Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
State of Alaska Long Term Energy Plan, Executive Summary, 1982
ENE "22 = Exec. > 1982 Report = State of Alaska ee’ Long Term Energy Plan Executive Summary Department of Commerce and Economic Development Division of Energy and Power Development Prepared by BOOZ: ALLEN & HAMILTON INC. and ¢ Homan-McDowell ¢ Pacific Po” - NORTEC - 82/Exec. Summ ISSUED TO ee The 1982 Repor Appendices; ea¢ are available foi Development, 3 Steve Baden, Pr seport and es of the report gy and Power HIGHSMITH 42-225 PRINTED INU.S.A. rer ALASKA REGIONAL PROFILES REGION VII FAIRBANKS, AK HIGHWAY DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION ECONOMIC INFORMATION PHYSICAL INFORMATION = _ POPULATION, 1980 59,659 EMPLOYMENT, 1979 22,200 SIZE (SQ. MI) 54,000 POPULATION CHANGE 1970-1980 + 9,700 LABOR FORCE PARTICIPATION 37% TOPOGRAPHY H,F % CHANGE, 1971-1980 198 PER CAPITA INCOME, 1979($) 11,799 CLIMATE TYPE G % NATIVE, 1980 Athabascan Indian 138 ECONOMY D, LSG,P,T,M,H PRECIP./YEAR (INCHES) 10-20 PERSONS PER HOUSEHOLD 2.8 HEATING D.D. (BELOW 65°F) 15,000 FREEZING D.D. (BELOW 32°F) 5,500-6,000 WIND (AVERAGE) MPH 6 TRANS PORTAT ION/ACCESS A, RR, H, R RESOURCES M, CF, S H I c rx REGION VIII INTERIOR DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION ECONOMIC INFORMATION PHYSICAL INFORMATION _ ee POPULATION, 1980 7,098 EMPLOYMENT, 1979 2,450 SIZE (SQ. MI) 112,000 POPULATION CHANGE 1970-1980 + 1,400 LABOR FORCE PARTICIPATION 318 TOPOGRAPHY 3/4 F, 1/4 8 % CHANGE, 1971-1980 228 PER CAPITA INCOME, 1979($) 11,623 CLIMATE TYPE c % NATIVE, 1980 Athabascan 568 ECONOMY (RANK ORDER) + S, D, P, M PRECIP./YEAR (INCHES) 10-20 PERSONS PER HOUSEHOLD 3.2 HEATING D.D. (BELOW 65°F) 15,000 FREEZING D.D. (BELOW 32°F) 5,000-6,000 WIND (AVERAGE) MPH 6 TRANS PORTATION/ACCESS A, R RESOURCES M, CF, F eC — i DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION POPULATION, 1980 220,338 POPULATION CHANGE 1970-1980 +66,600 % CHANGE, 1971-1980 + 45% % NATIVE, 1980 (Mixed) 5% PERSONS PER HOUSEHOLD 2.9 DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION POPULATION, 1980 8,306 POPULATION CHANGE 1970-1980 + 3,400 % CHANGE, 1971-1980 69% % NATIVE, 1980 Athabascan Indian 13% PERSONS PER HOUSEHOLD 2.8 ALASKA REGIONAL PROFILES REGION V SOUTH CENTRAL ECONOMIC INFORMATION EMPLOYMENT, 1979 88,700 LABOR FORCE PARTICIPATION 41% PER CAPITA INCOME, 1979($) L715 ECONOMY T,WRP,A,D,SG,P,F, REGION VI PRINCE WILLIAM SOUND ECONOMIC INFORMATION EMPLOYMENT, 1979 3,300 LABOR FORCE PARTICIPATION 40% PER CAPITA INCOME, 1979($) 11,004 ECONOMY P, F, WP, T PHYSICAL INFORMATION SIZE (SQ. MI) TOPOGRAPHY CLIMATE TYPE PRECIP./YEAR (INCHES) HEATING D.D. (BELOW 65°F) FREEZING D.D. (BELOW 32°F) WIND (AVERAGE) MPH TRANS PORTAT ION/ACCESS PHYSICAL INFORMATION SIZE (SQ. MI) TOPOGRAPHY CLIMATE TYPE PRECIP./YEAR (INCHES) HEATING D.D. (BELOW 65°F, FREEZING D.D. (BELOW 32°F) WIND (AVERAGE) MPH TRANS PORTAT ION/ACCESS RESOURCES 38,000 M, H, F r 15-30 11-12,000 1-2,500 6 A, S, H, RR, F 34,000 M M 60-170 9-10,000 500-2,000 5) A, S, F, Hy, RR F, CF, S, H, M es f°a-I DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION POPULATION, 1980 7,768 POPULATION CHANGE 1970-1980 - 300 % CHANGE, 1971-1980 - 5% % NATIVE, 1980 (Aleut) 25% PERSONS PER HOUSEHOLD 3.3 DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION POPULATION, 1980 15,649 POPULATION CHANGE 1970-1980 +1,200 est % CHANGE, 1971-1980 + 9% % NATIVE, 1980 Eskimo (75%) Aleut (25%) 37% PERSONS PER HOUSEHOLD 3.3 ALASKA REGIONAL PROFILES REGION III ALEUTION ISLANDS/ALASKA PENINSULA ECONOMIC INFORMATION EMPLOYMENT, 1979 3,300 LABOR FORCE PARTICIPATION 41% PER CAPITA INCOME, 1979($) 9,770 ECONOMY M, F, S, FS REGION IV SOUTHWEST COAST ECONOMIC INFORMATION EMPLOYMENT, 1979 7,300 LABOR FORCE PARTICIPATION 47% PER CAPITA INCOME, 1979($) 8,633 ECONOMY F, S, WP PHYSICAL INFORMATION SIZE (SQ. MI) TOPOGRAPHY CLIMATE TYPE PRECIP. /YEAR (INCHES) HEATING D.D. (BELOW 65°F) FREEZING D.D. (BELOW 32°F) WIND (AVERAGE) MPH TRANS PORTAT ION/ACCESS RESOURCES PHYSICAL INFORMATION SIZE (SQ. MI) TOPOGRAPHY CLIMATE TYPE PRECIP./YEAR (INCHES) HEATING D.D. (BELOW 65°F) FREEZING D.D. (BELOW 32°F) WIND (AVERAGE) MPH TRANS PORTAT ION/ACCESS 11,000 M, H M 30-80 9-11,000 0-500 13 A, S, LIMITED F 51,000 M, H, F M and T 30-80 7-11,000 0-1,000 9 A, S, F Gs DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION POPULATION, 1980 4,200 POPULATION CHANGE 1970-1980 +1,500 % CHANGE, 1971-1980 + 588 % NATIVE, 1980 (Eskimo) 77% PERSONS PER HOUSEHOLD 3.9 DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION POPULATION, 1980 29,676 POPULATION CHANGE 1970-1980 +3,000 % CHANGE, 1971-1980 + 13% % NATIVE, 1980 (Eskimo) 85% PERSONS PER HOUSEHOLD 4.2 ALASKA REGIONAL PROFILES* REGION I ARCTIC SLOPE ECONOMIC INFORMATION EMPLOYMENT, 1979 NA PHYSICAL INFORMATION SIZE (SQ. MI) 81,000 LABOR FORCE PARTICIPATION NA TOPOGRAPHY FLAT PER CAPITA INCOME, 1979($) 11,380 CLIMATE TYPE ARCTIC ECONOMY S, P, LG, N PRECIP./YEAR (INCHES) 5-10 HEATING D.D. (BELOW 65°F) 18-20,000 FREEZING D.D. (BELOW 32°F) 7-8, 500 WIND (AVERAGE) MPH lL ‘TRANS PORTAT ION/ACCESS AIR, SEA/LIMITED RESOURCES Pp, M REGION II ARCTIC/SUBARCTIC COAST ECONOMIC INFORMATION PHYSICAL INFORMATION EMPLOYMENT, 1979 8,400 SIZE (SQ. MI) 163,000 LABOR FORCE PARTICIPATION 318 TOPOGRAPHY 1/3 H, 2/3 F PER CAPITA INCOME, 1979($) 3,875 CLIMATE TYPE A and T ECONOMY S, F, M, T PRECIP./YEAR (INCHES) 15-35 HEATING D.D. (BELOW 65°F) 12-17,000 FREEZING D.D. (BELOW 32°F) 2-6,000 WIND (AVERAGE) MPH ll TRANS PORTATION/ACCESS, RESOURCES A, R, S, LIMITED F, M, P —————————_—_—_—_—_—__ =—=—=—C—=‘ ALASKA REGIONAL PROFILES REGION IX SOUTHEAST DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION ECONOMIC INFORMATION PHYSICAL INFORMATION POPULATION, 1980 53,791 EMPLOYMENT, 1979 25,100 SIZE (SQ. MI) 42,000 POPULATION CHANGE 1970-1980 +11,400 LABOR FORCE PARTICIPATION 47% TOPOGRAPHY M, H % CHANGE, 1971-1980 278 PER CAPITA INCOME, 1979($) 12,296 CLIMATE TYPE M % NATIVE, 1980 Tlinget, Haida 188 ECONOMY (RANK ORDER)? LSG,WP,F,T,S,M | PRECIP./YEAR (INCHES) 40-160 PERSONS PER HOUSEHOLD 3.0 HEATING D.D. (BELOW 65°F) 7-10,000 FREEZING D.D. (BELOW 32°F) 0-500 WIND (AVERAGE) MPH 7 TRANS PORTAT ION/ACCESS A, S, F, H, RR RESOURCES F, CF, S, M, H H 1 0 uw LEGEND : ECONOMY : TOPOGRAPHY : TRANSPORTATION: RESOURCES : D - DEFENSE M - MOUNTAINS A - AIR P - PETROLEUM P - PETROLEUM H - HILLS S - SEA CF - COMMERCIAL FOREST F - PISHING/FISH PROCESSING F - PLATS, PLAINS, DELTA F - FERRY F - FISH WP - WOOD PRODUCTS, HARVESTING/PROCESSING H - HIGHWAY S - SCENIC M - MINING RR - RAILROAD H - HYDRO T - TOURISM CLIMATE TYPE: R - RIVER M - MINERALS LSG- STATE GOVERNMENT LG - LOCAL GOVERNMENT A - ARCTIC N - NATIVE OORP. ACTIVITIES C - CONTINENTAL S - SUBSISTENCE T - TRANSITION FS - FUR SEAL HARVEST M - MARINE A - AGRICULTURE APPENDIX I-E RESIDENTIAL ENERGY USE CALCULATIONS Residential Energy Expense Calculations (For Exhibits I-6, I-8) Total 1 Per Capita Per Household Energy Energy Energy Average Energy Per Household Consumption Cost Consumption Household Consumption Energy Electricity Region (109 Btu) ($/106 Btu) (10© Btu) Size 106 Btu Expense (S$) Extended 3788 710 SS) 258 By ye 655 Railbelt H t Bw Bush 488 SoS) 25) Sra 825 625 Nir Regions South East 143 a a1 2.9 26.4 390 Thermal Extended 14874 D0) oie, 2.8 146.1 730 Railbelt Bush 1757 10.3 2805) Sali, 105.3 1085 Regions South East 2948 9.6 DDO) 29) 15925 1530 1. Energy costs are weighted averages of prices of each appropriate energy source in each sub-region, e.g., the Bush Region thermal energy cost incorporates fuel oil costs in each regions, as well as natural gas costs in the Artic Slope Region. APPENDIX II-A PETROLEUM PRODUCTION REVENUE FORECASTS APPENDIX 11-A PETROLEUM PRODUCTION REVENUE FORECASTS Petroleum Production Revenue Forecast (Average Expected Values in Millions of Current Dollars) Year Prudhoe Bay Cook Inlet Statewide Total 1982 2948.21 148.01 3096.23 1983 2100.51 101.90 2202.41 1984 2540.32 99.99 2640.31 1985 29 19S. 109.30 3081.25 1986 3474.51 108.57 3583.08 1987 4088.83 109.11 4197.94 1988 4245.06 108.15 4353.21 1989 4805.59 105.89 4911.48 1990 4874.93 104.55 4979.48 1991 4663.29 105.52 4768.80 1992 4668.99 106.52 4775.51 1993 4748.86 108.02 4856.88 1994 4871.44 109.97 4981.41 1995 4501.43 116.42 4617.85 1996 4324.45 123.67 4448.11 1997 4633.66 131.65 4765.31 1998 4816.04 136.29 4952.33 Source: Alaska Department of Revenue, Petroleum Production Revenue Forecasts, Quarterly Report, March, 1982 II-a.1 ASSUMPTIONS North Slope Oil Prices The free market price of ANS crude varies by point of delivery and by company. Unlike other domestic crude oils the is no company posted field price. The field price is calculated by subtracting the transportation costs (pipeline and marine) from the particular price a particular company sells the oil for at a particular market. The result to date has been an average wellhead price (the price upon which taxes and royalties are calculated) which has fluctuated widely over the last 18 months. In January 1980 the average free market wellhead price was $24.00/B and went as high as $25.00/B by March 1980. Price then fell until it reached a low of $21.00/B in October 1980. By March 1981, ANS netback wellhead price was over $25.00/B but subsequently has fallen to $22.63/B for July 1981 production. The graph on the following page compares ANS crude oil price with that of Saudi Arabian Light and Mexican Light. The world continues to enjoy an ample supply of crude oil even as OPEC production has fallen to around 20 million B/day, their lowest level of production since 1970. This is a result of several factors including severely depressed demand resulting from the tremendous oil price increases of the last two years, the large inventories required during the panic buying which occurred following the Iranian revolution, and the production policies of the Saudi Arabians as they attempt to force reduc- tion of price disparities among the OPEC nations. As a result, spot prices for crude oil have remained relatively stable over the summer months fluctuating only midely around the Saudi market price of $32/B. Stable oil prices internationally are reflected in domestic markets. Field postings for most major producers have been stable over the summer months, as has the netback wellhead price of ANS at about $23/B. Oil prices are currently dominated by weak demand and the existence of ample supplies for the heating season in northern hemisphere countries. There are, however, a large number of other factors which will influence future oil prices including: 5 The extent to which high priced OPEC nations lower price and realize increased production rates . Saudi Arabian pricing and production policy 0 The positive or negative effects of the Reagan economic program on inflation II-A.2 Cue el Pe w ao a < a a wi a n w~ = i a oO a COMPARISON OF CRUDE OIL PRICES FOR ALASKA NORTH SLOPE, MEXICAN LIGHT, AND SAUDI LIGHT ——— — ANS me ee ee MEXICAN . The development of alternative sources of cheap, clean energy . International currency instabilities : Possible conflicts in the Middle East. As a consequence, the future for crude oil prices can only be characterized as uncertain and for this reason a wide range of assumptions have been used in generating this forecast. In this forecast, a moderate price increase occurred in January 1981 with the weighted average Saudi medium price (F.O.B. Ras Tanura) rising from $29.45/B to $31.45/B. Subsequent increases are assumed to occur in January 1982 to $32.19/B and to $33.52/B in July 1982. Over the 17-year forecast, weighted average prices for Prudhoe Bay type crudes are forecast to rise from $19.95/B in FY 1981 to $31.85/B in FY 1982 to $140.49/B in FY 1997--roughly a 10.3 percent average per annum increase. Weighted average wellhead values for oil royalty calculations for Prudhoe Bay range from a low of $19.77/B in FY 1981 to $135.90/B in FY 1997. The weighted average annual wellhead values for ANS crude oil for FY 1981-FY 1985, given the assump- tions made in this forecast, are roughly $19.77/B, $22.82/B, $27.81/B, $33.10/B, $38.68/B. North Slope Gas Prices Under the interim rules of the Natural Gas Policy Act of 1978, the ceiling price of Prudhoe Bay gas as of December 1, 1978 is $1.63 per MMBTU. Given 1.092 MMBTU per Mcf, Prudhoe Bay gas will realize a field value of $1.78 per Mcf. Under the lowest expected rate of inflation, Prudhoe Bay gas should command at least $2.52 per Mcf by FY 1985--the earliest date that we are forecasting production or throughput along an Alcan route for a gas pipeline. North Slope Oil Production Multiple well and production scenarios for oil and gas were developed from several sources, including forecasts furnished by the producing companies, the Alaska Department of Natural Resources, the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, and oil industry trade journals. Updated reservoir recovery simu- lations by the Oil and Gas Conservation Commission incorpo- rating a waterflood recovery system served as the baseline case for the throughput scenarios. The majority of the predicted volume will come from the Sadlerochit reservoir throughout the 17-year forecast period. That production is being supplemented by oil from the Kuparuk reservoir beginning December 1981. The Kaparuk reservoir is expected to produce at .050 MMB/d through the remainder of FY 1982, rising to .082 MMB/d during FY 1983. The start-up of the Milne Point field is assumed to occur in FY 1987 and those volumes have been added to the Kuparuk volumes for the remainder of the forecast period. II-A.4 Production in FY 1994 is predicted to decline to .138 MMB/d, holding steady through FY 1997. Additional discoveries and subsequent developments on the North Slope have been assumed for this forecast. They include fields in the Canning River, Flaxman Island and Point Thompson areas, which will start production in FY 1989 at .022 MMB/d. Volumes will rise to .067 MMB/d by FY 1996, then decline slightly to .062 MMB/d. Production from Beaufort Sea discoveries is predicted to begin in FY 1992 at a level of .055 MMB/d, rising to .087 MMB/d in 1996, then leveling off. Overall, the production volumes are somewhat higher than for the June forecast. Total weighted average North Slope oil production was predicted to be 1.542 MMB/d in FY 1982. Production is expected to rise gradually as oil from the Kuparuk field and other North Slope developments is added to Sadlerochit volumes, reaching a peak of 1.706 MMB/d in FY 1989. Thereafter, total production will decline, dropping to .724 MMB/d in FY 1997. Weighted average North Slope production volumes for the next five years, beginning with FY 1982, were assumed to be 1.542 MMB/d, 1.586 MMB/d, 1.578 MMB/d, 1.595 MMB/d, and 1.640 MMB/d respectively. As of June 1981, the actual throughput averaged 1.515 MMB/d. North Slope Gas Production Despite favorable regulatory rulings by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the Canadian National Energy Board, financing problems continue to delay the Northwest Alaskan segment of the Alaska Natural Gas Transportation System (ANGTS). There is some doubt that the natural gas pipeline utilities have the ability to attract the necessary capital. It appears that some combination of federal guarantees, and Prudhoe Bay producer financial participation will need to be forthcoming to get the Alaska portion of the pipeline underway. Although there continues to be disagreement as to who will share the costs and benefits associated with the marketing of Prudhoe Bay gas (the consumer, the utility company, the gas producers, or the State of Alaska) recent construction activi- ties in the Lower '48 and continued efforts to make the project financially more attractive to potential investors suggest that the project will be built. It was estimated that the pipeline could begin operations and sustain deliveries of 2.0 Bcf/D as early as FY 1985. Cook Inlet Oil Prices Since oil produced domestically is no longer subject to price controls, Cook Inlet oil prices are assumed to increase throughout the forecast period at the same rate assumed for the OPEC market crude as determined in the Prudhoe Bay simulation model. The price is assumed to increase from $30.58/B in FY 1981 to $163.90/B in FY 1997. Prices for FY 1981 to Fy 1985 are assumed to be: $30.58/B, $33.00/B, $38.43/B, $43.96/B and $48.84/B respectively. II-A.5 Cook Inlet Gas Prices Gas prices were adjusted according to contract escalation agreements and were inflated at an annual rate approximating the rate of inflation after the termination of contracts. Gas prices not subject to contractual agreements were escalated one penny per quarter in accordance with the Federal Power Commis- sion's Opinion 770. The severance tax floor price of $.064/Mcf was assumed to remain constant. Cook Inlet Oil Production Recent oil and gas production forecasts made by Petroleum Revenue Division consultants and the Division of Oil and Gas Conservation were used to generate the production estimates. In Cook Inlet, oil production was assumed to decline through- out the 17-year forecast period at approximately 12.2 percent per annum. In all wells, a 100-barrel-a-day production at the economic limit was assumed. Those wells which produced less than this amount were assumed to shut down operations. Oil production was expected to decline over the 17-year forecast period from a high of 90,004 B/D in FY 1981 to a low of 13,978 B/D in FY 1997. Cook Inlet Gas Production Gas production in Cook Inlet is now anticipated to increase over the 17-year forecast period from the current level of .457 Bcf/D to a FY 1997 level of .751 Bcf/D. These figures are based on a completed Pacific Alaska LNG facility using 200,000 Mcf/D. Inflation Rates Inflation rate estimates were developed by various private and public sector economists: 1982 10.11% 1983 9.27% 1984-1985 7.29% Source: Alaska Department of Revenue, Petroleum Production Revenue Forecasts, Quarterly Report. Spetember, 1981. II-A.6 Appendix II-B Description of Alaskan Refineries Appendix II-B Alaska's Refineries Alaska imports 40 percent of its refined petroleum products from Washington and California. The remaining 60 percent is produced in-state by three relatively small refineries: Tesoro (Kenai Refinery) Chevron (Kenai Refinery) MAPCO (North Pole Refinery). In addition, ARCO/Exxon operates a topping plant at Prudhoe Bay, and Union oil manages a small diesel/asphalt distillation factory in Anchorage. Each facility will be briefly described in this Appendix in a plant-specific discussion of feedstocks, end products, and planned facility expansions or reconfigurations. Tesoro is currently the largest refinery in the state, with a capacity of 48,500 barrels per day (BPD). Tesoro is located on the Kenai Peninsula several miles north of the town of Kenai. Feedstock for the refinery is primarily Cook Inlet crude supplemented by North Slope crude. The plant cannot process oil made up of more than 15 percent "sour" Prudhoe crude. However, Tesoro is considering an expansion-reconfiguration plan that would allow the plant to process 100 percent ANS at a rate of 70,000 bpd. The plan is contingent upon Tesoro's securing a long-term contract for Royalty Oil at that volume. Negotiations are currently underway with expectations of a decision by the end of January. In 1980, TESORO was operating at about 4,000 bpd under capacity. Gasoline was the largest single plant product at approximately 10,000 bpd. Incidently, TESORO is the only refinery that produces motor-ready gasoline in state. Jet fuels A, B and JP-4 totaled slightly over 10,500 bpd. Diesel fuel was produced at an average rate of 4,000 bpd. The remaining output, residual fuel oil, is the only TESORO end product not sold in state. It is shipped down the West Coast to San Diego Gas and Electric. TESORO's product slate mix would probably not change significantly if the decision to expand capacity is made. It can be expected to be similar to the slate proposed in the company's 1979 state solicitation papers: - 16,000 bpd gasolines - 16,000 bpd diesel fuel - 21,000 bpd aviation fuel - 16,000 bpd fuel oil IH 8 wd Chevron's Kenai refinery is a small distillation unit with a capacity of 22,000 bpd. In 1980 the plant feedstock was 70 percent Cook Inlet crude and 30 percent ANS. The refinery was modified in April 1981 to allow it to process 100 percent ANS. While Chevron did not secure any ANS in 1981, negotiations are currently underway for future supplies. In 1980, the Chevron refinery ran at about 14,000 bpd. The product slate varied somewhat to reflect seasonal demand changes, but the annual average was as follows: - 1300 bpd JP-4 - 3000 bpd A-50 - 2200 bpd diesel fuel - 7000 bpd residual - 700 bpd asphalt. MAPCO Alaska Inc.'s North Pole refinery is located in Fairbanks. At 46,000 bpd, it is almost as large as Tesoro's refinery. The plant's 100 percent ANS feedstock is supplied via the pipeline through a Prudhoe Bay royalty contract (28,125 bpd) and other North Slope producers (21,500 bpd from Exxon and SOHIO). The North Pole refinery refines only 30-40 percent of the barrel into product. The residual is reinjected into the pipeline, at API levels stipulated by Transalaska Pipeline System (a minimum of 17° API). The product slate for MAPCO is currently: - 4700 bpd JP-4, Jet-B - 2000 bpd gasolines - 2700 bpd jet fuel - 5500 bpd diesel - 3000 bpd Jet-A. Anticipated configuration changes in the refinery include the addition of a naphtha reformer to permit gasoline refining. The company is also considering the addition of a hydrocracker as part of a plan to expand to 80,000 bpd. All of the major oil companies with in-state refining capacity are currently negotiating State royalty contracts. The results of these negotiations could have significant impacts on the size and configuration of the state's aggregate petroleum refining capability the following table summarizes the plans of the major companies: II-B.2 Proposal Volume: (BPD) Contract Term: Project: Project Slate: (in-state) Chevron 45,000 1982-1997 25,000 BPD to Nikiski 18,050 BPD TOrCAy refineries - JP4 - Jet fuel Heating fuel Diesel Asphalt ANS Proposal Summary Doyon 50,000 1982-2004 Total to to new refinery gasoline jet fuel diesel #2 oil #4 oil II-B.3 MAPCO 25,000 1982-2007 Total to North Pole Refinery heating oil - diesel jet fuel Tesoro 30,000 Total to Kenai refinery (expansion) gasoline heating oil Union 10,000 1982-1983 Total to CA Refineries none APPENDIX II-C PETROLEUM PRODUCT TRANSPORTATION - Diesel Fuel and Heating Oil Distribution Tariffs - Navigability of Alaska Main Interior Waterways - Historical Trends of Petroleum Product Traffic - Port of Anchorage Historic Cargo Movements Distribution Tariffs Diesel Fuel And Heating Oil HUB/DESTINATION Nenana Hub - Manley Hot Springs - Tanana - Rampart - Stevens - Beaver - Fort Yukon - Ruby - Koyukuk - Nulato - Kaltag - Grayling - Anvik - Holy Cross - Huslia - Shageluk - Fortuna Ledge - St. Mary's - Mt. Village St. Michael Hub - Shaktoolik - Unalakleet - Stebbins - Kotik - Pilot Station - Pitka's Point - Alakanuk - Emmonak Nome Hub (Norton Sound) - Golovin - White Mountain - Gambell - Savoonga - Wales - Elim (Yukon River) (1980) (Yukon Delta) II-c.1 TARIFF FROM HUB (¢/gallon) 19.3 19.3 23.6 28.0 30.8 34.4 27.0 30.9 31.8 33.2 40.1 40.2 42.0 58.9 5967 28.0 26.0 25.0 16.0 10.0 10.0 21.0 27.0 25.0 26.0 30.0 30. 41. 43. 43. 41. 31. owmMNu Oo Co Distribution Tariffs (Continued) HUB/ DESTINATION Bethel Hub (Upper Kuskokwim) - Kwethlok - Akiak - Akiachak - Kalsag - Aniak - Crooked Creek - Stony River - Sleetmute - Lime Village - Red Devil - McGrath - Medfra - Nikolai Bethel Hub (Coastal) - Mekoryuk - Tununak/Chetornak - Kipnuk - Nightmute - Chevak - Hooper Bay - Newtok - Scammon Bay Bethel Hub (Kuskokwim Bay) - Atmautluak - Tuluksak - Nopakiak - Tununak - Kwigillingok - Eek - Kasigluk - Platinum Dillingham Hub (Nushagak Area) - Clarks Point - Portage Creek - Ekwok - New Stuyahok - Koliganek - Monakotak TI-C.2 TARIFF FROM HUB (¢/gallon) 15.0 oD Syeo) 16.5 T7710 18.0 19.0 20.5 20.5 27730 2310 41.0 48.0 24.0 25.0 23.0 28.0 28.0 28.0 285 16.5 18.0 50 16.0 22-5 22595 oS 26.5 DvD) 15.0 26.0 28.0 3370 14.0 Distribution Tariffs (Continued) HUB/DESTINATION TARIFF FROM HUB (¢/gallon) e@ Kotzebue Hub (Coastal) - Buckland 41.8 - Candle 41.8 - Deering 41.8 - Shishmareg 45.4 - Kivalina 41.8 - Noatak 44.0 @ Kotzebue Hub (Kobuk River) - Selawik 29.7 - Noorvik 23.0 - Kiana 25). 