Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
1981 State of Alaska Long Term Energy Plan, August 1981
‘~ 1981 STATE OF ALASKA LONG TERM ENERGY PLAN SS Appendices Prepared For Jay Hammond Governor x By Department of Commerce and Economic Development Division of Energy and Power Development Charles Webber Clarissa Quinlan Commissioner Director August 1981 % ¥ " ro — — — + APPENDIX A FLOW DIAGRAM OF ALASKA’S LONG-TERM ENERGY PLAN Historical Con- version and Trans- formation Technologies* Historical Uses of Energy by the Energy Sector* ALASKA’S LONG-TERM ENERGY PLAN — FLOW DIAGRAM Regional Policies, Priorities, and Goals Budget Timing & Magnitude Regional Evaluation Supply vein and ae Con- vein and ae and Trans- formation Tech. CONTRAINTS- Regional Supply Economic Projected Expansion Model Social Energy Centralized Environmental Prices State Evaluation Regional Demand Forecasting Model* Economic and Demographic Regional Growth Model* Evaluation Demand Statewide Policies, State/Regional Energy Supply Schedule State/Regional Demand Projections Recommended Agency Actions Recommended Fiscal/Tax Changes Recommended Institutional and Legal Action or Changes ALASKA’S LONG-TERM ENERGY PLAN *Completed 1981 Plan Exogeneous Energy Prices* Priorities, and Goals Conservation Potential* Energy Con: Technologies Historical Energy End- Use (By Sectors)* Regional Policies, Priorities and APPENDIX B REGIONAL ALASKAN ENERGY BALANCES Preliminary Data RFGTONAL ALASKAN ENERGY BALANCES -- 1979 ‘ (in billion btu, 16**9) ALASKA TOTAL | FUEL 1 Solids ! Crude 1 ! Gas ! Hydro 1 Elect | Total 1 ! | ! 1 | ! ! 1 (1) Production ! 15381 | 2965714 | 5 3747588 | \ \ ! be ee ae 1 (2) Imports ! = 1 27965 | 51637 | = ! ae ' - | +79692 | ! | | ! 1 ! | ! 1 (3) Exports 1 = 1 -2848985 | -43311 | -66098 | + ' = -2958395 | ! ! | ! ! ! 1 , 1 (4) Stek/reinj ' -5a | - ' - ! -525778 | - 1 - | 525930 | | | | | | 1 T= aad + + + = == i (4S) tre 1 15321 | 144693 | R326 | 169509 | $116 | = | 342965 | 1 ! | | 1 | | | ae 7 f an ; 1 (6) Electricity | 19457 | - ! -19085 | 40464 -49619 | ! | | 1 1 | T 1 1 (7) EB. Prod/tran | - ! -12649 | -3139 | -S2RAAR | -7268R | 1 1 ! ! 1 1 (8) Refineries ! - 1 7131994 | 124765 | 2558 | -9787 | 1 1 1 1 ! 1 (9) Stat. Dif. 1 - | - | -3 1 Die aS Sar ce St I 1 1 (1A) TRC ! 4864 <i | 210868 | ! | Mee as ! 1 (11) Industry 1 62 1 ~ 29TS: } 57494 | 65052 | i 1 1 ! pp = ! (12) Trans ! = ! aases | 1 | a os 1 (13) Comm t 825 | | 12355 | | j | | tr + as ae 1 (14) Marine ! - 1 i 9315 | eae SS a i | (15) Nat. Def. 1 3846 | 133384 \ \ Bere \ 1 (16) Res ' T3191 a 3 30157 | | ! eee ae ! Explanation of the rows and columns of Alaska's energy balances. - The first row, refers to the total energy produced, in its raw form, in Alaska in 1979. In order to make all of the diverse forms of energy comparable, thermal units (8tus). - Each column of the balance refers to a particular form of energy -- solids, crude oil, products, natural gas, hydro power, electricity, and the total for all fuels. - Rows ttwo and three refer to the export/import sector for energy trade. ie countries and other states. and from each region. - Row four is any stock adjustments. It also includes the reinjection of natural gas. - Row five is total primary energy Alaska. (TPE), by fuel, available for the fuels are expressed in terms of British petroleum These categories do not to international trade, but are the figures of net imports and exports sent to and from Alaska t« Por the regional balances, exports and imports refer to the trade tc transformation or conversion in However, to be useful, much of that energy will have to be converted and transformed. - Rows six through eight account for the conversion of crude ofl to petroleum products and fossii fuel to electricity, the transformation of hydro to electricity, crude ofl] from the North Slope and transmitting energy. and the major - Row nine, statistical difterences, is needed to make the computer happy. - Row ten, final energy consumption (TFC), is Alaska's end-use of energy. quantity of energy sold to consumers. - Rows eleven through sixteen break the final end-use down into the industrial, transportation, commercial, marine, government, and residential. B-1 losses in transporting This is the form and following categories: 19 Preliminary Data REGIONAL ALASKAN ENERGY BALANCES -- 1979 (in billion btu, 1A*#*9) ARCTIC T T T ! 1 PUEL ; Solids { Crude ' Petro | Gas ! Hydro | Elect Total | | | i ! a | T —T T Os I T 1! (1) Production 1 = | 2176836 | ! 44685 | = ! es 3163701 | | ! | | | ! | | T —T T TT cure ! (2) Imports i = ! - | 05.1 - ! = ! = +235 | | | | | | | ! + T T a7 T — . ae | (3) Exports ' = | -27125R4 | - ' - ' - ' - -2712584 | | ! ! ! | ! | | F oT T 1. i TT =F T 1 (4) Stck/reinj 1 - : - : = i -482230 | - ! - -492238 | | 1 | 1 1 —————— a oo FS - aS == fo - = 54s) om | - H 4252 ; -235 : 44635 | - 1 = | 49122 | | 1 1 1 te at =r a = ssSesSesy 1 (6) Electricity | - ! - ! -593 | -6898 | - ! +1615 | -5778 | | | | | | | | | T | T T Zz 1 (7) E. Prod/tran | - ' = | -3139 | -36943 | | -1531 -41613 | \ ! | \ ' fee 1 we T T er r Se ee | (8) Refineries ! = 1 -4252 | +4017 | -82 1 -317 | ! 1 1 | | | | 1 ae fa oe am av 1 (9) Stat. Dif. 1 - ! - | - ! - ! - ! - - ! ‘. 1 ! 1 | 1 il at ae 1 (180) TFC ! = ! : ! 610 | 720 | ! 84 ay 1414 1 1 1 | ! 1 1 1 F a t 1 (11) Industry ! zs | ! 411 102 1 | 158 1 | ! ! ! ! | T E <> —T <> aT ! (12) Trans ! - | ! 427 | - ' 427 | ! | 1 I! ! | ! T tr : T T | (13) Comm ! = | ! art 147 1 395. f ! | | ! ! ! 1 T T | | (14) Marine | - ! ! 36 | 7 | 36 1 ! ! \ ! ! ! | 7 rT T T 1 (1S) Nat. Def. 1 - 1 | = 1 364 | 405 | | | i ! | | | i ot KS + <> + 1 (16) Res ! - ! ! R54 107 | 201 | \ \ \ ae \ NOTES: 1. Electricity Generation ?. eer ay Sector, Gas Ener Sector, Oil gas oil Pipeline 8915 7 FBTR Sec bree, D y* Diesel 3 Utilities 159 5) Electricity 6898 Refining Loss Nat'l Def. 124 48 Refinery R2 Flectricity Industry fAO7 404 Misc. 27945 4. Transportation 5. Marine - gasoline 7S Gasoline 20 H. Diesel 133 Diesel 14 Av Gas 46 Other 2 Av Jet 7a B-3 ele Dre sa FIGURE B-2 (in Billion Btu, 10° Btu) 1979 Energy End-Use Arctic 41613 317 Generation - jand Transmission Losses Energy Used to Produce Energy Refinery Losses 5778 6890 Electricity Generation -*etroleum 235 2roducts All Sector Crude | ~ Energy End-Use Oil i 623 1414 B-4 Preliminary Data REGIONAI. ALASKAN ENERGY BALANCES -- 1979 (IN BILLION BTU, 10**9) NORTHWEST 1 PURL | Solids 1 Crude 1 Petro ! Gas ! Hydro | Blect Total | ! ! 1 | ! I \ \ \ (ba = ZO oe 1 (2) Tmports 1 - 1 - | 3006 | - ! - 1 - | 3008 | 1 1 | ! | 1 1 (3) Exports ! : ! 7 1 ° ! = ' - 1 - | - | | | | ! ! ! | (4) Stek/reinj ! - ! - 1 - ! - ! - | - | - | | \ \ | | \ | 1 (8) Te ! - ! = ! 30065 | - ' = ! - | 3006 \ L ! iS \ \ \ | 1 (6) Electricity |! - ' = ! 627 | = ! > 1 4175 | 452 | | | ! | 1 | 1 (7) &. Prod/tran | - ' - ! - I - I Se oT -14 \ \ \ \ \ pis oe | (8) Refineries | - ! = ! - ' - ! et eee - \ \ | \ \ be 1 (9) Stat. pif. 1 - Eaters ' - ' - ! - ! -1 | -1 \ \ \ | ! ' 1 \ \ bee pa ! | Mr aaa. | ! ees ein ! \ ba La \ | fies es Be | | Mee Vesa 1 (16) Res \ - ' co Ne 516 \ ! begin no PD NOTES: l. Electricity Generation 2. rtation Fuels 3. Marine Utilities ais joline ATA Gasoline 54 Nat'l Def TF Hn. DPlesel 3461 Diesel aw Industry 135 Av. Gas 196 other 5 Av. let 199 4. Residential Neating O11 1OV~e erie Residential 485 Total Figure B-3 |, (in Billion Btn, Btu 10°) Generation 1979 Energy End-Use and NORTHWEST Transmission Losses 466 24 Commercial 222 21 National Defense 350 - Residential 516 3006 ey Industrial 194 4 Transportation 1160 [Marine | 97 Preliminary Nata RECTONAL ALASKAN FNERGY RALANCES -- 1979 (in billion btu, 19°99) INTERTOR T icra e Bi Tae 1a ! PUEL 1! Selids | Crude Gas Production qa) (6) Electricity 1 (7) £. Prod/tran | - | -3175 1 - ! - 318? | ! | ! | ! ! 1 (8) Refineries ! - 1 - 1 - ' - - ' 1 ! 1 1 1 ' { (9) Stat. Dif. ' - ! - 1 = ' - ! - ' - - ' 1 (18) TPC 42 18Rk3 1 ! (11) Industry ! - M | (12) Trans | oe 1 (13) Comm i A | ! \ \ a pes \ ! ! eae ae ! NOTES: 1. Electricity Generation 2. Sector 3. Transportation ne 375 + Gasoline 387 Utilities 197 Transmission Loss * H. Niesei aw Av. Gas 45 Av. Jet 526 Figure B-4 (Billion Btn, Btu 10 *) 1979 Energy End-Use Turbine Fuel for INTERIOR the Trans Alaskan Pipeline 3175 Generation and Transmission Losses 150 Electricity 11 192 Commercial 122 aah \ 14 fens Residential 472 458 17 Industrial 80 oo. Png: Transportation | 1207 Preliminary Nata REGIONAL ALASKAN ENERGY BALANCES -- 1979 (in billion btu, 10*#9) SOUTHWEST ! PUEL 1 Solids 1 Crude ' Petro 1 Gas ! Hydro |. - Blect Total ' | i ! | | ! 1 co ot 7 1 (1) Production ! - ! = ! | - ! ! . = : 1 \ \ Nets ! bee 1 (2) Imports | - ' - | 9932 | - ! - 1 - | 9932 ! ! ! | | | ! 1 i eee TS gi ' a oe Ais ds 1 (3) Exports ! - ! - 1 - ! - 1 - ! - - | 1 1 ! ! 1 1 (4) Stek/reinj ! - | - ! - 1 - ! - 1 - | - 1 1 1 ! 1 1 ! 1 (5) TPR ' 2 1 = 1 9932 | = | : ! : | 9932 + 1 | | ! | ba | ! 1 (6) Blectricity | > | a ! -2146 | = | = ! +589 | -1557 | 1 1 | 1 | 1 1 | ” ¢ ae fate! : : f : ef ae eee | 1 1 ! ! | 1 (8) Refineries | - ! - ! - ! - ! ede ed - ! 1 1 1 | eae | 1 (9) Stat. Dif. ' s ! ~ ! - ' < ! “ | 21 1 | | | | | 1 | eT a se 1 1 (11) Industry ' - | 330 1 : 1 ! (12) Trans 1 - ' si os ot 1 1 aE \ 1 \ le earn 1 OA) Marine I - ! oth ad 1021 1 Lee ae ie ! 1 (15) Nat. Def. | - ' si : | 1637 | ! | | 1 1 (16) Res ! = ' 199 1 t soot pee ! NOTES: 1. Electricity Generation ?. Transportation 3. Marine Se ee Wemasstine 1435 fasoline 6 Utilities TAS 4. Miesel 15549 Diesei 37 Nat'l Nef 14aa Av. Gas 211 Other #3 FTaR Av. Jet 2464 Total 10% saa 4. Res. Heating oil Gov. 2 Res. Alsi T3903 Figure B-5 (in Billion Btn, Btu 10°) 1979 Energy End-Use SOUTHWEST Generation and Transmission Losses Commercial 428 Electricity .— National Defense 1637 Petroleum 48 Products =. > Residential 199 9932 =~ nod 293 ——— Industrial] 330 Transportation 5560 arine 102 B-10 qd) (2) (3) (4) PUEL Production Imports Exports Stck/reinj (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (168) qi (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) NOTES: 1. TPE Flectricity RF. Prod/tran Refineries Stat. Dif. TFC Industry Trans Comm Marine Nat. Def. Solids ug opie: a he Se ty Preliminary Data REGIONAL ALASKAN ENERGY BALANCES -- 1979 (in billion btu, 16*#*9) CORDOVA/KODIAK - ! +346 : i | ) ; | : Electricity Generation utilities Nat'l Def. 964 2a. Residential Heating 1 Gov Res 386 399 Total bt HCL AOROAABOARE BORN : i 2. Transportation 3. Marine H. Gasoline 413 Gas 4. Diesei 291 Diesei Av. Gas ag Other Av. Jet 158 Total 3546 3646 -9n9 RMS 248 1008 219 399 467 374 Al 34 Figure B-6 (in Billion Btn, Btu 10°) Generation 1979 Energy End-Use Tietiesinsion Cordova/Kodiak Losses 931 Electricity Generation ee Commerical 219 Electricity —— a : 5 1 SS National Def. 467 386 Petroleum Products a S Residential 374 309 13646 | re ial 248 120 Industria Transportation 1008 Marine 399 B-12 Preliminary Nata (in billton btu, 1a**9) SOUTHFAST REGTONAL ALASKAN FNERGY RALANCFS -- 1979 1 FURL | Solids Crude Gas ! Hydro | Flect Total ' ! ! | | | 1 ! ' 1 (2) Imports ! 7 ~ | . ! sa | 11608 ! ! | ! ' 1 (3) Exports 1 - - ! = i] a ! a | 2 ’ 1 ! 1 1 ' 1 (4) Stek/reing | - - 1 - | - ' ie | se : | | | ! | 1. (5) TPE ! 3354 114648 | - ! 3965 | - | 18927 | | ! ! | ! 1 (8) flectricity |! -3554 -19905 | - 1 -3965 | 2740 | -53R4 I 1 | 1 1 1 (7) €. Prod/tran | . a ' c | ><} is] cat \ \ \ ee ! | (8) Refineries | - - 1 - I oe ee a 1 \ \ \ dagen 1 1 (9) Stat. nif. ! - = ! = | 7 ' - | - | { I 1 1 oN | | i SP ee Be Se nih he ae a Rie ce | 1 (11) Industry 1 - 1 eee 1794 1 ! | ore a ies bo | ! \ 1 se a \ 1 (13) Comm 1 oe 1998 ! | po eS oe ! ! ! ete AE ae 4 ! ' per Le \ 1 (16) Res | - ! Rote Weg 3589 | I ! pe eas ! NOTES: 1. Electr oe Generation 2. Transportation 3. Marine utflitfes Ind. H. Gasoline 1949 Gasoline 268 911 1905 Hn. Diesel WA Diesei 1461 Hydro 3455 Av. Gas 214 Other ag19 Pulp 64 zANA Av. Jet 6A TI" Solids Bulp used for industrial A small amount (2%) sold 5. Industry Electricit) Batp artis Tass utility, other 126 utility tna. 118 R-1% B-7 (in Billion Btu, Btn 10°) 1979 Energy End-Use SOUTHEAST Generation and Transmission Losses 5580 Hydro (Thermal Equivalent) 3065 Commercial 1098 Electricity Residential 3589 Industrial 1794 Transportation| 4418 B-14 ereliuvlnacy data REGIONAL ALASKAN ENFRGY RALANCES -- 1 (in billion btu, 1a*#9) RATLBELT 979 ' ! FUEL { Solids | Crude ! Petro ! Sas ! Hydro { Blect Total ! ! | | i i | i “Tt 1 (1) Production ! 11827 | 24AR78 | te | 314512 | 2651 | 577268 | { ee i 1 (2) Imports | = ! +24790 | #21177 | - | - { - 45947 | 1 ! i ! i | ! 1 (3) Exports | - 1 -136402 | -A3311 | 65098 | - ' - | -245811 | 1 i | ! | 1 | SO 1 oe ae oe . ae 1 (4) Stek/reinj | asa | - ' - 1 =17384a | - ! - | -laasae | ; | } | ! | | ! 1°(S) TPR ' 11747 1 137266 1 ~22134 | 124874 | 2451 1 253924 | | | ! \ | | pti | 1 (6) Flectricity | -5903 | * | “4357 | -33574 | -2951 | 11489 | -35396 | i | | I! ! | + 1 (7) Ry Prod/tran | - \ -9524 | - 1 --15945 | <r -27644 | ! ! \ ! eae \ 1 (8) Refineries | - { -127742 | 4120748 | -2476 | ee -94708 | \ \ \ \ \ pe \ 1 (9) Stat. Dif. ! - ! - ! > | a | Pe ! os = ! 