Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAlatna Reconnaissance Study Of Energy Requirements & Alternatives-Appendix A Alatna 1982VIL-A 002 Alatna RECONNAISSANCE STUDY OF ENERGY REQUIREMENTS AND ALTERNATIVES APPENDIX A: ALATNA MAY 1982 id Yu bi ‘ i ROPERTY OF: Alaska Power Authority o34 W. 5th Ave. Anchorage , Alaska 99501 Propared by: ii — ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY Po BETHEL ALATNA PALLAKAKET <0 CUNT eCRE wo FALRBANKS ° oO ver VILLAGE SPECIFIC REPORT A. ALATNA TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page A - SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...............00000e A-1 ASL ms GENEM alll Hoiesatshelelele le tele ovelerere-ciielevelstetel ale eyo oteteieieversl erscalorereierers oy A-1 A.2 = Alternative Plan Descriptions ss. cccccec asa sasewerie cise A-2 B - DEMOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS ............ cece eee eeeeee A-5 Bem EOGa GON ieitevetsistelelelorieielalcietelete lar otelsy veleiereictetesierctolotelobetsiereley store A-5 Bis) =) PODUMATHON Iel-\elctelede/olaieleseyererereetetoteloveferceoiniers te tate reds aPerlererereterekers A-5 BitSii=s ECOMOMVier\eloteleletolales stofel st elerelereloreterererelercliexeteleteieloversi ey eietatetetolelsicy 9 A-5 Bid: fas 1GOV.ERMMENE, |). 1. /a 10/010 fo oie) 10) erro rotate i. -45 oy or syst) lle folertesrsiay ser aiie oie teassaxe A-5 S.% ~ TRRRSDGTERETON on cccwensanenss cenensennad He eeheeeg bebe A-6 € = COMMUNITY, MEETING REPORT x. qsicrccice re sr.cs carereaim + cieserersreiciese wicicw siete A-7 D - EXISTING POWER AND HEATING FACILITIES ............ccccsceeeee A-8 Dedy = Existing: Power Factiiities |r cic cteoeicccisiiseleraierote tis A-8 Did i= Existing Heating, Facilities) fi saa sreretatocc tari: s se slereiaitareise.os A-9 E = ENERGY BALANCE, |occlo teste eistete.s/nevererstioin tore sieisistereiaveve tots cnsis\eisveleie 9 are iesere A-10 F = ENERGY REQUIREMENTS (FORECAST) Saiseisisscreicic.e crcisisisisic/etetel velo icicle levels A-12 Fal: Gapiitall (Projects) Forecast) tepid semcieeinaisioosmrtrcs A-12 Vik FOOMLACTOR FOPECERS secnnnsesewkennsapennenceseencneece A-12 f.3' =) Blectrmical Energy, Forecast, saws sa clone rtic sins acicisiss A-13 Ff .45 = Whermatwenengy: BOPeGASt) Scinseccicra cies om oles ieissercieie suai icisicre A-13 Gi= VILLAGE TECHNOEOGY ASSESSMENT, Soosindcc.cc ens caces cicns ccwes A-18 H - ENERGY PLAN DESCRIPTIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS .............eeeeeee A-21 epi ar BiaSe@, CaSeh|AM) als ta late teror eres srereisrovern cone roles 4) 41h ols ole [oie is Ioisi srl ereveraleic is A-21 Hit2s es Biase (Case) SBM pteitersrelersersecierstolorsrslelerciictereielelors otal el siarelelioteisioie A-23 Hest t= Alternative Pilian) MAM) «casas arn rtereses cicreysrs) sisi ioreisisicis: ss) oieisuers A-25 He4. = Alternative Plan MBM) kya tcias.c:e sc: <sveieysicscisiore:sieislorcie sieieierere A-25 T= ENERGY PLAN) EVALUATIONS) Vrereteierersre cieseis cleretersrsicier oie cievers steer s)e\e sole A-28 Toll l= Basie: Case) SAM ccf iotetes o/s occ eroreisrorereysyersicuelio cote kete tose] s10) s1s/eile ete ie ols A-36 WZ ter Base) Case) BY) iaiek cisterna aaseriwisis vance tiers prsrearareetialare a A-40 3! = Alternative Pian) SAM) 5 sonics srorsverevore wiareietorersisiciclels)aiwieress A-44 TSG AL CeRNatIVe) PRAM MBM lc crcretarcievocreysielersreisisoielsiclelelelel sielel s)cie oie A-48 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Page fd) =) COMMENTS ANDIDISCUSSTON) sisi. crete) 2 orci eee etal) lolol lolelete syste A-49 J.1 - Comments Received From The Alaska Power AdMINTStratiON) cassis sania shee ccs asAe see seis ses yees01 A-50 J.2 - Comments Received From The State of Alaska, Department of Fish and Game .......... ccc cece eee eee A-55 J.3 - Comments Received From U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service din Anchorage) cr.))-).:61 oii aside ies seeds A-58 J.4 - Comments Received From U.S. Bureau of Land MANAG EMEN Gi osciet ore oo eters ierarar aie) ol (clinisleusielaterslorcreleheieieteleleyelstsrcrer ells A-63 No. NO Wn f& W MY 10 ll 12 13 14 15) 16 LIST OF TABLES Title Comparative Estimated Electrical Energy Prices For Base Case and Alternatives .............6..- Energy Use Profile For Alatna and Allakaket - 1981 Village Electric Energy Use Forecast .............. Village Electric Energy Use Forecast .............. Net Thermal Requirements .......... cece cece cece eens Village: Technology Assessment) io). 31.6 c0cweiitsonens Estimated Costs of Base Case "A" (Power Costs. for Alatna Only) cnssccisccccnc sn scnns Estimated Costs of Base Case "A" (Power Costs for Allakaket Excluding School) ...... Estimated Cost of Base Case "A" (Power Costs for School District Only) ............ Estimated Non-Electrical Benefits of Base Case "A" Estimated Costs of Base Case "B" (Allakaket and School Power Systems Combined) ..... Estimated Non-Electrical Benefits of Base Case "B" Estimated Costs of Alternative Plan "A" (Alatna and Allakaket Intertied) .................. Estimated Non-Electrical Benefits of Aiternetien Pitt "AP ascccccassuncsascuucesausaaces Estimated Costs of Alternative Plan "B" (Hydroelectric! Powers)! ierecreie oie oto eielonsiarel eke le 1eeastolevere Estimated Non-Electrical Benefits of Alternative) Plan) ABP ertss ess oie tisicieiiesioieie ste iois sic A-3 A-10 A-14 A-15 A-17 A-20 A-29-30 A-31-32 A-33-34 A-35 A-37-38 A-39 A-41-42 A-43 A-45-46 A-47 Title Energy Cost Summary Energy Balance ..... LIST OF FIGURES Eliectriiclenergy Use Forecasters seleiieiciein tersrrnceet ALATNA A-1 A_- SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS A.1 - General Alatna is located on the Koyukuk River at the Arctic Circle. Because Alatna is approximately one-fourth mile from the larger village of Allakaket located directly across the Koyukuk River, and because both villages comprise one municipality and share all services (except electric power), each village was evaluated in this energy reconnaissance study. The following conclusions are drawn regarding energy use and energy alternatives for Alatna and Allakaket. li. No alternatives to central diesel power are available to Alatna alone that would reduce electricity costs. Because of the small (8.8 kW) air-cooled diesel used to generate power, waste heat recovery for space heating is not viable. Potential for reduced electricity cost exists in Allakaket if the village and school district are combined into one system. Benefits of waste heat recovery to the school could further reduce electricity costs to the village. Alatna can be connected to the Allakaket/school electric power system by a submarine transmission cable crossing under the Koyukuk River. When taken as a whole, the intertie system has potential to reduce power costs to residents of Alatna, but will increase power costs to residents of Allakaket. If the school and the village of Allakaket choose to combine systems as proposed by the school, then the present worth of the intertied system of Alatna and the Allakaket/school system would be higher than the present worth of the separate systems if Alatna was left out. Therefore, since there are both marginal economic advantages and disadvantages with the intertie and greater risks are involved with its construction, it is recommended that Alatna not be intertied with Allakaket. Development of the hydroelectric potential at an unnamed creek 2-1/2 miles south of the villages would not be an economical venture within the planning period of this study. The hydroelectric site would provide power to the villages only during the summer months (between May and October) and would not be of benefit when most needed (in the winter). The villages would have to rely on diesel generators for winter power. Substantial savings in wood use for space heating could be achieved for homeowners with an ambitious energy conservation program, including the widespread installation of more efficient heating stoves. ALATNA A-2 A.2 - Alternative Plan Desciptions A.2.1 - Base Case "A" Base case "A" addresses continued development of the central diesel systems presently servicing the villages of Alatna and Allakaket. This case study investigates the costs associated with three separate electric power systems--the Alatna system, the Allakaket city system, and the school district system (which is located in Allakaket). This plan has a net present worth of $4,050,000 for the period 1982 through 2041. A.2.2 - Base Case "B" Base case "B" addresses continued development of the central diesel systems, except that, starting in 1982, the city of Allakaket and the school district are combined into the same system. A waste heat recovery system is installed to provide supplementary space heating to the school. Alatna remains as a separate power system. This plan has a net present worth of $3,485,000 for the period 1982 through 2041. A.2.3 - Alternative Plan "A" Alternative "A" is similar to base case "B" except that an underwater transmission cable is constructed in 1982 to connect Alatna to the Allakaket electric power system. A diesel generator is maintained in Alatna for emergency back-up. This plan has a net present worth of $3,599,000 for the period 1982 through 2041. A.2.4 - Alternative Plan "B" A run-of-the-river hydroelectric power plant is constructed on a creek to the south which will provide electric power to both villages. The plant, providing power during the summer months between May and October, becomes operational in 1992. Full diesel backup is maintained for winter operation. Alatna is assumed to be intertied to Allakaket as described in alternative "A." This plan has a net present worth of $5,426,000 for the period 1982 through 2041. Evaluation of possible alternatives suggests impacts on electric power costs as indicated in Table 1. Electric energy prices are busbar costs quoted in 1981 dollars (excluding the costs of distribution, administr- ation, and the benefits of subsidy programs). Prices include the fuel savings benefit of waste heat recovery where available. Figure 1 illustrates projected costs of energy resources available to Alatna and Allakaket. TABLE 1 COMPARATIVE ESTIMATED ELECTRICAL ENERGY PRICES FOR BASE CASE PLAN AND ALTERNATIVE Base Base Base Base Alter- Alter- Case A Case A Case A Case B native A native B Energy Eneray Energy Eneray Energy Fneray Eneray Eneray Enerqy Product 48A Product {Bx Product 46n Price!4) Price!