3 - Ambler Sin - Kobuk a9 ad - Shungnak 45.4 e Arctic Northwest - Pt. Hope 41.0 - Wainwright 41.0 - Barrow 41.0 - Kaktovik 41.0 Source: Yukon River Oil Delivery Study, Alaska Research Services, February, 1981. II-C.3 NAVIGABILITY OF ALASKA'S MAIN INTERIOR WATERWAYS River Restrictions Yukon Navigable by shallow-draft, flat-bottom river boats from the mouth to near the head of Lake Bennett. It cannot be entered or navigated by ocean-going vessels. Controlling depths are 7 feet to Stevens Village and 3 to 5 feet thereon to Fort Yukon. Koyokuk Navigable by vessels drawing up to 3 feet to Allakaket during normally high river flow and to Bettles during occasional high flows. Tanana Navigable by shallow-draft (4-foot), flat-bottom vessels and barges from the mouth to Nenana and by smaller river craft to the Chena River 201 miles above the mouth. Craft of 4-foot draft can navigate to Chena River on high water to University Avenue Bridge in Fairbanks. Porcupine Navigable to Old Crow, Yukon Territory, by vessels drawing 3 feet during spring runoff and fall rain floods. Kuskokwim Navigable by 18-foot draft ocean-going vessels from mouth upriver 65 miles to Bethel, Shallow-draft (4-foot) vessels can ascend river to Mile 465, McGrath at Mile 400. Stikine Navigable (May 1-Oct. 15) from mouth 165 miles to Telegraph Creek, B.C., by shallow-draft, flat- bottom river boats. Susitna Not navigable by ocean-going vessels. Stern wheelers and shallow-draft, flat-bottom river- boats can navigate to confluence of Talkeetna River, 74 miles upstream but cannot cross bars at mouth of river. Nushagak The river is navigable by small vessels of 2-1/2-foot draft to Nunachuak about 100 miles above the mouth. Shallow-draft ocean-going vessels can navigate to mouth of Wood River, mile 84. II-c.4 River Noatak Kobuk Kvichak Naknek Chilkat Source: Restrictions Shallow-draft barges can ascend Noatak River toa point about 18 miles below Noatak village. Shallow-draft vessels can continue on to Noatak. Controlling channel depth is about 5 feet through Hotham Inlet, 3 feet to Ambler and 2 feet to Kobuk Village, about 210 river miles. The river is navigable for vessels of 10-foot draft to Alaganak River, 22 miles above the mouth of Kvichak River. Remainder of river (28 miles) navigable by craft drawing 2-4 feet depending on stage of river. Drains Lake Illiamna which is navigable an additional 70 miles. Navigable for vessels of 12-foot draft for 12 miles with adequate tide. Vessels with 3-foot draft can continue an additional 7.5 miles. Navigable by shallow-draft vessels to village of Klukwan, 25 miles above mouth. University of Alaska, 1980 let Creo) HISTORICAL TRENDS OF PETROLEUM PRODUCT TRAFFIC FOR SELECTED ALASKA PORTS (Thousands of Barrels) Port 1978 1977, 1976 1974 1972 1970 1968 1966 Kodiak 740 1170 700 440 660 430 330 330 Unalaska 2260 2050 2180 605 1175 1600 770 1040 Naknek 170 145 135 - 60 605 40 90 Dillingham 90 70 75: - 50 50 - 50 Bethel 490 340 410 95 oe - = - Nome 7 370 155 255) 245 95 210 240 Cordova 225 135 120 110 185 175 185 240 Valdez 2415 2715 2740 1865 1695 1605 1195 1240 Whittier 195 612 809 680 1750 1275 290 - Seward 15 150 80 50 60 55 80 60 Homer 115 345 po 70 qs 75 80 70 Kenak 3126 2580 3507 3700 3227 2557 1047 - Anchorage 7025 7215 11515 10750 9825 8980 6345 4460 Ketchikan 3530 2460 2340 2245 3625 1950 2375 2225 Wrangell 70 80 80 90 80 90 90 70 Petersburg 115 110 95 95 115: 90 90 70 Sitka 620 571 435 620 680 440 450 455 Juneau 510 540 645 652 680 420 435 420 Metlakatla 15 20 35 40 40 35 30 35 Skagway 1705 1985 1855 2330 1700 1830 1195 735 Note: Totals for each port are usually greater than the sum of the commodity movements shown. The residual represents all other shipments through a port in a particular year. Source: U.S. Army, Corps of Engineers; Waterborne Commerce of the United States, Part 4. Li=C.6 L°v-iIt PORT OF ANCHORAGE HISTORIC CARGO MOVEMENT TRENDS 1971 - 1980 (Tons) Commodity 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 Comentrnatk __ 7,459 1,845 18,255 44,384 40,360 37,943 21,879 21,423 18,836 Cement Drill Mud 14,995 _ Coal-Bulk 27,754 Insultation B91: 1,273 —— — oa 1 Iron or Steel 3,777 6,828 3,336 14,787 3,823 7,421 13,680 14,184 5,752 10,633 Lumber 427 393 539 13,921 8,315 266 2,748 272 34 355 Transshipped Cargo 38,390 Van, Flats, 357,821 462,546 476,383 590,474 838,676 978,610 978,619 1,013,427 934,125 1,043,004 Containers Vehicles 9,247 4,271 5,739 11,846 21,518 36,677 40,360 39,745 28,626 29,414 Total 386,267 481,497 502,499 649,283 917,107 1,064,607 1,073,341 1,089,507 990,266 1,168,387 Bulk Petroleum 1,440,802 1,501,184 1,507,994 1,595,667 1,920,065 1,695,000 1,130,986 977,599 678,008 589,580 (1000 barrels) (9,797) (10,208) (10,254) (10,851) (13,056) (11,526) (7,691) (6,648) (4,610) (4,009 Total 1,827,069 1,982,681 2,010,493 2,244,950 2,837,172 2,759,607 2,204,327 2,067,106 1,668,274 1,757,966 Source: Port of Anchorage. APPENDIX II-D ALASKAN ELECTRIC UTILITIES Utility. List - Utility Location Map ALASKA UTILITIES i 10. ua 125 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23r 24. 22. 26. 27. Alaska Electric Light and Power Company (Juneau) AMFAC Foods, Inc. (Sand Point on Popov Island Anchorage Municipal Light and Power Alaska Power Administration-Eklutna (Anchorage) Alaska Power Administration-Snettisham (Juneau) Aniak Power Company Alaska Power & Telephone Company (Craig, Hydaburg, Skagway, Tok, Dot Lake) Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. (48 villages) Arctic Utilities, Inc. 1 (Deadhorse) Barrow Utilities & Electric Cooperative, Inc. Bethel Utilities Corporation, Inc. 2 Bettles Light & Power, Inc. Circle Electric Chugach Electric Association Inc. (Anchorage Area) Cordova Electric Cooperative, Inc. 3 City of Manokotak City of Unalaska Chistochina Trading Post Copper Valley Electric Association, Inc. (Glennallen, Valdez) Dot Lake Electric, Inc. 4 Fairbanks Municipal Utilities System Fort Yukon Utilities Glacier Highway Electric Association, Inc. (Juneau Area) Golden Valley Electric Association, Inc. (Fairbanks Area) Homer Electric Association, Inc. (Kenai Peninsula) Haines Light and Power Co., Inc. Hughes (Esther J. James) II-D.1 ABBREVIATIONS AEL&P AMFAC ML&P APA-E APA-S APC AP&T AVEC AUI BU&EC BUC BL&P CE CEA CEC COM cou CTP CVEA DLE MUS Py GHEA GVEA HEA HL&P H (EJJ) ALASKA UTILITIES 28. 29. 30. 3d. 32. 33). 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44, 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. Iliamna-Newhalen Electric Cooperative, Inc. (Iliamna, Newhalen, Nondalton) Kodiak Electric Association Inc. Klukwan Electric Utility Kotzebue Electric Association, Inc. Ketchikan Public Utilities M&D Enterprises (Galena) Matanuska Electric Association, Inc. (Eagle River, Palmer-Talkeetna Area) Manley Utility Co., Inc. (Manley Hot Springs) Metlakatla Power and Light McGrath Light & Power Napakiak Corporation Naknek Electric Association, Inc. Nushagak Electric Cooperative, Inc. (Dillingham) Nikolski Power & Light Co. Nome Light and Power Utilities Northern Power & Engineering Corporation, Inc. (Cold Bay) Northway Power & Light, Inc. No. Slope Borough Power & Light System (Atkasook, Kaktovik, Wainwright, Point Hope, Point Lay, Nuiqsut, Anaktuvuk Pass) Paxson Lodge, Inc. Petersburg Municipal Power and Light Pelican Utility Company Sitka Electric Department Seward Electric System Semloh Supply (Lake Minchumina) Teller Power Company Tlingit-Haida Regional Electrical Authority (Angoon, Hoonah, Kake, Kasaan, Klawock) Tanana Power Company Unalakleet Valley Electric Cooperative Wrangell Municipal Light and Power iio .2 ABBREVIATIONS I-Nec KdEA KEU KtEA KPU M&DE MEA MUC MP&L MGL&P Nac NEA NEC NiP&L NL&P NP&E NP&L NSBP&L PLI PMP&L PUC SED SES Ss TePC T-HREA Tec UVEC WML&P ALASKA UTILITIES ABBREVIATIONS 58. Weisner Trading Co. WTC 59. Yakutat Power, Inc. YPI 1 Owned by Atwood Enterprises, Inc. 2 Owned by Northern Power and Engineering Corporation of Anchorage CEC changed from Cordova Public Utility in March 1979 Dot Lake transferred to AP&T in March 1978 me Ww Source: Alaska Electric Power statistics 1960-1980 August, 1981 U.S. Dept. of Energy/Alaska Power Administration II-D.3 OWL 3DIAURS AVM VESYIVE / 7 / ue Qo® j KOTZEBUE @ (8) a @ @) B) TF se is (42) 0 @ ®) (5) (21)@ FarRBanKs fey. Se i) @) c A N A DA @ © © @ VALOEZ ‘Oo pa a e Ep t (4) A JUNEAU 7 yy a GULF OF ALASKA aes S L pay we ARO 23) * CO. ALEXANDER \\ eee ARCHIPELAGO é a? aa S BY) ar nD (f © Alle Ms MoM elite cs [apa 3s Set Op, Ws eur an 1s yan LBes || ater d¥W INITLNO VISVIV bo = UNIMAK | is 2 . KANAGA en ae ck — Ss an Pence 9 ODI ae RAT ISLANDS ‘UNALASKA I. Ly 2 Tanhca ANoREANoF Foxs| “Wr i il We Oo a I) v > ; tte ate \ SCALE IN MILES ted mao. or any portion thereof. by any method, including office 3BDIAN3ZS dYW VHSYI1V APPENDIX II-E UTILITY CAPACITY AND GENERATION STATISTICS 1980 Capacity by region and fuel 1980 Capacity by region and prime mover 1980 Net generation by region and fuel 1980 Net generation by region and prime mover Historical production by region and fuel T’a-II 1980 UTILITY INSTALLED CAPACITY BY FUEL - (MW) HYDRO GAS OIL COAL TOTAL REGION SOUTHEAST 78.3 0.0 98.4 0.0 176.7 SOUTHCENTRAL 45.0 642.4 62.7 0.0 750.1 YUKON 0.0 0.0 246.3 53.5 299.8 ARCTIC-NORTHWEST 0.0 503 22.3 0.0 27.6 SOUTHWEST 0.0 0.0 28.7 0.0 28.7 ALASKA TOTAL 123.3 647.7 458.4 53.5 1282.9 1980 INSTALLED UTILITY CAPACITY BY PRIME MOVER* - MW GT LC st TOTAL HYDRO TOTAL REGION SOUTHEAST 17.5 80.9 0.0 98.4 78.3 176.7 SOUTHCENTRAL 597.7 59.9 47.5 705.1 45.0 750.1 YUKON 203.1 43.2 53.5 299.8 0.0 27.6 ARCTIC-NORTHWEST 6.6 21.0 0.0 27.6 0.0 27.6 SOUTHWEST 0.0 28.7 0.0 28.7 0.0 28.7 ALASKA TOTAL 824.9 233.6 101.0 1159.25 123.3 1282.9 * GT = Gas Turbine, IC = Internal Combustion, ST = Steam Turbine Source: Alaska Electric Power Statistics 1960-1980, Sixth Edition, August 1981 and Alaska Electric Power Statistics 1960-1976, Fifth Edition, July 1977. U.S. Department of Interior, Alaska Power Administration. @°d-II 1980 NET UTILITY GENERATION BY FUEL - GWH HYDRO GAS OIL COAL TOTAL REGION SOUTHEAST 289.9 0.0 75.4 0.0 365.4 SOUTHCENTRAL 254.0 1857.9 122.9 0.0 2234.8 YUKON 0.0 0.0 NSS 295.3 450.4 ARCTIC-NORTHWEST 0.0 13.4 41.3 0.0 54.6 SOUTHWEST 0.0 0.0 53.9 0.0 53.9 ALASKA TOTAL 543.9 1871.3 448.5 295.3 3159.0 1980 NET UTILITY GENERATION BY PRIME MOVER* - GWH GT IC _ST TOTAL HYDRO TOTAL REGION SOUTHEAST 0.0 75.4 0.0 75.4 289.9 365.4 SOUTHCENTRAL 1804.9 122.9 53.0 1980.8 254.0 2234.8 YUKON 132.7 21.3 296.3 450.4 0.0 450.4 ARCTIC-NORTHWEST 13.4 41.3 0.0 54.6 0.0 54.6 SOUTHWEST 0.0 53.9 0.0 53.9 0.0 53.9 ALASKA TOTAL 1950.9 314.8 349.4 2615.1 543.9 3159.0 * GT = Gas Turbine, IC = Internal Combustion, ST = Steam Turbine Source: Alaska Electric Power Statistics 1960-1980, Sixth Edition, August 1981 and Alaska Electric Power Statistics 1960-1976, Fifth Edition, July 1977. U.S. Department of Interior, Alaska Power Administration. Slate ple Oil tO 7: 1972 1973 1974 S75 1976 1977 1978 LOTS 1980 LO Bix * Estimated Note: Numbers fitted for Oil, 9 Sica; 22D 250.6 246.5 352.8 384.2 359.2 436.0 481.2 447.5 452.6 Gas, UTILITY ELECTRICITY GENERATED Gas 613.9 742.2 966.9 1049.1 1246.4 1482.0 1634.6 1732.2 1823.2 1871.3 1926.9 and Coal shares for 1977-1979 since data missing. (103MwH) ALASKA TOTAL Coal 262.1 281.2 278.5 305.0 328.5 318.3 322.4 326.3 320.8 296.3 281.3 Hydro 363.0 346.0 286.0 325.6 357.7 382.6 512.0 472.0 459.0 534.9 512-3 Total 1434.1 1621.9 1782.0 1926.2 2285.4 2567.1 2828.1 2966.1 3084.9 3159.0 3233.1 Source: Alaska Electric Power Statistics 1960-1980, Sixth Edition, August 1981 and Alaska Electric Power Statistics 1960-1976, Fifth Edition, July 1977. Alaska Power Administration. Interior, U.S. Department of v°A-IT 1971 1972 L973) 1974 TSS 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981* Oil 48.0 9k 66.4 66.1 126.9 179.8 182.0 193.5 191.0 187.4 186.8 * Estimated Source: Alaska Electric Power Statistics 1960-1980, Electric Power Statistics 1960-1976, Fifth Edition, July 1977. Interior, Alaska Power Administration. UTILITY ELECTRICITY GENERATED Gas 612.6 748.2 SF Sie: 1049.1 1246.3 1473.8 1596.4 1719.6 1826.0 1857.9 1959.6 (103MwH) RAILBELT Coal 262.1 281.2 278.5 305.0 328.5 318.3 SS: B13 <5 Sse) 296.3 286.9 Hydro 170.6 162.6 134.4 153.0 168.1 179.8 240.6 221.8 215.7 254.0 273.4 Total 1093.3 125155 1452.4 1573.2 1869.8 2151.7 2333.9 2449.6 2546.7 2595.6 2706.6 Sixth Edition, August 1981 and Alaska U.S. Department of G°ad-II UTILITY ELECTRICITY GENERATED (103MwH) SOUTHEAST Oil Gas Coal Hydro Total 1971 51.5 0 0 192.4 243.9 1972 85.3 0 0 183.4 268.7 1973 83.3 0 0 151.6 234.9 1974 78.9 0 0 172.6 251.5 1975 96.0 0 0 189.6 285.6 1976 61.8 0 0 202.8 264.6 1977 47.1 0 0 271.4 318.5 1978 81.9 0 0 250.2 32241 1979 103.2 0 0 243.3 346.5 1980 75.4 0 0 289.9 365.3 1981* 96.0 0 0 288.1 384.1 * Estimated Source: Alaska Electric Power Statistics 1960-1980, Sixth Edition, August 1981 and Alaska Electric Power Statistics 1960-1976, Fifth Edition, July 1977. U.S. Department of Interior, Alaska Power Administration. 9°a-II UTILITY ELECTRICITY GENERATED (103MWH) REST-OF -STATE Oil Gas Coal Hydro Total OL, 95.6 1.3 0 0 96.9 1972 100.2 0 0 0 100.2 1973 100.8 0 0 0 100.8 1974 102.4 0 0 0 102.4 1975 130.4 0 0 0 130.4 1976 142.5 8.3 0 0 150.8 1977 165.5 i Oisr2, 0 0 A7Saf 1978 173.0 alee! 0 0 184.4 1979 D792) ie) 0 0 191.7 1980 184.7 13.4 0 0 198.1 1981* 193.5 14.6 0 0 208.1 * Estimated Source: Alaska Electric Power Statistics 1960-1980, Sixth Edition, August 1981 and Alaska Electric Power Statistics 1960-1976, Fifth Edition, July 1977. U.S. Department of Interior, Alaska Power Administration. References for Resource Estimates Oil and Gas Van Dyke, W.D. Proven and Probable Oil and Gas Reserves, North Slope Alaska, a report to the State of Alaska, Jay S. Hammond, Governor, and to the Department of Natural Resources, September 1980. Nehring, R. The Discovery of Significant Oil and Gas Fields in The U.S., January 1981. . U.S. Arctic Oil and Gas, draft report of the National Petroleum Council's committee on arctic oil and gas resources, October 1981. Alaska Region Energy Resources, Alaska Division of Energy and Power Development, October 1971. Alternative Overall Procedures for the Exploration, Development, Production, Transportation and Distribution of the Petroleum Resources of the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska (NPRA), U.S. Department of the Interior, December 19/9 1980 Statistical Report, Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. Alaska Index, Outer Continental Shelf Oil & Gas Information Program, U.S. Department of Interior Coal . McGee, D.L. and Emmel, K.S. Alaska Coal Resources, Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geological and Geophysical Surveys, April 1979. . Booz, Allen & Hamilton, Port of Anchorage Study, Municipality of Anchorage, February 1981. Sanders, R.B., Coal Resources of Alaska, October 1980. Demonstrated Reserve Base of Coal in The United States on January 1, 1979, U.S Department of Energy, 1981. Mineral Terrains of Alaska, Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center, University of Alaska, 1979. II-F.1 References for Resource Estimates Hydro . Preliminary Inventory of Hydropower Resources, National Hydroelectric Power Resources Study, IWR, HEC, 1979. . Site Owners Manual For Small Scale Hydropower Development, N.Y CRAA, 1980. . National Hydroelectric Power Resources Study, Volume 1, Pacific Northwest Region, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, July, 1979. Biomass f Biomass Handbook For the Biomass Conversion Demonstration Program, California Energy Commission, 1980. : Booz, Allen & Hamilton, Port of Anchorage Study, Municipality of Anchorage, February 1981. . Renewable Energy Development: Coal Issues and Capabilities, U.S. DOE, 1980. Environmental and Economic Comparison of Advanced Processes for the Conversion of Coal and Biomass into Clean Energy, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1981. . Clean Fuels From Agriculture and Forestry Wastes, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1976. : Shelton, Jay, The Woodburners Encyclopedia, February, 1978. Peat 6 Fuel Peat Resources, Northern Technology Services, Inc., 1980. . Environmental and Economic Comparison of Advanced Processes for the Conversion of Coal and Biomass into Clean Energy, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1981. . Renewable Energy Development: Local Issues and Capabilities, U.S. Department of Energy, 1980. Geothermal . Renewable Energy Development: Local Issues and Capabilities, U.S. Department of Energy, 1980. II-F.2 References for Resource Estimates Geothermal (Continued) Geothermal Industry Assessment, U.S. Department of Energy, 1980. ' Markle, D. , Geothermal Energy in Alaska: Site Data and Development Status, Division of Energy and Power Develop- ment, 1979. Wind Renewable Energy Development: Local Issues and Capabilities, U.S. DOE, 1980. Wind Power Users Manual, Interim Report, 1981, Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities Solar Renewable Energy Development: Local Issues and Capabilities, U.S. Department of Energy, 1980. Roessner, J.D., An Assessment of Selected Solar Energy Industry Activities, 1980. Magria, Edward, The Passive Solar Energy Book, 1979 Seifert, Richard, A Solar Design Manual for Alaska, Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, 1981 Tidal Acres American, Cook Inlet Tidal Power Study, Office of the Governor, 1981. II-F.3 APPENDIX III-A ELECTRIC GENERATION TECHNOLOGIES CALCULATIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS © T‘W-III ELECTRIC GENERATION TECHNOLOGY COST ESTIMATES Unit Size Capital Cost Fixed O&M Cost Option (Range/Typical) ($/KW) ($/KW/Yr.) Biomass Steam-Electric 5-60 MW/25 MW 2160 68 Coal Steam-Electric 10-1300 MW/200 MW 2100 38 Oil/Nat. Gas Steam-Electric 10-800 MW/10 MW 1920 (Oil) 60 (Oil) 1360 (Gas) 56 (Gas) Geothermal (Hot Dry Rock) 3 MW/Well/50 MW 2550 175 Nuclear 1000 MW 1850 13 Combustion Turbine 3-80 MW/70 MW 560 40 Combined Cycle 15-150(?) MW/200 Mw 960 35 Diesel 30KW-15MW/12 MW 700 35 Hydroelectric 50KW-700MW/50 MW 5000-6000 13 Fuel Cell 40 KW up/10 MW 300-400 30-40 Cogeneration (Gas-Fired Steam-Electric) 2.5-100 MW/20 MW 850 25 Tidal 400 KW-240 MW 2600-3400 60-90 Wind 1-45 MW/2.5 MW 700-1100 13-22 Solar Thermal Electric 500 KW-10 MW 1500 40 Solar Photovoltaic 10 KW - 1 MW 11000 30-40 Source: Battelle Railbelt Alternatives Study. INDIFFERENCE PRICE CALCULATION METHODOLOGY AND ASSUMPTIONS (For Exhibit III-4) The indifference price is defined as the economic value of a candidate technology based on an equal overall cost of generation compared with the existing means of generation; the calculation yields the highest capital cost of alternative technologies that will result in a cost of generation competitive with existing capacity. 5 The cost of electricity is: COE (¢/Kwh) = (Fixed Capital Cost) + (Fuel Cost) + (O&M Cost) = (Capital Cost $/Kw) (Fixed Charge Rate) (100¢/$) (8760 hrs/yr) (Capacity Factor) + (Fuel Cost $/MMBtu) (1 MMBtu) (Heat Rate Btu/Kwh) (100¢/$) + (O&M Cost $/Kw/yr.) (100¢/$) (8760 Hrs./yr.) (Capicity Factor) S Capital and operating costs for conventional generating capacity derived from the Battelle Railbelt study Technical/performance parameters are based on Booz, Allen sources All costs are in constant 1982 dollars Indifference prices for fuel-based technologies based on equivalent cost of generation. Indifference prices for renewable technologies based on fuel savings only Fuel price escalation rate is taken as the independent variable. III-A.2 Capital Cost ($/KW) Design Life (Yrs.) Fixed Charge Rate (%) Heat Rate (Btu/KWH) Fixed O&M ($/KW/Yr. ) Capacity Factor (%) Fuel Heating Value Fuel Price ($) INDIFFERENCE PRICE CALCULATION METHODOLOGY AND ASSUMPTIONS (Continued) Combustion Combined Resid-Fired Coal-Fired Diesel Turbine Cycle Steam Steam Generator 560 960 1,920 2,100 700 20 25 30 30 20 LEIS 11.0) 10.5 TORS) 11.6 12,500 9,000 9,600 10,000 13 ,000 40 35 60 38 35 65 65 65 65 65 Gas Gas Resid. Coal No.2 oil 1,000 1,000 149,700 9,000 138,000 Btu/CF Btu/CF Btu/gal. Btu/lb Btu/gal 2291 / 2.917, 1.33/Gal. 25.00/ 26.00/ MCF MCF (SE) Ton Barrel 1.70/Gal. (Bush) ITI-A.3 7 VTi COST OF ELECTRICITY (¢/KWH) CONSTANT DOLLARS (for Exhibit III-7) Real Resid.- Fired Gas-Fired Gas-Fired Coal-Fired Fuel Price Steam Electric Combustion Turbine Combined Cycle Steam Electric Diesel Escalation 2000 1990 2000 1990 2000 1990 2000 1990 2000 G/te) SE Bush , oO 5.48 5.08 5 65 7.04 . 5.84 6.06 6.31 6.59 6.92 APPENDIX III-B EXTENDED RAILBELT CAPACITY SCENARIOS T° d-IIl FEGION CAPACITY SCENARIOS Eeecsess EASE CASE CUF SENSITIVITY CGP SENSITIVITY CGR*CUF SENSITIVITY “NORMAL” “NOPMAL" CAPACITY ‘CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY “LOW” “LOW” “LOW-LOW" "LOW-LOW" CAPACITY GENER- AT 197% AT 25% AT 507 AT 75% CAPACITY GENER CAPACITY CAPACITY (3%/ YR, ATION CUF IMP. CUF IMP, CUF IMP CUF IMP, (2% CGF, ATION (24 COP, (2% CGP, YEAR- 29%CJUF) (S%/YF) Mw KMWH (3% CGR, (37 CCR (3% CGP 29% CUF)(2% CGR) SOSCUF) 44%CUF) 36% CUF) 44% CUF) S1% CUF) 13980 1015 191g 1012 1012 1913 13E1 1612 10:3 10:3 1033 icis 2 1013 1012 1013 1CS4 $045 i163 1013 19:3 1012 1075 Aree ie 1iQ4 1942 1013 10:3 1537 ios 19€5 1074 1013 1015 1118 #015 1926 11906 1013 ior 1141 1015 1987 1129 1013 1013 1164 1015 1S22 1173 10 1014 1197 1015 1955 120€ i i¢ic 1211 1015 139C 1245 1 1012 1235 101g 1991 1282 Bt 1013 1260 1013 199= 1220 1 1013 1235 3 1593 13569 1 1013 1310 1 5 > igs4 1401 1 1019 1026 3 1295 1443 1 104 3 1193 = 1996 1486 1 1081 1 1150 3 1957 1531 1113 1419 1153 3 1998 1977 1147 1447 176 eB 1993 1624 1181 1476 1:59 3 2090 1673 1216 1505 1225 3 Source: Booz, Allen & Hamilton estimates. <c ! > H x H a a ics) a Ay < SUMMARY OF ENERGY PROGRAMS WITHIN ALASKA APPENDIX IV-A SUMMARY OF ENERGY PROGRAMS WITHIN ALASKA Numerous organizations are involved in energy development and management activities in Alaska. These organizations in- clude virtually all components of state government, including the Governor's office, the State Legislature, independent boards, commissions and authorities as well as local govern- ments, the federal government, utilities, special interest groups, and private enterprise. Energy activities in Alaska are equally varied ranging from economic assistance for high cost power to research, develop- ment and demonstration programs for dispersed energy supplies. This appendix outlines the responsibilities, programs, and program status of organizations involved in energy planning, development, and management activities within the state. For ease of reference, the appendix has been put into tabular form and grouped by organization. IV-A.1 Z°W-AI Organizations I. Legislature and Governor Legislature Division of Legislative Finance Division of Legislative Audit Office of the Governor APPENDIX IV-A SUMMARY OF ENERGY PROGRAMS Programs, Description, and Status Through legislation, defines state energy goals and policies. Establishes and funds programs intended to achieve state energy goals and implement energy policies, and monitors effectiveness of state government activities. Specific programs and activities are described below: - Reviews and analyzes the budget of state agencies, appropriation requests, and state revenue requirements. - Performs audits of energy activities conducted by various agencies. Responsible for formulating policies and programs of the executive branch and recommending appropriate Measures to the legislature. Manages the executive branch of government, which is responsible for implementing policies and programs of the state. Specific programs and activities are described below: - Fuel Emergency Fund - Assistance to communities affected by energy shortages. In FY82, $250,000 was appropriated for the Fuel Emergency Fund. Funds are available, on a contingency basis, to provide fuel to communities in the event of an emergency. €°W-AL Organizations I. Legislature and Governor - Office of the Governor (cont'd) Division of Budget and Management (DBM) Division of Policy Development and and Planning (DPDP) Programs, Description, and Status - Coal Policy Task Force - Cabinet-level committee established in anticipation of increased coal development in Alaska. Recommends policies for Governor's approval on taxes, royalties, infrastructure requirements, and reclamation. Through budget process, helps determine state energy policy, establish program direction, and monitor energy “rogram effectiveness. Specific activities include: - Reviews and approves Alaska Power Authority (APA) reconnaisance and project feasibility studies. - Director serves on Board of APA and serves on energy task forces with the executive branch including the Railbelt Alternatives Study. - Federal