1 co | a ee ae so \ \ ei ' 1 (11) Industry | ne oe <1] 62956 | | \ | ae es \ | | 1 (13) Comm \ a25 | <1 ase] 19471 | eee \ en Tins | a \ on ae ! NOTES: 1. Electricity Generation 2. Epetay Sector 3. Industrial Electr icity gas ofl coal peline 9524 Uetifttes, other a Utilities 27795 1R4aa APA2 Utility Losses Ria Utilities, Ind. 78? Nat'l Det. 1989 ww? Fnerqy Sector Sheet 1295 RCA on Industry A790 1202 “sc Misc. - nae 33574 a gay specie l ty 5% | try 5. te rtation ° aska ” ammoniea/urea 53758 « Gasoline 1AaAe utility 2a7A Utility Gas AL44 H. Diesel sae Av. Sas 1 Av. Jet i 7. Marine Siaotine 540 Diesel 536A Other 9013 R555 B-15 Figure B-8 ENERGY SECTOR (in Billion Btu, Btu 10°) USES AND 1979 Energy End-Use ie ¥*: RAILBELT NET PETROLEUM EXPORTS HYDRO y 2051 ELECTRICITY GENERATIO 11767 S Commerical 40071 NATURAL GAS bet 24874 —, toss pe cr K x C4 Residential poem —\ Industrial 62256 CRUDE OIL 137266 Transportation 66723 B-16 Preliminary Data ANNUAL ALASKAN FNERGY RALANCES -- 1974 (in billfon Btu, 19*#9) ' FURL | Selids ' Crude ' Petro ! Gas ' Hydro 1 Elect Total ' 1 ' ' Il ! | avy Production ! 17592 1 AQAaas? | 3 < | + 7249S | \ ! beeen ee 1 (2) Imports | - ' 414291 | +19573 | - ! - 1 - +32794 I! ' I | ' I 1 (3) Exports ! - | -a2990aR* | -17985 | -59870 | - 1 - | -582057 | ! ! ! ! 1 (4) Stck/reinj ! * ! Cd ! - ! -754487 | - ! - | -75A07 | 1 ' I | 1 Se SS - = FE H — 1 (5): TRE ! #12583 1 69275 1 +5288 | #29237 | +3777 «4 - | TRAZEA | 1 | 1 1 1 1 (5) Pleetricity | -8392 | - 1 -?aan | -11214 | -3777 | $4272 -209427 ' | 1 I } ! 1 (7) FR. Prod/tran | - ! - - ! -48455 | sa ~A9105 \ \ \ \ Eee NS | (8) Refineries | - 1 -89975* | +5481 | -592 | ae | -A386 | | ! 1 \ Neri 1 (9) Stat. pif. | - ' - 1 - 1 - 1 - I - | - ' ! ! 1 I! 1 1 ! \ LE pe | (11) Industry ! 591 23547 | ee a Se | (12) Trans 1 - ! a a | saoaa ! ! ee eet ee \ 1 gee SEI 1 \ ei pore 1 (15) Nat. Deé. 1 a9 | | 19581 ! ! ee iin | 1 (16) Res 1 aa | Se ie 1 197 | 12949 * Estimated on the best available data R-17 Preliminary Data ANNUAL ALASKAN ENERGY BALANCES -- 1971 (in billion Btu, 10**9) ' PUEL | Solids 1 Crude 1 Petro ! Gas ' Hydro 1 Elect Total 1 ! ! 1 | 1 ! T T 15925 | 456952 234995 | 3725 | +71469R | \ | \ a ! r == ; (2) Imports | - | 413490 | +2092R | - ' > ! - +3432 | ! 1 ! (3) Exports ! - 1 -399917 | -14595 | -65200 | - | - | -473722 | | | 1 | | T T ie T ir i (4) Stck/reinj | - ! - ! - ' 76170 | - ! - 76170 | 1 1 | 1 ! ' es a 4 7 (5) TPE ! 15095 | 79435 | 42221 92826 | 3725 | - | #195133! ! ' | | | ! ' (6) Electricity | -9951 | - | -2644 | -13533 | -3725 | +5088 | 24765 | 1 1 ! | | | ! ey 1 (7) &. Prod/tran | - 1 - 1 - ! -45653 | -47876 | \ \ \ \ eer ! —— (8) Refineries 1 - | -79435* | +750985 | -522 1 -4782 | 1 1 1 es ' (9) Stat. Dif. | - | - ! - ! - 1 - 1 . | = ' SO ake sal se Ne Shs sd | $e 1 | \ Ree nag ee! be gs aie cheer ee Zit \ Pe MSI ! | ! | ! 1 | | | | ! ! ! 1 * Estimated on the best availiable data R-18 Preliminary Data ANN'JAL ALASKAN ENERGY BALANCES -- 1972 (in billion Rtu, 14*#9) ! PUFRL | Selids ! Crude ' Petro 1 Gas 1 Hydro | Flect | Total ' 1 | ! | 1 1 1 1 ore \ \ \ ede as eee ' 1 (2) Imports ! - ! +12529 | +23994 | - ! - 1 - | +35423 ! 1 | | ! ' ! | ! 1 (3) Exports 1 - 1 -355471 1 -720758 | -61726 | - - | -437945 ' 1 ! 1 \ an T any ‘ith 1 (4) Stek/reinj ! -19 4 - tt - ! -7RA9B | - ! - -78500 ec le gE i Pe al | {- (5) Tee 1 14937 | RAIAAR | 2336 1 9491 | 3611 1 - | 4194723 | ! 1 | | 1 | 1 (6) Electricity | -9883 | - ! -3422 | -16437 | -3611 | +5544 | -27814 \ sd ! 1! ! | \ 1 (7) FB. Prod/tran | - ' = 1 - ' -37693 | 5s | 29025 | \ \ \ \ \ biota toa ' 1 (8) Refineries | - 1 -Ranan® | 479728 | 590 | Se a -5200 | \ \ \ \ \ hice ee ot ! 1 (9) Stat. Dif. | - ! - ! - ' - t - | - | - ' i I rs | ae ! | | | ! ee a \ \ Saag oe ' ' ! eee ss ees oe ' ! \ fees en ! | ! ee gee a | ! \ oe on \ 1 (15) Nat. Def. ! 4n62 | ae a. | 12364 | 1 | pT apenas ! Se ee es 1 1 (16) Res \ 158 | | 15262 | I 1 tee aie * Estimated on the best avaiiabie data B-19 Preliminary Nata ANNUAL ALASKAN FNERGY BALANCES -- 1973 (in billion Btu, laeeay rr oy tilapia ! PUEL 1 Selids | Crude | Petro ' Sas ! Hydro 1 Blecc Total ' 1 i chat I | | t ' ————— 1 (1) Production ! 15498 | 424799 | +672307 | \ | bees tia + 1 (2) Imports ! - 1 #19440 | #20713 1 - ! - +33153 | | | | | | ' ‘ Cee eT OT 1 (3) Exports 1 ~ 1. -362297@.1 -17298 | -f28R1 | - ' 442476 ! | | ! | | ! be ees. | haiti a” a ve T ene ened 1 (4) Stck/reinj 1 . ! - ! - ! -9950) | - ! -90581 | | | | | 1.¢5) TPE ! 15998 | 74357 1 341s 1 76634 | rERA | +1774ARR | | | ! | | ' | — ——- 1 (6) Electricity 1! 19a59 | - ' -3979 1 -19551 1 -29RA | -2R91R | | | | ! | i i 1 (7) E. Prod/tran | - ! - ! ™ ' -2154R | -73915 | | ' \ \ bee \ 1 (8) Refineries 1 = 1 -7A357® | +708285 | -355 | 2 -4927 1 ! \ \ 1 a oe \ 1 (9) Stat. Dif. ! - ' = | - ! - - | - | al | 1 (1a) TRC 13562Ah | | ! ; (11) Industry 27431 1 ' 1 (12) Trans AAYOS | ! ot ' (13) Comm 7137 1 | aay 1 (14) Marine 6257 | ! | (8) Nat. Def. 12699 | 1 ! 1 (16) Res r 15s 1 : ! 12032 1 yom | ' 17814 | * Fstimated on the best availabie data a. 2a Preliminary Data ANNIJAL ALASYAN ENERGY BALANCES -- 1974 fin billion Btu, 14**9) ¥ Tiley T T 1 FURL | Solids ! Crude 1 Petro ! Gas ' Hydro { Piece | Total | | | ! | | 1 T T ale ee ea 1 (1) Production ! 25456 | 419151 1 ' 235522 | 3412 1 +67354) ! 1 ! 1 1 1 | Tri 7 T tis 1 (2) Imports ! - 1 +12291 1 +24344 | - ! - ! - | +36635 | ! | | ! [ 1 : T a i T Y T 1 (3) Exports ! - 1 -328072* | -21623 | -637AR | - 1 a 412483 1 ! ! ! ! | ! T Tey re a: Tarr T Pirie ar 1 (4) Stek/reinj | -9 1 - ' = | -89501 | = ! - -99510 1 | 1 | +} | oe 1 (5S) TPE ' 15447 | 193370 | 2721°{ R2232 | 34121 - | +207182 1 | 1 | | | % na a 1 (6) Flectricity | -19256 | - ! -3142 | -7a16e |} -2412 | +6503 -20268 ! | | | I 1 | i Tha T ert trae aura Ty Le 1 (7) £&. Prod/tran | - 1 - ! = 1 -24531 | | -15856 -26717 1 | 1 ! 1 | 1 1 (8) Refineries | = 1 -19237a" | #97709 | 624 | S 6285 ! ! ! ! ! =a +.(9). Stats Dif.. 4 - ! - ' - ! - 1 a 1 = | . | ! | | | ! | 1 8) Tee ' 51911 >< <—t ong 144313 | be a | H | ! Meee pea | | ! \ | goer as | 1 (13) Comm ! 763 aS 6958 \ \ Ae oe 1 (14) Marine ! - 4991 \ \ Banas 1 (15) Nat. Def. | 42aa S 12617 | ! ae eS eS | 1 (16) Res ! 162 1 ! VPAPA | 33390 / ! 1673 17598 ! l \ | * Estimated on the best available data B-71 —— = Preliminary Nata ANNIJAL ALASKAN ENERGY RALANCES -- 1975 (in billion Rtu, 1a*#9) | PUEL |! Selids ! Crude ! Petro 1 Gas ' Hydro | Blect Total | | | | 1 (1) Production | 15645 | 417485 | | +701162 ! i ! 1 (2) Imports ! - ! 412243 | 442396 | - | - ! - | 454549 ! | | ! | | | 1 (3) Exports ! - | -314394* | -27029 | -55785 | - 1 - | -498208 | 1 | ! ! f | 1 (4) Stek/reinj I -70 | - ' - ! -9R134 | - | - | -98154 \ a | Ls | \ | | 1 (5) TRE ! 15595 | 115334 1 15277 | 99428 | 2725 | - | +249349 | | ! 1 ! | 1 ———————————————— = _——— os 1 (6) Flectricity | -19375 | - ' 4513 1 -22092 | -3725 | +7190 | 34535 | | | 1 1 ! 1 1 (7) F. Prod/tran | - ! - ! - ! -33419 | SS | 35147 | ! 1 ! 1 | 1 (8) Refineries ! - 1 -178394 | #199417 | -1275 1 -7592 \ \ 1 \ | ee 1 (9) Stat. Dif. ! - | - ! * | = ! - ! - | - \ \ I \ ' \ bor ! peat Patan S 4 1! (11) Industry ' 65 | 337R9 \ ! ba per Snes ' \ bee eee \ \ Lees aoe \ | Lares Pesto \ \ fo ea ee 1 (16) Res ' 145.1 ! 1821 18248 1 ! ert a eet a "estimated on the best available data B-22 Preliminary Data ANNUAL ALASKAN ENERGY BALANCES -- 1976 (in bilifon Btu, 14*#9) TT T 1! T T a ae ' ! FUEL 1 Solids ! Crude 1 Petro ! Gas ! Hydro 1 Elect Total ' | | | | | | ! ' T 1 Y 10 ee 1 (1) Production 1 18271 1 38R651 | ! 27956R | 4533 1 4688022 | ! ! | ! ! ! ' T T T “ aarl 1 (2) Imports ! = 1 411397 | 457338 | - ! - ! - 468735 | | ! ! ! | | ! ! ¥ TT eo a ee oe r eae 1 (3) Exports 1 = ' 274972 | -33785 | -65478 | = 1 = 373336 | ! ! ! ! | ! ! ! 1 (4) Stek/reinj | “48 | - ' - | -114526 | - ! - | 114586 | | ! ! | ! | | ' T F + =F =F =a = H = ' (i. Pee ' 15211 | 1259746 | 23552 1 99554 | 4533 1 = | +249835 | 1 1 ! ! | ! 1 ' F + == F 1 (6) Electricity | -10173 1 = ! -5120 | -25735 | -4533 1 R776 | 36785 | | | | ! ! i ! 1 (7) E&. Prod/tran | = 1 -20951 | -3139 | -293524 | e -545059 | | ! ! | 1 t 1 (8) Refineries ! = ! -195015 | 1065842 | -955 1 | +872 | \ \ \ ! \ is \ 1 (9) Stat. Dif. ' - ! - ! - | - ! - ' = | - ' | 1 | ! 1 | 1 ! — = =F = H 1 (1a) TRC 1 Sarr 122135 | 43014 | 176854 | ! | | ! es at rl ale 1 (11) Industry ! 45 1 22762 1 | 34615 1 \ \ \ er \ Bf i 7 1 (12) Trans ' = 91652 1 es 91465? | ! 1 ! ! re on Ts, =e 1 (13) Comm ! Rag 3979 | 2169 | 8685 | ! ! ! | av T T =r 1 (14) Marine ! = 4195 | - | 6195 | ! | | ! ¥ fi § Ba id T 1 (15) Nat. Nef. ! 3912 1836 | 6812 2 | 13462 1 ! ! | | t iB : eo 1 (16) Res 1 141 14598 | $271 I | 22245 | ! 1 | "estimated on the best available aata B-23 LANCES <= 10977 yaeen) T aa 1 FURL 1 Solids ' Crude ! Petro ' Gas 1 Hydro 1 Flect Totai ' ' ce T (1) Production ! 41491902 ' ' 1 th) Imports ! ! +77499 | +57274 | - ! - ' - 4anesgy | | ! | | ! | i ! 1 (3) Exports ! - ! -99e4ns | 42174 1 -6RORS | - | = 1999556 1 ! ! ! ! ! ! ? T ms T cw a “y 1 (4) Stek/reinj 1 -146 1 - 1 - ! -18RR9) | - ! - -1R89907 1 1 1 1 ! | | {i a — Sa I me a —- + om 1: Ch). 3h ! 151A | 116998 | 25700 | 129686 | s3aT - #297192 ! 2 ! 1 1 | ! eee ee re = oe 1 (6) Electricity | -19314 | - ! -19435 | 26959 | -5341 1 14869 -38190 1 t ! | | | ! T ee T 1 (7) €. Prod/tran | - ! -12693 | -2139 1 -53285 | 722463 | | ! ! | i | (8) Refineries ! on ! -194325 | 194355 1 -1898 | 1858 1 1 \ 1 1 et S70) “eae. Bes. 4 - I < 1 = ' us 1 ' a = | | | | | ! ! ' 1 (16) TFC 1 4ea4} sie S 179RR? \ \ [eae pai 1 (11) Industry 1 59 Aayr2' | 1 ! 1 (12) Trans 1 ca R3695 | | ! 1 (13) Comm ! 989 11176 1 ! | ! 1 (14) Marine ! - foam | ! ! ' 1 (15) Nat. Def. 1 3599 14qR20 1 ! 1 ! 1 (16) Res ! 157 23991 1 * Estimated on the best availabie data B-24 Preiiminary Data ANNITAL ALASKAN ENERGY RALANCES -- 1978 (in Sfilfon tu, 19**9) fro a a) 7 Tare LL Tee a ee Trae —, 1 PUEL ! SoiiAas ' Crude ' Petro ' Sas ' Hydro Fiect Total ! 1 ! | ! t \ | ' rr T r aa + - 1! (1) Production ! 15369 | 2897324 1 ! 621378 | 4936 } +323RQ900 | 1 ' ! \ ! 1 ' t T T T 1 (2) Imports ' - ' 427144 1 #61526 | - ' - - +9678 | | ! i | | | ' 2 i ey T T 7 1 (3) Exports I - | -2492425 | 42204 | -62761 | = | - 2597992 | ! ! | ! ! ! ' = T T T oe T T 1 (4) Stck/reinj ' 712.4 = ' = ! -397893 | - ! - 3979004 | ! | | | | | 1 ' _ = — ~ <= — = T 1 (5) re ! ¥53sF # 137943 | 18722 | 6a717 | 4932 - +3I6775 1 ! ! | ! ! ! ' ee —-— + + —— + T 1 (6) Electricity 1! -19493 4 - ! -10198 | -36331 | 4936 16249 -45520 | | ! ! | ! 1 ! 3 T T 7 y ' 1 (7) EB. Prod/tran | - ! 13453 1 -31790 | 53534 | 3778 -73919 | 1 1 | ! ' \ ' T T T T 1 (8) Refineries 1 - ! -173575 1 123258 1 -1762 1 - -2007 | 1 1 | | | | eo. ly ee ms to. 1 (9) Stat. Dif. | - 1 - ! - ' = 2 - 2 1 ! ! ! ! | ! bz Pe = 1 (19) TPC 1 4954 | ! 128725 | s9non | 12471 215244 | | ! ! | ! 1 (11) Industry ' i 1 1 IRAA | $4417 1 3525 6185) | ! ! | | 1 (12) Trans | od ' | 9716 | - - 90716 | ! ! D | ! ! oe T eT =e 1 (13) Comm ! 1912 1 | 3075 1 3aa3 | 3032 12122 1 1 1 ! 1 ! | ' + 1 (14) Marine ! - ! 1 8139 | = | - 8139 | | ' ! | | ' ————— 1 (15) Nat. Nef. 1 777 A 1 PIA2 | 8A946 I 1797 14752 | ! 2 | 1 | ! ! Tees ce i ae 1 (16) Res I 1a1 | ! 