@) Price?) Price!9) Price (") Price! i) Year (MWh ) (MWh ) (MWh ) ($/kWh) — ($/kWh) — ($/kWh) —($/kWh) ($/kWh) _ ($/kWh) 1982 10 58 96 0.70 0.57 0.50 0.48 0.53 0.153 1983 10 65 96 0.74 0.55 0.51 0.48 0.53 0.53 1984 12 71 96 0.67 0.54 0.52 0.48 0.53 0.53 1985 14 80 96 0.61 0.53 0.52 0.48 0.52 0.52 1986 15 87 96 0.63 0.53 0.53 0.48 0.52 0.52 1987 Ly. 98 96 0.60 0.55 0.54 0.48 0.51 0.51 1988 19 108 96 0.69 0.55 0.54 0.47 0.51 0.51 1989 21 110 96 0.59 0.56 0.55 0.48 0.52 0.52 1990 22 111 96 0.58 0.57 0.56 0.49 0.52 0.52 1991 22 115 96 0.59 0.57 0.57 0.49 0.53 0.53 1992 22 117 96 0.60 0.58 0.57 0.50 0.53 0.99 1993 22 120 96 0.63 0.59 0.58 0.51 0.54 0.99 1994 22 122 96 0.64 0.60 0.59 O55) 0.55 0.98 1995 23 127 96 0.63 0.60 0.60 0.52 0.55 0.97 1996 23 128 96 0.65 0.62 0.61 0.53 0.56 0.97 1997 23 132 96 0.67 0.63 0.62 0.54 0.57 0.96 1998 23 135 96 0.68 0.63 0.63 0.54 0.57 0.96 1999 24 139 96 0.68 0.65 0.63 0.55 0.58 0.95 2000 24 141 96 0.69 0.66 0.64 0.56 0.59 0.95 2001 24 142 96 0.70 0.67 0.65 0.57 0.60 0.96 (a) Alatna electrical energy forecast (q) Allakaket and school systems combined (excludes (b) Allakaket electrical energy forecast (city only) Alatna) (c) School district electrical energy forecast (h) Combined Allakaket and school systems intertied (d) Alatna system with Alatna system (e) Allakaket system (excluding school) (i) Combined Alatna, Allakaket and school systems (f) School district system served by hydro plant €-V VNLYIV ALATNA A-4 ENERGY COST (¢/kKWh) 1985 1990 1995 ALATNA/ALLAKAKET -FIGURE | ALATNA A-5 B_- DEMOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS B.1 - Location Allakaket is on the south bank and Alatna on the north bank of the Koyukuk River, about 45 miles southwest of Bettles in the Kanuti Flats. The communities are approximately 57 miles upriver from Hughes and 190 miles northwest of Fairbanks. Because Alatna and Allakaket are only 1/4 mile apart and because they are one municipality and share all services (except electric power generation), they are considered jointly for this study. B.2 - Population Date: 1960 1970 1980 1981 Population: 115 174 163 175 In 1981, there were 155 residents in Allakaket and 20 residents in Alatna. Most homes are log cabins with seven HUD homes in Allakaket and one HUD home in Alatna, for a total of 38 units in Allakaket and 8 units in Alatna. B.3 - Economy Alatna and Allakaket are almost entirely subsistence economies, with trapping, hunting, fishing, and summer firefighting for BLM the main activities. Transfer payments also play a role. Most people have a garden and grow many of their own vegetables. A community solar food-producing greenhouse and canning facility was built in 1981. Most people cut their own wood for fuel and building materials. Residents of both villages are shareholders in K ‘oyit' ots' ina, Ltd., (located in Huslia), incorporated in accordance with terms of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. B.4 - Government Alatna is unincorporated, and Allakaket is incorporated as a second class city with a mayor-city council form of government. Both villages have chiefs, and Allakaket has a city clerk and a health clinic. ALATNA A-6 B.5 - Transportation Located on the Koyukuk River, Allakaket and Alatna are accessible by river- going vessels. Residents use private boats for travel and fishing. In winter, residents use snowmachines for transportation. Wien Airlines flies to Allakaket from Fairbanks three times a week; Frontier Flying Service (Fairbanks) and Nenana Air also have regularly scheduled flights. Charter service is available to Allakaket. Alatna does not have an airstrip. Barge service has been discontinued, so all supplies are flown in. ALATNA A-7 C_- COMMUNITY MEETING REPORT A community meeting was held in the school on the evening of November 23, 1981, in conjunction with the Allakaket-Alatna City Council meeting. Approximately 17 people attended. In the meeting, and at other times during the site visit, alternatives to diesel power were discussed with the following conclusions: (1) The existing diesel generators are air-cooled and have little practical potential for useful waste heat recovery. (2) Wind potential in the region is insufficient for wind-powered generators. (3) Geothermal potential does not exist near the village. (4) There are two potential hydroelectric sites near the village as reported by Ott Water Engineers for the Corps of Engineers. One site is approximately 2 miles northwest of Alatna and the other is 1-1/2 miles south. (5) Wood potential exists, but the supply in the region would not support a wood gasification system. Residents travel up to 3 miles by snowmachine to obtain wood for space heating. Forest renewal is estimated to require 200 to 300 years. The residents of Alatna and Allakaket seemed most interested in the possibility of a small hydro project on the creek south of the village on the Allakaket side of the Koyukuk River. They requested that the reconnaissance study look further into this alternative. Some also commented that there is a fair amount of peat nearby and it should be examined as an alternative fuel for power generation. Residents also expressed concern about the rising cost of fuel, particularly as it affects the cost of travel by snowmachine. During winter, each household may consume up to 2 barrels of gasoline per month for snowmachine travel. ALATNA A-8 D - EXISTING POWER AND HEATING FACILITIES D.1 - Existing Power Facilities Alatna and Allakaket share all village services except power generation. Each village operates central power systems with single phase distribution (120/240 V for Alatna and 208/480 V for Allakaket). There is no metering system for either village. Alatna charges $40 per month per residential customer and Allakaket charges $50. D.1.1 - Alatna Alatna is presently served by a 3.8 kW, 1,800 rpm, air-cooled Lima diesel generator. There is no backup. The unit was installed when Alatna first received electric power about 1976. The unit runs near peak capacity serving eight residences. Two freezers (summer only) are the major small loads in the community with the rest of the power used for lights. Electric energy use for Alatna (and Allakaket) is about 1,200 kWh per year per household. Operations and maintenance on the generator is performed voluntarily by three residents in the village. Plans are to replace the 3.8 kW diesel with an 8.8 kW Condec unit in 1982. A new structure (log cabin) was built to house the unit. D.1.2 - Allakaket Allakaket is served by two air-cooled diesel units as follows: (1) John Deere diesel, 1800 rpm, 30 kW (2) Lister diesel, 1800 rpm, 30 kW Peak load for this system is approximately 12 kW. Major single loads are freezers (used in the summer only) and lights. In addition to the central village systems, the Allakaket school generates its own power. The school has five diesel units installed ranging in size from 30 kW to 100 kW for a total capacity of 370 kW. Each unit is a different model with three manufacturers represented. At the time of the site visit, only the smallest unit was opera- tional; and it was experiencing overloads, tripping the circuit breaker. The school generators serve the school building, safe water house, and two faculty residences. Peak load at the school is about 35 kW with annual electric energy use about 96 MWh. ALATNA A-9 Because of the poor condition of the existing power plant, the school has budgeted for a new system to be installed during the summer of 1982. The size of the new plant will depend on a decision now being weighed by the residents of Allakaket. The school proposed to the village an arrangement whereby the city government would buy power from the school and assume responsibility for its distribution. Villagers have been hesitant to accept the plan for fear of higher electricity costs and reduced control over operation of the power plant. At the time of this writing, unit sizes had not been selected; but, given the electricity forecasts of this study, two 100 kW diesels (one for backup) should be sufficient to meet future demands to the end of the planning period. If the village does not accept the school's proposal, the school will probably select two smaller diesels to match the load more efficiently. 