State Clearinghouse (A-95 Clearinghouse) - Provides a mechanism for the interagency review of all federal and major State proposals, plans, and projects. - Management of the Railbelt Alternative Study, Cook Inlet Tidal Study and the Railbelt Industrial Electric Demand Study. - Reviews proposed energy development projects through the Major Project Review process. p°V-AL Organizations I. Legislature and Governor (DPDP) (cont'd) Special Assistants to the Governor II. State Agencies - Division of Energy and Power Development (DEPD) (Department of Commerce and Economic Development) Programs, Description, and Status - Reviews state leasing activities. . Responsibile for ensuring that major coastal activities are consistent with the Alaska Coastal Management Act. . Assess the feasibility of certain energy programs and activities. - Liaison with legislature on key energy matters. DEPD's responsibilities include energy planning, review of state energy development and use, management of energy conservation programs and eneryy research development and demonstration activities. Specific programs and activities are listed below. - Residential Ener Conservation Program - FY82 budget was $20.3 million. - Auditor training and certification. By January 1982, 400 auditors were certified. - Performs residential energy audits. Approxi- mately 8,000 audits were conducted in Fy8l. G°V-AI Organizations II. State Agencies DEPD (cont'd) Programs, Description, and Status Expect to perform 40,000 audits in FY82 and 30,000 audits per year for FY83-85. State pays all but $10 of audit costs; cost have averaged about $85 per audit. Conservation grants/refunds available (up to $300 per resident for measures recommended by an approved audit). In 1981, 1,980 grants were made for approximately $300 each. Expect 50 percent or more audits to result in grants. Program is 100 percent State funded. Rural Energy Conservation Program - Currently funded as a pilot project under Residential Energy Conservation Program. Training for two auditors in a village; they perform all the audits for the village. Refunds or grants available to implement audit recommendations. In FY82, $1.7 million was appropriated for this pilot project. Low-Income Weatherization - Statewide weatherization service for low-income residents. This program is 100 percent federally funded. However, a State program has been requested for fiscal 1983. $0.8 million Fy82 $2.0 million Fy81l 9°W-AL ganizations II. State Agencies DEPD (cont'd) Programs, Description, and Status Ener Research, Development and Demonstration gy Bi UE VS SOPMEene eane Demonsttat: Projects - Includes feasibility studies and demonstration projects in the following areas: - Geothermal - Wind - Wood/Biomass - Energy Transmission - Peat - Small Hydro - Waste Heat Currently DEPD has undertaken 52 energy projects; total FY82 budget of $11.6 million. (See Appendix III-B for details.) Institutional Buildings Grants Program - Joint Alaska U.S. DOE program to co-fund audits, provide technical assistance, and establish conservation projects for schools, hospitals, and institutional buildings. In FY81 and FY82 budget was $1.0 million per year; thirty six grants have been awarded. L°W-AI Organizations Il. State Agencies DEPD (cont'd) Programs, Description, and Status Residential Building Lighting and Thermal Standards - development of energy efficient construction standards. REAA Grants Program - Funds available to assist rural school districts perform energy audits, conduct design studies, and develop energy- efficient maintenance programs. To date, ten school districts have received awards. Appropriate Technology Small Grants Program - Grants to stimulate use and acceptance o appropriate technologies. Initially, 100 percent funded by U.S. DOE, State now providing matching funds. In FY81, 78 grants were funded with $240,000 in State funds and $282,000 in federal funds. Typical projects range from grants for solar applications to funding for purchase of wind anemometers. A total of 196 grants have been awarded. Energy Field Offices and Education Program - Provides energy consumers with practical information on energy-saving technologies. - Currently office operational in Anchorage and Juneau, funds authorized for three additional offices in Bethel, Fairbanks, and Nome. - State energy library will be opened in Anchorage. 8°W-AT Organizations II. State Agencies - DEPD (cont'd) - Division of Business Loans (DBL) (Department of Commerce and Economic Development) Programs, Description, and Status - Rural fuel seminars. - Quarterly newsletter "Energections" 7000 distribution. - Energy Planning - Responsible for investigating State's energy options. - Develops long-term energy plan - Community energy surveys - Special committees, projects, etc. - Energy Emergency Planning - In FY83 Village Reconnaissance Studies - FY82 budget approximately $1.1 million. - Alternative Technology Revolving Loan Fund - Loans to develop renewable resources, efficient industrial production and transportation. Types of eligible technologies include: wood stoves, windmills, solar etc. $10,000 limit, generally 5 percent interest. In Fy82, 518 loans were made for $2.0 million. (See Appendix III-C for details.) - Bulk Fuel Revolving Loan Fund - Loans to villages to purchase fuel. Interest rate 0 to current municipal bond rate. In FyY82, 16 loans were made for $560,000. (See Appendix III-C for details.) 6°W-AI Organizations II. . State Agencies DBL (cont'd) Alaska Power Authority (APA) Programs, Description, and Status - Residential Energy Conservation Loan Fund - Loans for energy conservation improvements in residential buildings indicated by energy audit. Maximum $5,000 loan at 5 percent interest. To date, 250 loans totaling $903,000 were awarded. In FyY8l, 30 loans were made for $100,000. Public corporation established in 1976 principally to plan, finance, construct, and operate hydro and other (except nuclear) power projects. Provides subsidies for electric power developers expansion of existing electrical systems, and hign-cost electricity in rural areas as well as grants for the development of community energy systems. - Conducts demonstration projects primarily focused on hydro, geothermal, and waste heat. - Performs feasibility studies, and will be responsible for reconnaissance studies through FY 1982. - Reconnaisance - Survey all power sources available and evaluate alternatives with regard to economic and environmental impact. In FyY82, $710,000 was appropriated for reconnaissance studies. (See Appendix III-D for details.) In FY83 this function will be transferred to DEPD. OT°W-AT Organizations Lis State Agencies APA (cont'd) Programs, Description, and Status - Feasibility - Includes in-depth look at costs and benefits of a proposed project, environmental impact, availability of financing - basic information required for a license application to FERC. In FY82, $37.4 million was appropriate for feasibility studies. (See Appendix III-E for details.) Power Development Fund (PDF) - Funds for construc- tion of projects identified in reconnaissance and feasibility studies and approved by legislature. Projects constructed using these funds are owned by the State and marketed at rates determined by law. To qualify, projects must meet economic criteria set by APA and be subject to legislative appropriations. In FY82, $400 million was appropriated for PDF projects. (Appendix III-F provides details on PDF projects.) Power Project Loan Fund (PPLF) - Loans to communities and utilities for electric power project development. Upon completion, the community owns and operates the facility. Loans of 25 years or less for diesel generated and 35 years or less for hydro. In FyY82, $15.0 million was appropriated for 17 PPLF projects. (Appendix III-F provides details on PPLF projects.). TI°W-AL Organizations II. State Agencies APA (cont'd) Programs, Description, and Status Rural Electrification Revolving Loan Fund (RERL) - Provides funds for extension of electric service into unserved areas of the state. Utility must be PUC certified to qualify for 2% interest loans. To qualify, service must extend to at least three new customers. In FY82, $6.5 million waS appropriated for RERL projects. Power Cost Assistance Fund (PCAF) - Subsidies to pay utility bills of customers of small, high-cost utilities. Subsidy may not exceed 95 percent of power costs or the average rate per KWH sold. The PCAF replaces the Power Production Cost Assistance Fund and changes the basis for determining subsidies. In FY82, $9.3 million was appropriated for the PCAF. Legislative Grants for Power Development - Grants are specified by legislature and may cover anything from electrification to waste heat projects. In Fy82, the legislature appropriated $15.0 million in miscellaneous grants--$0.7 million for three waste heat projects, $4.6 million for electrification projects, and $5.0 each for the drilling of a geothermal well in Alaska and the installation of organic rankine cycle generators in northwest Alaska. el’ W-AT Organizations its State Agencies Alaska Public Utilities Commission (APUC) Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Programs, Description, and Status Responsible for regulating all public utilities engaged in or proposing to engage in the utility business except for municipal utilities. Jurisdiction includes the following types of utility services: - Electric - Gas - Steam - Water Currently developing PURPA Regulations. Collects and analyzes data on number of type of utilities and size of rate increases granted on a yearly basis. Authority to request information from regulated utilities and prescribe specific accounting systems. Holds rate hearings and approves rates. Responsible for managing Alaska's sirface and subsurface resources. Develops five-year petroleum leasing schedule, which is updated yearly and submitted to legislature. €T°W-AI Organizations II. State Agencies DNR (cont'd) Programs, Description, and Status Conducts geothermal resource investigations. Manages coal development. Fifty existing coal leases in past five years. No coal prospecting permits have been issued. Coal leasing regulations are being revised in anticipation of increased coal production. Currently investigating coal resources in Alaska: - Saint Lawrence Island, $100,000 - Phases III and IV, Northwest Alaska, $1.3 million including reconnaissance drilling. Collects and analyzes detailed information on proven and expected reserves of coal, oil and natural gas. Conducts resource inventories of surface and subsurface resources. Expect to inventory 15-20 percent of state owned land in next five years. State has appropriated $9.0 million for inventory, $0.5 million is available in federal funds. Prepares and approves all State leases and contracts pertaining to resource extraction and utilization including oil, gas, coal, and geothermal. vI°W-AL Organizations II. State Agencies DNR (cont'd) Department of Administration (DA) Programs, Description, and Status Determines method of bid to be used for oil and gas leasing Drafted geothermal leasing regulations, expects to be adopted in the near future. Electric Power Grants - Grants for generators, electrification, powerlines, and upgrading of existing utility facilities. In FY82, $4.2 million was appropriated for 17 projects. (See Appendix III-G for a list of grants awarded under this program.) Alaska Council on Science and Technology - Establishes specific research needs. - Coordinates information exchange among research Organizations. Northern Technology Grants Program - Funds small-scale, low-cost research and development projects. Research areas include: - Energy generation - Building design - Waste disposal - Solar ST°W-AI Organizations II. State Agencies DA (cont'd) Department of Community and Regional Affairs (DCRA) Department of Trans- portation and Public Facilities (DOTPF) Programs, Description, and Status - Methanol production plants - Wood furnaces. Bulk Fuel Storage Grant Program - Provides grants to communities to construct or upgrade fuel storage facilities. Grants not to exceed $100,000 per community per year. In FY81l and FY82, 42 communities participated in this program. (See Appendix III-H for list of recent recipients.) Legislative Grants for Rural Village Electrification - $4.0 million in grants available to purchase electricity generators and electrifica- tion for rural communities and Native Association. Appendix III-I for list of recent recipients.) Coastal Energy Impact Program - Federal program to assist states and communities cope with social economic and environmental consequences of coastal development. Provides loans, grants, and loan guarantees. Lost FY82 federal funding but have $1.0 million in carryover funds. Thirty-one grants in process - may exceed 40 grants before program ends. State has not initiated action to continue program. (See Appendix III-J for details.) Responsible for planning, building, and maintaining the greater portion of State owned facilities. Specific energy activities include: 9T°W-AI Organizations Il. State Agencies DOTPF (cont'd) Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS) Programs, Description, and Status Energy Audits of State Buildings - State buildings are audited and recommendations made on methods to conserve energy. To date, 15 audits have been conducted. In FY82, received $3-$4 million, requesting $10.0 million for FY83. Conservation investments must meet a requirement of 20 percent return on money invested. (See Appendix IV-K for details.) Emergency Planning - Developing an emergency plan that addresses the steps necessary to be taken in the event of a fuel shortage to ensure that State facilities have adequate fuel storage and stockpiles. Energy Projects - Research and demonstration activities covering numerous energy conservation and renewable resource projects ranging from passive solar design to wind power users' manual. (See Appendix III-L for a list and description of projects.) Energy Assistance Program - 100 percent federally funded, distributes funds to help low-income families pay heating bills. Alaska received $6.5 million last year. Approximately 9,000 families received aid. Average benefit was $600+ per household. The Fiscal Year 1983 budget is $5.5 million. Organizations Programs, Description, and Status II. State Agencies LT°W-AI Affairs (DMA) Office of Mineral Development (OMD) (Department of Commerce and Economic Develop- ment). Office of Special Industrial Development (OSID) (Department of Commerce and Economic Development) Department of Environ- mental Conservation (DEC) - Department of Military - Emergency Response Program - Is an emergency situation, implements and coordinates state disaster relief activities, including fuel supplies. Coordinates with DEPD, Office of the Governor, and other State and federal agencies. Provides information and serves as liaison between the mining industry and government. - Current projects include: Analyses of annual mining activity - Evaluation of permitting process pertaining to Alaska mining - Detailed costs of exploration activities. - FY82 budget approximately $300,000. Overall purpose is to attract new industry into the state, including energy-related industries. Chairs Coal Task Force - Interagency, State government, and industry task force dedicated to facilitating coal permitting process. - Waste Oil Utilization - Provides technical assistance and demonstration projects to communities interested in waste oil recovery. Two projects are currently underway. Funded by EPA, $240,000. Organizations Programs, Description, and Status II. State Agencies - DEC (cont'd) 6 - Department of Fish and Oil Pollution Control - Coordinates State and other agencies’ land and water oil spills response activities. In FY82, $1.0 million was allocated for cleanup, environmental restoration, and claims by injured parties. Management and Technical Assistance Program - Reviews State and federal oil and gas lease sales and development; overseas environmental impacts of outer continental shelf exploration and development. Advisory role in energy projects affecting fish and Game (DFG) wildlife. 81° W-AL - Alaska Royalty Oil and Oil Spill Response Team - on call to clean up oil spills. Habitat Protection - Monitor and surveillance of fish and wildlife habitats on lands and waters scheduled for energy development. Pipeline Surveillance Program - Surveys impact of pipeline construction on fish and wildlife. On hold until funding decision made on the gas pipeline. Administratively located in the Department of Commerce Gas Development Advisory and Economic Development. Responsible for evaluating Board plans for disposal of royalty oil and gas. Git Organizations Programs, Description, and Status II. State Agencies + Alaska Royalty Oil and . Gas Development Advisory (cont'd) 7 - Alaska Oil and Gas . Conservation Commission Develops plans for use of State royalty oil and gas. Makes recommendations to the Commissioner of Natural Resources and to legislature on conditions for disposal of Alaskan-owned oil and gas. Independent regulatory body responsible for regulating downhole oil and gas activity. Responsible for preventing waste in the production of oil and gas. - Department of Revenue Investment of State Energy Money - Invests State's (DR) money, 92 percent oil related. Energy revenues approximate $3.0 billion. Administers Petroleum and Natural Gas Taxes - Property tax applied to energy equipment including transmission and distribution - Severance tax on all oil and gas production - Oil and gas corporate income tax - currently method of taxation under revision Business Energy Conservation Tax Credit - Program allows investment tax credit of 35 percent for purchase, construction, and installation of an alternative energy system or conservation improvements maximum credit $5,000. OCR AT Organizations II. State Agencies DR (cont'd) Alaska Renewable Resources Corporation (ARRC) Alaska Gas Pipeline Financing Authority University of Alaska Programs, Description, and Status The system must provide at least 10 percent of thermal merchanical or electrical energy needs. 1981 tax return will be the first year credit is allowed and will continue through 1985. Independent public corporation established to promote the development and sustained use of renewable resources. The FY81 budget was $32.0 million and its FY82 budget was $3.2 million. However, several proposals exist to restructure corporation. Independent public corporation legal existence separate from the State. The intent of the authority is to borrow money and issue revenue bonds for the construction of the natural gas pipeline. However, there has been no activity to date. Performs various types of energy research through the University's various institutes and schools: Geophysical Institute School of Petroleum Engineering Water Resources Deptartment of Engineering School of Mining and Minerals. fetji(e)/ife)| iret) 1@) 1. 7 - Organizations II. State Agencies - University of Alaska (cont'd) Tit. Federal Agencies - Department of Energy (DOE) - Alaska Power Administration (APAdmin) Programs, Description, and Status Ongoing research on coal through Usibelli Coal Laboratory DOE has a number of activities that are of a direct concern to Alaska. These activities include: . State energy production and _use data - The Energy Information Administration (EIA/DOE) collects and publishes annual state-by-state energy production and consumption data. Federal/State energy programs - DOE administers a number of energy programs which involve State participation. These programs which are discussed in other sections of this appendix, include: - Energy Extension Service Program - Low Income Weatherization Program - Institutional Buildings Program Conducts reconnaissance and feasibility studies of future water and power projects, as well as studies of transmission and power system development: for example, the feasibility study of a Snettisham- Hoonah transmission system; heat pump demonstration and test in Juneau and Ketchikan. ZZ°W-AL Organizations III. Federal Agencies APAdmin (cont'd) Alaska District Corps Engineers (ADCE) - Alaska Electric Power Statistics. analyzes and publishes detailed statistical data on + Inventory of small hydroelectric power Programs, Description, and Status - Operates, maintains, and markets power from two federal hydroelectric projects: - Eklutna, 30,000 KW capacity, Anchorage-Palmer area. serving the - Snettisham, Juneau area. 47,160 KW capacity, serving the Collects, historical electric power capacity, generation, transmission and market data. (under 5 MW). Most sites have between 100 and 1,000 kW of capacity. Total budget $3.5 million. $2.2 million expended. Proposed $700,000 FY83. Assessments of the following areas in Alaska have been completed: - Southwest - Northwest - Aleutian Chain - Alaska Peninsula + Conducts feasibility and reconnaissance studies. - Mahoney Lake feasibility study nearing completion. Plans to complete project, 14.4 MW capacity. Through FY82 Organizations III. Federal Agencies - ADCE (Cont'd.) - Internal Revenue Service (IRS) €t°W-AI - U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) + Farmers' Home Administration (FHA) Programs, Description, and Status - Feasibility studies nearing completion, Scammon Bay and Tenakee Springs - Feasibility studies just beginning at Unalaska, Chignik, Chignik Lagoon, and Perryville - Planned feasibility studies for Galena, Anaktuvuk Pass, Nome, Gustavus. Residential Energy Tax Credit - Individuals are allowed tax credit of 15 percent of the first $2,000 spent on items to conserve energy. Business Energy Tax Credit - Businesses are allowed a 10-15 percent energy investment tax credit for investments in new energy equipment. Solar Grain Drying Loans - Provides loans to farmers for solar grain drying systems for agricultural use. Loans guaranteed for up to 75 percent of cost of structure and equipment not to exceed $50,000. No Alaskans have applied under this program. Home Improvement Repair Loans and Grants - Provides loans and grants to assist rural communities, which includes weatherization. Very low-income families can receive $7,500 in combination loan and grant and $5,000 for full grant. Twenty to thirty Alaskan residents have applied statewide. y7°W-Al Organizations Tit. Federal Agencies U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) U.S. Forest Service Programs, Description, and Status Financial subsidies to provide for energy conservation activities, renewable resource development, and various other energy related activities. Federally Insured Mortgages - Borrowers allowed to increase the amount of their mortgage by up to 10 percent of pervailing local limit to cover the cost of solar or wind energy development. No Alaskan residents have applied under this program due to the availability of state financed, low interest home loans. Community Development Block Grants - Purpose to promote community development. Projects evaluated for potential energy efficient projects. Three part program. - Indian and Native Program - FY81 $3.25 million - Small cities - FY81 $1.2 million - Standard metropolitan statistical areas (Anchorage-FY81 $2.05 million) Wood Energy Program - Provides technical advice and prepares information on the utilization of wood products to conserve or produce energy. gz°w-AlL Organizations IV. Private Non-Profit Sector Rural Community Action Program (RurCAP) Programs, Description, and Status Research on rural and energy problems and identification of issues for local state and federal government. Advocacy oriented: - Rural Weatherization Program - Rural weatherization service for low-income rural residents. 