194699 | 4774 4} 4116 276650 | ' ! ' t ' "Estimated on the best available data R-25 \ APPENDIX C | ENERGY DEMAND FORECASTS | AND METHODOLOGY | ENERGY DEMAND FORECASTS AND METHODOLOGY DEMAND FORECASTING METHONOLOGY The energy industry is highly capital intensive, with exceptionally long intervals between the moment the need for additional supplies is perceived and the moment that increased supplies are forthcoming to users on a practicable basis. Therefore, the existence of accurate long-run forecasts in these industries is of more than academic interest. The forecasting methodology employed for this study is a combination of alternative methodologies. In order to assess the relative merits and drawbacks of the various methodologies, it is useful to outline alternative methods of demand forecasting and to indicate the relative advantages and disadvantages of each for the present purposes. A theoretical medium useful in demand forecasting is the concept of a demand curve. A demand curve illustrates the various amounts of a commodity that buyers will purchase at possible alternative prices. Traditional economic theory states that the demand curve for most goods is downward sloping, i.e., as the price of the good increases, the amount demanded decreases. Related to the demand curve is a more general concept, the demand function. The demand function is a mathematical equation which recognizes explicitly that the demand for a good is related to many elements other than the price of that good, as, for example, the price of substitutes and complements, consumer tastes, state regulation, consumer incomes, the stock of complementary goods and the like. These elements are all incorporated in the geometical form of the demand curve; in the demand function they are recognized C-1 explicitly. A demand function consists of three principal elements: 1. Independent variables, including the various incomes, stocks, and Prices, etc., that influence the demand for a commodity. Pe Dependent variables, the elements that are to be explained, i.e., the various demands. A Elasticities, which describe the observed behavioral relationships between dependent and independent variables. Simply put, demand elasticity describes the relative change in consumer demand (the dependent variable) relative to a small change in the independent variable. Most alternative demand forecasting methodologies can be distinguished on the basis of the relative emphasis ascribed to one of these three eterents. A. TIME SERIES ANALYSIS AND TRENDING Where both the elasticities and the independent variables - the underlying causes of demand - show a stable pattern over time historically, but alse when they are expected or likely to he stable in the future too, it is simplest and least expensive to employ time series anaiysis as the basis for long-run forecasting. Time series analysis can be defined as a method of forecasting by which attention is focused primarily on the past behavior of the dependent variable without much analytical consideration of why the dependent variable behaved as it did. Where the past behavior of the dependent variable can be described by means of a growth rate, the use of time series analysis to describe future demand is called trending. Trending has been a traditional method of forecasting among electrical utilities because C-2 this method has, in the past, yielded satisfactory results with a minimum expenditure of effort. The methodology generally employed appears to assume that past trends will be representative of the immediate future. The technique, however, also can incorporate the slowdown in electricity demand growth characteristic of more recent years. It should be fully recognized that “uncritical use" (without due regard for its limitations) of trending can lead to inappropriate results, particularly at a time of great economic and political uncertainty. It should be noted also that the term "trending" is somewhat misleading in that forecasters often apply ad hoc modifications to a forecast derived via trend extrapolation. A more sophisticated form of time series analysis is associated with the names of Box and Jenkins.(1) Instead of applying a simple growth rate to demand, this method describes a point in the future as some function of a sequence of observations in the past. Its great advantage is that data requirements are limited to historical observations of the dependent variable. Moreover, once the forecasting equation is determined, the generation of a forecast involves only the substitution of output for a particular year as an input in the subsequent year. Ef... the only objective of a forecaster is to be accurate, and it is relatively unimportant to develop an understanding of the underlying economic mechanism, time series analysis can be comparatively cost effective. However, changes in the economic structure, such as Population growth or the cost of the commodity demanded, could seriously undermine the accuracy of trending and time series analysis. Another major disadvantage of this approach is that the causal variables are implicit rather than explicit. As a result, it is difficult to apply time series methods to analyze policy choices since this generally requires manipulation of the independent variables. C=3 B. END-USE ANALYSTS A major alternative approach to demand forecasting is end-use analysis. This mode piaces its major emphasis on _ the independent, rather than on the dependent variables. End-use analysis recognizes that energy is in fact an intermediate good whose demand is derived from some ulterior demand. In particular, the demand for energy is contingent on the demand for energy-uSing goods, including motor vehicles, space heating units, electrical and gas appliances, as weli as various energy-using industrial processes. One salient advantage of this method is that it proceeds quickly to the ultimate sources of energy demand. Therefore, the forecast is easily associated with its underlying assumptions. An example of a forecast whose methodology is generally influenced by this approach has been published recentiy by the Environmental Research Center of Washington State University.(2) In the foregoing study, the projections of industrial energy demand rest on the assumption that the energy per dollar of output remains constant between 1971 and 249%. OBERS projections of earnings are then employed as a proxy for output. In this case the end-use, i.e. industrial output, determines energy demand via a_ constant utilization ratio. This example illustrates two chief liabilities of end-use energy demand forecasting. First, as with econometric methods, it is contingent on highly accurate projections of the end-use which, in fact, may be difficult to forecast. Second, it depends on constant energy input for each dollar of output - an_unstabie relationship during a period of rapidly rising energy prices. A sophisticated variant of end-use analysis involves the use of inter-industry analysis in general and the Leontief Input-Output c-4 Model in particular. This latter model sets up relationships among various industries described by input-output coefficients, which indicate the amount of input from one industry required per unit of output of another. Inter-industry analysis permits the establishment of a relationship between energy use and final consumer demand for various commodities. It may prove easier, in fact, to forecast final demand than total output. This would warrant the use of an interindustry model. However, inter-industry analysis requires three basic theoretical assumptions. First, it must be assumed that the economy is in general equilibrium, suggesting that price levels are not greatly fluctuating. Second, it must be assumed that the amount of an industrial sector's output demanded for final consumption is determined outside the interindustry framework, so that changes in final demand will affect only the amounts of industry output and not the industry interrelationships. Third, production functions are assumed to be linear - the ratio of inputs to production remain constant. While these assumptions are probably satisfactory for forecasting the near future - a few years - for long run forecasting they are subject to severe criticism. Over a period of 25 years, technological changes in method of production will undoubtedly occur. A very simple change could be the substitution of labor for energy or capital. The data requirements for an _ input-output model are enormous. Manufacturers of goods and services must be surveyed to determine how much they sell and to whom. In order to check the accuracy of these relationships, manufacturers should also be asked from whom and in what quantities they purchase goods and services. C. HYBRID FORECASTING The blending of exponential trending and end-use analysis illustrates both the advantages and the drawbacks of combining a number of these approachs into a single forecasting procedure. In the forecast of industrial load, the load in each industry is first Projected on the basis of past industrial growth. These projections are then modified on the basis of planned additions and conversions in the various industries. The latter are in many cases the resuits of surveys and do not represent a contractual obligation either on the part of the utility to supply or the industry to purchase power. For the residential sector, estimates of space heating conversions and saturation are undertaken on a judgmental basis. These are coupled with forecasts of average consumption per unit for space heating, lighting, and for major appliances. These latter forecasts incorporate information both as to recent trends as well as judgments regarding probable changes in these trends. Finally, a projection of the number of customers is undertaken, consistent with past trends for this variable. These three elements together yield a forecast for residential load. (3) Such a hybrid methodology is subject to one encompassing difficulty. Its results are dependent on a_ series of discrete assumptions, each of which is open to question. For example, forecasts might assume that future residential conversions from oil heating to electricity will be significantly higher than presently prevailing rates. While this and each of the other assumptions might be justified a priori, the effect of their combined presence is to diminish the credibility of the overall forecast. While a combination of time series analysis and input-output analysis might appear desirable, the data problems are horrendous. The idea would be to trend or to forecast via the Box and Jenkins approach the ratios of inputs to output, called input coefficients. But it is a rare case where the researcher has more than one or two C-4 input-output tables to work from. Washington is an exception with three, but even this is too small a number for a time series. What is needed is one unified modei that avoids the oversimplicity of trending and even time series analysis, a methodology that allows for siqnificant discontinuities in the factors determining load. At the same time, such a model should eschew the data problems and questionable assumptions associated with input-output analysis. In effect what is required is a compromise between the analytical elegance and directness of end-use methods and the procedural simplicity, practical applicability, and cost effectiveness of time series analysis. D. ECONOMETRIC FORECASTING Econometric forecasting combines time series analysis and end-use analysis. This method looks neither at the independent nor dependent variables in particular, but rather at the relationships among them. These relationships are characterized by values for elasticities which, in essence, are measures of consumer behavior. Unlike trending, for example, econometric forecasting does not assume a consistency in growth rates of independent variables between the historical and forecast period. Moreover, unlike end-use analysis, econometric forecasting can allow for non-systematic variations in energy use coefficients relative to output or final demand. However, for econometric analysis to sustain its validity, there is a significant element of continuity that must be obtained between the historical and forecast periods. Namely, the consumer behavior observed in the historical period, rather than the growth rates or the ratios of inputs to output, is assumed to apply to the forecast period as well. It should be noted that this assumption is subject to legitimate objection. For example, it is conceivable Cc-7 that behavior in an energy’ scarce environment will differ Substantialiy from that in an energy abundant environment. In Particular, the sensitivity of consumers to changes in the cost of energy goods might very possibly increase over time. The elasticities associated with the historical period might then not apply to the forecast period. This would call into question the uncritical application of econometric forecasting. Within the overall compass of econometric demand forecasting, there are a number of significant subdivisions. For example, some econometric studies impose elasticity values based on estimates derived under different circumstances, but which the forecaster nevertheless feels are applicable to the situation at hand. Typical in this regard is the use of elasticities derived from national data in a regional model. Another distinction can be made between econometric estimates made on the basis of time series data as compared to estimates made on the basis of cross-sectional data. Only the former allows for the explicit introduction of factors which describe responses over time. Cross-sectional elasticities are generally associated with long-term responses. However, these may, in fact, reflect geographical and/or cultural differences. The estimating procedure typical of econometric analysis is the calculation of a curve describing the dependent variable (in this case demand) as a function of many different independent variables. This curve fits the historical data such that its parameters exhibit desirable statistical properties. Thus, the correct estimation of an econometric model is directly dependent on the quality of availabie historical data. Econometrics has been maligned unjustly for being excessively “theortical". In fact, its chief advantage is its intimate dependence on the nuances of past economic relationships. The theoretical content of trending is far greater than that of econometric modeling. For example, trending involves the (theoretical) assumption that past trends regarding all c-8 significant independent