0.2 - Existing Heating Facilities Residences in Alatna and Allakaket are heated solely with wood fuel, with the exception of two teachers' quarters in Allakaket which use a combination of oil and wood. Estimates of wood requirements for space heating varied widely among residents, but a best guess would place average consumption at approximately 12 cords per year for each home. Wood is cut from forest areas that follow the valleys of the Koyukuk River and its tributaries. Residents travel up to 3 miles by snowmachine to obtain wood. The school facilities, city office, and health clinic are the only buildings that use oi] for space heating. Oi] is delivered by air primarily from Nenana, and shipments are made year-round. Bulk fuel storage facilities are maintained by the school district for its own space heating and power generation needs. The villages of Alatna and Allakaket do not have bulk fuel storage facilities. Small tanks are used to supply the diesel generators and reserve fuel is stored in 55-gallon oil drums. Residents of Alatna obtain domestic water from the Koyukuk River which is reportedly of good quality. Hot water is obtained by heating it on top of wood-fired or propane stoves. In Allakaket, the school operates a pump house which supplies village water from a well. During the summer, water is pumped via an underground piping system to outside faucets located throughout the village. In the winter, the pipes are drained and Allakaket residents obtain water directly from the pump house. Like residents of Alatna, wood and propane stoves are used for hot water heating. Shower facilities are available for all residents at the school. The principal cooking fuel for Alatna and Allakaket is propane. It was estimated that on the average 2-1/2 100 pound tanks per residence per year are consumed though this varies widely from home to home. ALATNA A-10 E_- ENERGY BALANCE Table 2 presents an energy balance for the combined villages of Alatna and Allakaket. Figure 2 shows the general distribution of this energy to end users. TABLE 2 ENERGY USE PROFILE FOR ALATNA AND ALLAKAKET - 1981 ota Heat Content (a) sey) (109 Type of Fuel Cost End Uses Quantity (10°Btu) (b) Wood $100/cord Residential Space 552 cords 9.38 Heating #1 Fuel Oi] $2.39/gal Commercial and 25,200 gal 3.48 Institutional and Water Heating Electric Power 16,800 gal eae Generation Gasoline $2.49/gal Transportation 20,000 gal 2.50 Propane ? Cooking 11,500 1b 0.22 Notes: (a) January 1982 landed bulk fuel costs. Source: Nenana Fuel Co. (b) Space heating includes energy used for domestic water heating. (c) Quantities of fuel are for the year 1981. Source: Nenana Fuel Co. BRUNING 44 132 42222 ENERGY RESOURCES _ END USE RESIDENTIAL SYSTEM SPACE LOSSES HEATING (6.10) wooo (9.38) (9.38) USEABLE HEAT (3.28) SCHOOL SPACE SYSTEM LOSSES (1.10) (3.13) HEATING USEABLE HEAT _ FUEL OIL (3.13) (2.03) {sie0} TO35) COMMUNITY SPACE SYSTEM LOSSES (0.12) HEATING (35) USEABLE HEAT (0.23) ELECTRIC POWER SYSTEM LOSSES (1.92) GENERATION (2.32) USEABLE HEAT (0.40) GASOLINE TRANSPORTATION (2.76) (2.76) (2.76) PROPANE (0.22) (0.22) COOKING (0.22) NOTE: 9 ALL UNITS IN 10 BTU/YR. ALATNA /ALLAKAKET ENERGY BALANCE (198!) ACRES AMERICAN IN-OMPONATED LL-V WNLW1V ALATNA A-12 F - ENERGY REQUIREMENTS FORECAST F.1 - Capital Projects Forecast Because Alatna and Allakaket are only 1/4 mile distant and because they are one municipality and share all services (except power generation), they are considered jointly in this population and economic activity forecast. F.1.1 - Scheduled Capital Projects None F.1.2 - Potential Developments None F.1.3 - Economic Forecast Alatna and Allakaket have subsistence economies with some trapping and firefighting. No economic development is expected. F.2 - Population Forecast Alatna and Allakaket declined in population from 1970 to 1980 by 0.6 percent. The annual growth rate from 1960 to 1980 was 1.7 percent. Residents expected no in-migration and no growth other than from natural birth and death rates. The population forecast table below is based on an annual growth rate of 1 percent from 1981. 1960 1970 1980 1986 1991 1996 2001 Population 115 174 163 184 193 203 213 #Residences NA 37 44 48 51 53 56 #Commercial NA NA 1 1 2 2 2 #Gov't/Other NA NA 6 6 7 7 8 ALATNA A-13 F.3 - Electrical Energy Forecast Current electrical energy use in Alatna and Allakaket is low relative to other villages visited in the reconnaissance study. Anticipation is that electric energy consumption will rise faster than projected population growth as residents acquire new appliances, such as television (which is presently not available). To reflect this trend, per household consumption was increased 12 percent per year until 1988 and 1 percent thereafter. Approximately 85 percent of existing homes receive electric service. This proportion can be expected to increase in time as all new homes were assumed to receive electric power. Peak load was forecast based on a load factor of 0.40 for residential and commercial sectors, while the school load was held constant over the planning period. In cases where electrical energy can be produced at a cost less than that of fuel oil or wood, it can be expected that some changeover to electric space will occur. In the study of alternatives available to Alatna and Allakaket, no resources were identified which could provide such low cost electricity. With these assumptions, separate electrical energy forecasts were projected for Alatna and Allakaket. Tables 3 and 4 present these forecasts. Figure 3 illustrates projected demand, including the school district loads, for the combined villages. F.4 - Thermal Energy Forecast A thermal energy forecast for electricity generation and space heating was projected for the combined villages of Alatna and Allakaket. Results of this forecast are shown in Table 5 in terms of net heating requirements. Net heat represents the heat that actually goes to heating the living quarters, thus excluding losses up the stack. An advantage of presenting net rather than gross heating requirements is that the quantity of electricity required to displace oi] and wood-dependent heating systems can be readily determined. Gross heating values can be estimated by simply dividing the projected composite heating efficiency of the village into the net heating requirement for any given year. In the case of Alatna and Allakaket, where most heating is done with wood stoves, 35 percent heating efficiency is assumed. For the thermal energy forecast, existing homes were estimated to have an annual net space heating requirement of 71.4 x 106 Btu. Starting in 1986, it was assumed that retrofit energy conservation measures would reduce home heating requirements by 10 percent. For new homes constructed in 1986 and after, heating requirements were reduced 25 percent to reflect implemen- tation of improved energy conservation measures. TABLE 3 VILLAGE ELECTRIC ENERGY USE FORECAST ‘?) Residentia Schools Other (c Tota Year 1982 2.7 9.6 - - - - 2.7 9.6 1983 3.1 10.8 - - - - 3.1 10.8 1984 3.4 12.0 - - - - 3.4 12.0 1985 3.8 13.5 - - - - 3.8 13.5 1986 4.3 15.1 - - - = 4.3 15.1 4.8 16.9 - - - - 4.8 16.9 bre 5.4 18.8 - - - - 5.4 18.8 1989 6.1 21.3 - - - - _ 6.1 21.3 1990 6.2 21.7 - - - - 6.2 21.7 1991 6.2 21.8 - - - - 6.2 21.8 1992 6.3 22.0 - - - - 6.3 22.0 1993 6.3 22.2 - - - - 6.3 22.2 1994 6.4 22.4 - - - - 6.4 22.4 1995 6.5 22.6 - - - - 6.5 22.6 1996 6.5 22.9 - - - - 6.5 22.9 1997 6.6 23.1 - - - - 6.6 23.1 1998 6.7 23.3 - - - - 6.7 23.3 1999 6.7 23.6 - - - - 6.7 23.6 2000 6.8 23.8 - - - - 6.8 23.8 2001 6.9 24.1 - - - - 6.9 24.1 Notes: (a) Forecast for Alatna power system only. (b) Alatna does not have a school. (c) Alatna does not have commercial or institutional loads and none are projected. vl-W WNLY IV TABLE 4 VILLAGE ELECTRIC ENERGY USE FORECAST (a) Residential Schools tb Other Total. Year kW Mah kW Mah i i 1982 12 41 a - 5 17 17 58 1983 13 47 cs - 5 18 18 65 1984 15 53 - - 5 18 20 71 1985 17 61 - - 5 19 22 80 1986 19 68 - - 5 19 24 87 1987 22 78 = = 6 20 31 98 1988 25 87 = = 6 21 31 108 1989 25 88 = = 6 22 31 110 1990 25 89 e - 6 22 31 111 1991 26 92 - = Z 23 33 115 1992 27 93 - = 7 24 34 117 1993 27 96 S - 7 24 34 120 1994 28 97 = = 7 25 35 122 1995 29 101 - = 7 26 36 127 1996 29 102 = = 7 26 36 128 1997 30 105 c= - 8 27 38 132 1998 31 107 - - 8 28 39 135 1999 31 110 = - 8 29 39 139 2000 32 111 - = 9 30 41 141 2001 32 112 - - 9 31 41 143 Notes: (a) Forecast for Allakaket power system only. (b) School load is not on Allakaket system. (School uses 96 MWh annually and draws 35 kW from its own system.) YNLV1V SL-y ALATNA A-16 DEMAND(KW) = = = — Zz S e a = > a 4 °o Oo > oO « Ww z Ww Is85 1990 ALATNA /ALLAKAKET - FIGURE 3 ALATNA A-17 TABLE 5 NET THERMAL REQUIREMENTS (@) Electricity Residential Schools Other Total Year (1o%Btu) _—(10%Btu) ~_—=S(10%Btu) —(10°Btu) —_—(10°Btu) 1982 0.54 Se5 2.6 1525 7.69 1983 0.56 3.4 2.6 1.25 7.81 1984 0.58 3.4 2.6 1.325 7383) 1985 0.61 3.4 2.6 1.25 7.86 1986 0.64 3.1 2.6 1.25 7.59 1987 0.68 Set 2.6 1.43 7.81 1988 0.71 3.1 2.6 1.43 7.84 1989 0.72 3.2 2.6 1.43 7.95 1990 0.72 3.2 2.6 1.43 7.95 1991 0.74 3.2 2.6 1.60 8.14 1992 0.75 3.2 2.6 1.60 8.15 1993 0.76 33 2.6 1.60 8.26 1994 0.77 3.3 2.6 1.60 8.27 1995 0.78 3.4 2.6 1.60 8.38 1996 0.78 3.4 2.6 1.60 8.38 1997 0.80 3.4 2.6 1.60 8.40 1998 0.81 3.4 2.6 1.60 8.41 1999 0.82 3.5 2.6 1.78 8.70 2000 0.83 3.5 2.6 1.78 8.71 2001 0.84 3.5 2.6 1.78 8.72 (a) Includes both Alatna and Alakaket ALATNA A-18 G - VILLAGE RESOURCE AND TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT 1. Coal. The closest known coal reserve to the villages of Alatna and Allakaket is a a small bituminous coal deposit approximately 70 miles upstream on the Koyukuk River. Quality of this coal is unknown. Because of the shallowness of the Koyukuk River, coal delivered from any source would likely be transported to the villages by air, making the resource an impractical and uneconomical alternative to oi]. Consideration of a coal-fired power plant is not necessary. 