100 percent federally funded. Fy81 $1.4 million, Fy8l extension $630,000. Weatherized 900 homes in FY81 (funds distributed through DEPD). - Fuel Loan Program - Assists rural communities and villages purchase fuel either in an emergency situation or whenever financial assistance is required for fuel purchases. Two sources of funding: - U.S. Commumity Services Administration - $1.5 million - State Division of Business Loans - $1.0 million In FY81 approximately 1000 loans were made. APPENDIX IV-B DIVISION OF ENERGY AND POWER DEVELOPMENT ENERGY RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, AND DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS T’d-AI Project Port Aiexander Wind Kotzebue Wind Bering Straits Wind APPENDIX IV-B DIVISION OF ENERGY AND POWER DEVELOPMENT Research, Development and Demonstration Projects Budget $ 30,000 $200,000 $400,000 Project Description and Status WIND Village has been briefed on costs of installing a small wind generator. Council will decide between options ranging from not accepting project to giving small grants to villagers to install machines. Council will decide by February '82. Kotzebue has been selected as the site for a large wind generator (50KW-200KW) to be inter-tied to the city grid. Discussions are currently underway with Kotzebue regarding appropriate generator size. The program will construct demonstration projects in Golovin, Shishmaref, Teller and White Mountain and provide planning for project expansion to Brevig Mission, Buckland, Diomede, Savoonga and Whales. Shishmaref is also targeted for an inter-tie with AVEC and a complete instrumentation of the power system. An RFP for the 3 year project has been drafted. *dq-AI Project Holy Cross Wind Nelson Lagoon Wind Demonstration Project Kotzebue Wind Energy Newhalen Wind Budget $40,000 $250,000 $38,727 $100,000 Project Description and Status WIND (cont'd) Discussions are currently underway with the city council to install a demonstration small size wind machine to furnish power or heat to a portion of a public building. Wind regime data will also be collected over a year long period. The year long project is designed to demonstrate the economic and technical feasibility of utilizing a wind system inter-tied into a small diesel-powered electrical grid. The prototype machine experienced continuing corrosion problems. A new modified Grumman Windstream 33, 18KW wind generator has been installed. The system is now in a 12 month, endurance test. The project determined the economics of small wind generators along the Arctic Coast. The program has been successfully completed and the wind generator has been given to the University of Alaska. This project demonstrates the possibility of wind power providing most of the power needs for the community washeteria. Wind generator blades were damaged in a storm and a different machine is to be installed in March of 1982. The system has a battery bank backup. €° d-AT Project Sheldon Point Wind Skagway Wind Unalakleet Wind Rockwell Field Budget $525,000 $200,000 $100,000 Project Description and Status WIND (cont'd) This project, to be completed in September 1983, is designed to provide electric power for Sheldon Point, without resorting to use of a conventional diesel generator. A 2KW wind generator attached to a house has been successfully demonstrated and seven more systems will be completed, including monitoring system and one centeralized machine by summer of 1982. The objective of this project is to assess the potential of a wind diesel inter-tie machine. A contract with the City of Skagway is in force and the monitoring phase is currently underway. A new prototype machine is to be designed and installed in FY '82 after a 3 month monitoring period of the present lOKW system. This project demonstrates the feasibility of wind-diesel inter-tie horizontal axis machine to the city utility in the coastal arctic environment. Three 10KW Jacobs machines have been erected and electrification of the system is to be completed by Feb 1, 1982. The project was suspended due to budget cuts. However, a 2.2KW Enertech wind unit was installed as part of DOE's small systems evaluation program. It is installed in Kotzebue on the City Manager's home and tied to the city grid. v S>-AL Project Lime Village Anemoneter Loan Community College Curriculum Waste Heat Capture for Agriculture Waste Heat (Rankine) Demonstration _Budget $90,000 $16,500 $15,000 $50,000 $44,000 Project Description and Status WIND (cont'd) The project was initially designed to develop a wind powered electrical system preferablay to power a community reindeer freezer. Wind resource data however, indicated insufficient wind to generate power. Other alternative technologies are currently being investigated. Thirty anenometers are available for a year long loan to individuals interested in recording wind speed to assess the feasibility of installing a wind generation system. This project will demonstrate a 1OKW wind system, which has been erected to help train college students in the use and maintainence of wind power systems. System is planned to be operational by February 1, 1982. WASTE HEAT Projects in Aniak and Ruby have been selected, designed and costed out. Preliminary report has been completed. The use of a Rankine cycle generation facility for power production using waste heat and geothermal energy up to 2KW is being tested at Manley Hot Springs. A report is due in January, 1982. g°*d-AI Project Super Insulated Office Energy Efficient Growlights Power Factor Controllers Roggaish Thermal Shutter Demonstration Budget $75,000 $2,000 $44,000 $2,500 Project Description and Status CONSERVATION TECHNOLOGY A commercial office building in Fairbanks is being monitored to determine the economics of super insulation. The building has been instrumented and will be monitored for a one year period. This project will purchase growlights to be used by the Nome-Beltz School to stimulate interest in agriculture. This project is designed to demonstrate the power savings accured by installing power factor controllers on large electric motors. Units have been installed in Kotzebue on the city water pumps, and monitoring is scheduled to be completed in early 1982. Purpose of this study is to determine energy conservation performance and costs of the Roggaish thermal shutter. 9° d-AI Project Geothermal Plan Geothermal Commercialization Unalaska Geothermal Assessment Kotzebue Budget $91,250 $55,000 $100,000 $37,000 Project Description and Status GEOTHERMAL This project, completed in October, 1980, assessed Alaska's geothermal resources and identified priority sites with commercialization potential. Resource investigation plans completed for 15 sites. Geothermal commercialization assessments were developed for three Alaskan sites, Akutan, Unalaska, and Adak. Fact sheets were developed for these sites and Mt. Drum. The potential of Unalaska's geothermal resources were assessed in this project. Two shallow wells were drilled and artesian 120°F water encountered. Several large scale fumerole fields were also discovered. The report is due in February, 1982 and provides the basis of the current APA drilling project. This project investigated the possibility of geothermal district heat for Kotzebue utilizing a source 17 miles from the city. It was completed in February, 1981 and the results of drilling shows little promise because of low water tempature (105-135°), saltyness, and depth (500 feet). L° a-AI Project Tenakee Springs Drilling Pilgrim Springs Reservoir Confirmation Program Interior Wood Assessment Multi Fuel Stoves Budget $56,000 $700,000 $40,000 $8,999 Project Description and Status GEOTHERMAL (cont'd) Several test wells were drilled to determine the potential for geothermal district heat for the village of Tenakee Springs. Temperatures were sufficient but flow rates were too low. A recommendation to discontinue the effort was made. Report available. This project will run from February 1982 through December 1982. It is designed to confirm the shallow geothermal reservoir and do additional drilling to determine resource potential of the Pilgrim geothermal anomaly. WOOD / PEAT/B IOMASS The completed report documents an assessment of the potential of Alaska's wood resources as an alternative energy source to produce heat and power for rural Alaska villages. The report recommends a demonstration site and outlines the required steps leading to a demonstration project. This two year project is designed to determine the economic benefits of stoves designed to operate on wood, oil and coal. Three stoves are 8° d-AI Project _ Budget Multi Fuel Stoves (cont'd) AVEC Wood Gasifier Peat Assessment Delta Biomass Dillingham Peat Farm Demonstration $520,000 $350,000 $160,000 Project Description and Status WOOD/PEAT/BIOMASS (cont'd) to be installed in the Mauneluk Association housing project in the Selawik region. The project is scheduled for completion in August 1982. This project demonstrates the use of low BTU wood gas in an internal combustion engine to generate electric power. The equipment, which is currently undergoing endurance testing appears to be competitive with diesel electric. Report and Prototype production designs are due March 1982. Phase II of this two phase project was started in July 1981. The first phase assessed the enormous peat resources of Alaska. The results indicate 107 million acres of peat exist in Alaska and 30 million acres appear to be of fuel grade outside of permafrost areas. Phase II will include extensive peat surveys in the Mat-Su Valley and Dillingham areas. Project was designed to determine the economic viability of utilizing the wood from the Argicultural Clearing project for energy. This project will result in a turn-key peat farm commercialization project in the City of Dillingham. 6°da-AI Project Anchorage Recycling Appropriate Small Technology Program Single Wire Ground Return Budget $15,000 $1,898,270 $1,000,000 Project Description and Status WOOD/PEAT/BIOMASS (cont'd) facilities, harvesting and distribution of the peat will be done under this proiject. Sites have been determined and the resource analysis has been completed. OTHER PROJECTS Program informed Anchorage citizens of the ease and profitability of recycling, and publicized recycling services in the area. Coordinated messages were used on T.V., Radio and in Newspapers. One T.V. Public Service advertisement won an Award for public service advertising. Grants of up to $50,000 and averaging about $7,000 have been awarded to a total 196 individuals, small business, non-profit Organizations, schools and governmental Organization. To date 56 grants have been completed; 40 are in progress. The objective of this project is to develop an economical single wire ground return system Suitable for rural Alaska. A system has been installed in Bethel-Napakiak and is highly successful. OT° d-AI Project Arctic Village Oil Shale Hydrogen Angoon Alternate Assessment Hydroelectric Commercialization kit Small Hydroelectric Technical Assistance Budget $37,500 $56,000 $35,000 $35,000 $12,000 Project Description and Status OTHER PROJECTS (cont'd) This project, which was completed in July, 1981 assessed the oil shale resources located on the Venetie Indian Lands for possible use as an alternate fuel source. This project assessed the possibility of utilizing excess energy through conversion to hydrogen and then utilizing the hydrogen as a fuel for a complete Alaskan city. The final report has been completed. The use of tidal power in Angoon, Alaska was compared with other local energy forms in a technical/economic study in this project. A kit consisting of the necessary technical, economic, permitting and regulation information was developed. In addition, personal assistance was made available. A promotional brochure for potential hydro users was also produced. This project provides technical assistance through a contractor to potential developers of small hydroelectric facilities in rural Alaska. eee Project Seward-Marathon Hydroelectric Demonstration AVEC Thermo-Tube Pole Line North Star Borough-Solar Panel Test Budget $942,000 $150,000 $137,000 Project Description and Status OTHER PROJECTS (cont'd) Project will demonstrate feasibility of small hydroelectric facility for the Seward General Hospital. Purpose of this project is to develop a unique thermo-tube design to reduce transmission/distribution line costs. The project is to design, construct, install and Monitor four types of solar panels. Purpose is to evaluate insolation level in Fairbanks and the resource value of sunlight as well as provide data on relative performance of various solar collectors. APPENDIX IV-C DIVISION OF BUSINESS LOANS BULK FUEL REVOLVING LOAN FUND & DIVISION OF ENERGY POLICY AND DEVELOPMENT EMERGENCY FUEL LOAN PROGRAM APPENDIX IV-C DIVISION OF BUSINESS LOANS BULK FUEL REVOLVING LOAN FUND & DIVISION OF ENERGY POLICY AND DEVELOPMENT EMERGENCY FUEL LOAN PROGRAM Loans are available to villages and native corporations to purchase fuel in bulk. Interest rate ranges from zero to current municipal bond rate; loans repayable within year. In FY82, $4.25 million was appropriated for this program, to date, 16 loans have been made for $556,000. In addition to loans through the Division of Business Loans, the Division of Energy Policy and Development (DEPD) administers Emergency Fuel Loan Program which was authorized at $15 million in FY80. Remaining funds will lapse into the general fund at the end of FY82. Bulk Fuel Revolving Loan Fund Community/Recipient Loan Amount Pedro Bay Village Council $13,158 Kokhanok Village Council 13,464 City'or' Teller 50,000 Akhiok City Council 23) OAL: Golovin 39,817 Nayskpuk 50,000 Village of Huslia 50,000 Elim IRA Council 50,000 Unalakleet Native Corp. 50,000 Beaver Innuit Cooperative 9,716 Nondalton Village Council 16,614* Deering IRA Council 35/700 Village of Karluk 20,142 Emmonak City Council 41,509 Lower Kalskag 48,026 Aniak City Council 44,998 $556,005 Emergency Fuel Loan Program Akiak City Council 5,000.00 Ambler Traditional Council 8,520.00 *Loan has been canceled LEE Gal Emergency Fuel Loan Program (Continued) Community/Recipient Loan Amount Antak Traditional Council 20,088.00 Aniak City Council 53,873.20 City of Aniak 49,375.26 Ingalik, Inc. - Anvik 5,004.00 Ingalik, Inc. - Anvik SWS SeUle Atka IRA Council 44,834.40 Beaver Innuit Co-op 6,457.22 Brevig Mission Coop Assn. 23,763.38 Buckland IRA Council 21,032.00 MKEC ICHI 30,020.00 Chefornak City Council 26,109.00 Chefornak City Council C2, 2csezz Chuathraluk City Council 17,990.00 MKEC ICCI 30,620.00 Deering IRA Council 46,728.00 Deering IRA Council 14,086.50 Eagle Village Council 2,440.00 Eagle Village Council 4,496.00 Eagle Village Council 8,181.18 Igfijouaq Co., Inc. - EER 6,600.00 Elim IRA Council-C/O Anica SO SD Mell, Emmonak City Council 46,241.11 Gambell IRA Council 11,560.00 Gambell IRA Council 50,000.00 Olson & Sons - Golovin 37,793.21 Sealton Corp. - Hooper Bay 12,049.10 Sealton Corp. - Hooper Bay 50,000.00 Huslia City Council 42,720.00 Iliamna Village Council 55,520.40 Iliamna Village Council 48,780.00 Karluk Tribal Council 35,885.39 Kiana IRA Council 48,120.00 City of Kiana 50,000.00 City of Kiana 49,999.50 Kipnuk Village Council 53,978.24 Kivalina IRA Council 50,000.00 Koliganek Village Council 26,218.05 Kongiganak Traditional Council 29,269.80 Kongiganak Traditional Council 56,363.78 Kotlik City Council 8,586.50 Kotlik City Council 45,876.77 Kwethluk IRA Council 14,030.46 Kwethluk IRA Council 47,366.51 Kwigillingok IRA Council 82,475.76 Kwigillingok IRA Council 15,928.25 Kwigillingok IRA Council 30,003.51 Lower Kalskag City Council 7,584.50 Marshall City Council 9,737.00 Iv-C.2 Emergency Fuel Loan Program (Continued) Community/Recipient City of McGrath City of McGrath Nima Corporation Nima Corporation Seth-de-ya-ah Corp. Minto Newhalen City Council Nightmute CC/NGTA-Omkumute Nightmute City Council Nightmute City Council Nikolai City Council Nikolski IRA Council Noatak IRA Council Noatak IRA Council Nondalton Village Council Gana-a'Yon LTD. - Nulato Ouzinkie City Council Pedro Bay Village Council Pilot Station, Inc. Pilot Station, Inc. Platinum Traditional Council Platinum Commercial Co. Point Lay IRA Council Port Meiden City Council Quinmagak IRA Council Baan-o-Yeel-Kom Corp. Ruby City Council Russian Mission Village Council Russian Mission Village Council Russian Mission City Council St. Mary's Native Corp. Savoonga IRA Council Savoonga IRA Council Scammon Bay City Council Selawik IRA Council Shageluk City Council Shaktoolik Native Corp. Swan Lake Corporation Shishmaref City Council Shishmaref City Council Shishmaref IRA - C/O Anica Shishmaref City Council Shungnak IRA Council Shungnak IRA Council MKEC Stebbins Native Corp. Takutna Village Association IV=C 33 Loan Amount 18,652.07 23,040.00 12,428.00 17,873.26 50,000.00 29,270.30 28,611.00 12,032.50 5,084.00 11,296.65 29,456.82 12,510.00 50,000.00 39,664.00 5,268.00 42,971.73 19,017.60 4,342.00 6,120.00 21,668.00 10,530.00 14,072.70 50,000.00 43,690.61 15,748.71 31,060.09 8,468.00 32,047.20 39,735.00 49,999.06 23,120.00 49,999.40 11,074.00 22,096.00 15,245.12 14,796.00 42,224.00 5,535.80 25,000.00 25,000.00 3,650.00 24,276.00 50,000.00 28,371.39 24,996.00 18,810.00 Takutn Telida Teller Teller Teller Togiak Tokscc Toksoo Tuntut Tuntut Tununer Native Unalak Upper Wales Wales White Emergency Fuel Loan Program (Continued) Community/Recipient a Community Association Village Council City Council Native Corporation Commercial Company Natives, LTD. k Bay City Council k Bay City Council uliak Land LTD. uliak Land LTD. miut Rinit Corp. Village of Tyonek leet Native Corp. Kalskag City Council IRA Council IRA Council Mountain IRA Council IV-C.4 Loan Amount 25,092.00 1,993.73 1,500.00 24,250.00 24,250.07 58,115.53 21,966.85 8,290.71 19,564.35 46,652.35 35,562.92 22,408.86 49,432.58 28,866.74 30,997.60 40,670.00 506,006.90 APPENDIX IV-D ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY RECONNAISSANCE STUDIES T*d-AI APPENDIX IV-D ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY RECONNAISSANCE STUDIES Project Name and Location Energy Reconnaissance of 19 Western Alaska Villages: Brevig Mission, Diomede, Golovin, Koyuk, Shismaref, St. Michael, Stebbins, Teller, Shageluk, Atkasook, Karluk, Unalakleet, Alatna, Galena, Ruby, New Chenega, Gustavus, Yakutat Energy Reconnaissance of 21 Western Alaska Villages: Aniak, Upper Kalskag, Lower Kalskag, Chefornak, St. Marys, Kotlik, Hooper Bay, Nightmute, Mekoryuk, Toksook Bay, Newtok, Tununak, Chignik Lagoon, Chignik Bay, Ivanof Bay, St. Paul, St. George, Atka, Cold Bay, Nikolski, False Pass Craig Favorite Bay Haines - Dayebas Description and Status Energy Alternatives - Active Contracts Competion date June 1982 Energy Alternatives - Active Contracts Completion date June 1982 Energy Alternatives - Active Contract Hydroelectric project - onstalled capacity of 0.8 megawatts, study stage Completed 1981. Determined Dayebas Creek. Creek not most feasible project. Recom- mended Mist Creek near Skaguay for feasibility. Note: Of the 43 reconnaissance studies identified above, 32 received appropriations through S.B. 26. Hw . COMDANDNLFWNHH bb H H WOWMDNAUPWN-H BREE WNHO Snel 14. SK 16. ei 18. 9) 20. 2A 22. 2370 24. 21D 26. 21 28. RECONNAISSANCE STUDY STATUS BY COMMUNITY Arctic Region Anaktuvak Pass Atkasook (Meade River) Barrow Barter Island (Kaktovik) Cape Lisburne Deadhorse Nuiqsut Point Hope Point Lay Wainwright Subarctic Coast Region Akiachak Akiak Akolmuit (Nunapitchuk) Alakanuk Ambler Andreafski Aniak Atmautluak Bethel Brevig Mission Buckland Candle Chefornak Chevak Choolunawick Chuathbaluk Council Crooked Creek Deering Diomede (Ignalik) Eek Elim Emmonak Fortuna Ledge (Marshall) Gambell Golovin Goodnews Bay (Mumtrak) Hamilton IV-D.2 Completed Ongoing Planned x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Zo 30. S18 Se SS) 34. 35) 36. Sis 3 Bie SO 40. 41. 42. 43. 44, 45. 46. aris 48. 49, 500 Se 52r 53h 54. Dl 56. S57 58) 59° 60. 61. 62 63. 64. 65/5 66. 6g 68. 69. Or RECONNAISSANCE STUDY STATUS Hooper Bay Kalskag (Lower) Kalskag (Upper) Kasigluk Kiana Kipnuk Kivalina Kobuk Kotlik Kotzebue Koyuk Kwethluk Kwigillingok Lime Village Little Diomede Island Mekoryuk Moses Point Mt. Village Napaimiut Napakiak Napaskiak New Knockhock Newtok Nightmute Noatak Nome Noorvik Ohogamuit Oscarville Pilot Station Pitka's Point Platinum Quinhagak Red Devil Russian Mission St. Marys St. Michael Savoonga Scammon Bay Selawik Shaktoolik Sheldon's Point BY COMMUNITY EV =Dis Completed Ongoing Planned x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x RECONNAISSANCE STUDY STATUS BY COMMUNITY 71. Shishmaref 72. Shungnak 73. Sleetmute 74. Salomon 75. Stebbins 76. Stony River 77. Teller 78. Toksook Bay 79. Tuluksak 80. Unalakleet 81. Wales 82. White Mountain III.Alaskan Penninsula/Aleutians Region 10 ll 2% 13 14 15 16 ah Is WODANIDUNPWNEH . . Adak Akutan Atka Attu Island Belkofsky Cold Bay Dutch Harbor False Pass King Cove Nelson Lagoon Nikolski Port Moller St. George St. Paul Sanak Sand Point Squaw Harbor Unalaska IV. Southwest Coast Region 1 2 3 4 5 6 . . Akhiok Aleknagik Bell Flats Cape Chiniak Chignik (Chignik Bay) Chignik Lagoon Iv-D.4 Completed Ongoing Planned x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x RECONNAISSANCE STUDY STATUS BY COMMUNITY Completed Ongoing Planned 8. Chignik Lake 9. Clark's Point 10. Dillingham 11. Egegik 7 12. Ekuk 13. Ekwok x 14. Igiugig 15. Illiamna 16. Ivanoff Bay 7 17. Kakhonak (Koklanok) 18. Karluk x 19. King Salmon xX 20. Kodiak 21. Koliganek x 22. Larsen Bay xX 23. Levelock 24. Manokotak 25. Naknek x bd 26. New Stuyahok xX 27. Newhalen 28. Nondalton x 29. Old Harbor x 30. Olgsenakale (Portage Creek) 31. Ouzinkie 2 32. Pedro Bay 33. Perryville x 34. Pilot Point 35. Port Heiden 36. Port Lions x 37. South Naknek x 38. Togiak x 39. Twin Hills 40. Uganik 41. Ugashik 42. Woody Island V. Southcentral Region Anchorage Anchor Point Clam Gulch WNH Iv-D.5 RECONNAISSANCE STUDY STATUS BY COMMUNITY Completed Ongoing Planned 8. Cohoe 9. Cooper Landing 10. English Bay x ll. Fire Lake 12. Halibut Cove 13. Homer 14. Hope 15. Houston 16. Kachemak 17. Kasilof 2 18. Kenai 19. Knik 20. Moose Pass 21.) Sinticnik 22. Palmer 23. Port Graham x 24. Salamatoff x 25. Seldovia 26. Seward 27. Skwentna 28. Soldotna 29. Sterling 30. Sutton 31. Talkeetna x 32. Tyonek 33. Wasilla 34. Willow VI. Prince William Sound Region 1. Chistochina oe) ooo 3. Copper Center x 4. Cordova x 5. Eyak 6. Gakona 7. Glennallen x 8. Gulkana 9. Kenny Lake IV-D.6 RECONNAISSANCE STUDY STATUS BY COMMUNITY Completed Ongoing Planned 10. Mentasta Lake 11. Middleton Island 12. Nabesna 13. Paxson Lodge 14. Tatitlek 15. Taxlina 16. Tonsina 17. Valdez 18. Whittier 19. Yakataga VII.Fairbanks/Alaska Highway Region Big Delta Cantwell Chena Chicken Clear Delta Junction Dot Lake Eagle x Eagle Village 10. Fairbanks ll. Fort Greely 12. Healy 13. Healy Lake 14. Moose Creek WOWDAIDOSPWNHH Nenana 15. North Pole 16. Northway x 17. Suntrana 18. Tanacross x 19. Tetlin x 20. Tok i¥-Ds7 RECONNAISSANCE STUDY STATUS VIII. Interior Region WOMAN DU PWN PE Alatna Allakaket . Anderson Anvik Arctic Village Beaver Birch Creek Central Chalkyitsik Circle Flat Fort Yukon Galena Grayling Holy Cress Hughes Huslia Kaltag Koyukuk Lake Minchumina Livengood Manley Hot Springs McGrath Medfra Minto New Kovukuk Nikolai Nulato Ophir Rampart Ruby Shageluk Stevens Village Takotna Tanana Telida - Venetie Wiseman BY COMMUNITY IV-D.8 Completed Ongoing Planned x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x RECONNAISSANCE STUDY STATUS BY COMMUNITY Completed Ongoing Planned IX. Southeast Region 1. Angoon x 2. Annette x 3. Cape Pole 4. Chatham 5. Clover Pass 6. Craig x 7. Edna Bay 8. Elfin Cove 9. Fritz Cove 10. Gustavus x 11. Haines x 12. Hamilton Bay 13. Hawk Inlet 14. Herring Cove 15. Hollis 16. Hoonah 17. Hydaburg x 18. Hyder 19. Juneau 20. Kake =x 21. Kasaan 22. Ketchikan 23. Klawock x 24. Klukwan x 25. Kupreanof 26. Metlakatla x 27. Myers Chuck Pelican x Petersburg Point Baker Port Alexander WWWNNd NrFOWA @ | \::|| |e |1e|| Ke Saxman 33. Shakan Bay 34. Sitka 35. Skagway 36. Tenakee Springs 37. Thorne Bay 38. Ward Cove 39. Wrangell 40. Yakutat x IV-D.9 44, 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 5l. 52% 535 54. Sie 56. Silks 58. 59. 