variables, as well as the behavior associated with consumer response to the independent variables, will stay constant between the historical and forecast periods. Econometrics assumes merely a constancy of behavior and not both of behavior and trends. E. A SUMMARY OF CERTAIN ADVANTAGES AND WEAKNESSES OF THE ECONOMETRIC METHON The value of econometrics in forecasting is recognized for two major reasons, generality and flexibility. As noted, the assumptions underlying this method are generally less stringent as compared to the usual alternatives. This is particularly advantageous at a time of major discontinuity and disruption in the underlying economic structure. For example, it is conceivable that significant discontinuities may occur in the future prices of certain energy goods as a consequence of political, economic or technological developments. Clearly, under’ these circumstances, time series methods would render misleading results as compared to econometric analysis; only in the latter can the possibility of such a discontinuity be incorporated in an appropriate set of assumptions regarding the forecast of future energy prices, which enter the econometric model as explicit independent variables. Flexibility is still another major advantage of econometric analysis. It is perhaps curious that nowhere in this comparison of alternative forecast methods has a claim been advanced for a particular method in terms of whether it yields accurate forecasts. In fact, it is to be expected that most forecasts will be wrong. The forecaster who thinks otherwise is suhject to self-delusion. Therefore, it is most advantageous to consider alternative contingencies and policy scenarios defined in terms of consistent c-9 sets of independent variables and to assess their respective impact on the dependent variable. The econometric model defined in terms of a multitude of variables, including policy variables, variables describing external circumstances, price variables, end-use variables, and the like, is uniquely suited to the process of scenario formulation and analysis. At the same time, the increasing acceptance of econometric analysis as a practicable tool should not obscure its many drawbacks and difficulties. These must be acknowledged and continually borne in mind. In the first place, an econometric specification shifts the burden of forecasting from the dependent to the explanatory (independent) variables. Fach of the latter must be forecast independently. The techniques to achieve this objective must transcend the methodological limitations of time-series analysis. Information specific to the future behavior of particular variables must be applied. Where this information is lacking, econometrics yields little in the way of forecast accuracy in comparison to time-series methods, and is substantially less cost-effective. Secondly, the structural specification of an econometric model may employ variables which are proxies for other variables and which obscure the true structure of the system. For example, if electricity demand is a function of industrial output, and if output varies directly with industrial employment, the use of employment in the model may give significant statistical results, while obscuring the true cause and effect relationships within the system. This disadvantage is avoided through the end-use methodology, but at substantial cost. Thirdly, econometric forecasting implicitly assumes that each of the independent variables can be forecast independently. This, in practice, is not necessarily true. For example, increases in electricity rates to industry may have adverse impacts on c-14 employment. This is not accounted for in a model where employment and rates are forecasted independently. While in principle the influence of cross impacts can be incorporated into the original specification, resulting problems of "identification" preclude this being done for every episode of interdependency. Fourthly, the forecasts of so-called “independent” variables may themselves depend upon estimates of the variables being forecast. In such a case, a series of intermediate forecasts must be introduced into a revised forecast of the explanatory variables until these forecasts converge to a limiting value. Without such an iterative procedure, the forecasts are subject to a degree of internal inconsistency. Finaliy, the field of econometric estimation invariably harbors a multitude of obstacles and complexities which, if unaccounted for, can trap the unwary practitioner. The validity of those assumptions which justify the use of one or the other method of estimation is often questionable in practice. Even the validity of statistical tests which normally indicate the presence of econometric difficulties can be nullified under certain fairly common conditions. For all these reasons, the application of econometrics should proceed only with great caution. END-USE ANALYSIS IN PRACTICE The primary role of end-use analysis is in forecasting energy demand for final consumption. End-use analysis is desirable for two reasons: First, it provides an accounting framework which does not double-count. For instance oil-fired electricity generation is not an end use of oil; instead, the electricity is used by various consumers. Second, it is flexible enough to permit considerable disaggregation and to include consideration of a variety of demographic, economic, and energy policy variables. The c-11 most desirable type of ‘end-use model is the econometric end-use (EEU) model since it incorporates causal factors into the estimation procedure. The major obstacle to EEU is that it requires substantial data. The current situation in Alaska does not permit construction of as elaborate a forecasting methodology as is desirabie. However, this may to some extent be remedied in time. Consequently, this section begins with a theoretical or generic discussion of end-use forecasting to elaborate on the rationale for its use, before proceeding to the explicit Alaska analysis which is possible at this time. . For discussion ovurposes we consider the Northwest Energy Policy Project (NEPP) Model. It considers five primary end-use sectors: residential, commercial, industrial, transportation, and government. Some of these are further disaggregated. Data requirements are large. In each case, however, the basic reasoning is that the end-use sector demands energy as a function of three basic types of factors: prices (or other rationing devices), population (and related demographic variables), and employment (or, more generally, economic activities). Industrial, commercial, and government sectors are energy using economic activities which can be thought of as enterprises which use energy, among other things, as an input to the production of goods and services. In NEPP, government is included in the commercial sector. In that sector, equations are of two types: Allocations or expenditure shares are estimated for oil, gas, and electricity. These depend on the prices of the three fuels, respectively. Total energy demand, in the other equation, depends on, among other things , employment in the commercial sector. The industrial sector is divided into 2? subsectors and coal is added as a source of energy. The form of the equations corresponds to that for the commercial sector. c-12 The transportation sector cuts across all the rest in that both business and public enterprises as well as households use Passenger and freight services of all types. The NEPP effort specifies separate equations for passenger automobiles, single unit trucks, combinations, and jets. All equations depend, inter alia, on the price of the fuel used, and on some income or employment variable. Autos and single-unit trucks were assumed to use gasoline, combination trucks to use diesel oil, and jet aircraft to use jet fuel. Residential use consists of space heating, lighting, and appliance use. Some appliances are thought to be subject to “saturation,” i.e., assuming a household has a primary home, only one range, e.g., is needed in that home . The NEPP effort combines marginal energy prices and saturation parameters to specify equations for saturation ratios for five energy uses in homes: ranges, dryers, water heaters, space heating, and air conditioners. Energy used for each of these uses was. estimated outside the model. A wastebasket equation including energy use for electric lighting, refrigeration, televisions, and other appliances not included in the saturation ratio equations was also estimated. Since the equations are formulated on a per household basis, and by energy type, estimates of households are used as multipliers of the estimates of energy uses derived from the equations. ALASKAN ENERGY CONSUMPTION The Alaska situation has a number of unique features. First, and most obvious, the average annual number of heating degree days is much higher than any other state. Second, the population is dispersed and the land transportation system undeveloped. Third, a large share of the population is located at or near the coast. Fourth, the Prudhoe Bay area produces a large percentage of U.S. petroleum and has large natural gas reserves. These features combine to cause Alaska to have relatively atypical energy consumption patterns, particularly as regards the residential and transportation sectors. For instance, home heating is more important and air conditioning less important than anywhere else in the country. Automobiles and trucks are less important per capita in Alaska than in any other state, but private boats and snowmobiles are important since they are utilized for subsistence and personal transportation in Alaska. Private airplanes and marine freight transportation are also relatively important. Recent study of Alaskan energy demand has emphasized electric power and has focused on the Railbelt. Before turning to electricity, however, we consider oil and natural gas consumption. Goldsmith and O'Connor (4) estimate approximately 48 million barrels of crude oil equivalent consumption for 1984, up from about 52 million in 1976. Most of the growth is attributed to two industrial uses: natural gas used in _ production of ammonia-urea on the Kenai Peninsula, and use of both oil and natural gas to power the pump stations for the Alyeska pipeline. The authors point eut that considerable natural gas is’ used for reinjection, but this should not be considered consumption, since most can eventually be recovered. In 1988 petroleum liquids consumption was estimated at 27 million barrels as compared to 41 million barrels of crude equivalent of natural gas, net of reinjection. There are three natural gas market areas within the state. Prudhoe Bay is the largest with its use for production and transmission of crude oil. Barrow is a small market with government and utility uses. Cook Inlet has several consuming uses: gas utility, electricity generation, industrial, military, as well as reinjection and exports in the form of liquid natural gas (LNG). The major uses of petroleum liquids are transportation uses c-14 ro which accounted for 53 percent, space heating which accounted for 15 percent and electric utilities and the oil pipeline together utilized the remaining 22 percent of estimated consumption in 198A. The transportation uses were further broken down as noted in Tabie 1.1. The segmented breakdown is as follows: 32 percent for highway, 14 percent for marine, and 58 percent for aviation. The authors estimated these data from Alaska motor vehicle excise taxes on fuel. The corresponding natural gas estimates were obtained from a State of Alaska Division of Oil and Gas Conservation report. TABLE C-1 Alaskan consumption of Transportation Fuels - 1984 (million barrels of crude oil equivalent) Fuel /Mode Surface Marine Aviation Total Gasoline 3.76 16 «3? 