2. Wood. Wood is available in river valleys surrounding the village. Residents presently travel between 1 and 3 miles to obtain this resource for home heating. Reid, Collins (Ref. 20, Main Report) assessed the wood resource potential of this area as poor relative to other interior Alaskan areas. Consideration of a wood-fired power plant is not warranted. 3. Peat. Residents reported that peat reserves were located near the villages, but the extent and quality of this resource was unknown. Considering the small size of the villages, and the state-of-the-art, and high costs of implementing peat burning technology for small scale home heating and power generation applications, consideration of this resource is not warranted. 4. Geothermal. Residents reported the closest geothermal sites to be approximately 40 miles away. The quality of energy at this site was unknown but was believed too far away for serious consideration. 5. Hydroelectric. Ott Water Engineers identified two potential hydro- electric sites on unnamed creeks near the villages (Ref. 19, Main Report). One site was determined to be superior to the other and was re-evaluated as part of this study. 6. Wind. Alatna and Allakaket have inadequate wind potential for har- nessing by wind generators. Average annual wind speed for nearby Bettles is 6.7 mph. Residents reported little wind in the region. Further consideration of this alternative is not necessary. 7. Photovoltaic. This alternative is presently too expensive for Alaska utility application. 8. Fuel Oil. Diesel fuel is delivered year-round by air freight with the major supplier located in Nenana. Availability is good, but it is subject to high costs as a result of delivery mode. Oil is presently used for electric power generation and the heating of public buildings. ALATNA A-19 9. Waste Heat Recovery. Because of the small size of the diesel generator in ATatna, waste heat recovery was found impractical here. Allakaket, however, has excellent potential for waste heat recovery as a result of the school facilities and larger village loads. Table 6 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. NOTE: i 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. fe 8. TABLE 6 VILLAGE TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT FOR ALATNA AND ALLAKAKET TECHNOLOGY Electric Coal Fired Steam Wood Fired Steam Geothermal Diesel (base) Gas Turbine Hydroelectric Wind Photovoltaic 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 Onn FP Fe fF fF Higher numbers are more favorable. yor FP MY BF RP Be yor FP YOY FY CO CO oo O90 WO Oo OC or NO rF CO OC OC AEATNA wow wworoen oo rye oOo Wnt NO™ CO A-2¢ yor RFP ONMO oO CO ALATNA A-21 H_- ENERGY PLAN DESCRIPTION AND ASSUMPTIONS H.1 - Base Case "A" Base case "A" represents the existing electric power situation in Alatna and Allakaket. It consists of three separate power systems--the Alatna central power system, the City of Allakaket central power system, and the school district power system (including the school, two teachers' houses, and the safe water house). For base case "A" it was assumed that all three systems developed independently during the planning period of this study (years 1982 through 2001). H.1.1 - Alatna System As described in Section D, the Alatna central utility system consists of a newly installed, 8.8 kW, air-cooled diesel generator. Waste heat recovery is not practical for this unit. Capacity should be sufficient to meet projected energy and load demands through the end of the planning period. Because of the small size of the generator, no backup was provided. This is an exception to the general operating principle requiring that such backup be maintained. Assumptions made for calculating future electricity costs and present worth of the Alatna system are as follows: 0 Utility planning is carried out as previously described. ° Diesel generators are valued at an installed cost of $800/kW, amortized over a 20-year operating life. The real discount rate (net from inflation) is assumed to be 3 percent annually. ° Diesel generators are overhauled every 5 years at a cost of $150/kW, recovered over the same period as a sinking fund at 3 percent cost of money. ° General operation and maintenance costs are valued at $3,000 (though these services are provided on a voluntary basis). 0 Electricity is produced at the fuel consumption rate of 7 kWh per gallon. 0 Annual fuel cost is based on the January 1982 price of $2.39 per gallon with the real cost rising 2.6 percent annually to $3.89 by the year 2001 and remaining constant thereafter. ALATNA A-22 H.1.2 - Allakaket System The Allakaket central utility system consists of two 30 kW, air-cooled diesel generators. These units should be sufficient until the year 1987 when projections show that their capacity will be exceeded. In keeping with the basic operating principle that full backup capacity should be maintained, it is recommended that both 30 kW units be retired in 1987 and replaced by two 50 kW units. These larger units should satisfy generating needs through the end of the Planning period. Waste heat recovery is not recommended for this system because of the small size of the generators and the existing village layout in relation to the power plant location, which is not near any large building. Assumptions made for the economic analysis are the same as those for the Alatna system with the exception that general O&M is valued at $8,000 per year, even though this service is also provided on a voluntary basis. H.1.3 - School System As described in Section D, the Yukon-Koyukuk School District plans to install an entirely new power plant system to serve the school house, two teachers' houses, and the safe water house in Allakaket. The power plant will be constructed adjacent to the school and will have a waste heat recovery system to supplement school space heating. For base case "A", it was assumed that the school continues to supply its own power throughout the planning period, though a proposal by the school to the City of Allakaket offered to combine systems. As yet, no decision has been made by villagers on the proposal. If the proposal is rejected by the city, the school will use smaller diesel units. For this analysis, it was assumed that two 50 kW diesel generators would be sufficient to supply the school power needs throughout the planning period. One unit is maintained as backup. Assumptions made for the economic analysis are the same as those for the Alatna system with the exception that O&M for the diesels costs $8,000 per year. This essentially pays the cost of having school maintenance personnel check diesel units on a daily basis and perform routine maintenance. In addition, the following assumptions were made for the waste heat recovery system. 0 Installed cost is $70,000 including heat exchanger, 90 feet of supply and return piping, pump, and other miscellaneous costs. 0 The system is amortized over a 10-year period and then replaced. The real discount rate (net from inflation) is assumed to be 3 percent annually. ALATNA A-23 0 Annual O&M is valued at $1,000. 0 19 percent of input diesel generator heat energy is delivered to the school. 0 Heating efficiency of school boilers is 65 percent. 0 Waste heat is valued at the equivalent price of displaced space heating fuel. Tables 7, 8, and 9 in Section I present the present worth calcula- tions for the period 1982 through 2041 for the separate Alatna, Allakaket (city only), and school district power systems for the period 1982 through 2041. Table 10 presents the fuel savings benefit of the waste heat recovery system. Net present worth of this plan is the sum of the present worth of those three systems minus the present worth of the fuel savings benefit as shown below: Present Worth Alatna $ 395,000 Al lakaket 2,145,000 School 1,998,000 Subtotal $4,538,000 Fuel Benefit ($389,000) Net present worth $4,149,000 H.2 - Base Case "B" Base case "B" addresses the situation in which the school district and City of Allakaket are served by one power station. In this case, the new power plant is constructed by the school in 1982. The school sells power to the City of Allakaket and the city assumes responsibility for power distri- bution and administration. This arrangement was prepared by the school in the fall of 1981. At this writing, the proposal had not been accepted. Base case "B" evaluates the economics of this plan. For the case study, Alatna remains on its own power system as described in base case "A". Base case "B" assumes that a new power plant with a waste heat recovery system is built next to the school, as planned, providing electricity and supplemental heat to the