60. RECONNAISSANCE STUDY STATUS Point Baker Port Alexander Port Chilkoot Refuge Cove St. John Saxman Scow Bay Shakan Bay Sitka Skagway Tenakee Springs Thane Thorne Bay Ward Cove West Petersburg Wrangell Yakutat BY COMMUNITY IvV-D.10 Completed Ongoing Planned APPENDIX IV-E ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY FEASIBILITY STUDIES T° d-AI Project/Location Region I: Arctic None Region II. Subarctic Coast Akiachak Northeast of Bethel Akiak Southwest Alaska Akolmuit West of Bethel Bethel Regional Study Bethel Area Eek Northwest Alaska Kotzebue Coal and District Heat North of Nome APPENDIX IV-E ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY FEASIBILITY STUDIES Project Description and Status Energy alternatives - in process of selecting consultant. Energy alternatives - in process of selecting consultant. Energy alternatives - in process of selecting consultant. Feasibility assessment of alternative sources of energy including Kisaralik Hydro project for Bethel and 11 surround- ing villages. Currently in process of selecting consultant. In 1981, $1.0 million was appropriated for this study. Energy alternatives, RFP issued, in pro- cess of selecting consultant. > Coal-fired cogeneration of heat and electricity active contract. In 1981, $100,000 was appropriated for coal utilization study; $120,000 for district heating and power feasibility and design. f° aH-AI Project/Location Region IV Southwest Coast Larsen Bay Kodiak Island King Salmon Bristol Bay Area Kodiak City Electric Kodiak Island Kodiak Koliganek Bristol Bay Area Lake Elva/Dillingham Bristol Bay Area Levelock Bristol Bay Area Manokotak Bristol Bay Area Newhalen Bristol Bay Area Old Harbor Project Description and Status Small hydro project, determination of project feasibility due January 1982. Energy alternatives, active contract, determination due February 1982. Electric study for intermediate and long range electric needs of Kodiak Island Borough. In 1981, $100,000 was appropriated for this study. Waste heat cogeneration project. In 1981, $2.5 million was appropriated for feasibility and engineering. Energy alternative, active contract, determination due February 1982. Study recently completed, hydroelectric project not feasible due to high construction costs. In 1981, $4.5 million was appropriated for this project. Energy alternatives - active contract, determination due February 1982. Energy alternatives - active contract, determination due February 1982. Energy alternatives - active contract, determination due February 1982 Small hydro project - determination due January 1982 €°d-AI Project/Location Region V. South Central Anchorage - Fairbanks Intertie Railbelt Region Bradley Lake Hydro Kenai Peninsula Chakachamna Lake Hydro West of Anchorage Grant Lake Hydro Kenai Peninsula Susitna Hydro Railbelt Region Project Description and Status 180 mile, 345 KV transmission line to connect the electrical load center of Anchorage and Fairbanks. Construction to begin late 1982. In 1981, $76.0 million was appropriated through the Power Development Fund for acquisition of right-of-way and for design and construction of transmission line. Hydroelectric project with installed capacity of 90 MW. Construction to begin in 1983. In 1981, $15.0 million was appropriated through the Power Development Fund for this project. Hydroelectric project, with installed capacity of 320 MW, currently under study. In 1981, $1.0 million in Power Development Funds were appropriated for this study. Hydroelectric project with installed capacity of 7.3 megawatts, construction could begin 1985. In 1981, $1.0 million has been appropriated for this study. Hydroelectric project to be conducted in two phases. Phase I, Watana with installed capacity of 400 MW with expansion to 800 MW. Phase II, Devil Canyon installed capacity of 400 MW construction to begin in 1985. In 1981, $18.1 million was appropriated for this project. v°ad-AI Project/Location Region VI. Prince William Sound Cordova Coal Plant Gulf of Alaska South of Valdez Power Creek Hydro Cordova Area Valdez/Cordova Transmission Valdez/Cordova Transmission Line Southcentral Alaska Project Description and Status Part of Cordova Energy Supply Alternatives Feasibility study, coal plant approxi- mately 5-10 MW. In 1981, $300,000 was been appropriated for this project. Part of Cordova Energy Supply Alternatives Feasibility study. This is the hydro part of the study - run of river 5-10 MW. In 1981, $700,000 was appropriated for this study. In 1981, $700,000 has been appropriated for a feasibility study and for advanced design and engineering of an electrical transmission system between Valdez and Cordova, and for a feasibility study and advanced design and engineering of small scale hydroelectric sites along the route of the transmission system. Part of Cordova Energy Supply Alternatives Feasibility study. Two alternative routes to connect cities are being analyzed. S°ad-AI Project/Location Region IX. Southeast Pelican Hydro West of Juneau Petersburg/Kake Transmission Southeast - North of Ketchikan West Creek Hydro Southeast Alaska Rural Community Feasibility Study: Angoon, Gustavus and Tenakee Springs. Project Description and Status Hydro study - improvements to existing facility. In 1981, $42,000 was appropriated for this study. RFP in preparation. In 1981, $1.5 million was appropriated for local transmission and distribution lines through the Power Project Loan Fund. An additional $500,000 was appropriated for engineering, design, and acquisition of right-of-way. Hydroelectric project with installed capacity of 5.4 megawatts. Construction to begin in 1984-85. In 1981, $1.0 million was appropriated for this project. Three Southeast communities will be among the 25 rural communities to have a feasibility study performed in 1982. APPENDIX IV-F ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY POWER DEVELOPMENT AND DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS T*d-AI APPENDIX IV-F ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY POWER DEVELOPMENT AND DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS Project/Location Project Description and Status HYDROELECTRIC Chester Lake Hydro Hydroelectric project with installed capacity of 25 MW. In 1981, $1.0 million was appropriated for preconstruction design and engineering. Green Lake Hydro Hydroelectric project being constructed by city of Sitka, 15 MW to be acquired by Alaska Power Authority. In 1981, $45.0 million was appropriated through the Power Development Fund for this project. Solomon Gulch Hydroelectric project being constructed by Cooper Valley Electric Association, to be acquired by Alaska Power Authority. In 1981, $68.0 million was appropriated through the Project Development Fund for this project. Z° d-AI Project/Location Swan Lake Hydro Terror Lake* Tyee Lake Hydro Craig-Klawock * Received construction authorization. Project Description and Status HYDROELECTRIC (cont'd) Hydroelectric project under construction by the municipality of Ketchikan - to be acquired by the Alaska Power Authority. In 1981, $53.0 million was been appropriated through the Power Development Fund for this project. Hydroelectric project with installed capacity of 20 MW. Construction to begin in 1982. In 1981, $81.5 million was appropriated through Power Development Fund for this project. Manufacture of turbines, conductors, towers, and generators underway. Powerhouse/power tunnel under construction. In 1981, $45.0 million was appropriated through the Power Development Fund for this project. Transmission line, design phase of 12.4 KV line, 6 miles long to interconnect Craig and Klawock. In 1981, $750,000 was appropriated through the Project Development Fund for this project. €°d-AI Project/Community Juneau, Alaska Electric Light and Power City of Wrangell Iliamna/Newhalen and Nondalton West of Kanai Peninsula Kobuk/Shungnak Transmission line Kobuk River East of Kotzebue Port Lions* Kodiak Island * Received authorization for construction. Project Description and Status TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION Transmission and distribution facilities. partially complete, awaiting further applications. In 1981, $4.0 million has been appropriated through the Power Project Loan Fund for this project. Local transmissions and distribution lines between Tyee Lake power substations and existing power plants. In 1981, $1.5 million was appropriated through the Power Project Loan Fund for this project. Transmission intertie between Iliamna/ Newhalen utility grid and Nondalton Village - in design phase, construction scheduled to begin mid-1982. In 1981, $961,000 was appropriated for this project. Transmission line. Expected completion date, December 1, 1981. In 1981, $200,000 was appropriated through the Power Development Fund to pay reimbursable service agreement obligation to the Division of Energy and Power Development. Electrical Intertie to Terror Lake Project and Kodiak, economic analysis under review. In 1981, $1.4 million was appropriated through the Power Development Fund. y° d-AI Project/Community Akutan City Electric Aleutian Island Brevig Mission North of Nome, Seward Peninsula Crooked Creek/Chauthbaluk Western Alaska McGrath Central Alaska Ouzinkee Kodiak Island Nushagak Electric Cooperative Bethel Utilities Corp. Unalaska Project Description and Status ELECTRIFICATION In 1981, $627,000 was appropriated for electrification. Transmission distribution system; construction complete; electrification to begin in the near future. WASTE HEAT Waste heat. In 1981, $125,000 was appropriated for this project. Waste heat. In 1981, $150,000 was appropriated for this project. Waste heat project expected completion date January 1, 1982. Design and installation of waste heat capture equipment, due to be completed December, 1982, Waste heat facilities. In 1981, $1.0 million was appropriated for this project through the Power Project Loan Fund. Design and construction of waste heat project. In 1981, $380,000 was appropriated for this project. S°d-AI Project/Community Noatak School North of Kotzebue Organic Rankine Cycle Northwest Alaska Unalaska Geothermal Fairbanks Project Description and Status OTHER PROJECTS Wood-fired hydronic heating system. Waiting for design report from school district. Organic Rankine generation with solid fuel energy source. In 1981, $5.0 million was appropriated for this project. Geothermal well drilling. In 1981, $5.0 million was appropriated for this project. District heating extension, waiting for additional project definition. In 1981, $4.44 million was appropriated for this project ($4.0 million through Power Project Loan Fund). oO 1 > H x He a a fea) a ay < DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION ELECTRIC POWER GRANT PROGRAM APPENDIX IV-G DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION ELECTRIC POWER GRANTS PROGRAM The Department of Administration (DA) appropriates energy- related funds under the Electric Power Grant Program primarily for community electrification and electric generators. The communities are specified by law. The money goes to the city as a municipal grant. The DA establishes necessary contracts and notifies the city of the grant and procedures for obtaining the funds. The city must pass an ordinance or resolution accepting the funds and must sign and return the contract. If the amount of the grant exceeds $100,000, 20 percent is provided initially with the balance based on expenditures. Grants are often refused by communities because the community can not afford to maintain the systems. The following is a list of cities which have received grants in 1982 along with the status of the grant. CITY/EQUIPMENT FUNDING STATUS (In Dollars) 1) Allakaket, generator 12,600 Full amount received 2) Atmautlauk, electri- 625,000 Received 20% fication 3) Diomede, electrification 106,000 Contracts have not yet been submitted 4) Ekwok, generator 25,000 Contracts have not yet been submitted 5) Golovin, electrification 225,000 Rec'd 20% 6) Hooper Bay, generator 34,000 Full amount received 7) Kotlik, electrification 65,000 Full amount received 8) Napaskiak, electri- 215,000 Contracts have not fication been submitted 9) Newhalen, generator and electrification 130,000 Received 20% 10) Newtok, electrification 190,000 Received 20% 11) Nome, electric utility 943,000 20% rec'd, financial facilities upgrade report has been submitted. IV-G.1 12) 13) 14) TS) 16) a7) CITY/EQUIPMENT Ruby, electrification Russian Mission, generator Shaktoolik, power lines (Alaska Village Electric Cooperative) Tuluksak, electrification Unalaska, electrification White Mountain, electri- fication FUNDING (In Dollars) 73,000 30,000 53,000 148,000 600,000 170,000 IV-G.2 STATUS Full amount received Full amount received Submitted contract; no ordiance attached Received 20% Received 20% Received 20% APPENDIX IV-H DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL AFFAIRS BULK FUEL STORAGE GRANTS APPENDIX IV-H DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL AFFAIRS BULK FUEL STORAGE GRANTS The Department of Community and Regional Affairs (DCRA) provides grants to communities to construct or upgrade fuel storage facilities. Any community with a population of 2,000 or less is eligible (there are approximately 200 eligible communities in Alaska). Grants cannot exceed $100,000 per community per year; most communities request the full amount, which translates into about 50,000 gallons of storage. DCRA has established priorities for funding, as follows: ‘ Home heating oil Gasoline for wood gathering purposes Fuel for electricity generation Propane Gasoline for subsistence Fuel for public buildings Fuel for recreation. ee ee ee In FY 1981-81, 42 grants were awarded to the following communities: City Grant Amount Akutan $60,000 Alakanuk 70,000 Allakaket 70,000 Aniak 60,000 Atmautlauk 71,000 Beaver 60,000 Birch Creek 66,000 Brevig Mission 64,500 Chalkyitsik 40,000 Chefornak 60,000 Chuathbaluk 30,000 Deering 60,000 Golovin 100,000 Goodnews Bay 50,000 Hooper Bay 100,000 Iguigig 67,800 Iliamna* 10,000 Kaktovik 100,000 Kar luk 60,000 Kasaan 65,000 King Cover 20,000 Kipnuk 69,000 Kokhanok 62,400 * Grant specified by legislature. IV-H.1 APPENDIX City Kongiganek Koyuk Levelock Manakotak Mentasta Newhalen Newtok Nondalton Pedro Bay *Pilot Point Pilot Station Point Hope Port Heiden Sand Point Saxman Shishmaref Takotna Togiak Whittier *Legislative Grant IV-H IV-H.2 (cont'd) Grant Amount $100,000 60,000 66,200 60,000 60,000 60,000 100,000 76,100 19,000 100,000 53,400 100,000 70,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 60,000 47,800 60,000 APPENDIX IV-I DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL AFFAIRS LEGISLATIVE GRANTS FOR RURAL VILLAGE ELECTRICIATION T° I-AI APPENDIX IV-I DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL AFFAIRS LEGISLATIVE GRANTS FOR RURAL VILLAGE ELECTRIFICATION The Department of Community and Regional Affairs (DCRA) is responsible for administering grants for the purchase of electricity generators and electrification of rural communities and Native Associations. Through Senate Bill 26, Sections 39-41, $4.0 mil- lion was appropriated for this program. Communities and associations receiving grants are specifically identified in the legislation. In FY 1982, $4.06 million was awarded to 24 rural villages for electrification or generators. Village/Association Equipment Grant Amount Alatna Generator $ 36,000 Arctic Village Generator 26,000 Chalkyitsik Electrification 103,000 Circle Electrification 81,000 Dog Lake Generator 12,000 Kong iganek Electrification 135,000 Kwigillingok Electrification 120,000 Lovelock Electrification 450,000 Perryville Electrification 145,000 Pilot Point Electrification 450,000 Tatitlek Electrification 70,000 Tuntutuliak Electrification 250,000 Zz I-AL Village/Association Equipment Grant Amount 1 Kuskokim Native Association Electrification $ 400,000 Crooked Creek Stony River Sleetmute Chauthbaluk Ambler2 Electrification $1,780,000 Deering Kiana Kivalina Kobuk Noatak Noavrik Selawik Shungnak 1 Grant for electrification of listed villages Legislation specified grants for energy conservation purposes for villages listed; however, actual grant was for electriciation. APPENDIX IV-J DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL AFFAIRS COASTAL ENERGY IMPACT PROGRAM T° f-AI DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL AFFAIRS COASTAL ENERGY IMPACT PROGRAM Project City of Cordova: . Energy Impact Strategy Kodiak Island Burough: . Onshore Energy Impact Study City of Seward: 5 Electrical System Design - Hydro Electric Power Feasibility Study . Electric Substation Construction . Energy Impact Plan Environmental Review of Energy Facility . Phase I 5 Phase II 6 Phase III G: Grant L: Loan APPENDIX IV-J Budget $ 17,789(G) $ 37,000 (G) $ 195,000 (G) $ 91,000 (G) $1,700,000 (L) $ 45,000 (G) $ 50,000 (G) $ 54,554 (G) $ 64,000 (G) Project Status Complete Ongoing Complete Complete Ongoing Complete Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing f° f-AT Appendix IV-J (Continued) Project Division of Community Planning J Beluga Coal Development Study Department of Environmental Conservation | Oil Spill Contingency Plan Municipality of Anchorage . Electrical Distribution System Expansion G: Grant L: Loan Budget $ 68,000 (G) $ 45,000 (G) $11,226,000 (L) Project Status Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing APPENDIX IV-K DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC FACILITIES TECHNICAL ENERGY AUDITS APPENDIX IV-K DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC FACILITIES TECHNICAL ENERGY AUDITS The Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (DOTPF) is conducting detailed energy audits on fifteen state buildings totaling 470,000 square feet. The following is a list of these audits which are due to be completed in mid-February. Building Harbor View Hospital DOTPF Steam Plant Court Office Building Regional Building Peger Road Complex Airport Complex IV-K.1 Location Valdez Valdez Fairbanks Fairbanks Fairbanks Fairbanks Number of Buildings 2 1 APPENDIX IV-L DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATTON AND PUBLIC FACILITIES ENERGY R&D PROJECTS AS OF JULY 1981 T° T-AI APPENDIX IV-L DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC FACILITIES Project Passive Solar Alaskan School Thermal Performance Standards Building Energy Conservation ENERGY R&D PROJECTS Project Duration Project Description Results Funding Agency Development of cost State, U.S. DOE effective design criteria for integrating passive solar energy collection features into Alaskan buildings. Development of necessary State engineering and design cri- teria for building energy performance criteria in the Alaskan environment. Energy conservation in build- State ings, several problem areas are under investigation, including: vapor barriers, air infiltration, economics of super insulated structures, windows and night insulation systems. A computer program has been developed to evalu- ate various conservation design schemes as a research tool, ultimately to be used on a routine operational basis. 3 years (report available) 1 year (report available) 1 year c TAL Project Passive Solar Heated Fire Station Demonstration Project Remote Facilities Monitoring Fuel Cell Testing Gas-Sorptive Properties of the Zeolite Mordenite Wind Power Users Manual Project Description Results Construction of two passive solar fire truck garages. After construction building perfor- mance will be monitored and used as demonstration to gather data for future passive structures. Research aimed at determining whether or not life cycle cost of a facility could be lowered by eliminating high cost for emergency repairs, equipment replacement and excessive fuel usage due to improper equipment operation and maintenance. Evaluating feasibility of using fuel cells fueled with methanol to supply heat and electricity to rural facilities Evaluating the potential for using Alaskan Mordenite (report available) as an absorbent storage medium for hydrogen. Compedium of all data on wind energy in Alaska, its potential, limitations and problems. Funding Agency State State State State State Project Duration Ongoing l year 1 year Completed 2 years (Interim report available) €°T-AI Project Small-scale Heat Recovery Climate Adapted Solar Collectors Solar Design Manual Passive Solar Heating in Alaska Project Description Results Test program to evaluate commercial uses and test air-to-air heat exchangers suited for small scale use. Develop a design manual for attach sun spaces used as solar collectors. Emphasis on rural facilities where simple techniques using renewable energy offer the most favorable return on investment. Manual designed to aid designers in developing design schemes appropriate to the Alaskan environment. Manual incudes state-of-the art methodology and relevant design data. Development of a computer model to analyze thermal performance of buildings. Funding Agency Project Duration State 1 year Preliminary results avail- able in interim report. State 1 year State 2 years (Manual available) State 1 year (Report available) APPENDIX IV-M Regional Allocation of State Energy Projects and Funds The energy situation is somewhat different in each of the nine energy planning regions of the state. While many of the problems--e.g., high current energy prices--are the same across regions--the relative attractiveness of resource and technology options may differ significantly. As an initial attempt to match state projects and expenditures against regions energy problems, the following portions of this appendix identify energy projects and expenditures by region. This regional listing does not account for all state expenditures or projects because of the current lack of regional program information, and the fact that some programs/expenditures simply cannot be divided regionally. IV-M.1 f° W-AL STATE ENERGY PROGRAMS Population: 4,200 REGION I Communities: 10 ARCTIC Bulk Fuel Other Storage Electrificatio Grants Bulk Fuel poo Reconnaissance] Feasibility 4 community studies: $200,000 in grants from DCRA for: Atkasook Cape Lisburne Point Hope Point Lay Point Hope 2 coal resources assessments: Point Hope - Point Lay STATE ENERGY PROGRAMS Population: 29,680 REGION II Communities: 84 SUBARCTIC Bulk Fuel Other Storage Electrificatio Grants Bulk Fuel Electrification] Reconnaissance] Feasibility $5.0 million - [$900,000 for $311,800 in $1.0 million 21 studies - organic rankine}] design and loans from DBL | from P.P.L.F. covering generators in installation off for 7 commu- for construc rural Northwest. wind generators} nities. tion of waste community in eleven heat facility applications communities. in Bethel. particularly waste heat. Over past two years 78 studies involving 49 communitieg have been completed. $1.0 million in grants for 15 communities Alakanuk Aniak Atmautlauk Brevig Mission Chefornak Chuathbaluk Deering Golovin Aniak Deering Elim Emmonak (1) Golovin Teller Unalakleet $18.64 million in grants from DCRA and DA. $1.08 million covering - geothermal wasteheat (2) €-W° AI Goodnews Bay Hooper Bay Kipnuk Koyuk Newtok Pilot Station Shishmaref single wire(1l) ground Conserva- (1) tion y°W-AI STATE ENERGY PROGRAMS Population: 7,770 REGION III Communities: 21 ALEUTIAN IS. & ALASKA PENINSULA Bulk Fuel Other Storage Electrificatio Grants Bulk Fuel Electrification] Reconnaissance] Feasibility $180,000 in $1.1 million $5.38 million $127,000 loan 8 community 7 rural grants for: in electrifica4 for Unalaska: for Akutan reconnaissance} community tion grants studies feasibility - Akutan for: - Geothermal completed or study . King Cove drilling underway. completed - Sand Point - Akutan (APA) or underway. . Unalaska(DA)} ~ Pen ee psa recovery project S°*W-AI STATE ENERGY PROGRAMS Population: 15,650 v Ped S 44 SOUTHWEST COAST Communities Bulk Fuel Other Storage Electrificatio Grants Bulk Fuel Electrification] Reconnaissance] Feasibility $86,370 in loans from DBL for 5 commu- nities: - Akhiok « Kokhanok - Karluk - Nondalton - Pedro Bay REGION IV 34 studies have been completed or are underway Over past two years 10 communities in this region $37,000 from DCRA for onshore energy impact assess- $3.68 million for 8 commu- nities: $751,500 in grants for 12 communities: - Igiugig .