4.29 Diesel 2.14 1.56 ---- 3.70 Jet Fuel ---- ---- 19.943 18.93 Total 5.94 1.72 16.48 18.82 Source: Goldsmith and O'Connor (1981), obtained from Alaska Department of Revenue. The projections of consumption of natural gas and petroleum liquids for 2006 are for increases of approximately 14% percent each. Assumptions for these C-15 projections are dominated by the one for population which is projected to grow to 748,008 in 2490, an increase from about 468,090 in 1989, Other assumptions are modest. Per capita use of transportation fuels remains constant over time. The space heating modal split and use per customer remain constant, as well. Industrial consumption grows rapidly, in conjunction with population. ‘These assumptions combined to suggest that consumption will grow with industrial and population growth. Population is presumed to grow quite rapidly -- which it will if there is rapid industrial or military expansion. The constancy of per capita use for transportation and space heating is in question. It assumes away conservation, conversions and other like reactions to increased real fuel prices and changes in the relative prices of oil and natural gas, and of each of these in relation to other fuels: coal, nuclear, wood, alcohol, not to mention more exotic sources. On balance, these projections are likely to be high, based as they are on population growth and business as usual. The electric power study for the Railbelt, Soldsmith and Huskey (5), is a much more detailed analysis. Bt utilizes the Man-in-the-Arctic (MAP) statewide econometric model, which is used to project employment, population, and fiscal variables. In addition, three other components were developed: a household formation component, a_ regional allocation component, and a housing stock component. The household formation model depends on cohort specific rates of household formation. It distinguishes between military, civilian non-native, and native households. Recent changes in averaqe household size for Alaska and for the U.S. are built into the anaiysis. The regional share depends on growth in the region's basic sector (mining, agriculture-forestry-fisheries, manufac- turing, federal government, and the export component of construction and transportation). Four equations estimate Population growth, two categories of support employment, and state and local employment. The housing stock includes single family, duplex, multi-family, and mobile homes. The initial housing stock of each type in any year is equal to that in the Previous year less removals (demolitions, accidental losses, conversions). New construction is spurred by housing demand in excess of the initial housing stock, if any. Housing demand equations were estimated for three of the four housing types using the linear probability formulation (a constrained regression technique.) Family size and income were used as major determinants of housing type choice. Then three scenarios specifying economic and demographic chanaes hetween 1979 and 2895 were developed. Three state government fiscal scenarios were also assumed. These were used to produce statewide projections from the MAP model. The three economic scenarios and the mid-level fiscal scenario were used to establish regional projections. As a reference point we reproduce statewide population projections. For each scenario 198% population was projected to be about 42? thousand. The low, medium, and high population projections for 24948 were about 435, 7AA and 231 thousand, respectively. The driving force in the regional Projection model was the basic sector which was projected exogenously for the regions in question. It should be noted that the median scenario here produces population which is comparable te the one for the oil and gas study summarized above. Household formation projections for the next 25 C-17 years reflect _the declining average household size. Growth in the housing stock parallels that in the number of households, but does not grow as rapidly since each region begins the projection period with excess housing. Vacancy rates and removals were based on recent U.S. and Alaskan experience. The basic consuming unit for residential electricity is the (non-military-based) household. Most data on. energy consumption are, however, housing units. There. are three important housing stock measures: occupied housing units, occupied plus vacant but available units, and second homes. The measure of most interest is occupied housing ynits, Population in group quarters is available in the 197@ Census materials, .and was projected and netted out of residential. es Ye Vas Railbelt housing stock space heat mode split... was estimated from several sources. Natural gas is available enly in. . the Anchorage and Kenai-Cook Inlet areas. All residential gas. customers were assumed to use it for space heating, Most .of the rest of residential space heating is by oil -or electricity Those heated by propane, wood, and. coal were netted out. Electric space heating percents were estimated from utility, census, realtor, and Federal Power Commission data. Then electric space heating requirements,were estimated. from information on floor space, heating degree days, and structure type. This is because wall and roof surface area increases less than proportionally as floor space increases. Also, mobile homes were estimated to require twenty percent more energy to heat per square foot than standard housing. Appliance saturation rates were estimated from 1974 census data and more recent data for the Western Region and the nation. Four appliances -- water heaters, cooking ranges, clothes dryers, and refrigerators -- may operate on fuels other than electricity. Census data for communities for 1978 (and C-18 changes from 195M) were used to estimate appliance mode splits. No gas refrigerators were reported, so these were dropped from consideration. Electrical appliance average annual consumption varies with respect to household location, size, income and features of the appliance stock. For instance, self-defrosting refrigerators use more energy than manual-defrost ones, while solid state televisions use less than tube types. The age of the appliance stock is thus of importance. In addition, there is a federal mandate for appliance efficiency covering the first few years of the forecast period. This may cause reductions in electricity use for the forecast period. The analysis allows for all of these changes, but not for even more radical design changes which are technically possible, but perhaps’ unacceptable to customers. The electric power requirements for the Railbeit were projected on the basis of an end-use model. The submodels were: residential appliances, residential spaceheating, commercial-industrial-government, street lighting, and second homes. Residential appliances include nine major appliances, lighting, and small appliances. The submodel for residential appliances first calculates the number of households who own and operate each appliance. This is the product of households, the saturation rate, and the electric mode split (for appliances which may be fueled by gas or oil). They are further disaggregated by vintage. The space heating model forecasts requirements for the four housing types mentioned. For each type, this is the Product of the electric mode split, the number of projected units and the average consumption per unit. Again, there is disaggregation by age of unit. c-19 The commercial-industrial-government submodel is driven by net increases in employment. Street lighting is a small, fixed percentage of sales in other categories. Consumption by second homes is based on an estimate of the number of households with second homes. These last two categories together comprise only about one percent of total consumption. The projection assumptions and results are given in detail in Goldsmith and Huskey. In summary, their most likely case projects an average annual rate of growth in electricity sales to final consumers in the Railbelt of 4.1 percent between 1988 and 2014, with somewhat more rapid growth in the 1994's and less rapid growth after 2000. The reasons given for projecting slower growth than historically are: - Population growth in the most likely case is projected at an average of ?.4 percent annually. The statewide population growth rate during ‘the twenty years since statehood is approximately three percent. - Rising real prices and conservation wiil moderate the rise of electricity consumption per customer. - Electric utilities will saturate their market areas. c-20 ENERGY DATA SOURCFS The 1979 regional breakdown of energy data developed for the Long-Term Energy Plan and used throughout this report is based on reports by Alaska's natural gas utilities, information from the Alaskan Power Administration, Institute of Social & Economic Research (ISER), Usebelli coal mine, Alaskan Department of Revenue, and U.S. Department of Energy. Each of Alaska's electrical utilities have an annual report which contains marketing ' information. At a minimum the report contains total generation and a break down of sles to the residential, commercial, industrial, and other sectors. The Alaskan Power Administration has kept records of this information, although it has not been published. That data, utility by utility, from 1974 to 1979 is contained as Appendix D. The electricity generation and sales data has been organized by the reqional breakdown used in the Long-Term Energy Plan and was the hasis for the figures in the regional energy balances. Considerable electricity generated in Alaska is not sold commercially. For example, the pulpmills in Southeast generate electricity from woodwaste for use in their industrial processes. Likewise the oil and gas industry generates electricity at Cook Inlet and in the Arctic to produce oil and gas. Alaskan Power Administration collects figures on these generation facilities. But, reliable data on transmission losses, etc. is not available. The electricity used in producing energy is contained in line 7 of the energy balances -- it is not end-use energy. The electricity Produced by pulp mills and other non-energy industries is end-use energy and is contained in the industrial sector line ll. However, this may slightly overstate consumption because, as mentioned, transmission and generation losses are unknown. c-21 Natural gas production and aggregate use is contained in the Alaska, Historical and Projected Oil and Gas Consumption-1988, published annually by ISER and the Department of Natural Resources (DNR). The breakdown of gas consumption into end-uses in the Railbelt is from the region's two utilities annual report to Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). The breakdown of natural gas use in the Arctic, at Barrow and in the Prudhoe Bay region was estimated from a variety of sources including personal communications from energy suppliers in the region. Natural qas end-use in the Arctic is the weakest part of the natrual gas data base, particularly in the Prudhoe Bay area. Natural gas used for electrcial generation was estimated on the basis of total MWH produced -- data maintained by the Alaskan Power Administration. The Usebelli mine maintains complete records of their customers and the quantity of coal sold. Since the coal is either marketed in the Railbelt or exported, there is no confusion about the regional breakdown. However, there are vroblems in defining energy end-use because coal used by the University of Alaska and the military is used to produce both space heat and electricity. This year the spiit between the two uses was made by estimating the quantity of coal that would have been required to produce electricity without space heating. This estimate was made on the basis of the totai MWH of electricity generated from coai (data available from Alaskan Power Administration). The remainder, saies minus theoreticai generation, waS piaced in the commercial and national defense sectors. By far the most difficuit data to obtain was on petroieum end-use. As explained earlier in the chapter on energy end-use, data on petroleum is incomplete. This is because the state does not tax oil used in furnaces, which inciudes both distillates and residual oiis. Tabie C-? provides a breakdown of petroieum consumption. The first nine columns are based on actuai reports made to the Alaskan Department of Revenue. Column 3, Highway Other, C-22 €2-9 ALASKA SOUTHEAST CORDOVA/ KODIAK SOUTHWEST INTERIOR NORTHWEST ARCTIC RATLBELT TOTAL HWY, GAs. @) 943.9 215.4 748.9 166.04 247.6 91.1 9417.8 11824.5 HWY. DIFSEL (2) 995.2 184.49 728.7 iSs.7 169.16 148.) 