school and electricity to the village. Two 100 kW units are installed which satisfy demand forecast projections throughout the planning period. The old diesel units serving Allakaket are retired. ALATNA A-24 Assumptions for the economic analysis are the same as those for base case "A" except that 15 percent of input diesel generator heat energy is available to the school. The drop in percentage of recoverable energy takes into account the reduced coincidence between generator operations and waste heat demand as the generators are no longer dedicated to the school district. Table 11 in Section I presents the present worth calculations for the period 1982 through 2091 for the system that serves power to both Allakaket and the school district. Since the Alatna system remains unchanged, its present worth is the same as that presented in Table 7 for base case "A'. The fuel savings benefit for the waste heat recovery system is shown in Table 12. Net present worth of base case "B" is calculated as follows: Present Worth Alatna $ 395,000 Allakaket and School 3,941,000 Subtotal $4,336,000 Fuel Benefit 676,000 Net present worth $3,660,000 The analysis assumes that waste heat is "sold" to the school at the equivalent value of the displaced fuel. Since the school would be managing the system, it is not known whether the actual benefit of this fuel savings will be passed on to the village in the form of reduced electricity costs. If not, the benefit to the village of switching over to the school system is marginal. Since the villagers appear to be satisfied with the present costs of electricity, their reluctance to accept the school proposal is understandable, especially in light of the risk of unknown future electricity costs. Further complicating the issue is the fact that the villagers do not know the actual quantity of electricity produced nor its cost because the village system is unmetered. Therefore, not enough information is available to them to fairly evaluate the proposal to switch over to the school system. For the villagers to accept the plan, a rate must be negotiated that ensures a lower cost of electricity to them. This could be accomplished under the present system if the school charges the city government a monthly fixed rate based on the number of users. Under another alternative to the proposal, the school could lease or sell the new power plant to the village, thus transferring management responsibility. ALATNA A-25 H.3 - Alternative Plan "A" Alternative plan "A" addresses the feasibility of intertying Alatna with the power system serving both Allakaket and the school as described in base case "B". The intertie would be achieved with a submarine cable constructed in 1982 that spans the Koyukuk River. Cost of constructing the intertie was estimated at $150,000 encompassing 1,500 feet of cable, two transformers, cable anchors at each bank, mobilization, demobilization, labor, contingency and profit. The diesel generator in Alatna is maintained as backup throughout the planning period. Economic assumptions regarding alternative "A" are the same as base case "B" with the following additions and changes: ° The transmission intertie is valued at an installed cost of $150,000 amortized annually over a 20-year operating lifetime. The real discount rate (net from inflation) is assumed to be 3 percent annually. 0 O&M of the transmission line is assumed to be zero. 0 Though the capital investment of the Alatna system continues to be amortized, fuel, overhead, and O&M costs are reduced to zero for all practical purposes. Table 13 in Section I presents the present worth calculations for the central utility system that interties Alatna with the Allakaket and school power system described in base case "B". Table 14 presents the fuel savings benefit of this plan. The net present worth of this plan is $3,791,000 for the period 1982 through 2041. H.4 - Alternative Plan "B" In this alternative, a potential hydroelectric site south of Allakaket and Alatna was reviewed for its economic feasibility. A previous study by Ott Water Engineers (Ref. 19, Main Report) identified two sites in the area with hydro potential. The more promising was an unnamed creek about 2-1/2 miles south of the villages where a run-of-the-stream facility could be constructed. The site has a potential capacity of 82 kW with power delivered during the summer months from May to October. The capacity rating was based on the estimated 80 percentile mean flow of 1.14 cfs. Winter flows for this creek are minimal. ALATNA A-26 A capital cost breakdown for the preferred site is provided below (Ref. 19, Main Report): (1) Diversion $489,900 (2) Canal and Flume 174,000 (3) Penstock 116,000 (4) Mechanical and Electrical Equipment 73,800 (5) Powerhouse 69,100 (6) Transmission Line (2.3 miles) 92,000 (7) Winter Haul Road 16,000 (8) Mobilization, Demobilization, and 309,200 Profit @ 30 percent Subtotal $1,340,000 (9) Geographic Index Factor, 0.95 1,273,000 Total Construction Cost $2,613,000 (10) Contingencies @ 20 percent 522,600 (11) Planning and Engineering @ 16 percent 418,100 Total Project Cost $3,554,000 The hydro plant provides electric power to both Alatna and Allakaket during the summer. Alatna is assumed to be intertied with Allakaket. When the hydro plant is not producing power in the winter, the diesel backup system operates as described in alternative "A". An estimate of the monthly distribution of electrical energy consumption by villages in the region indicates that 40 percent of the energy generated is consumed from May to October. Therefore, it was assumed for this analysis that the hydro plant could provide 40 percent of the annual energy require- ment for Alatna and Allakaket. Also, operation of the hydro plant would reduce the fuel savings benefit of the waste heat recovery system for those times (previously September and October) when the diesel generators would not be running. Economic assumptions for alternative "B" are the same as those for alternative "A" with the following additions and changes: 0 The hydro plant becomes operational starting in 1992. ° The hydro plant costs $3,554,000 amortized over a 50-year operating life. The real discount rate (net from inflation) is assumed to be 3 percent annually. ALATNA A-27 Annual 0&M costs are $9,000 per year based on cost of inspection and routine maintenance performed for 4 hours every other day for 5 months of the year at $30/hour. Overhaul (replacement) costs of mechanical and electrical components are valued at $2,100 per year (Ref. 26, Main Report). Annual O&M costs for the diesel system is valued at $5,000 including $4,000 for the diesels and $1,000 for the waste heat recovery system. Overhaul costs for the diesel system is valued at $150/kW recovered over 10 years as a sinking fund at 3 percent. This represents a doubling of operating lifetime as a result of the hydro system. 13 percent of input diesel generator heat energy is delivered to the school. Table 15 of Section I presents the present worth calculations for central diesel and hydroelectric plant as described in Section H. Table 16 presents the fuel savings benefit of this plan. The net present worth of this plan is $5,608,000 for the period 1982 through 2041. Comparison with other alternatives presented shows that this plan is the least economic and development is therefore not recommended. ALATNA A-28 I - ENERGY PLAN EVALUATIONS TABLE 7 ESTIMATED COSTS OF BASE CASE "A" (POWER COSTS FOR ALATNA ONLY) FUEL COSTS SYSTEM ADDITIONS FIXED COSTS Energy Diesel “—~Fuel— Fue! ee Capital Annual Overhaul Total Fixed Production | Fuel Used x Price = Costs Costs Costs + Fund + 08M = Costs Year (MWh) _| (000 gal) ($/gal) ($1,000) Component ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000) 1982 10 1.4 2.39 3.3 o New 8.8 kW diesel 7.0 0.5 0.2 3.0 3.7 1983 1 1.5 2.45 3.7 0.5 0.2 3.0 3.7 1984 12 1.7 2.52 4.3 0.5 0.2 3.0 3.7 1985 14 1.9 2.58 4.9 0.5 0.2 3.0 3.7 1986 15 2.2 2.65 5.8 0.5 0.2 3.0 3.7 1987 7 2.4 2.72 6.5 0.5 0.2 3.0 3.7 1988 19 2.7 2.79 725 0.5 0.2 3.0 3.7 1989 21 3.0 2.86 8.6 0.5 0.2 3.0 3.7 1990 22 3.1 2.93 9.1 0.5 0.2 3.0 3.7 1991 22 3.1 3.01 9.3 0.5 0.2 3.0 3.7 1992 22 3.1 3.09 9.6 0.5 0.2 3.0 3.7 1993 22 3.2 3.17 10.1 0.5 0.2 3.0 3.7 1994 22 3.2 3.25 10.4 0.5 0.2 3.0 3.7 1995 23 3.2 3.34 10.7 0.5 0.2 3.0 3.7 1996 23 3.3 3.42 11.3 0.5 0.2 3.0 3.7 1997 23 3.3 3.51 11.6 0.5 0.2 3.0 3.7 1998 23 3.5 3.60 11.9 0.5 0.2 3.0 3.7 1999 24 3.4 3.70 12.6 0.5 0.2 3.0 3.7 2000 24 3.4 3.79 12.9 0.5 0.2 3.0 3.7 2001 24 3.4 3.89 13.2 0.5 0.2 3.0 3.7 2002-2041 24 3.4 3.89 13.2 0.5 0.2 3.0 3.7 62-V WNL IV TABLE 7 (Cont'd) Total Discounted Fuel Fixed Annual Annual Energy Costs + Costs = Costs Costs (c) Costs Year ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000) ($/kWh) 1982 3.3 3.7 7.0 6.8 0.70 1983 3.7 3.7 764 7.0 0.74 1984 4.3 3.7 8.0 703 0.67 1985 4.9 3.7 8.6 7.6 0.61 1986 5.8 3.7 9.5 8.2 0.63 1987 6.5 3.7 10.2 8.5 0.60 1988 7.5 307 11.2 91 0.59 1989 8.6 3.7 12.3 9.7 0.59 1990 91 3.7 12.8 9.8 0. 