- Ekwok (DA) ment in have had including - Illiamna Koliganek Kodiak region reconnaissancefwaste heat and - Kokhanok (DCRA) studies cogeneration - Karluk Levelock studies. Koliganek (DCRA) - Levelock Newhaién - Manokotak (DCRA) - Newhalen Nondalton - Nondalton (APA) - Pedro Bay Perryville - Pilot Point (DCRA) Port Heiden - Pilot Point (DCRA) - Port Lions (APA) $4.5 million for Lake Elva Hydro project 9°W-AI STATE ENERGY PROGRAMS Population: 220,340 REGION V Communities: 41 SOUTHCENTRAL Bulk Fuel Other Storage Electrificatio Grants Bulk Fuel Electrification] Reconnaissance] Feasibility 5 hydro studie: at the follow- ing locations: $12.9 million from CEIP-DCRA $401,000 from CEIP-DCRA for electrical system design Bradley $15.0M Anchorage distribution expansion LOL: Chakach- - Seward - Soldotna Seward Sr oe substation - Grant Lake $76.0 million construction $1.0M in P.D.F. for design and R-O-W acquisi- tion for Anchorage- Fairbanks intertie Susitna $18.1M Tazimina $2.0M South Central peat study $500,000 L°W-AI STATE ENERGY PROGRAMS Population: 8,300 REGION VI Communities: 20 PRINCE WILLIAM SOUND Bulk Fuel Other Storage Electrificatio Grants Bulk Fuel Electrification] Reconnaissance] Feasibility Cordova coal fired power plant study $300,000} Recon studies have been performed at Cordova and New Chenega $47,800 grant from CEIP-DCRA for Cordova energy strategy study $60,000 grant for Mentasta Lake $70,000 grant for electrifi- cation of Tatitlek. Power Creek Hydro $700,000 $68.0 million Of ePeD- Fytor Solomon Gulch Hydro project Valdez-Cordova intertie $700,000 8°W-AI STATE ENERGY PROGRAMS Population: 59,660 REGION VII Communities: 28 FAIRBANKS/ALASKA HIGHWAY Bulk Fuel Other Storage Electrificatio Grants ae Fuel Electrification] Reconnaissance] Feasibility $4.0 million in P.P.L. funds for district heat system in Fairbanks S2)751:25 000 Fairbanks electrification district heat of Delta extension Agriculture study Project ($2.5M) $440,000 and Dot Lake. 6°W-AI STATE ENERGY PROGRAMS REGION VIII INTERIOR Population: Communities: 7,100 40 Bulk Fuel Other Storage Electrificatio: Grants Bulk Fuel Electrification] Reconnaissance $166,000 in grants for: Birch Creek - Beaver - Chalkyitsik $401,600 in grants for: - Alatna (DC - Allakaket (DCRA) - Allakaket (DA) Arctic Village (DCRA) Chalkyitsik (DCRA) Circle (DCRA) Ruby (DA) $40,000 for Holy Cross wind project $150,000 for McGrath waste heat project $59,716 in loans from DBL for: - Beaver - Huslia 12 communities has or will have rural community studies per- formed by end of 1982. Feasibility Rural community studies are planned for: .- Grayling - Kaltag OT “W-AI Bulk Fuel Other Storage Electrificatio Grants Bulk Fuel Electrification] Reconnaissance $165,000 in grants for: . Kasaan Saxman $60.0 million in P.D. Funds for Green Lake Hydro project. $750,000 in P.D. Funds for Craig-Klawock transmission line. STATE ENERGY PROGRAMS $130,000 from DEPD for wind projects at: Port Alexander Skagway $45,000 from CEIP-DCRA for Skagway energy impact plan. REGION IV SOUTHEAST $10.0 million in P.P.L. funds for: Alaska Elec- tric Light and Power (Juneau) T&D construc tion and rehibilita- tion Petersburg - Wrangell T&D systems. Population: Communities: 53,790 60 5 communities have or will have studies performed by end of 1982. Feasibility 11 studies have been completed or are underway including $105.4 millio in hydro and intertie assessments-— major projects are: Swan Lake $53M Tyee Lake $45M BOOZ + ALLEN & HAMILTON Inc. Energy & Environment Division MEMORANDUM April 2, 1982 To: Lloyd Pernela From: W. H. Babcock Subject: Written Comments on Public Review Copy of State of Alaska Long-Term Energy Plan; 1982 Report As a result of the Governor's review process and the public hearings on the 1982 Plan, a total of 17 written comments were received. The set of comments was submitted by the following groups: State Agencies - Alaska Power Authority - Department of Environmental Conservation - Department of Labor - Alaska Public Utilities Commission Utilities - Municipal Light and Power - Matanuska Electric Association, Inc. - Golden Valley Electric Association - Cordova Electric Cooperative - Municipality of Anchorage Other Groups = Alaska Power Administration - Tesoro - Kodiak Area Native Association - Alaska Energy Research Group Private Citizens - Gary C. Newman - David Brook - Herman A. Schmidt The comments were insightful and have helped us improve the report in a number of areas. The comments can be grouped into two major categories: Technical questions--regarding data accuracy, analytical methodoligies and calculation procedures IV-N.1 . General Concerns--regarding presentation style and the relative emphasis placed on specific topics. The following discussion provides a brief overview of the major types of comments in each category and highlights, in general, how we responded to the comments. 1. Technical Questions Both data oriented questions and methodological concerns were raised in the comments. . General questions were raised regarding the accuracy of the data utilized, the consistency of basic assumptions with other studies (i.g., Battelle Railbelt Study), and definitions of key terms (e.g., capacity utilization factor, household versus family, etc.). Basic sources for cost data were reviewed and information in the Plan modified as appropriate. Primarily, electricity generation plant costs were made consistent with Battelle (Appendix III-A) and hydropower project costs were confirmed by APA (Exhibit IV-8). Key terms were more clearly defined and reviewed for consistency. The accuracy and consistency of the energy balance data and community energy survey data were re-evaluated. While there are problems with the data (outdated, inconsistent, etc.) as noted in the body of the report, no better data is available without undertaking original research. Greater emphasis was placed on the "bottom-up" planning recommendation as a solution to the poor data problem. Socioeconomic data concerns were evaluated and data sources explicitly added to the introduction of Appendix I-D. . Methodological concerns were raised with respect to Exhibits 9 and 10 (Exhibit III-7 in the body of the report) in the Executive Summary. A modified treatment of the factors driving hydroelectric costs was developed to replace Exhibit 9. A clearer representation of the impact of financing assumptions and assumptions regarding electricity demand was developed. IV-N.2 - For Exhibit 10 (III-7) the projected range for hydroelectricity costs was limited to those projects in the Railbelt region and recalculated using information furnished by APA. The time period for comparison was extended to 2030 and transmission costs were included as a portion of capital costs for the fossil fuel generation options. - A clear delineation was made between costs and price and more complete discussion of the exhibit was provided to eliminate the impression of an inconsistent treatment of "real" and "nominal" costs. 2. General Concerns General concerns regarding the report's tone and the relative emphasis given to specific topics were raised. . The fact that this year's report does not represent a "comprehensive plan" was a concern raised in several of the comments. In addition, requests were made to expand and clarify the discussions of specific exhibits. We recognize that the report is not a complete planning document, but cannot address this concern in the time available. On the other hand, discussions of exhibits were clarified and assumptions more clearly stated. . In response to a number of comments, recommendations regarding conservation options and state programs were clarified and greater focus was given to the discussions on conservation. - The importance of conservation was stated more clearly in the Executive Summary, and in the body of the report - A discussion of commercial/industrial conservation potential was added to Chapter III. . The need for expanded involvement of local government and private organizations was cited in a number of comments. We concur with this feeling, and feel that the Plan highlights this need (page 23, 24, IV-4, Iv-5). While the discussion presented above represents only a brief summary of the comments and our revisions, it is indicative of the comments and our efforts to respond to them. We feel that we have addressed the major concerns and questions to the full extent possible given our time constraints. IV-N.3 APPENDIX IV-O The statute establishing the Long-Term Energy Plan requires that public hearings be conducted to provide local citizen input to the plan. To meet this requirement, hearings were held in the following communities: 5 Anchorage (2/23/82) 5 Talkeetna (2/23/82) Fairbanks (2/24/82) . Kenai (2/25/82) 5 Barrow (2/26/82) Kodiak (2/26/82) Juneau (3/1/82) Dillingham (3/1/82) Sitka (3/2/82) ‘ Bethel (3/2/82) rn Ketchikan (3/3/82) Nome (3/3/82) Kotzebue (3/4/82) In each of the communities an overview of the preliminary draft of the plan was presented, followed by a question and answer period. Formal statements for the record were then solicited. For those communities where formal testimony was not given, special attention was paid to the content and tone of the questions. Where appropriate, the questions were considered as a basis for modifying the draft plan in much the same manner as the formal testimony. The remainder of this appendix provides transcripts of these statements for the record. An index of those persons offering testimony is provided at the end of the appendix. IV—-O 751 oe WODINIDNPWNHHE H S65 be NH 12. 13% 14. SE 6. rPrWOOMOYIHDUAPWNHH HO. we . Wh Anchorage Gary Freedman Max Foster Thomas Starr Ronald Kusick Harry Wassink Peter Poray David Brook Mike Keech Robert Mone Terry McGuire Karen Houlser Bob Viter Talkeetna Peter Robinson Susan Killard Carrie Page Roberta Sheldon Joe Page Fairbanks Michael Economides Bob Noreen Robert Grove Gary Newman G. Walsh Jeff Weltson Jim Sheidler Robert Ramsey Marilyn Sigman Bonnie Rappaport David Stannard Kenai Ray Hodge Rick Zuber Larry Marsh LV—O.2 w Barrow No formal testimony Kodiak No formal testimony Juneau Brian Emeric Dillingham No formal testimony Sitka Joe Ashby John Murray Bethel No formal testimony Ketihikan No formal testimony Nome No formal testimony Kotcebue No formal testimony was was was was was was was given. given given. given. given. given. given. IV-0.3 1. Testimony: Anchorage MR. FREEDMAN: My name is Gary Freedman. My address is 79278 Cranberry Street, in Anchorage. And is that all the introduction that I need? I'm speaking for myself here tonight. And I guess as far as the plan, as I understand it, I'd like to address four of the five specific recommendations that are listed here and I assume that that's the crux of the plan that we should be dealing with, starting on page 13. The first -- It says, "To determine the attractiveness of hydropower project and fossil fuel power plants for satisfying future electrical generating requirements." And some of my comments on that would include that it seems like the main assessment of the attractiveness of hydropower projects compared to other power plants is in Figure 1l. And that seems to show right now that hydro is not very attractive as far as the plant projects. And I think that one of the main deficiencies in the plan might be that it doesn't project past the year 2000, and if the plan isn't supposed to do that as a long term energy plan, then I think there's a clear assessment that hydro is not going to be an effective alternative to any of the conventional sources. Also, I think there's -- A lot of these Figures need a lot more explanation to them. I took a look at the whole plan that was available at the library today. And I'm involved in doing this kind of report all the time as a consulting economic geologist and there's just a lot of assumptions here that aren't explained. For instance, on Figure 1l, it's really unclear as to are the cost of electricity and hydro, are they based on state financing? I mean conventional plants haven't been financed by the state, but hydro clearly is being considered for state financing. Is this financing being based on grants or loans? Will they pay their own way? What will the interest and, you know, et cetera be? So, I think that the assumptions on hydro, first is that the alternatives have to be more clearly explained. As well on the hydro, when you take into consideration Exhibit 10 in conjunction with Exhibit 11 -- Figure 1l, it's very clear that Exhibit 11 hasn't taken into account the factors shown in Exhibit 10 because that shows -- On Exhibit 11, you have the cost of hydro being from 10 to 20 cents per kilowatt hour. Whereas in Exhibit 10, right before it, you show that low demand scenarios for Tyee, for instance, are going to result in prices up to 36 cents per kilowatt. So clearly Exhibit 11 isn't taking into account 2 percent return on the Governor's proposal because that would be up to 54 cents in the year IV-0.4 2015. And clearly it's not taking into account Swan and Terror Lakes because the eventual high demand on those is well over 26 cents, well up to 26 cents per kilowatt hour. So I think that first, for Number 1, we need a lot more clarificaton and I hope that improvements in the plan will address those. For Number 2, "The state must move quickly to determine the economic viability of alternative energy resources to lower energy costs in the bush regions." Well, I think that alternative energy should be looked at not only for the bush but for the Railbelt region, and I would agree with the rest of that. Okay. That was my comment on 2. On 3, "The state should increase energy conservation in energy efficiency activities to meet near term energy needs." I wholeheartedly agree with that. I don't think the plan takes into account enough of the possibilities that we could address. Specifically, I think the plan should examine further the effectiveness of electricity load management. One thing that people aren't considering very much is we're all assuming that we're going to have to build more power plants to meet our electricity demands. And I think that pretty much assumes a constant, well the kind of rate structure we have now that doesn't encourage using electricity at off-peak times. We're assuming that we're going to have to meet peak demand as it is, you know, as peak demand sets now. And I think with alternative rate structures and a little bit more creativity that a management load system could reduce our need for excess generating capacities. Secondly, I think that -- I wholeheartedly agree with the plan suggesting that conservation in the meantime before we can add on other hydro or other sources of energy that conservation can meet our needs. But I would suggest that conservation at the rates of growth listed in the -- the large plan. I don't know if it's in the executive summary, where you did a projected growth in electricity, thermal and transportation demands, and I'm not sure how far you're projecting, but I think that conservation can probably meet all that projected growth if it's applied imaginatively through the year 2000, where this plan is addressing us now. And conservation was not one of the, you know, was not really brought up on any of these charts as far as comparing the cost of conservation, you know, to the other means of generating electricity. Fourth, "Existing state programs, state energy policies and programs must be assessed to assure that they effectively address the most critical state energy problems." That's a good one because I think that it specifically points at Susitna. And I think that what -- that what these charts have Iv-0.5 been showing us here is that hydro projects are going to encourage demand because they need high demand scenarios to pay for themselves, to in fact make electricity competitive or even desirable to conventional generating methods. All of these scenarios show that for us to get any kind of a return or to even be competitive with conventional generating methods they have to have high demand scenarios. I guess you're talking about a 4.1 percent growth per year. That's much more than what the projected growth for the Railbelt is. So I think the State should look a little bit closer at the appropriateness of energy policies and really cast a very careful eye on Susitna and all the hydro projects. Let's see, the fifth one was, "Next year's long term energy plan report must provide the strategic context for energy planing in the state." I'd agree with that. I'd like to just add a couple of other ideas. One thing that I don't think was addressed very carefully. The plan mentioned emergency preparedness, and I think one thing that should be considered with emergency preparedness is the appropriateness of large centralized with emergency preparedness is the appropriateness of large centralized projects that could be -- that is susceptible to failure, such as Susitna undoubtedly is, you know, would they -- What would happen if one of those went out? And the desirability of having all our eggs in one basket with one or two large hydro projects compared to having decentralized source of energy, local, smaller plants closer to thier in-use points. And kind of in conjunction with that, I think that the plan should look at the state encouraging and assessing new and developing technologies, alternative technologies that could be used for local decentralized generation of power. I think that concludes my comments on the plan. Thank you. (End of statement.) MR. FOSTER: My name is Max Foster. Do you wnat me to spell my name for the record? Right. My mailing address is SRA Box 79W, Anchorage. I am testifying for myself. I would like to say that I work for Municipal Light and Power. My job there is in rate analysis. I have also worked for the Alaska Public Utilities Commission, and there I worked in a study of 49 villages -- or pardon me, 48 villages, the AVEC System. I also worked for IV-0.6 R.W. Rutherford Associates. I worked in the area of power cost studies, load forecasts both on thermal and hydro projects. I would like to say that I find the study that has been presented here to be deficient in a number of aspects. I think that the body of the study fails to adequately document the sources of the data or where the numbers came from. I feel like a technical appendix illustrating the calculations that are made should be more carefully incorporated into the body of the study. I also think that it is a very biased approach to present strictly the present Governor's proposal as far as financing hydro project as fact, tending to mislead people as to the economic viability of one particular generation source or another. I think that as far as energy planning, there's really not much hard data presented here. I think what's presented here are a number of statements which has been shown by the audience's questions concerning the exhibits and statements in the project are somewhat provacative and questionable. I feel like the analysis contained in the report certainly is not justified by the high cost of the report. And I'm really kind of disappointed because I've seen a lot lower cost documents present the data in a lot more concise, lot more informative format. I seriously question whether we should continue producing annual state energy plans if they're going to be nothing more than unsubstantiated statements. Now I will admit that up until tonight I hadn't seen the appendix. I'm going to give it substantial review. I've already noticed that between the time that the data was obtained from Batelle some of the costs, particularly coal plants, have been increases substantially. I also feel that some questions as far as the technical methods in computing life cycle costs that are presented in the study. I think those things should be updated. I suppose I could go on all night about specifics in the study, but instead I think I'd rather conclude it there. (End of statement.) MR. STARR: My name is Thomas Starr. I live at 6967 Laser Drive. I am speaking on behalf of myself. In reviewing the long term energy plan the question keep reoccurring how did they come to the conclusions presented. IV-0.7 Certainly, from a political standpoint one can understand how the recommendations presented might complement the Administration's political position on energy. No. The real problem is how the conclusions and recommendations can be derived from actual energy data. Well, the document contains a paucity of basic data. Some clues can be derived from the report, specifically from the Foreward and pages I-1 and Exhibit I-1. This end-use type of analysis can be of considerable value, but it does present certain pitfalls for the technically unsophisticated. Since the appendices for the current document were at least unavailable till this afternoon, I will reference the '81 plan detailed data which is available. Here the energy balances show that the energy losses in refining, conversion and transportation of energy are deducted before end-use energy is stated; i.e., the 370 billion BTU primary energy use is reduced down to 204 -- trillion rather. 370 trillion BTU primary energy use is reduced down to 204 trillion BTUs at end-use, parenthesis, end-use per page I-2. Exhibit I-l also shows this and indicates that the input energy to electrical generation exceeds all other energy uses except transportation. If we compare these methodology with that used by the DOE in their DOE State Energy Report, document DOE/EIA0214. Here we see production and generation losses are carried on thorugh end-use and electrical losses are identified and correlated with the corresponding end-use. This of course is logical because the end-use requirements which engenders a large production loss must be held accountable for energy requirements both up and downstream. Thus, in the instant study major dependent energy uses are ignored. This methodological error results in what is known in data processing as GIGO. This methodological error can account for the rcommendations turning away from strategies which will result in maximum energy conservation. Thank you. (End of statement.) MR. KUSICK; My name is Ron Kusick. My address is 6008 Winding Way, Anchorage, Alaska and I am the former manager of the Anchorage Air Pollution Control Agency, and my current job is working for the Municipal Utilities as the environmental and regulatory compliance officer. But I am here testifying for myself this evening. I don'w want to continue to repeat what the other folks have said before me, but I would like to comment on this Exhibit 11. In my experience with not only the electrical generation but also with the aspects of the environment that is IV-0.8 associated with all types of generation, Exhibit 11 really is very confusing to me. You compare the price of coal-generated electricity versus gas-generated electricity to be just about the same, and then in 1990 only raise the price by perhaps a penny. My comment to this is if you can get it, build the plant today to come on line in 1990 for six or seven cents a kilowatt hour we better buy all we can get because that's a bargain. Particularly in light of the environmental standards that are impressed upon us today and that will undoubtedly be with us in the future. I guess the point I'm trying to say is that these Figures will lead people astray because they just don't -- don't represent the real world. We project hydro cost, but we only project cost of coal usage in 1990 by two or three cents. What's missing here is the cost of hydro generated power that we get today, which is relatively cheap. If we projected that by these current rates of two percent or six percent a year, certainly it wouldn't meet the projected hydro that we're looking at for the year 1990 or 2000 at between 10 and 20 cents a kilowatt hour. Enough said on Exhibit ll. One area that's concerned me at least for the last six months in my job in the Municipal Utilities is that almost daily articles from scientific journals are coming out with reference to the problems associated with conservation in indoor air pollution. In an established city, OSHA is responsible for the workplace and indoors for the workplace. The EPA and also all the way down to the local air pollution control agency is responsible for the outside air quality. But there is no agency specifically identified for the indoor air quality of a home. Okay. Right now, the State is promoting a program of conservation to a cost effective means of saving energy. And I agree with this basic philosophy. However, the State is pressing on in this direction without any regard for the research that's been coming out with regard to the air pollution science indoors. What are people doing to themselves if they button-up their house to levels which are, of air flow through the house which are lower than what's recommended by the EPA as an interim measure? I guess the point I'm getting at, that we may be getting ourselves into trouble here if we don't do our homework while we're looking at these types of conservation programs. So what I'm saying is that we should recommend that air pollution, indoor air pollution studies should be initiated by the appropriate agency along with the conservation program. And that when these audits are conducted that people are not led astray to tighten their house up so much that they're actually creating other problems in the pursuit of saving energy. IV-0.9 One final comment, just a comment on whether we should have decentralized hydro projects or centralized hydro porjects. Okay. Well, when we're looking at many hydro projects versus one, two or perhaps even three major proects, we also have to look at the other aspects that we're affecting when we go ahead and build a project if the project is to be built. There is some rivers