2747.9 $273.4 Table C-2 Petroleum Consumption in Alaska 1979 (in Barrels per day) HWY. AV. AV. OTHER GAS . JET (3) (4) (5) 116.1 33RD 26.4 27a 114.5 1223.9 24.4 261.5 58.2 98.5 25.1 943 727.1 29A14,4 5315.2 1192.2 22650.4 AV. RONDED (4) 8 AIS6.4 4356.4 MARINE GAS (7) 139.7 31.9 432.1 6 28.3 106.4 292.4 535.1 MARINE DIESEL (8) 687.1 156.8 17.4 a 17.7 6.5 2991.1 3876.7 MARINE OTHER (9) 8.7 ESTIMATED UNREPORTED FUELS TOTAL PLUS OFF-HIGHWAY DT COMM. RES. GEN. qa) ay (2) 359.1 1489.9 472.5 79.2 326.8 596.3 158.9 655.2 10889,1 52.1 215.2 98.2 92.8 383.1 294.4 9.9 39.9 236.3 1637.0 4751.7 2049.1 2389.0 9953.1 4742.4 L & MISC, (13) (14) 246.5 $598.9 56.2 1746.1 137.7 4827.9 29.4 988.5 51.8 1454.2 19,1 1956.9 1399.1 52991.2 1840.9 7A7A1.,1 is turbine fuel for the pipelines. The remaining four columnms are my ine figures that have been estimated trom a variety of sources. primary source is the U.S. DOE annuai report of fuel oil use. This report includes ail petroieum fueis soid in Alaska. The figures are not, however, suitabie for direct use for several reasons. “1 moor : co c £ 3 34 esta mammary ertialiituv thie f+ does not contain the turbine fuel used on the pipeline. Secondly, the NOE report defines fueis by chemicai composition rather than by end use. So, individual categories such as No. 2 heating fuel may mot refiect actuai Consumption. Pinaiay, the Un report inciudes fuels such as bunker oils which are sold but not consumed in Alaska. Coiumn 14 - the State total - was arrived at by taking the DOE total, subtracting bunker residual fueis and adding turbine diesel. The total for columns 14 and 11 corresponds to the DOE total for heating oils. Column 12 is based on the Alaskan Power Administration's figures on electricity generation from oil. Coiumn 13 is simply the remainder which makes everything totai. The regional breakdown of the first nine coiumns is based on Department of Resources data. It is, however, an estimate because the Department of Resources only publishes required data by judicial districts. To estimate consumption in the census regions, per capita consumption for each of the four judicial districts was calculated. The characteristics of the districts were conpared to census regions. Regional population figures were then multiplied by the per capita consumption thought to be typical. An adjustment was made for the Arctic and Northwest since most of the highway diesel was obviously consumed around Prudhoe Bay. The regional breakdown of heating oil, columns 14 and 11, is based on the number of housing structures and degree days, after discounting the consumption of other energy sources such as coai and natural gas. The breakdown between residential, commercial and national defense is somewhat arbritary. The regional breakdown of C-24 diesel for electricity generation is actual data from Alaska Power Administration. Industrial and miscellaneous fuels are _ simply distributed on a per capita basis. C=-25 DEMAND FORECASTING FOR THF LONG-TERM ENERGY PLAN INTRODUCTION It is essentiai that severai qualifications be made to guarantee that the forecast results are not misinterpreted. First, there is no such thing as a definitive forecast. A forecast is not a prediction in the strict sense of the term. Any forecast of energy demand utilizing econometric or input/output techniques will depend heavily on the accuracy of forecasts made for the exogeneous (input) varibles. Great effort has heen expended in this analysis to choose or generate forecasts for the exogenous variables which are both reasonable and consistent. Second, this demand model is a long-run forecasting model. The model is designed and constructed to explain fluctuations in energy consumption over an extended period of time. The projections of independent variables reflect this philosophy and, as a result, do not incorporate analysis of short-run business cycles or weather and other determinants of seasonality which would be necesary in order to forecast short-term changes in consumption. Also, the user must he aware of the aggregate nature of the model. State or area averages (or totais) have value for statistical purposes, but these oftentimes fail to recognize differences among individual generation or delivery systems. A rate of growth or forecast characterizing one particular fuel use for a region as a whole may well be inadequate as a guide to what can occur in one or a group of villages. For this reason, the statistical material presented herein was developed on a village or census sub-area basis where ever possible and aggregated into regional data. Extreme care must be taken in the interpreatation of the data and the results of this study so as not to draw conclusions 0-76 from a state or regional analysis and apply them indescriminantly to the local level. No forecasting modei can be a perfect “crystal bail", the main focus of deveiopment is to provide a workable tool for policy analysis. A forecasting model should not he a_ static tool and ideally should be in a state of continual change as more and better information becomes available. Potential alterations include new forecasts of independent variables, reestimation of coefficients and further disaggregation of end-uses modeled. Persons using or refining the model should be continually aware of the use for which such models are designed - policy analysis. In order to accurately assess the impact of any government policy whether it be an aggressive conservation program, expansion of alternative energy resources or subsidization of the consumer through price subsidy or controls, it {is necessary to analyze the levels of growth in the absence of the government programs. It is the purpose of this analysis to provide a base forecast from which to compare the impact of various options. No attempt was made to forecast all of the various options to growth that might materialize but rather provide a model that is capable of addressing the various issues that are invoived if any of the alternatives materialize. In order to achieve this goal the forecasting model was built in an attempt to address the major economic and demographic variables that might impact energy growth. The ultimate specification of the model was limited by the data base that was available at the time of the estimation of the model. As noted above every attempt was made to disaggregate each end-use consuming sector to the level at which energy consumption decisions are actually made. The decision criteria utilized in determining this level of disaggregation were (1) the quantity and quality of data that were available and the subsequent econometric estimation results, and (2) the analytical returns of having the additional information in the disaggregated detail. (That is, there Ca27 is probably not a significant return in disaggregating oil consumption down to all of its possible end-uses in some of the regions given its minimal use in some activities relative to oil use in other areas). Given these criteria, the breakdown of uses varies depending upon the region, the end use and the type of end use energy. The model itself is broken down into three major end-use fuel types: A. Electricity B. Of) 1. Gasoline 2. Diesei 3. Jet Fuel Cc. Natural Gas The following is a description of the model by each of the energy sources. Its contents are primarily descriptive in nature. A. ELECTRICITY The electricity component of the model is disaggregated into the end-use sectors: 1. Residential 2. Commercial 3. Industriai / Other C-2A The residential sector equation was estimated econometrically, using Alaskan utility specific cross-sectional data. The theory would teli us that the consumption of electricity by the residential sector would be a_ function of the price of electricity, the price of substitute fuels, the population (households), Income, housing configuration, and temperature, among other variables. Given the data limitations as they now exist whithin the state made it impossible at this point to address aii of the variables that influence consumption. The equation estimated to model residential electricity consumption was obtained by ordinary least squares and took the form: Ln(CRes) = 20.8102 + 1.43448 Ln(Pop) - 2.231 Ln(HHD) (2.6454) (6.3759) (-2.8548) where: CRes = total residential consumption of electricity Pop = population of service area HHD = Heating Negree Days t values are in parentheses under coefficient estimates R-2 = 4.7273 D.F = 31 The estimated equation does not include price of electricity and income, two important components that are essential in the decision making process regarding energy consumption. Numerous attempts were made to include these variables into the specifications but the results were statistically unacceptable in terms of R-2, t values and relative size of the coefficients. It is C-29 our opinion that these resuits emanate from an inadequate estimate of income per capita on a subregional or community basis. This result might be interpreted as implying that the elasticity of price at the levels of consumption that are now being observed in the areas under consideration is not significantly differentfrom zero or in other words at levels of present consumption the residential consumer is not exhibiting any significant response to price. The equation presently used in the model implies that there for a 1% increase in population there is approximately a 1% increase in residential consumption of electricity. The equation utilized in the commercial sector, like the residential sector, was estimated econometrically using Alaska utility specific cross-sectional data. The equation took the following form: Ln(CCOM) = -2.8268 + .6137 Ln (TY) (-1.3963) (6.8524) where: CCOM = Total Commercial Consumption of Electricity TY = Real Total Income t values are in parenthesis under coefficient estimates R2 = 8.5440 D.F. = 4A The real total income variable is a proxy for Gross Regional Product (fraction of GNP), which is a measure of economic activity in the area. The real total income variable is computed as the Product of real percapita income and population. C-34 The equation indicates that consumption of electricity in the commercial sector is a function of both population and real per capita income. Alternative specifications were attempted but in mose cases were not statistically acceptable. Ideally this formulation would also include the price of electricity as an independent variable, however, its level of significance in this formulation was so small as to be clearly unacceptable. This result might be interperated as implying that the price elasticity for electricity is not significantly different from zero in the commercial sector of the economy. In other words, there is no significant response to price at current levels of consumption under the existing rate structure(s). The Industrial/Other sectors were estimated using Alaskan utility specific cross-sectional data and took the following form: Ln (CIND + 0) = 3.58551 - .8487 Ln (PE) + .89249 Ln (POP) (1.6491) (-1.6168) (5.157) where: ¥ CIND + 9 = total Industrial and other electrical consumption PE = price/KWH of electricity Pop = Population of service ares t values are in parenthesis under coefficient estimates R2 = A.5R7R3 D.F. = 27 The equaton indicates that consumption in the industrial and other sectors is a function of the price of electricity and population. The elasticities are in the range of estimates derived C=-31 in studies in the Lower Forty-Eight. But it is our feeling that the estimates of the price elasticity might be in the high range and therefore overstate the impact of price increases. The size of the elasticity might occur as a consequence of a supply and location problem rather than price resposiveness aione. That is, in areas where the price of electriity is high the supply of electricity may be limited and therefore unaccessable at increasing levels. PETROLEUM PRODUCTS DIESEL The diesel fuel component of the model is disaqgrated into the following end-use sectors: 1. Residential Heating 2. Commercial Heating 3. Industrial 4. Transportation Unfortunately it was not possible to estimate all of these end-use sectors econometrically. Given the constraints of time and budget no reliable time series or cross-sectional data base could be collected which contained sufficient information on the dependent and theoretically desirable independent variables necessary to estimate descriptive equations for the residential, commercial and industrial sectors. For the residential sector, economic theory indicates that the consumption of diesel fuel for heating would be a_ function of the price of diesel fuel, the prices of substitute fuels, income, the configuration of housing stock and the number of households. In lieu of having sufficient data on these and other variables with which to estimate relationships an input/output framework was chosen. In this case it was postulated that the 1/0 coefficients would be 1.4 (one) for households and zero for all other variables. C-32 This variable was chosen as the numer of households heing heated is the most significant determinate of heating fuel consumption. This equation contains the implicit assumption that the proportion of households heating with diesel fuel will remain unchanged over the forecast period. Mathematically this formulation can be expressed as: Ln (RDH) = C + Ln (HA) where: RDH = Residential Diesel Consumption for Heating C = a constant HH = The Number of Households For the commercial sector, economic theory telis us that consumption of diesel fuel for heating would be a function of diesel fuel price, the prices of substitute fuels, the configuration of structures being heated and either the number/volume of structures heated or some measure of economic activity strongly correlated to the use of commercial space. As no econometric equation could be estimated due to the data limations, an 1/0 coefficient was postulated for the most appropriate measure of economic activity. In this case, basic employment was chosen as the best proxy for economic activity and a coefficient of 1.4 (one) was assigned. Mathematically this formulation may be expressed as: Ln (CDH) = C + Un (BE) where: CDH = Commerciai Consumption of PNiesel for Heating c~33 C = a constant BE = Basic Employment This equation incorporates an implicit assumption that, on average, the