58 1991 9.3 3.7 13.0 9.7 0.59 1992 9.6 3.7 13.3 9.6 0.60 1993 10.1 3.7 13.8 9.7 0.63 1994 10.4 3.7 14.1 9.6 0.64 1995 10.7 3.7 14.4 9.5 0.63 1996 11.3 3.7 15.0 9.6 0.65 1997 11.6 a7 15.3 9.5 0.67 1998 11.9 3.7 15.6 9.4 0.68 1999 12.6 3.7 16.3 9.6 0.68 2000 12.9 3.7 16.6 9.5 0.69 2001 13.2 3.7 16.9 9.4 0.70 2002-2041 13.2 3.7 16.9 216.3 0.70 Total net present worth $395 All costs shown in thousands of dollars Note 1: Diese! fuel use is calculated at a consumption rate of 7 kWh produced per gallon of fuel used. Note 2: Diesel fuel price is expressed in terms of 1981 dollars, with prices escalated at 2.6 percent above general inflation. Note 3: Total annual fixed costs include funds for equipment amortization (calculated at 3%), a sinking fund for equipment overhaul and replacement, and general O&M work. O€-V VNLVIV TABLE 8 ESTIMATED COSTS OF BASE CASE "A" (POWER COSTS FOR ALLAKAKET EXCLUDING SCHOOL) FUEL COSTS SYSTEM ADDITIONS FIXED COSTS Energy Diesel Fue Fuel Capital Annual Overhau Total Fixed Production | Fuel Used x Price = Costs Costs Costs + Fund + O&M = Costs Year (MWh) (1,000 gal) _($/gal) ($1,000) Component ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000) 1982 58 8.3 2.39 19.8 © Two existing 30 kW 48 3.2 1.7 8.0 12.9 diesels 1983 65 9.3 2.45 22.8 3.2 1.7 8.0 12.9 1984 7 10.1 2.52 25.5 3.2 1.7 8.0 12.9 1985 80 11.64 2.58 29.4 3.2 1.7 8.0 12.9 1986 87 12.4 2.65 32.9 3.2 1.7 8.0 12.9 1987 98 14.0 2.72 38.1 o Retire 30 KW units; 80 5.4 2.8 8.0 16.2 install two 50 kW 1988 108 15.4 2.79 43.0 diesels 5.4 2.8 8.0 16.2 1989 110 15.7 2.86 44.9 5.4 2.8 8.0 16.2 1990 Ww 15.9 2.93 46.6 5.4 2.8 8.0 16.2 1991 115 16.4 3.01 49.4 564 2.8 8.0 16.2 1992 W17 16.7 3.09 51.6 504 2.8 8.0 16.2 1993 120 17.1 3.17 54.2 5.4 2.8 8.0 16.2 1994 122 17.4 3.25 56.6 564 2.8 8.0 16.2 1995 127 18.1 3.34 60.5 54 2.8 8.0 16.2 1996 128 18.3 3.42 62.6 564 2.8 8.0 16.2 1997 132 18.9 3.51 66.3 564 2.8 8.0 16.2 1998 135 19.3 3.60 69.5 5.4 2.8 8.0 16.2 1999 139 19.9 3.70 73.6 564 2.8 8.0 16.2 2000 141 20.1 3.79 76.2 564 2.8 8.0 16.2 2001 142 20.3 3.89 79.0 564 2.8 8.0 16.2 2002-2041 142 20.3 3.89 79.0 564 2.8 8.0 16.2 LE-V WNLWI1V TABLE 8 (Cont'd) Total Discounted Fuel Fixed Annual Annual Energy Costs + Costs = Costs Costs (c) Costs Year ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000) ($/kWh) 1982 19.8 12.9 32.7 31.7 0.57 1983 22.8 12.9 35.7 33.7 0.55 1984 25.5 12.9 38.4 35.1 0.54 1985 29.4 12.9 42.3 37.6 0.53 1986 32.9 12.9 45.8 39.5 0.53 1987 38.1 16.2 54.3 45.5 0.55 1988 43.0 16.2 59.2 48.1 0.55 1989 44.9 16.2 61.1 48.2 0.56 1990 46.6 16.2 62.8 48.1 0.57 1991 49.4 16.2 65.6 48.8 0.57 1992 51.6 16.2 67.8 49.0 0.58 1993 54.2 16.2 70.4 49.4 0.59 1994 56.6 16.2 72.8 49.6 0.60 1995 60.5 16.2 76.7 50.7 0.60 1996 62.6 16.2 78.8 50.6 0.62 1997 66.3 16.2 82.5 51.4 0.63 1998 69.5 16.2 85.7 51.8 0.63 1999 73.6 16.2 89.8 52.7 0.65 2000 716.2 16.2 92.4 52.7 0.66 2001 79.0 16.2 95.2 52.7 0.67 2002-2041 79.0 16.2 95.2 1,218.4 0.67 Total net present worth $2,145 All costs shown in thousands of dollars Note 1: Diesel fuel use is calculated at a consumption rate of 7 kWh produced per gallon of fuel used. Note 2: Diesel fuel price is expressed in terms of 1981 dollars, with prices escalated at 2.6 percent above general inflation. Note 3: Total annual fixed costs include funds for equipment amortization (calculated at 3%), a sinking fund for equipment overhaul and replacement, and general O&M work. ce-Y WNLVIV TABLE 9 ESTIMATED COSTS OF BASE CASE "A" (POWER COSTS FOR SCHOOL DISTRICT ONLY) FUEL COSTS SYSTEM ADDITIONS FIXED COSTS Energy Diesel Fuel Fuel Capital Annual Overhaul Total Fixed Production | Fuel Used x Price = Costs Costs Costs + Fund + O&M = Costs Year (MWh) (1,000 gal) _($/gal) ($1,000) Component ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000) 1982 96 13.7 2.39 32.7 o Install two new 50 kw 150 13.6 2.8 9.0 25.4 diesel generators with 1983 96 13.7 2.45 33.6 waste heat recovery 13.6 2.8 9.0 25.4 system for school 1984 96 13.7 2.52 34.5 13.6 2.8 9.0 25.4 1985 96 13.7 2.58 35.3 13.6 2.8 9.0 2564 1986 96 13.7 2.65 36.3 13.6 2.8 9.0 2524 1987 96 13.7 2.72 37.3 13.6 2.8 9.0 25.4 1988 96 13.7 2.79 38.2 13.6 2.8 9.0 25-4 1989 96 13.7 2.86 39.2 13.6 2.8 9.0 2564 1990 96 13.7 2.93 40.1 13.6 2.8 9.0 25.4 1991 96 13.7 3.01 41.2 13.6 2.8 9.0 25.4 1992 96 13.7 3.09 42.3 o Replace 1982 waste 13.6 2.8 9.0 2544 heat recovery system 1993 96 13.7 3.17 43.4 13.6 2.8 9.0 25.4 1994 96 13.7 3.25 44.5 13.6 2.8 9.0 25.4 1995 96 13.7 3.34 45.8 13.6 2.8 9.0 25.4 1996 96 13.7 3.42 46.9 13.6 2.8 9.0 25.4 1997 96 13.7 3.51 48.1 13.6 2.8 9.0 25.4 1998 96 13.7 3.60 49.3 13.6 2.8 9.0 25.4 1999 96 13.7 3.70 50.7 13.6 2.8 9.0 2564 2000 96 13.7 3.79 51.9 13.6 2.8 9.0 25.4 2001 96 13.7 3.89 53.3 13.6 2.8 9.0 2524 2002-2041 96 13.7 3.89 53.3 13.6 2.8 9.0 25.4 €€-V WNLWIV TABLE 9 (Cont'd) Total Discounted Fuel Fixed Annual Annual Energy Costs + Costs = Costs Costs (c) Costs Year ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000) ($/kWh) 1982 32.7 25.4 58.1 56.4 0.50 1983 33.6 2564 59.0 55.6 0.51 1984 34.5 2564 59.9 54.8 0.52 1985 35.3 2504 60.7 53.9 0.52 1986 36.3 25.4 61.7 53.2 0.53 1987 37.3 25.4 62.7 52.5 0.54 1988 38.2 25.4 63.6 51.7 0.54 1989 39.2 2524 64.6 51.0 0.55 1990 40.1 25.4 65.5 50.2 0.56 1991 41.2 2564 66.6 49.6 0.57 1992 42.3 2544 67.7 48.9 0.57 1993 43.4 25.4 68.8 48.3 0.58 1994 44.5 25.4 69.9 47.6 0.59 1995 45.8 2564 71.2 47.1 0.60 1996 46.9 2544 72.3 46.4 0.61 1997 48.1 2524 73.5 45.8 0.62 1998 49.3 25.4 74.7 45.2 0.63 1999 50.7 2524 76.1 44.7 0.63 2000 51.9 2544 77.3 44.1 0.64 2001 53.3 25.4 78.7 43.6 0.65 2002-2041 53.3 2504 78.7 1,007.3 0.65 TOTAL $1,998 Total present worth of non-electrical benefits $ 389 Net present worth $1,609 All costs shown in thousands of dollars Note 1: Diesel fuel use is calculated at a consumption rate of 7 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 anortization (calculated at 3%), a sinking fund for equipment overhaul and replacement, and general O&M work. ve-V WNLV IV ALATNA A-35 TABLE 10 ESTIMATED NON-ELECTRICAL BENEFITS OF BASE CASE "A" Total Annual Benefits Discounted Year (Space Heating Fuel Saving) Benefits 1982 9.8 95 1983 10.0 9.4 1984 10.3 9.4 1985 10.6 9.4 1986 11.0 9.5 1987 11 9.3 1988 1.5 9.4 1989 11.8 9.3 1990 12,1 9°38) 1991 12:3 9.2 1992 12.6 9.1 1993 13.0 9.1 1994 13,8 9.1 1995 13.7 9.1 1996 14.1 ool 1997 14.4 9.0 1998 14.7 8.9 1999 15.2 8.9 2000 15.5 8.8 2001 16.0 8.9 2002 16.0 204.8 through 2041 TOTAL: $_ 388.5 All cost figures shown are in thousands of dollars. ALATNA A-36 I.1 - Base Case "A" 1.1.1 - Social and Environmental Evaluation The environmental impact of continuing operation of the diesel generator is minor. With the powerhouse located in the center of the village, noise pollution may present some irritation. This is minor considering the small size of the units involved. The engine lubricating oi] must be changed periodically and the waste oil disposed of properly. In remote villages such as Allakaket and Alatna, this can be a significant problem. The large number of rusting oil drums and junked engines surrounding the powerhouse in Allakaket suggest the problem of waste removal. An obvious benefit of the village central diesel system is the satisfaction villagers derive from operating their own plant. 1.1.2 - Technical Evaluation There are no technical barriers to the continued development of this system. A foundation other than logs, however, may be desirable for reduced vibration, prolonging machine life. TABLE 11 ESTIMATED COSTS OF BASE CASE "B" (ALLAKAKET AND SCHOOL POWER SYSTEMS COMBINED) FUEL COSTS SYSTEM ADDITIONS FIXED COSTS Energy Diesel Fuel Fuel Capital Annual Overhaul Total Fixed Production | Fuel Used X Price = Costs Costs Costs + Fund + O&M = Costs Year (MWh) (1,000 gal) —_($/gal) ($1,000) Component _ = ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000) _—( $1,000) 1982 154 22.0 2.39 52.6 o Two new 100 kW diesel 230 19.0 5.7 9.0 33.7 generators with waste heat 1983 161 23.0 2.45 56.4 recovery are installed to 19.0 57 9.0 33.7 serve Allakaket and school 1984 167 23.9 2.52 60.2 district with power and to 19.0 5.7 9.0 33.7 supplement school space 1985 176 25.1 2.58 64.8 heating 19.0 5.7 9.0 33.7 1986 183 26.1 2.65 69.2 19.0 57 9.0 33.7 1987 194 27.7 2.72 7563 19.0 5.7 9.0 33.7 1988 204 29.1 2.79 81.2 19.0 5.7 9.0 33.7 1989 206 29.4 2.86 84.1 19.0 5.7 9.0 33.7 1990 207 29.6 2.93 86.7 19.0 5.7 9.0 33.7 1991 211 30.1 3.01 90.6 19.0 5.7 9.0 33.7 1992 213 30.4 3.09 93.9 o Replace 1982 waste 70 19.0 5.7 9.0 33.7 heat recovery system 1993 216 30.9 3.17 98.0 19.0 5.7 9.0 33.7 1994 218 31.1 3.25 101.1 19.0 5.7 9.0 33.7 1995 223 31.9 3.34 106.5 19.0 5.7 9.0 33.7 1996 224 32.0 3.42 109.4 19.0 5.7 9.0 33.7 1997 228 32.6 3.51 114.4 19.0 5.7 9.0 33.7 1998 231 33.0 3.60 118.8 19.0 5.7 9.0 33.7 1999 235 33.6 3.70 124.3 19.0 5.7 9.0 33.7 2000 237 33.9 3.79 128.5 19.0 5.7 9.0 33.7 2001 238 34.0 3.89 132.3 19.0 5.7 9.0 33.7 2002-2041 238 34.0 3.89 132.3 19.0 5.7 9.0 33.7 Ze-W WNLWIV TABLE 11 (Cont'd) Total Discounted Fuel Fixed Annual Annual Energy Costs + Costs = Costs Costs (c) Costs Year ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000) ($/kWh) 1982 52.6 33.7 86.3 83.8 0.48 1983 56.4 33.7 90.1 84.9 0.48 1984 60.2 33.7 93.9 85.9 0.48 1985 64.8 33.7 98.5 87.5 0.48 1986 69.2 33.7 102.9 88.8 0.48 1987 7503 33.7 109.0 91.3 0.48 1988 81.2 33.7 114.9 93.4 0.47 1989 84.1 33.7 117.8 93.0 0.48 1990 86.7 33.7 120.4 92.3 0.49 1991 90.6 33.7 124.3 92.5 0.49 1992 93.9 33.7 127.6 92.2 0.50 1993 98.0 33.7 131.7 92.4 0.51 1994 101.1 33.7 134.8 91.8 0.51 1995 106.5 33.7 140.2 92.7 0.52 1996 109.4 33.7 143.1 91.9 0.53 1997 114.4 33.7 148.1 92.3 0.54 1998 118.8 33.7 152.5 92.3 0.54 1999 124.3 33.7 158.0 92.8 0.55 