and streams that are more environmentally acceptable to building these projects and some streams, you know, they should be left alone. So if we're going to concentrate our energy activity, we should concentrate it around projects that make it viably accessible, not only in terms of energy, but in terms of the other aspects of that project as well. (End of statement.) MR. WASSINK: Mr. Chairman, my name is Harry Wassink, W-A-S-S-I-N-K. I live at 1340 West 23rd, Apartment A, Anchorage. Mr. Chairman, you and your group have a very difficult task. You have to get across large amounts of extremely technical and highly involved material in a short time. I think you have already heard the questions as to the technical material and its merits. I would like to make several suggestions with regard to the presentation of your program and further programs. I ama consulting applied physicist. I generally am concerned with various things in arctic engineering, coastal engineering, and hydraulics. I wish to speak as a representative of the League of Women Voters and Natural Science. In particular, even adults do not have a 45-minute attention span when you are going through two dozen slides. That is not true -- I suggest you get that number of slides or graphs down to, say, a dozen and have comments and questions taken about every five minutes, so that you don't have a tremendous overlapping body of material and the questions can be asked as to what you are really trying to say, and then we don't have to go back through and determine what it is you were really trying to get at. I think that your audience will be much nicer and understand better and there will be less confusion. I would particularly like to compliment your speaker and the other speakers. They were very clear and -- of words, and their diction I thought was quite good. Thank you. (End of statement.) IV-0.10 MR. PORAY: My name is Peter Poray, P-O-R-A-Y. My address is General Delivery, Eagle River. I'm here representing myself. As I was looking through some of the charts that were here I went to Exhibit 5 and I saw that commercial and industrial was a very large slug of electrical demand. And I have been going back into the State body, Chapter 3, page 20 and I was able to find one paragraph referencing energy conservation. And this happened to be under the alternative thermal technologies, which I thought was an interesting place for it. But with commercial being such a high percentage of at least of electricity use, I was also wondering why it was -- why it received such scant attention in this particular planning document. And that's about it. (End of statement.) MR. BROOK: My name is David Brook, 1334 E. 12th. I'm speaking as a private citizen. First of all, I'd like to thank the Division for delaying the public hearing a week to allow us to look at the document before going on. One of the things I found as I was reading the full plan was that it was sometimes difficult to keep in mind which region was being referred to. Mixed together at times would be a discussion of the full state. At other times there would be one region, but other regions would not be referred to under the same option or problem or consideration. And sometimes I can imagine a person reading that and sort of getting the idea that one solution proposed sort of was a good idea for the whole state because the other options weren't -- the other regions weren't mentioned. And I would like to suggest that perhaps when regional discussion is going on that three columns be used and discussion for each region be there or that it clearly be indicated that other regions are not being discussed. Obviously, one can't do everything, but it should be clear what is being discussed. Secondly, I would like to emphasize what two earlier speakers have said about the lack of information on conservation. I appreciate the lack of raw data to deal with -- I don't feel that the report emphasized enough the potential, or the potential -- the need for more study about conservation as an option, both in space heating and electrical conservation. It's a promising technology, which was one of IV-0.11 the criteria that was being used. And it had some problems, which have also been emphasized, but I think the plan needs to sort of address it more openly. What are the lacks as well as what is the known. Finally, another of the goals that was suggested for a good project would be one that was consistent with other non-energy goals that may be defined. I was disappointed, for example, to find only once a reference to the potential benefit of renewable energy sources to local economies. A wood-gathering industry, a peat industry, wind, indigenous wind maintenance or manufacture. Only once was it ever even alluded to in the document and yet I think that policymakers throughout the State are going to be reading this document, and if that were pointed out a little more clearly where appropriate, it might have some effect on peoples' decisionmaking. Those are my comments. Thank you. (End of statement.) MR. KEECH: My name is Mike Keech. I'm a professional registered engineer in the State of Alaska. I've got basically a couple of comments, I guess. One, I wish we'd had more time for review. Once again, this seems to be a problem. I'm aware of the problems of reproduction and this type of thing. But it makes it kind of hard to comment with a full understanding. Two, I was pretty concerned that the energy plan in addressing the natural gas reserves did not indicate that these reserves should not be used in ever-increasing amounts. That there is a question as far as their, new reserves that will be discovered. I realize they may be, but generally in plans you do not consider things that are wishful thinking or birds in the bush. The other comment I would like to make is I do not believe that the Governor's refinancing plan of return should be used. This is the peoples' money. I feel that it's buying the dam, and if the people have to pay back for their investment, I think it amounts to a similar situation as to a tax where we're paying ourselves back for something, you know, the purpose of this wealth of oil money should be turned into a renewable type value. That's all I want to comment on now. (End of statement.) IV-0.12 MR. MONE: My name is Robert Mohn, 4740 New Castle Way. I'd like to comment on Exhibit 11 to some degree. I realize that you stated that the costs that are presented shouldn't be given too much attention, but clearly Exhibit 11 is important. A lot of people have focussed on that today. I find it confusing from one point of view because it lumps all the regions of the state together, and not all the regions have the same cost of various hydro projects and the same alternatives, so I think it's a bit too general if you keep the same format. Secondly, the cost per kilowatt hour that you presented during the presentation I think I remember seeing was between 5.2 cents per kilowatt hour and 17.4 cents per kilowatt hour for these hydro projects. And your band, presented in your Exhibit 11 goes from 10 to 20, so there's some inconsistency there now. It should be pointed out that the hydro costs in your cost table of the hydro projects, with the one exception of Bradley Lake, all include transmission. Whereas, the thermal plans do not. And in some cases, that isn't important. But especially in the coal case, if it is based at Nenana, certainly that is a major discrepancy. Also I would like to point out that the fixed charge rate that you've used in the calculation of the annual cost of the various alternatives, you've indicated that it's based upon a 7 percent inflation rate. And yet the rest of the analysis is done in current dollars, ignoring inflation. That introduces an inconsistency which is misrepresents the effects of inflation on the various alternatives. And one general comment, I was confused throughout the report by the interchangeability of the terms price and costs. To me, price means what you're actually going to have to pay given some financing arrangements, and costs relate more to the value of the goods and services going into various alternatives. And there seems to be a switching back and forth, at least some confusion. Thank you. (End of statement.) MR. MCGUIRE: My name is Terry McGuire. I live at 10-A-71 Kamashack Bay Circle. And I really didn't desire to represent the Alaska Power Authority here this evening. But one of your Iv-0.13 slide exhibit, which reflected Exhibit 4-8 in the main report refers to updated by interviews with the APA personnel. And I would like to suggest that before the slide is presented again that the consultants consult with the Alaska Power Authority possibly tomorrow morning to get updated information. There is one primary inconsistency that I noticed relative to the price of gas, or the cost of gas, in south central Alaska. It's forecast in the Batelle Report that in the year 2000 it would be approximately $4.25 to $4.50 per MCF. And in your report, or at least on the slides, it was reflected as approximately $2.75 per MCF. Relative to Exhibit 3 and Exhibit 4 on the household residential electricity expense and the residential thermal energy expense that it is appropriately disaggregated amongst the various regions of the study, the various study areas. I think it might be appropriate to try to analyze what the relationships are between what is causing the differential in thermal and residential electricity costs within those regions. And just a comment relative to the comparison of equivalent energy costs for selective conservation and use technologies. It's referenced to $50 per cord for Skagway, Southeast Alaska. And I think it might be appropriate to have a couple of other locations also cited. Because I think about the cheapest you can find here in Anchorage is $110 to $120 per cord. And if you're not fit and able to chop wood yourself and you invest in a wood stove, I think you would almost paying at least diesel oil heating rates. Thank you. (End of statement.) MS. HOULSER: My name is Karen Houlser. I live at SRA -- or SR-3177-K, Wasilla. I have just one quick major concern, and that is that we seem to play solar down so much in the state, and I think there's great potential for it. One of the exhibits dealing with -- Where was it? Exhibit 6. They talk about wind and hydro, but never talk about solar. And granted, there's not a lot of information, not a lot £ data, but I do think it's something that we ought to consider looking at. And passive solar or even solar cells for electrical generation. That's just one quick major concern of mine. (End of statement.) Iv-0.14 MR. VITER: My name is Bob Viter, and I live at 1911 Jarvis Road. And it seems to me that from what you said tonight that you and three other people are composing a board which is going to make a decision in a short time on a major portion of our state energy plan, which is the Susitna Project, and I have to say it's a tough job. Because you're working with -- Well, agreeing with the first person who was up here, very few facts, especially from the State, as to what the financing for that is going to be and as to what the rate structure will be for that project as for utility consumers and for lower consumers versus people who use a lot of electricity. And I just don't see how you can make a decision on the project until the State comes through with some decisions as to their financing. And also, it seems that this study that we're hearing tonight is based on the old Batelle study. And in once questioning the people from Batelle, I asked if conservation was used in their study, and they replied that it was too hard to estimate conservation, and so that it was not used very much in their study. And I'd like to see anything that is done in the future or decisionmaking coming from you address conservation much more than it is in the Batelle study. That's Ley. (End of statement.) 2. Testimony: Talkeetna MR. ROBINSON: My name is Peter Robinson and I live in Trapper Creek, and I object to the Susitna Dam being built because I think it's too big a project. I think we ought to build smaller, more regional energy sources, more diversified rather than one big plant on the river. And I think it ought to be for a smaller amount of energy use than projected. Like with the Susitna Dam, I think there'll be way too much power produced, more than we need. And then we won't have to search ways to use up the energy, which I think is not right. That's ‘aly (End of statement.) MS. KILLARD: My name is Susan Killard, Box 101, Talkeetna, Alaska. And I am against the large Susitna Dam Project. I favor smaller dams because I fear that if we put all of our eggs in one bsket, as it would be with the Susitna Project, that there's a potential hazard. LV—O od) I fear that it would be a strategic point that could be either hit by an earthquake, or I think that we should think of a terrorist element. I think it would be very tragic if our whole main part of our state population could be traumatized if the dam were blown-up by a terrorist or if it was crippled by an earthquake. I think those points should be thought of very heavily before any big decisions are made. I think if we kept our power sources diversified, I think that that would be -- either one of those things would not bother it very much. And I think that that's one point that I think should be brought up very strongly, and I think that probably by area each area has a power source that would be best for their area. Because I know like Palmer, -- probably wind power, coal power and I think those should be stressed. And I think throughout the whole state that each area would benefit more from that than if that one big Susitna Project was built. Thank you. (End of statement.) MS. PAGE: My name is Carrie Page, and my address is Box 1477, Talkeetna. And as one of the gentlemen said tonight, hydropower used to be cheap and they're now expensive in terms of capital construction and they're also very expensive in terms of the impact on the communities that are nearby. And as a resident of Talkeetna, a town that I dearly love the way it is at this point, I would urge the legislature to look into options to the Susitna Project such as smaller hydroprojects, wind, solar, other kinds of energy technology that may come about in the next ten years that hasn't even been developed yet that could be a lot less expensive and definitely impact our little town of Talkeetna a lot less. (End of statement.) MS. SHELDON: My name is Roberta Sheldon. I live in Talkeetna, Alaska. I believe there are other energy development plans that are superior to building the Susitna Project. I believe in small hydro, scattered small hydro which does not include the destruction and devastation that the Susitna Project would. We are presently circulating a petition in Talkeetna now that reads: "We, the undersigned urge the Alaska State Legislature to seriously consider the following options to the Susitna River hydroproject. These options can meet the growing energy needs of the Railbelt Area quickly and more econonically. In addition, these options will have less negative impact upon the quality of life for the people of the IV-0.16 upper Susitna River Valley. And those options are the Chackachama Lake Hydroproject with a 480 megawatt hydro potential; the Bradley Lake Hydroproject, 135 megawatt hydro potential; Cook Inlet Tidal Power Development; wind generation facilities at five identified sites in the (inaudible) area; Cook Inlet Natural Gas Peaking Generation; and the Boluga and Heely coalfields with unlimited potential." Energy development in Alaska should not be approached solely on the economic level. Impacts, both social and physical, should be also considered. Thank you. (End of statement.) MR. PAGE: My name is Joe Page, and I'm a resident of Talkeetna, Box 1477. I would encourage the state to pursue diverse energy forms rather than to sink all of their eggs into one basket. I'd also like to encourage the state to focus the energy sources near the communities that are going to use them. For example, I resent the fact that Anchorage and Fairbanks are going to impose their standards and their needs for energy on our community of Talkeetna. I have chosen to live in Talkeetna because I like the way that it is. I think people who live in Anchorage, I respect them and I encourage them to live in Anchorage. I enjoy going to Anchorage. But I don't want Anchorage to come up to Talkeetna and make Talkeetna turn into another large boom town. My understanding with the Susitna Project, and specifically is there will be a boom town of about 15,000 people North of Talkeetna. The effects of having that many people in that area will be devastating to both the communities as we know them now up here in this remote area and also the wildlife and all that entails. I do encourage small scale hydropower and for the Anchorage Bowl, I believe Lake Chackachama would be a wise choice for them. My understanding is that the intertie will be going through, and Fairbanks will be able to tap into some of the small scale hydro that are available in the Anchorage Bowl area. So there are lots of options open to us. Let's just not focus on one until we've Figured out what is available and what will not affect peoples' lives. Alaska has a long history of being the last frontier, and I'm afraid that that whole idea will be shutoff if we just start taking out the little IV-0.17 communities like Talkeetna, Trapper Creek, and other places like that. Thank you. (End of statement.) 3. Testimony: Fairbanks MR. ECONOMIDES: I am Michael Economides, 702 Drive. And I am a Professor of Petroleum Engineering at the University of Alaska. One of the major factors concerning any energy planning is really what we call decision analysis under uncertainty. And in fact, several of the questioners today touched on the subject of how -- how are we about the 0.2 percent or 6 percent raise in real dollars. The fact of the matter is that we do not. And there is a single factor today that, in fact, effects worldwide oil prices. One of them which is, I think, a periodic type of a function -- It was mentioned already by the speaker -- is certainly worldwide economic recession. It may actually produce gluts or shortages whenever that recession elapses. However, there is another factor and that is nothing to do with economics, except only indirectly, and that is a country called Saudi Arabia. One of the things that I'm astonished in repeated studies people have a tendency to ignore the fact that there is a nation today in the world that has approximately 7 million people and is producing 10 million barrels of oil per day. Their needs are hardly 400,000 barrels of oil per day. So under the presumption, and it is a gross presumption, that we will have a constant supply of oil -- this is worldwide right now -- from a nation such as Saudi Arabia who has absolutely no need for a flow of oil as such, then we can go ahead and make plans like to ones that were presented today. The presumption, in other words, is that Saudi Arabia will continue to produce as such, and that no other political, revolutionary or -- call it revolution such as the one that has tormented Iran for the past three years, will occur in Saudi Arabia. And that is a major issue. In other words, uncertainty in the price of oil is probably the highest uncertainty confronting today any economic parameter. An with that in mind, really what I would like to say that I could personally draw no conclusion whatsoever on the price of petroleum products, but only for the short term benefit, but most certainly for the long term period. (End of statement. ) IV-0.18 MR. NOREEN: My name is Bob Noreen and I'm affiliated with Alaska Energy Auditing Services and the Director of Northern Energy. I feel that what we've got in the Legislature today is a political fight over an energy conservation program that has -- at least in the Fairbanks area has produced not only savings in energy, but has stimulated some jobs both in the auditing services and in the secondary gains that are being made in the second largest town and compare the cost of heating, which for residents this month is probably running more than half of their mortgage payments or their rental payments. And I think we ought to lobby for this program and the current trend right now is that it'll cut it out in July, 55 people instead of getting jobs will lose their jobs in the Division of Energy and Power Development. And I think instead of stimulating business in Alaska, it'll stifle it. I'm opposed to anyone that tells me that the Alaska wealth is making 16 percent interest in the Bank of America. It doesn't do anything for the people of Fairbanks. (End of statement.) MR. GROVE: Robert Grove, Box 81550, College. As it states right here in page 16 in the beginning of the plan, "Energy audit and conservation programs can reduce residential thermal losses up to 40 percent in an average household. Savings would range between $400-$800." Well, I built -- I had an energy audit and even built a pretty energy-efficient house myself, superinsulated, and had an energy audit done and saved a lot more money than I even dreamed that I would. And I used to think that I knew what was going on down in Juneau. And after reading the papers today I was totally confused. And I can't believe, even from a political standpoint, that the state legislatures would want to do in an energy audit program that's been probably the most popular program that's come along in years. And all I'd like to say is that for whatever reason that you have decided -- I should say they have decided -- to do away with the Audit Program and to axe the budget for Division of Energy and Power, it just -- It seems totally ridiculous to me that now that the Division of Energy and Power has finally gotten hands on to some of the problems that are going on as far as the energy situations in the state, I can't understand why they keep having plans drawn up year after year, and then IV-0.19 they're just shot down four or five years later because of somebody's political whim or some power play. And that's pretty much all I have to say. (End of statement.) MR. NEWMAN: My name is Gary Newman, SR-51234. I think I've figured out for everybody who seems to be puzzled as to why they're axing out energy conservation and in fact, the entire Division of Energy as it stands now. What they're trying to do is to assure that there will be demand for all of the power that -- that we'll be buying when we pay $5-10 billion for Susitna. If in the year 2010 we'll still only be using 75 percent of Susitna's power output, there's that extra 25 percent. Now, of course, we have to encourage energy, too, by maybe getting an aluminum smelting plant down on the Kenai, or something like that. But these are the way to legislature seems to be looking at things and I think that, you know, if we're going to have an impact there's gonna have to be a little more consolidation and information spread out as to what's really taking place. And it seems absolutely absurd to me to proceed on the course that the legislature's doing. And this may not be a political forum, but that seems to be the direction that's taking too with recent news. That's all I have to say. (End of statement.) MR. WALSH: G. Walsh, Alaska, Alaska Auditing Services... I too support continuation of the residential conservation program because I think it's a good program, saves a lot of energy. people here in town and wherever it can be applied out in the bush. Also, I feel that there should be some type of not minimum building standards, but at least a minimum of insulation standards in new housing, especially in bush villages where they're building really substandard housing. If we're going to build new housing why build substandard housing. Also, to address the requirements for the Fuel Assistance Program for people who can't afford to purchase fuel and they're assisted by the Program. I think that one of the requirements of that Program is that they have an audit done on IvV-0.20 that building and that it be weatherized to conserve fuel that we are all paying for. (End of statement.) MR. WELTSON: My name is Jeff Weltson and my address is 143 Clarkson, Apartment 60, And I wanted the Long Term Energy Plan in the future to look at the Cook Inlet gas situation in more detail. The indications that I have found from my reading is that if an export market doesn't develop Cook Inlet