configuration of commercial structures being heated with diesel fuel will remain unchanged. This assumption, although stringent, is necessary as no data on the historical changes in mix of structure types (from which current trends might be deduced) was readily available, particularly on a regional basis. In the industrial sectér, economic theory implies that energy consumption is a function of the price of each of the possible fuels used for the industrial process under consideration, the process itself (vis a vis the mix of labor and capital employed) and the level of output generated. Unfortunately, the information which would allow modeling of individual industries or industrial Processes is not available at the time of this writing. Again, in lieu of econometricaily estimating relationships for this sector an input/output framework was chosen for forecasting total industrial diesel fuel use. In this case the most appropriate measure of output would be value added by manufacture. However, no reliable forecasts for value added are available and no suitable information and methodology for such a forecast could be developed without extensive survey of Alaskan industry. For the purpose at hand, basic employment was chosen as the most appropriate measure of industrial activity to serve as a proxy for industrial output. For this sector basic employment was assigned a coefficient of 1.4 (one) for the T/0 framework chosen. The formulation may be expressed as: Ln (TCD) = C + Ln (BR) C-34 where: ICD = Industrial Consumption of Niesel Fuel C = a constant ‘ BE = Basic Employment This formulation encorporates the implicit assumption that the use intensity of diesel fuel by industry will remain relatively constant over the forecast period. Although this assumption may not be valid if there is a_ substantial influx of new manufacturers (different processes) into Alaska, none of the available information lends itself to a viable forecast for changes in use intensities by fuel type. Indeed, this problem would still remain even if the data were available to develop an econometric model of total industrial diesel fuel use. Transportation diesel fuel use is forecast with an estimating equation obtained from 1971-1979 annual data by ordinary least squares regression of the form: Ln TD = -14.8045 + 1.35919 Ln FE €=3,493) (5.19%7) where: TD = Transportation Sector Consumption of Diesel Fuel E = Total Alaskan Fmployment t values are in parentheses under coefficient estimates R-2 = 8.76482 C-35 Transportation use of diesel fuel has been growing rapidly in recent years despite rising nominal and real prices. We were unable to find any evidence that there has heen a dampening effect on diesel use from price. Consequently, the best predictor was chosen on the basis of economic criteria from the availabie variables. Total employment appeared more reasonable than basic employment or population. The elasticity of demand with respect to total employment is estimated at about 1.4 . This. is really a. Statistically derived input-output type coefficient, but as a first cut it is likely to be preferable to simply utilizing population as the primary generator of this type of economic activity. GASOLINE Gasoline consumption is forecast with an estimating equation obtained from 1971-1979 annual data by an ordinary least squares regression of the form: Ln (G) = -7.890954 - @,473467 Ln (PG) + 8.987937 Ln (E) (-4.9412) (-2.994A) (7.7298) where: G = Total Alaskan Consumption of Gasoline PG = The real price of gasoline FE = Total Alaskan Employment t values are in parentheses under coefficient estimates R-2 = 4.94126 With the double log functional form, the coefficient 0-346 ? estimates are interpreted as short-run elasticities, in this case one year. Other formulations were attempted. By far the next most interesting result was a formulation with the dependent variable specified per capita and with the same independent set as above. However, it was statistically inferior in terms of both R-?2 and t-values. The variables chosen were run with a lag and with a dummy for the first three (pre-embargo) years, but these were without significance in all cases. In ad#ition, they had a damaging effect on the reasonableness of the elasticity estimates of the reali price of gasoline and total employment. | The short’ run price elasticity for gasoline of about -#,47 is on the sensitive side. It suggests that as real price changes, consumption changes in the opposite direction by neariy haif as much, proportionally. In combination with total Alaskan employment, with an elasticity of neariy unity, the equation is a good first approximation for a forecasting mofiel. JET FUEL Jet fuel consumption is forecast with an estimating equation obtained from 1971- 1979 annual data by ordinary least squares regression of the form: Ld Ln (J) = -8.209479 + 1.3483954 Ln (B) 4 (-3.3672) (5.7394) { where: 3 = Total Alaskan Consumption of Jet Fuel B = Basic Alaskan Employment t values are in parentheses under coefficient estimates R=-2 = 9.764882 C-37 > / j i ! | Since the double log functional form is used, the coefficient estimates can be interpreted as short run elasticities. As with diesel, we were unable to find a dampening effect from price in the historical series available. Jet fuel consumption is primarily business reiated. In addition, there is an anomalous situation in that polar routes for transcontinental flights grew importantiy during the decade. This probably caused growth in Alaskan jet fuel to be biased on the high side. In any case, we chose basic employment as the most valid predictor primarily on economic criteria; it appeared to he more reasonable than total employment or population. The elasticity of demand with respect to basic employment is estimated at about 1.3. This is, again, a statistically derived input-output coefficient, but it is felt to be preferable to merely using population to generate forecasts of this type of economic activity. 1 BOX, G. E. P., and G. M. Jenkins, 197%, Time Series Analysis, Forecasting and Control, Holden-Day, Inc., San Francisco, California. ! » 2. ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH CENTER, 1975, Energy Forecasts fof the Pacific Northwest, Washington State University, Chapter 3. 3. WOOPFILL, Douglas, July 1975, “Forecast of Electrical Energy Sales for the Seattle Service Area to 1994", Department of Lighting,’ City of Seattle, p. 1. j { 4 GOLDSMITH, Scott and Kristina O'Conner, "Alaska - Historical and Projected Oil and Gas Consumption," Institute of Social and Economic Research, Anchorage, January 1981. 5 GOLDSMITH, Scott, and Huskey, Institute of Social and Feonomic Research, Anchorage, June 1984. c-38 ENERGY DEMAND FORECAST The energy demand forecast is based on the model as described in the previous section. This section will outiine the basic economic and demographic assumptions that were utilized in the model. It is essential that several qualifications be made to guarantee that the results are not misinterpreted. First, there is no such thing as a definitive forecast. The results of a given forecast will depend upon the legitimacy of the forecasts of the exogenous, or input, variables. Any change in these underlying assumptions will alter the magnitudes of the forecast. Second, a forecasting model is not a static tool and ideally would be in a state of continual transition as more and better information becomes available. Potential alterations not only include the refinement of the independent variables, base values, and projections, but aiso involves re-estimation of key coefficients. Third, the demand model is a long-run forecasting model used to forecast demand for energy by five year increments to Ahe year 2005. For this reason one should be cautioned against utilizing the results in a short run context. The model is designed and constructed to aid in explaining the dynamic fluctuation in energy consumption over an extended period of time. The projection of the independent variables reflect this philosophy and as a result, do not incorporate the short run business cycles that would he necessary in forecasting short run energy demand. In addition, it is essential that the user of the forecasted results be familiar with the underlying assumptions and limitations of the model, lest the results he misinterpreted. One must be cognizant of the fact that the model is hased on a system of equations that were estimated econometrically, and as such, are subject to a degree of error. In part, this error is introduced by c-39 the implicit assumption that there is no interdependence among the independent variables. This can be partially avoided in the estimation by the use of two-stage regression which directly specifies such interdependence as a mathematical formula. In most cases, this process is not adequate to totally remove biases caused by interdependence. Another underlying assumption is that the econometric method presupposes that the internal structure of the economy is constant. Therefore, no interpretations concerning major technological changes, exhaustion of resources, or other structural changes occur. Tf an attempt was made to simulate such changes (for instance, by entering projections which caused relative prices to vary by orders of magnitude) estimation errors would be compounded to the point of Producing meaningless results. Any interpretation must proceed within the framework specified by the projections of the exogenous variables, and any new framework specified for further forecasting must proceed within the limits of the econometric specificatins. There is one exception to this approach relative to forecasting which were incorporated into the model, by necessity. Natural gas forecasts were taken from analysis performed exoqenous to this study. e All other quantities demanded depend upon the specifications of the modei, the base values of the dependent and independent variables appear in subsequent sections. Discussion of the Projections of the independent variables utilized will follow. FORECASTS OF THE INDEPENDENT VARIABLES As noted earlier, the forecasted levels of the energy consumption will depend extensively on the projected values of the exogenous, or independent variables. Tables C-3 through C-9 give the Projected values of the major economic and demographic variables. The assumptions with regard to, and sources of, these growth f£-44 patterns will follow the projection tables. The assumptions made regarding the exogenous events impacting energy supply and/or demand are presented in Table C-10. This table should be examined carefully by the reader, as it presents the framework within which the forecasts must be analyzed. The projections of basic employment, total employment, and Population are presented for the six non-railbeit regions and the state total for 1979, 1985, 1994, 1995, 2444, and 2095. These data are based on unpublished projections by the Institute of Social and Economic Research. Their methodology has been discussed elsewhere in this report and is described in detail in their Railbeit electricity study. The data were scaled to preliminary 1980 census Population figures for Alaska Census Divisions and thus differ from the ISER projections only by these region-specific constants. Thus, the ISER-supplied growth rates are used for all these projections. c-41 TABLE C-3. REGIONAL AND TOTAL ALASKAN EMPLOYMENT AND POPULATION PROJECTIONS ARCTIC Year Basic Total Pop 1979 1,464 2,296 4,164 1985 1,741 392,976 =, 397 1999 1,919 3,17a A, 7ra? 1995 2,197 3,748 5,592 2AAA 2,354 4,178 6,374 2095 2,599 4,613 7,438 TABLE C-4 NORTHWEST Year Basic Total Pop 1979 1,162 4,961 11,289 1985 1,560 5,157 12,441 1994 1,803 5,671 15,221 1995 2,207 7,014 17,353 200% 2,440 8,855 19,445 2095 7,694 8,893 21,4698 C-42 TABLE C-5 INTERIOR Year Basic Total Pop 1979 1,119 2,288 5, 4Ga 1985 1,368 3,948 6,191 1998 1,519 3,278 4,732 1995 1,772 3,429 7,684 2000 1,917 4,822 8,094 2045 2,117 4,440 8,937 TABLE C-§ SOUTHWEST Year Basic ‘Total Pop 1979 9,334 13,323 29,958 1985 18,494 16,779 37,599 1998 «11,208 17,954 48,394 1995 12,377 20,514 46,082 2000 13,056 22,331 51,404 20a5 14,415 24,456 56,975 TABLE C-7 SOUTH CENTRAL Year Basic Total Pop 1979 3,324 &,217 13, 72R 1985 4,094 2,195 14,265 1994 4,528 8,914 16,356 1995 5,291 16,598 18,559 2099 ©6955, 859 11,878 24,895 2aa5 6,259 13,114 23,9469 TABLE C-8 SOUTHEAST Year Basic Total Pop 1979 5,434 26,254 53,613 1985 5,682 34,448 65,487 1998 6,4787 36,202 FYVEIAT 1995 5,734 44,993 R1,R28 Pana 7,113 54,213 94,974 2005 7,853 55,439 104,443 CAAA TABLE C-9 ALASKA TOTAL Year Basic Total Pop 1979 =-37,071 167,411 400,331 1985 = 47,596 218,540 478,356 199% 508,941 236,435 520,181 1995 56,555 283,016 593,428 2090 68,429 324,174 664,542 2905 64,4756 371,319 744,179 Sources: Institute of Social and Fconomic Research, unpublished data U.S. Census 1984 preliminary counts, Applied Economics Associates. TABLE C-140 SUMMARY OF BASIC ECONOMIC PROJECTIONS Special Projects Descriptions Dates & Employment Source: TRANS-ALASKA PIPELINE The construction of the TAPS was completed in 1977. Additional construction of four pump stations is assumed as well as pipeline operations. . 