2000 128.5 33.7 162.2 92.5 0.56 2001 132.3 33.7 166.0 91.9 0.57 2002-2041 132.3 33.7 166.0 2,124.6 0.57 TOTAL $3,941 Total present worth of non-electrical benefits $ 676 Net present worth $3,265 All costs shown in thousands of dollars Note 1: Diesel fuel use is calculated at a consumption rate of 7 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& work. 8e-Y VNLV TY ALATNA A-39 TABLE 12 ESTIMATED NON-ELECTRICAL BENEFITS OF BASE CASE "B" Total Annual Benefits Discounted Year (Space Heating Fuel Saving) | Benefits 1982 11.8 1135 1983 12.35 11.8 1984 13 5 12.4 1985 14.5 12.9 1986 15.5 13.4 1987 16.8 14.1 1988 18.1 14.7 1989 18.8 14.8 1990 19.4 14.9 1991 20.5 15-3 1992 2150) 1512 1993 21.9 15.4 1994 22.8 1525 1995 23 al 1527, 1996 24.7 15.9 1997 25.07 16.0 1998 26.8 16.2 1999 2139) 16.4 2000 28.9 16.5 2001 29.8 16.5 2002 29.8 381.0 through 2041 TOTAL: $ 676.1 All cost figures shown are in thousands of dollars. ALATNA A-40 1.2 - Base Case "B" 1.2.1 - Social and Environmental Evaluation Minor environmental gains can be achieved with waste heat recovery by displacing oi] that otherwise would be burned at the school for space heating. A social disbenefit to villagers would occur, however, if the village did accept the plan proposed by the school. Villagers would lose the satisfaction and pride that comes with operating and maintaining their own power system. They would also lose control over the prices charged for electricity. Experience has proven that some school districts are negligent in the general maintenance of their systems. Whether or not the Yukon-Koyukuk School District has a similar performance record is not known. 1.2.2 - Technical Evaluation In terms of sound energy management, waste heat recovery should be encouraged wherever practical. The technology is proven and is now being widely implemented throughout Alaska. The system at Allakaket would be cost effective, particularly if the load on the diesel generators could be increased by incorporating Allakaket into the system. More waste heat would then be available for space heating to the school. TABLE 13 ESTIMATED COSTS OF ALTERNATIVE PLAN "A" (ALATNA AND ALLAKAKET INTERTIED) FUEL COSTS SYSTEM ADDITIONS FIXED COSTS Energy Diesel Fuel Fuel Capital Annual Overhaul Total Fixed Production | Fuel Used x Price = Costs Costs Costs + Fund + O&M = Costs Year (MWh) (1,000 gal) ($/gal) ($1,000) Component ($1,000) ($1,000) _ ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000) 1982 164 23.4 2.39 55.9 © School district diesel 387 29.6 5.7 9.0 44.3 generators serve power 1983 172 24.6 2645 60.3 to Allakaket and Alatna. 29.6 5.7 9.0 44.3 System includes submarine 1984 179 25.6 2.52 64.5 cable intertie and waste 29.6 5.7 9.0 44.3 heat recovery 1985 190 2761 2.58 69.9 29.6 5.7 9.0 44.3 1986 198 28.3 2.65 75.0 29.6 5.7 9.0 44.3 1987 2i1 30.1 2.72 81.9 29.6 5.7 9.0 44.3 1988 225 31.9 2.79 89.0 29.6 5.7 9.0 44.3 1989 227 32.4 2.86 92.7 29.6 5.7 9.0 44.3 1990 229 32.7 2.93 95.8 29.6 5.7 9.0 44.3 1991 233 33.8 3.01 101.7 29.6 5.7 9.0 44.3 1992 235 33.6 3.09 103.8 © 1982 waste heat system 70 29.6 5.7 9.0 44.3 replaced 1993 238 34.0 3.17 107.8 29.6 57 9.0 44.3 1994 240 34.3 3625 11165 29.6 5.7 9.0 44.3 1995 246 3501 3.34 117.0 29.6 5.7 9.0 44.3 1996 247 35.3 3.42 120.7 29.6 5.7 9.0 44.3 1997 251 35.9 3.51 126.0 29.6 5.7 9.0 44.3 1998 254 36.3 3.60 130.7 29.6 567 9.0 44.3 1999 259 37.0 3.70 136.9 29.6 5.7 9.0 44.3 2000 261 37.3 3.79 141.4 29.6 5.7 9.0 44.3 2001 262 3764 3.89 145.5 29.6 5.7 9.0 44.3 2002-2041 262 37.4 3.89 145.5 29.6 5.7 9.0 44.3 lo-V VNLWIV TABLE 13 (Cont'd) Total Discounted Fuel Fixed Annual Annual Energy Costs + Costs = Costs Costs (c) Costs Year ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000) ($/kWh) 1982 55.9 44.3 100 97 0.53 1983 60.3 44.3 105 99 0.53 1984 64.5 44.3 109 100 0.53 1985 69.9 44.3 114 101 0.52 1986 75.0 44.3 119 103 0.52 1987 81.9 44.3 126 106 0.51 1988 89.0 44.3 133 108 0.51 1989 92.7 44.3 137 108 0.52 1990 95.8 44.3 140 107 0.52 1991 101.7 44.3 146 109 0.53 1992 103.8 44.3 148 107 0.53 1993 107.8 44.3 152 107 0.54 1994 111.5 44.3 156 106 0.55 1995 117.0 44.3 161 106 0.55 1996 120.7 44.3 165 106 0.56 1997 126.0 44.3 170 106 0.57 1998 130.7 44.3 175 106 0.57 1999 136.9 44.3 181 106 0.58 2000 141.4 44.3 186 106 0.59 2001 145.5 44.3 190 105 0.60 2002-2041 145.5 44.3 190 2,432 0.60 TOTAL $4,531 Total present worth of non-electrical benefits $(740) Net present worth $3,791 All costs shown in thousands of dollars Note 1: Diesel fuel use is calculated at a consumption rate of 7 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. ev-V WNL ALATNA A-43 TABLE 14 ESTIMATED NON-ELECTRICAL BENEFITS OF ALTERNATIVE PLAN "A" Total Annual Benefits Discounted Year (Space Heating Fuel Saving) Benefits 1982 12:5 12.1 1983 13.6 12.8 1984 14.5 13-3 1985 15.7 13.9 1986 17.0 14.7 1987 18.5 15.5 1988 19.9 16.2 1989 20.6 16.3 1990 21.4 16.4 1991 22.4 16.7 1992 23.3 16.8 1993 24.2 17.0 1994 24.9 17.0 1995 26.3 17.4 1996 27.2 17.5 1997 28.3 17.6 1998 29.5 17.8 1999 30.6 18.0 2000 31.8 18.1 2001 32.6 18.1 2002 32.6 417.2 through 2041 TOTAL: $ 740.4 All cost figures shown are in thousands of dollars. ALATNA A- 44 1.3 - Alternative Plan "A" 1.3.1 - Social and Environmental Evaluation The submarine cable crossing the Koyukuk River should be environmentally benign. Construction of cable anchors should be performed with care so that permafrost damage is not incurred. A social disbenefit of the intertie would be the loss of management over the power system for residents of Alatna. Conversations with residents revealed their pride in maintaining their own system, for which all work is performed on a voluntary basis. 1.3.2 - Technical Evaluation With two 100 kW diesel units, sufficient capacity is available to include Alatna on the system through the end of the planning period without need for expansion. TABLE 15 ESTIMATED COSTS OF ALTERNATIVE PLAN "B" (HYDROELECTRIC POWER) FUEL COSTS SYSTEM ADDITIONS FIXED COSTS Energy Diesel Fuel Fuel Capital Annual Overhaul Total Fixed Production | Fuel Used x Price = Costs Costs Costs + Fund + 08M = Costs Year (MWh) (1,000 gal) — ($/gal) ($1,000) Component ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000) 1982 164 23.4 2.39 55.9 o Schoo! district diesel 387 29.6 5.7 9.0 44.3 generators serve power to 1983 172 24.6 2.45 60.3 Allakaket and Alatna. 29.6 5.7 9.0 44.3 System includes submarine 1984 179 25.6 2.52 64.5 cable Intertie and waste 29.6 5.7 9.0 44.3 heat recovery. 1985 190 27.1 2.58 69.9 29.6 5.7 9.0 44.3 1986 198 28.3 2.65 75.0 29.6 5.7 9.0 44.3 1987 211 30.1 2.72 81.9 29.6 5.7 9.0 44.5 1988 223 31.9 2.79 89.0 29.6 5.7 9.0 44.3 1989 227 32.4 2.86 92.7 29.6 57 9.0 44.3 1990 229 32.7 2.93 95.8 29.6 5.7 9.0 44.3 1991 233 33.8 3.01 101.7 29.6 5.7 9.0 44.3 1992 235 20.1 3.09 62.1 o New hydroelectric 3,554 173 4.7 14 192 serves both villages 1993 238 20.4 3.17 64.7 with electric power 173 4.7 14 192 from May through 1994 240 20.6 3.25 67.0 October. Waste heat 173 4.7 14 192 system of 1982 is 1995 246 21.1 3.34 70.5 replaced. 173 4.7 14 192 1996 247 21.2 3.42 72.5 173 4.7 14 192 1997 251 21.5 3.51 75.5 173 4.7 14 192 1998 254 21.8 3.60 78.5 173 4.7 14 192 1999 259 22.2 3.70 82.1 173 4.7 14 192 2000 261 22.4 3.79 84.9 173 4.7 14 192 2001 262 22.5 3.89 87.5 173 4.7 14 192 2002-2041 262 22.5 3.89 87.5 175 4.7 14 192 Sv-V VNLV1V TABLE 15 (Cont'd) Total Discounted Fuel Fixed Annual Annual Energy Costs + Costs = Costs Costs (c) Costs Year ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000) | ($1,000) ($/kWh) 1982 55.9 44.3 100 97 0.53 1983 60.3 44.3 105 99 0.53 1984 64.5 44.3 109 100 0.53 1985 69.9 44,3 114 101 0.52 1986 75.0 44.3 119 103 0.52 1987 81.9 44.3 126 106 0.51 1988 89.0 44.3 133 108 0.51 1989 92.7 44.3 137 108 0.52 1990 95.8 44.3 140 107 0.52 1991 101.7 44.3 146 109 0.53 1992 62.1 192 254 183 0.99 1993 64.7 192 257 180 0.99 1994 67.0 192 259 176 0.98 1995 70.5 192 263 174 0.97 1996 72.5 192 265 170 0.97 1997 75.5 192 268 167 0.96 1998 78.5 192 271 164 0.96 1999 82.1 192 274 161 0.95 2000 84.9 192 277 158 0.95 2001 87.5 192 280 155 0.96 2002-2041 87.5 192 280 3,584 0.96 TOTAL $ 6,310 Total present worth of non-electrical benefits $ 702 Net present worth $ 5,608 All costs shown In thousands of dollars Note 1: Diesel fuel use is calculated at a consumption rate of 7 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. 9b-V WNLV TY TABLE 16 ALATNA A-47 ESTIMATED NON-ELECTRICAL BENEFITS OF ALTERNATIVE PLAN “B" Total Annual Benefits Discounted Year (Space Heating Fuel Saving) Benefits 1982 13.4 13.0 1983 14.5 13.7 1984 15.6 14.3 1985 16.8 14.9 1986 18.1 15.6 1987 19.9 16.7 1988 21.3 17.3 1989 22.1 17.4 1990 23.0 17.6 1991 24.0 17.9 1992 21.3 15.4 1993 22.2 15.6 1994 22.7 15.5 1995 24.1 15.9 1996 24.9 16.0 1997 25.9 16.1 1998 27.0 16.3 1999 28.0 16.4 2000 29.1 16.6 2001 29.9 16.6 2002 29.9 382.7 through 2041 TOTAL: $701.5 All cost figures shown are in thousands of dollars. ALATNA A48 1.4 - Alternative Plan "B" 1.4.1 - Social and Environmental Evaluation Residents expressed interest in development of hydroelectric potential in the area. They reported that the fishlife at the hydro site at the unnamed creek south of the villages is not important to the livelihood of the community. Arctic char, Arctic grayling, and whitefish are present in the creek. Northern pike may also be present. 