natural gas that there should be a large supply of Cook Inlet gas into the future. And I think that's an issue that has to be looked at much further. In addition, from what I understand, if decontrol of natural gas occurs nationwide that that'll be an additional reason that people in the lower 48 will not want to pay the high transportation cost of Alaska gas because they'll have additional supplies in the lower 48. And thus, that means that possibly Cook Inlet natural gas could be even more plentiful in the future. An so I think that's two issues that have to be really addressed in more detail by the A third issue I think needs of natural gas distribution for natural gas is really clean and Long Term Energy Plan. to be addressed is the benefits the Fairbanks and area. Since you can achieve high efficiency use rates in conversion if it's think that's a possible benefit be looked at in more detail. directly used in the home, I -- beneficial move that should I also think the Long Term Energy Plan should look at the job creation characteristics of building large hydro projects, medium hydro projects and small ones because as has been shown so far, if the Susitna Project is built all in one short timeframe it may be a big magnet for job importing from the outside and that the actual percentage of Alaskans getting jobs in that project may be much smaller than if smaller or medium-sized projects are built one after another where the labor requirements for any one project are smaller and that smaller labor requirement can be met by a higher percentage Alaskans in state. of And the final thing I think should be looked at in more detail by the Long Term Energy Plan is the fact that energy costs themselves are not the major reason electricity costs going up in the Railbelt. The past rate increase at Golden Valley was due mostly to interest expense and over-expansion are IV-0.21 and the same could be said for in Anchorage where they're asking for a 50 percent rate increase. That is all due to high interest charges and not to energy inflation. So as it stands now, actual fuel costs, the actual energy put into a kilowatt hour produced is only 30-50 percent of that cost and the rest of it is administration and interest expense. And I think that should be addressed in energy policy too, is how to get at those costs that are really causing our electricity costs to go up. (End of statement.) MR. SHEIDLER: My name is Jim Sheidler and I live at -- or my mailing address is P.O. Box 8117, College. I guess I'd like to reiterate some of the things that Jeff said and add to them. I think that -- I concur that the secondary benefits of the various dam projects and generation schemes need to be looked at very carefully. I also think that in the question of examining alternatives, and particularly in the conservation area, that the price, the cost or the capital costs could be cut in ways without the state subsidizing and industry. But were the state to make a commitment on its own part to build superinsulated buildings, to -- (Brief interruption. ) That, for example, if the State made a commitment where it was feasible to use alternative generating sources or alternative sources for electricity, that by the State making that committment for a twenty-year basis it might provide sufficient market that an industry within the state would build, which would provide jobs and which would cut down on the costs of those things within the state. And I think that that isn't a State subsidy which people seem to be fairly leery of now, and yet something like that might well cut the costs on some of these things in the conservation area. And I also concur with Jeff, I think that one of the things should be addressed, and particularly since the focus of the study seems to be on the expense of energy options that the question of refinancing existing and perhaps future utility debt might be a way to immdiately address some of the high costs of particularly electrical generation. (End of statement.) IV-0.22 MR. RAMSEY: Yes. My name's Robert Ramsey. I was born in Alaska and my interests mostly lie in employment and development of Alaska, the proper development. And I'll keep it short by saying looking at an overall cost of building projects you have to look at this money as not being just thrown away. It's also put back into the economy. It helps to build other jobs besides just, you know, what we've go going now. And to build Alaska you have to have this power available. Right now, it my estimates are right, I believe our GVA and MUS are close to their maximum power output right now. An we do need more power. And going for it now, you will be able to have it then. And that's all I've got to say. Thank you. (End of statement.) MS. SIGMAN: My name is Marilyn Sigman. My address is SR Boz 20144Z, here in Fairbanks. And I haven't had the time to review the former editions of this plan, but as presented tonight it's been a somewhat conventional economic analysis, although it has been applied to the very unique situations we do have in Alaska. (End of statement.) It does fail, as many economic analyses do, to address the cost to other resources by construction energy project development. Specifically, to the commercial, recreation and subsistance fisheries and to wildlife habitats not only from the projects, but there will be associated transportation systems. I think this is a very important factor in terms of desirability of our long term options as a state, is making decisions on these options particularly when weighed against preserving some of the uniquely Alaskan lifestyles we have now. The various technologies have very different types of impact and levels of impact and these costs are usually ignored. Later, when the projects are actually constructed, there's a very great reluctance then to add-in these costs which the users of the energy must bear. So I would like to see this addressed in the front end portion of the planning for these projects. The plan should address the economics of the choices and tradeoffs for consideration prior to policy-setting. IV-0.23 I'd like to just also concur with the other individuals who have expressed concern about cutting the Division of Energy and Power, particularly the Energy Conservation Program. I think you have to consider the small investment that would be required by the state for substantial individual savings on fuel consumption and costs versus these very large capital costs which will be required for the large projects and which will require the encouragement of high energy use. As presented tonight, the only other alternative is to raise the cost to the small number of users that exist and to keep a very low demand for the excess capacity. I consider it very irresponsible of the legislature to cut this program concerning our high energy costs. Thank you. (End of statement.) MS. RAPPAPORT: My name is Bonnie Rappaport, and I live at 939 Border Street. I have two points to make. One is a recommendation that the state look at energy in its total form, not just alternate sources. But examine what in terms of BTU is required to sustain the current level of activities throughout the state and then derive what is available in this state in terms of BTU, and from there also determine what is economically removable or usable. And that needs to be considered in terms of physical accessibility, transportation infrastructures, distribution infrastructures and the like. From that, there should be derived a net surplus or deficit in terms of energy requirements in the state. And only then, understanding what is required and what we do have and can use, can we determine the best way of using our resources in terms of substitution or just placing a higher value of specific types of fuel. Now on point two, earlier the cost of diesel and heating oil had been an issue. And someone in the audience had raised a very good point in that the No. 2 diesel in Fairbanks is not the same as No. 2 diesel in Seattle. Diesel here has a higher ratio of costlier components, more or less kerosene and others, which allow a pour point which is necessary here in the Interior. So when people are comparing diesel No. 2 here to diesel No. 2 in Seattle, they're comparing apples to oranges. Also, another point that needs to be made within the cost of diesel in the area or heating fuel in the area is also that IV-0.24 there's obviously a distribution step between consumer and any refiner, and that steps must be considered as a factor in the overall costs. MR. STANNARD: My name is David Stannard. I live at 1009 O'Connor. And I'd like to reinforce the portions of the Report here which take care to represent the -- not so much the urban opportunities in energy planning, but the individual and particular the renewable energy source of energy. That when these projections are made I think it should be recognized very clearly that we -- for instance, our testimony here has been essentially that of the urban juggernaut that we are representing a king of expectation that we brought from the lower 48 and that it represents that it will have very powerful social impact. Just this plan itself will -- is based mainly on the growth of an urban kind of life and urban expectations. And I think it's not demonstrated yet that Alaska has developed itself in relation to its own landscape. And that's for the future and it's very important then for a report to include in the projection that kind of individual and isolated energy use potential which would represent any kind of individual homesteading intent in portions of the state which are not developed in a community sense. That's one thing now. To be able to do that, I think, it's important then to have in the planning available to the State a detailed as possible renewable energy density map prepared so that -- for instance, in land distribution efforts, in particular, that it's possible both on the part of the government agencies that are preparing land for distribution and also on the part in particular of the citizens who are attempting to strike out into an individual development of the state, that then there is definite physical projection of -- in terms of mapping, of the renewable energy density factors for any given location. And that is something which has been developed in local techniques, and I think that it would be very well for the Division to embark on a deliberate program for developing such density maps on a statewide basis, and in particular to make it available for land distribution purposes so that we can get some kind of sense in the efforts to move out and develop on an individual basis different portions of the landscape in Alaska which are not there now, but do it in a more rational basis. That is in relation to the carrying power of the land in any particular place in the state, rather than in terms of some kind of pre-established urban expectation from the lower 48. (End of statement.) IV-0.25 Testimony: Kenai MR. HODGE: Ray Hodge, from Kenai. One thing that must be addressed as far as assessing true costs on a project like this is even if we can't include environmental costs that we can't see along down the ways, we can include all of the construction costs. And I think no power project in this state should be funded to sell power at below actual costs of that project. When you subsidize power costs it tends towards waste and it starts a cycle there that you'll never catch up to. Here we have an opportunity to apply the true cost of the power which will lead people toward conservation and help correct peoples' attitudes as far as the use of their power. We use power on a 9-to-5 basis. We need to find a way to use this power much more efficiently. And we won't be able to do that by paying subsidized power costs. The true costs of the project are the ones that should be paid by the consumer. The consumer is the only one that will actually -- has anything to do with conservation, and he won't conserve unless he pays true costs of the power. (End of statement.) MR. ZUBER: My name is Rick Zuber. I'm from Sterling. And I have to agree with him because the closer you are to the power source the more aware you are of it and the use of it. Take for instance this room that we're in right now, we're using probably twenty or thirty times the amount of electricity that's needed to sit here in this room and talk to each cther. And if you look at this building on the whole, it may run into the thousands of times of power, and it's ridiculous. You get out there and you'll see, you know, giant spotlights illuminating everything and it's crazy. But when you get to the point of wind and solar and things like this and you are aware of where this is coming from, you watch it. And you just automatically conserve. We have a wind and a solar hybrid system at home. That's all we have for power and it works beautifully. But we don't have an electric backscratcher or, you know, any of those other things that you don't really need. We just have lights and things that we need and not -- We kind of dropped back on our desires and wants more. I think that's what is gonna have to happen. (End of statement.) IV-0.26 MR. MARSH: My name is Larry Marsh. I'm from Soldotna, Alaska. I think it's vitally important that the construction of any power facilities, the funding for that construction, the circumstances should adequately reflect true economic reality. Out right grants and subsidies are not in the state's long term best interests. Power generation, and so on, those facilities should be judged on the basis, the same basis that private businesses are based. And therefore, economic considerations for the building of those power plants should be the same as those that are required for private industry. (End of statement.) Testimony: Barrow No formal testimony was given. Testimony: Kodiak MR. SIMMONS: The report basically says that the state is going to allow private enterprise to work out the transportation problems. The market will decide what kind of air planes. The market will decide what kind of automobiles. But the state will let that all go and instead will just work on other things, such as insulating houses. And I would suggest that, on the contrary, people can Figure out how to put storm windows on and insulation in the attics, but major improvements such as expanding the rail lines or extending the ferry system is something that the state can do and individuals cannot do. And so it might be more appropriate for the state to handle the big things and leave individuals handle small things, rather than vice versa. On page 2-22 of the Report, it was reported that the solar cells were of marginal value because the cost-per-million BTU ranges up to $25 per million BTU. That's interesting because the cost of electricity in Kodiak now is $50-per-million BTU, which indicates that either there was a typographical error on that item or they were looking at Anchorage electrical prices and that's not appropriate to make a value judgment that solar cells are not cost effective based on Anchorage prices. There's lots of others of us out here. IV-0.27 I'd like to comment that it appears that the Rutherford Waste Heat Study of three years ago has not been implemented and I wonder if the people who are doing this study are in even aware of some of the suggestions. For instance, the small scale coke generation annd the small scale matiching of electrical generation to electrical demand were investigated to some extent and some recommendations made. Nothing seems to have been done about that. This Report does not address wave power feasibility, though it does address tidal power feasibility where tidal power is very, very capital intensive, wave power is less so. It seems that this Report is done very much on a statewide level manipulating data that has already been gathered with comparatively little input from regional areas and smaller and medium-sized communities. Whether or not something's feasible for Anchorage has very little to do with whether or not it's feasible in a town like Kodiak, Dillingham, Bethel, Nome, Kotzebue and more attention ought to be paid to the rural areas. In the larger urban areas, loan officers at banks are not aware of the need for conserving energy, consequently they do not approve higher loan values for energy-efficient houses. Appraisers do not appraise energy-efficient houses at a higher value. What they do is say that the house will cost more to build but that it will have a lower value than what is actually costs. Consequently, a homeowner has to have a significantly larger down payment to buy an energy-efficient house than is necessary to buy an energy-inefficient house. That occurs even in Kodiak this month. Perhaps the state should provide either education to loan officers and appraisers, or -- and a lesser desirability, provide minimum standards. I'm not very often in favor of minimum standards, but something needs to be done to at least case new houses to be built more energy-efficiently. The state energy audit program itself does nothing to encourage that because it doesn't have any provision for auditing plans, and so there is no -- no provision for someone who's thinking about having a house built in the next four months or the next six months to find out what is known about energy conservation unless he happens to have an energy analysis done for the house that he's living in and squeezes some answers out of the auditor, another place that the state could make a significant change at virtually no cost. The other thing I think should be included in the Report is an evaluation of how extensive hydropower doesn't result in energy conservation, but instead results in extended energy use. It's been pointed out that for many of the hydro projects their capacity would be much greater than the current demand. IV-0.28 One of the results of that is to price the energy low and encourage people to use more so that your efficiencies of scale come better into place. That is exactly counter to energy conservation and we see an example of that problem having developed in the Pacific Northwest where their cheap hydropower has encouraged industrialization and extensive electric heating of homes to the point that this tremendous demand for electricity now requires that they build more electrical generating plants which have very low efficiencies compared to onsite combustion of fuel. So I think that should also be considered in the final report. And that's the end of my list. VOICE: There might be one thing you might, you mentioned earlier in the discussion tonight, and that's the kerosene. MR. SIMMONS: Oh. The Report indicates that kerosene space heaters can be more economical than central heat. That would only be true in a large house because when you heat one or two rooms of a small house you may be heating the whole house. The other thing is that kerosene as distributed now is very expensive, at least twice as much and perhaps four times as much as diesel fuel, and a 20 percent improvement in combustion efficiency doesn't counteract that 100 percent to 200 percent increase in the cost of the raw materials. (End of statement.) Testimoy: Juneau MR. EMERIC: My name is Brian Emeric. I live at 369 South Franklin, in Juneau, Alaska. I think that there are three important concepts that need to be approched here. And one is the priority of problems. Money is the number one issue and I think we ought to look at the fact that we have resources that are about to run out or will be running out; even if it's twenty or forty years down the line, it's something we need to address today. The misconception that lifestyles have to change because of energy conservation, I think that's an important fallacy that's been portrayed over the years and needs to be cleared up, anda Report like this is a good opportunity to do that. The third item is large scale numbers, generalized, tends to lead you away from the real problem and the solutions on an individual basis. The community needs are somtimes greater and completely different than what the, quote, "State-wide" needs IV-0.29 would be. Obiously, because of environmental reasons throughout the state and our own transportation and energy availability. One other comment would be that the numbers used that are extrapolated on a statewide basis are brought up from individuals, taken into generalizations, and then somehow back into individual needs again. And I think a lot is lost in that process. Thank you. (End of statement.) Testimony: Dillingham No formal testimony was given. Testimony: Sitka MR. ASHBY: My name is Joe Ashby. I've lived in Sitka thirty-some years and I'm very interested in this energy problem because I intend to build a new house in the next few years. So just from an ordinary citizen standpoint I feel this is a very good meeting, very well laid out, and I think the state is to be commended for funding it or instigating it. Thank you. (End of statement.) MR. MURRAY: I'm John Murray, General Delivery, Sitka, Alaska. And I've got a few comments, tonight's program. In Southeast, I think we have a real option with wood. Everything's kind of wrapped up in fifty-year contracts with the Forest Service and so forth and the state doesn't have that much timber in Southeast. But I can see if they have small -- the Forest Service could cut loose on some small timber sales for energy use, or there ought to be some way to let people use more wood. I know in Sitka the amount of wood use increased dramatically in the last two years and I'd say it's going to continue. Most of the way we get our logs, I would say a majority of them, the logs, are plucked off the beach and we get them -- It's the waste from the mill, you know, ones that get away from them. Well, that's all well and good, but I think more people would use wood and I think it's a good alternative except for the pollution factor. And I think if the Forest Service could work something out for us, it would work really good, especially if it could be a small business-type thing IV-0.30 where somebody with maybe a tug, and they get a bandy machine and a piece of land. They could lease a piece of land from the State to bring wood up there and let it dry out or whatever. And let people cut it, or they could cut it, whatever would be feasible. But I think it actually is a good alternative, especially in the Southeast. I'm not completely familiar with other parts of Alaska. I know South Central has some logging and woods, and it might be an alternative there. But I think in Southeast it definitely is, especially maybe in smaller communities, Angoon and so forth there where diesel fuel is costing a lot of money. And my other interest is rate structure. It makes a lot of sense to me to have a rate structure that promotes conservation. I don't know all the ins and outs of it, but it just makes a lot of sense to me. I think conservation's a good way to go all around, and I'd like to see it worked into any kind of proposal or I'll try to influence my House of Representatives representative right now from Sitka to support House Bill 758. And I just think it's a good idea. -- in here talking today brought up some interesting points about dams and use of energy and so forth. And I don't know. I think we've got a long way to go to Figure it out, but I definitely think conservation's one of the -- ways to go. And another thing that makes sense to me is smaller scale energy operations where -- I think Susitna is big times and it means big times -- more than likely draw in big times in industry. And I don't know. Then yeah, again, it's environmental problems for the fish and I don't know, maybe there's smaller type of things are better than going into it, putting all your eggs in one basket. I'm not that familiar with it, but I just wish on Susitna they really think it out, and you know, spend the money they need to do to really Figure out where the fish runs are and what the impacts are going to be on the environment. You know, see if it really is a worthwhile deal or do we have alternatives for smaller scale electrical generation. I think hydro's a good way to go, but maybe not in the large scale as Susitna. That's about all I've got and appreciate the program. I thought it was really good. fMThanks. (End of statement.) Testimony: Bethel No formal testimony was given. IV-0.31 Testimony: Ketchikan No formal testimony was given. Testimony: Nome No formal testimony was given. Testimony: Kotzebue No formal testimony was given. IV-0.32