] OF_] PARKS, OFFICE OF HISTORY & ARCHEOLOGY prosect ENERGY RECONS AUTHORITY Diana Rigg called with a personal communication which she will follow with a letter. Eight of our reconnaissance communities for the FY 82 studies have sites ____of historical or archeological interest which may he affected by potential i projects. They are: Chignik Lake Atka ————— At ka sook eI : Ivanof Bay Nightmute tebbins _ Newtok New Chenega " She recommends that if feasibility studies are done for these communities, the contractor should contact their office early in the study. ATOASUK B-67 ACRES' RESPONSE 1. Comment: "If feasibility studies are done for these communities, the contractor should contact their office early in the study." Response: This request will be noted in the text of the final report. ATOASUK B-68 J.4 - Comments Received From The State of Alaska Department of Fish and Game DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME OFFICE OF THE COFAAAISSIOMER TONES irae Ss PHONE: 465-4100 April 8, 1982 RECEIvep APR 1 2 1989 ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY Alaska Power Authority 334 West 5th Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Attention: Eric P. Yould, Executive Director Gentlemen: The Alaska Department of Fish and Game has reviewed the Power Authority's Draft FY 82 Energy Requirement Reconnaissance Reports for several Alaska communities. We have no comments to offer at this time. We wish, however, to review subsequent studies as they become available. Sincerely, a On a tnauirr d= fr Ronald 0. Skoog Commissioner ATQASUK B-70 ACRES' RESPONSE No comment or change in report text is needed. ATOASUK B-71 J.5 - Comments Received From U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service in Anchorage ATQASUK B-72 United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Western Alaska Ecological Services 733 W. 4th Avenue, Suite 101 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 REC (907) 271-4575 7 EIVED APR~ 9 1989 Mr. Eric P. Yould “AT Executive Director ALASKA POWER AUTHORITy Alaska Power Authority 334 West 5th Avenue & APR 1982 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Dear Mr. Yould: We have reviewed the Alaska Power Authority's (APA) Draft FY 1982 Energy Reconnaissance Reports. If the conclusions and recommendations stated in the individual reports become those of the APA, and if the APA undertakes feasi- bility studies in fulfillment of the recommended alternatives, then the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) requests that the information and studies outlined below be made a part of the feasibility studies. Without current site-specific resource information and a more complete description of the proposed project, it is difficult to assess what impacts, if any, will occur to fish and wildlife resources and associated habitat. Information should be acquired and studies conducted to identify the fish and wildlife resources of the study area, identify adverse project impacts to those resources, assess alternatives to the proposed action and devise a mitigation plan that would prevent a net loss to fish and wildlife resources. Specific information to be collected and studies to be conducted which the FWS feels are necessary to adequately 2ssess potential impacts include the following: 1. Plans for construction activities and project features to minimize damage to fish, wildlife, end their habitats should be devised, e.g., erosion control, revegetation, transmission line siting, construction timing, siting the powerhouse, diversion weir, and penstock above salmon spawning habitat, etc. ae Losses of fish and wildlife habitat should be held to a minimum, and measures to mitigate unavoidable losses and enhance resources should be devised. Bie If there is to be a diversion of water or if substantial water temperature fluctutations are imminent, then these factors should be addressed because of their possible influence on water quality and fish habitat. Aquatic data collection should at least include the following: Te: Comment: Response: ATQASUK 8-73 ACRES' RESPONSE "Without current site-specific resource information and a more complete description of the proposed project, it is difficult to assess what impacts, if any, will occur to fish and wildlife resources and associated habitat. Information should be acquired and studies conducted to identify the fish and wildlife resources of the study area, identify adverse project impacts to those resources, assess alternatives to the proposed action and devise a mitigation plan that would prevent a net loss to fish and wildlife resources." The reconnaissance study scope does not provide for any but the most aeneral identification of sites, definition of project design characteristics, and assessment of environmental consequences. The level of study effort suggested in the USF&WS letter is appropriate to a feasibility-level study of a project. No chanae in report text is required. ATOASUK B- 74 J.6 - Comments Received From U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) ATQASUK B-75 Lr REFER TO United States Department of the Interior BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT Anchorage District Office 4700 East 72nd Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 99507 APR 6 1982 RECEIVED APR - 8 1982 Mr. Eric P. Yould ‘ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY Alaska Power Authority 334 West 5th Avenue Anchorage, AK 99501 Dear Mr. Yould; Reference your letter dated 3 March 1982 in which you requested comments concerning your draft FY1982 energy reconnaissance reports. This agency agrees with the contractors basic conclusions that further feasibility studies of hydro power potential should be evalu- ated at applicable locations. Generally there is little or no BLM land involved at any sites. Most locations are native selected or other non-BLM land. When actual construction plans formulate land use and ownership will be determined on a case by case basis. The opportunity to comment on this report is appreciated. Should you have further questions feel free to contact me. Sincerely, ATOASUK B-76 ACRES' RESPONSE No comment or change in report text is needed. PROPERTY OF: Alaska Power Authority 334 W, 5th Ave. “ Anchorage, Alaska 99501