1.4.2 - Technical Evaluation The proposed hydropower project would be a run-of-the stream design. It would consist of a diversion dam, canal, penstock, and powerhouse. The powerhouse would be located near the shore of the Koyukuk River, while the dam would be approximately 1 mile away. No storage would be available, thus preventing winter power production. Average annual hydroelectric production would be 286 MWh. ALATNA A- 49 J - COMMENTS AND DISCUSSION ALATNA A450 J.1 - Comments Received From The Alaska Power Administration {Original Letter Retyped Here For Clarity] ALATNA A-51 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. ALATNA A-52 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 2: Comment: Response: Comment: Response: ALATNA A- 53 ACRES' RESPONSE "... Acres assumed that conservation was not within the scope of consideration." No such assumption was ever made either explicitly or implicitly. In a number of village reports, the primary recommendation was that aggressive energy audit programs be undertaken forthwith. It was repeatedly noted that village residents were more concerned about the costs of home heating and the inefficiencies of their homes than they were about the supply of electricity within their village. While the study of the means necessary to achieve any meaningful savings of space heating energy was beyond the scope of the study, the effects of such savings were incorporated where appropriate. It was assumed that new housing designs which would be implemented in the villages after 1985 would be 25 to 30 percent more efficient than existing units. No "value" was placed on such improvements for the reason noted above. It is the opinion of Acres' staff that electrical energy conservation is a function of electric energy cost and is inversely related to disposable income: consumers 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. 3. Comment: Response: ALATNA A-54 ACRES' RESPONSE "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. ALATNA A- 55 J.2 - Comments Received From The State of Alaska Department of Fish and came STATE OF ALASKA [| DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME OFFICE OF THE COLIEIISSIONER Pos eat ae ALE 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, “ Oot fe Ronald 0. Skoog Commissioner ALATNA A- 57 ACRES' RESPONSE No comment or change in report text is needed. ALATNA A- 58 J.3 - Comments Received From U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service in Anchorage ALATNA A-59 United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE IN REPLY REFER TO: Western Alaska Ecological Services ABS ie (907) 271-4575 BECEIVvED APR ~ 9 1989 Peacuties Dixeatar ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY aT 8 aR ise Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Dear Mr. Yould: We have reviewed the Alaska Power Authority's (APA) Draft FY 1982 Energy Reconnaissance Reports. If the conclusions and recommendations stated in the individual reports become those of the APA, and if the APA undertakes feasi- bility studies in fulfillment of the recommended alternatives, then the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) requests that the information and studies outlined below be made a part of the feasibility studies. Without current site-specific resource information and a more complete description of the proposed project, it is difficult to assess what impacts, if any, will occur to fish and wildlife resources and associated habitat. Information should be acquired and studies conducted to identify the fish and wildlife resources of the study area, identify adverse project impacts to those resources, assess alternatives to the proposed action and devise a mitigation plan that would prevent a net loss to fish and wildlife resources. Specific information to be collected and studies to be conducted which the FWS feels are necessary to adequately assess potential impacts include the following: 1. Plans for construction activities and project features to minimize damage to fish, wildlife, and their habitats should be devised, e.g., erosion control, revegetation, transmission line siting, construction timing, siting the powerhouse, diversion weir, and penstock above salmon spawning habitat, etc. 2. Losses of fish and wildlife habitat should be held to a minimum, and measures to mitigate unavoidable losses and enhance resources should be devised. 3. If there is to be a diversion of water or if substantial water temperature fluctutations are imminent, then these factors should be addressed because of their possible influence on water quality and fish habitat. Aquatic data collection should at least include the following: (a) (bd) (ce) ALATNA A-60 ~ i} a oO rm Identification of species composition and distribution of resident and anadromous fish within and downstream of the pro- ject area. Standard sampling methods such as fyke netting and minnow trapping, as well as visual observation of spawning and/or redds, should be used. Surveying and mapping of fish spawning, rearing, and over- wintering habitat as defined in the FWS Instream Flow Techniques or similar guidelines. Harvest levels and subsistence use data, if applicable. It should be incumbent upon the APA to document animal species within the project boundary. If it is determined that impacts to terrestrial mammals or bird habitat is imminent, the APA should gather habitat and population infor- mation in a manner consistent with the FWS' Habitat Evaluation Procedures. 4. Terrestrial data collection should include the following: (a) (b) Verification of game and non-game species use and occurrence within the project area. 1. Mammals. ae Historical and current harvest levels and subsistence use data. b. Site-specific wildlife observations, including wild- life sign, denning sites, feeding sites, migration routes, winter use areas, and calving areas. 2. Birds. Raptor nesting surveys within the project area. Description of vegetation, cover typing, and areal extent of each type. The FWS requests that bald eagle surveys be undertaken. If nest sites are encountered, the APA should notify the FWS. The FWS seeks to maintain a 330-foot protective zone around all active and inactive nests. Compliance with provisions of the Bald Eagle Protecton Act is mandatory. We request that the following be accomplished during the course of the studies: Le During the period of project planning, the APA should consult with federal, state, and local agencies having an interest in the fish and wildlife resources of the project area, including the Fish and Wildlife Service, prior to preparing any environmental reports. 2. The APA shall investigate and document the possible presence of any endangered or threatened species in the project area. If endangered of threatened species are determined to be present, the FWS should be notified. ALATNA A-61 Bi The APA shall design and conduct at project cost, as soon as prac- ticable, preparatory studies in cooperation with the FWS and the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. These studies shall include, but not be limited to, the above aquatic and terrestrial data. The studies shall also identify and evaluate general measures to avoid, offset, and/or reduce adverse project-caused impacts on fish and wildlife resources. Information from these fish and wildlife related studies shall be provided to the concerned state and federal resource agencies. Future correspondence on this, or other projects proposed by the APA should include a clear map, in sufficient detail to show the exact location of the project. This will enable the FWS to accurately determine whether or not Interior managed lands are involved. t is the desire of the FWS to work with the APA to resolve any concerns relating to fish, wildlife, and other resources. If it is determined that the project will result in resource impacts, the FWS will assist the APA in attempting to modify the project to alleviate or mitigate any adverse effects. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions regarding our suggested feasibility studies. Sincerely, beled lorrn Field Supervisor Is Comment: Response: ALATNA A-69 ACRES' RESPONSE "Without current site-specific resource information and a more complete description of the proposed project, it is difficult to assess what impacts, if any, will occur to fish and wildlife resources and associated habitat. Information should be acquired and studies conducted to identify the fish and wildlife resources of the study area, identify adverse project impacts to those resources, assess alternatives to the proposed action and devise a mitigation plan that would prevent a net loss to fish and wildlife resources." The reconnaissance study scope does not provide for any but the most general identification of sites, definition of project design characteristics, and assessment of environmental consequences. The level of study effort suggested in the USF&WS letter is appropriate to a feasibility-level study of a project. No change in report text is required. ALATNA A-63 J.4 - Comments Received From U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) ALATNA € A-64, ER 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, ALATNA A-65 ACRES' RESPONSE No comment or change in report text is needed. PROPERTY OF: Alaska Power Authority 334 W. 5th Ave. Anchorage, Alaska 99501