1979-1982 - Pump station construction employment of 9/year. 1977-2000 - Operations employment of 144A/yr. E. Porter, Bering-Norton Statewide-Regional Economic and Demographic Systems, Impact Analysis, Alaska OCS Socioeconomic Studies Program, Bureau of Land Management, 1984. NORTHWEST GASOLINE Construction of natural gas pipeline from Prudhoe Bay which includes construction of an associated gas conditioning facility on the North Slope. 1981-1985 - Construction peak employment of 7,823 (1983). 1986-2980 - Operations begin employing 494 petroleum and 209 transport workers. E. Porter, 1984, PRUDHOE BAY PETROLEUM PRODUCTION Primary recovery from Sadlerochit formation, secondary recovery using water flooding of that formation and development of the Kuparuk formation. 1982-1984 - Construction of water flooding project peak employment, of 2,917 (1983) E. Porter, 1984, 1980-2000 - Mining employment lonq-run average of 1,802/year. UPPER COOK INLET PETROLEUM PRODUCTION Employment associated with deciining oil production is assumed to he replaced by employment associated with rising qas production maintaining current levels of employment. 1980-20900 - Mining employment of 7A5/year. E. Porter, 1984 NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE IN ALASKA PETROLEUM PRODUCTION Petroleum production in NPRA - Production in two fields with total reserves of 1.2? billion barrels equivalents of oil and gas. Construction of 256 miles of pipeline. Leased between 1995 and 2413. Exploration and development begins in 1998. Average mining employment of 286 (between 1998-2944). Based on mean scenario under Management Plan 4 in Office of Minerals Policy and Research Analysis, U.S. Dept. of Interior, Final Report of the 145 (b) Economic and Policy Analysis, 1979. OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF PETROLEUM PRODUCTION Production in six OCS lease sale areas: Beaufort 1 (1979) Lower Cook (1981) Beaufort 2 (19832) Navarian Basin 1 (1984) Hope Basin (1985) Chukchi Basin (1994) Peak OCS Employment - Mining - 4,944 (1995) - construction - 3,308 (1992) E. Porter, 198A (for Lower Cook and Bring-Norton lease sales), Employment scenarios for remainder of sales estimated based on N. Gulf (Sale 55 ) high case adjusted to include LNG plant (Huskey and Nebesky, Northern Gulf Petroleum Scenarios: Fconomic and Demographic Systems Impacts, Socioeconomic Studies Program, Alaska OCS Office, 1979). Northern Guif Scenario was adjusted by differenced in resource estimates to produce scenarios for specific areas. ee mr nee ee eee BELUGA COAL PRONUCTION Major development of Beluga coal reserves for export. 1985-1998; 1994 - Constructin with peak employment of 448 (1987). 1988-2490 - Production employment of 27A/yr.for long-run average. Pacific Laboratory, Beluga Coal Field Development: Social Fffects and Management Aiternatives, 1979. ALPETCO PROJECT Development of modified Alpetco praposal; configuration is primarily as a refinery rather than petrochemical operation. "1982-1984 - Construction employment of 944/year 1985-2000 - Operations employment of 518/yr. E. Porter, 19R@, PACIFIC LNG PROJECT Construction of current proposal by Pacific LNG 1982-1985 - Construction peak employment of 1,323/year (1984). 1985-24088 - Operations employment of 148/yr. E. Porter, 1984. TNDUSTRY ASSUMPTIONS OTHER MINING No expansion of existing non-special project mining. Employment constant at 1979 level, 2,35&/yr. AGRICULTURE Assumes that a relatively low priority is given to agricuiture development because of priorities for recreation and wilderness or the lack of markets. Employment grows to 1,937 by 2444, M. Scott, Southcentral Alaska's Economy and Population, 1945-2825: A Base Study and Projections, Economics Task Force, Alaska Water Resources Study (Level B), 1979. ——+__—-PESHEREESAFOOR—PROGESS ENG Maintenance of current levels of employment in existing fishery. Expansion of bottomfishery to replace one-half of foreign fishery in the 24% mile iimit. Employment in fisheries increases to 1,228 by 299M. Construction of hatchery and processing facilities employs 75/yr. Appropriate expansion of food processing industry. M. Scott, 1979. M. Scott “Prospects for a Bottomfish Industry in Alaska,” Alaska Review of Social and Feonomic Conditions, 1984. C-4R FORESTRY/PULP AND PAPER MANUFACTURING Employment expands to accommodate 96% million hoard feet of lumber. M. Scott, 1979, OTHER MANUFACTURING Expansion of existing manufacturing of locally consumed goods. Growth of output at 2% per year. Regional distribution based on existing distribution of employment. FEDERAL GOVERNMENT Civilian employment assumed to grow at recent historical rate. Military constant at current level. Civilian employment grows at .45% per year M. Scott, 1979. { Source: Scott Goldsmith and Lee Huskey, “Electric Power Consumption for the Railbeit: A Projection of Requirements, Technical Appendices, Institute of Social and Economic Research, Anchorage, 1984. c-49 PETROLEUM PRODUCT PRICE FORECAST A. BASE PRICE FORECASTS In the near future, OPEC is likely to formally ratify a long-term strategy which includes an oil price policy. The basic elements of the cartel's pricing strategy, even though it has not been formally approved, have been public. Essentially, the cartel intends to index oil prices to. a formula based on inflation, exchange rates, and the real rate of economic growth in the major consuming nations. OPEC's long-term strategy represents a major shift in tactics for the cartel. Despite utterances to the contrary, previous oil vricing decisions have been heavily influenced, if not determined, by short-term market conditions. The price increases in 1974 and 1979 are well known; less well known is the fact that the price of oil actually declined in real terms from 1974 through 1978. Obviously, the OPEC producers would prefer that oil prices not decline in the 1986's. The driving force behind the new strategy has been Shiek Yamani of Saudi Arabia, and he is determined to develop a framework which will moderate the inherent instability in oil pricing. He believes that such instability has been detrimental to the West and to OPEC. This attitude is in sharp contrast to the perceptions of ——many—oti-consumers who view 0PEC—as—an—arch=type—monopoty. The new OPFO strategy contains two key elements--an index formula for pricing and an agreement in principal to share production cuts in order to share up a giutted market. It is, of course, not certain that the long-term strategy will be approved in its present form or, if approved, that it will be successfully implemented. Nonetheless, the new OPEC strategy deserves careful study. In its weakest application, the price index formula will t c-54 influence oil pricing trends; in other applications it may, as intended, determine oil price movements. OPEC views the index formula as a minimum price floor. It is not their intention that the index should set a rigid fixed Prices insensitive to market developments. As might be expected, however, their view of flexibility mainly allows for upward movements. (However, at least some OPEC members believe that, during a shortage, the cartel should practice some price restraint.) The aim of the OPEC long-term strategy is to bring about an orderly balance between demand and supply. As mentioned before, the index developed by OPEC is based on three independent series: a) an inflation index composed of movements in export prices of OPEC's major trading partners and corresponding movements in the consumer price index, b) exchange rate movements of the nine major industrilized currencies vis-a-vis the U.S. doliar, c) the weighted average reali economic growth of the industrialized countries. The first two series are intended to maintain OPEC's purchasing power and terms of trade. The final series, based on real economic growth, is intended to increase oil prices in real terms, thus stimulating the transition to alternative ‘ energy resources. 4 Based on OPEC's strategy paper, the Pacific Northwest Energy Policy Workshop simulated the OPEC oil price index. A modei has been developed which inputs assumptions about CPI, export prices, exchange rates, and economic qrowth for each of the major —. industrilized countries and then calculates the resulting change in the ofl price index formula. There are two major elements to any price indexing scheme: the rate at which the index changes and the base to which it is applied. In the case of oil, both consumers and producers might agree that, in principal, indexing is a good idea. Consumers, however, would like to apply the index to a 1972 oil price while Cc-51 Producers would like to apply it to a 1974 oil price. OPEC's indexing formula was unilaterally developed by the cartel's experts. So, as might be expected, the formula favors the producers. The index is biased because of double counting; the U.S. inflation rate and dollar exchange rate changes both apply to the oil price formula. The movement of the dollar vis-a-vis other currencies and U.S, inflation are not, of course, independent. For example, increases in the '.S. inflation rate are likely to stimulate further ‘declines in the dollar. Given the successful application of the OPEC formula, this would result in escalated increases in oil prices, The double counting is not, however, a mistake. A large percentage of OPEC assets are denominated in dollars, and the cartel is as concerned about financial stability as it is about the level of oil prices. : The carteli's index begins in 1973. Tt can be calculated through 1979 with actual data as illustrated in Figure C-1. Movements in the index for 1984, or for future years, can only be calculated on the basis of projected economic data. From 1973 to 1979 the index increased at an annual rate of 146%. The U.S. inflation rate during the period averaged 8.5%, so that if the index had been used, there would have heen a substantial increase in oil prices in real terms. There are two important reasons for the large increase in the index. Generally, export price increases were ——— nr tgher_than_internat-infietion—retes.—This—was—particularly true in oo. the period following the 1974 oil price explosion. Secondly, during the six-year decline in the dollar averaged nearly 3% each year from 1973 to 1979, Since oil is priced in terms of dollars, this resulted in a substantial decline in OPEC's purchasing power. OPEC made up for this with the 1979 price increases. Future movements in the OPEC oil price index have heen forecast in Petroleum and the Northwest: Disruption or Transition. c-5? Figure C-1 OIL PRICE MOVEMENTS Price/ Barrel $35 $30 Crude oil price movements if OPEC's index had been $25 applied. $20 $15 $10 / Actual posted Saudi price, as of 1 January. — — os $5 Year 73 74° 75 176 T2716 79 80 81 C-53 ! Overall crude ofl prices are forecast to grow at 23.9% (above inflation) from 1984 to 204%, Heating of1 growth rates are 3.4%, gasoline 2.7% and residual oil 3.4%. For the Alaskan energy demand forecast, adjustments have been made for higher Alaskan distribution costs. The impact is not significant. a-54 B. REGIONAL PRICE FORECASTS In the case of the modeling any of the Lower Forty-Eight States the type of base price forecast discussed above (inclusive of taxes and normal markups) would be utilized directly as an input variable. For the unique conditions of Alaska, however, such a forecast does not adequately reflect the product price at the point of consumption. The base price forecast in this case reflects reali price trends at the main bulk plants, or distribution centers. ' In most areas transportation costs from bulk plant to consumer make up a significant fraction of the prices faced by the end-user for any petroleum product. This transport of shipping component of fuel prices tends to be much lower in the Southeast and Railbelit areas than in any other parts of Alaska, based on examination of historical data for individual cities and villages. This result is, indeed, intuitive given the higher population densities of these regions as well as the more highly developed delivery systems of the areas. These are primarily regularly scheduled barge routes in the Southeast and the rail and highway systems of the Railbelt. t Outside these areas the primary method of shipping fuels from bulk plant to end-user is via barge. Air transport from bulk Plant to consumers is of secondary importance with commercial land transport being tertiary. The importance of personal land transport of fuels by the end-user via truck and snowmachine could not be quantified from the availiable data but is known to be a not uncommon occurance in northern areas of the state, particularly in winter. * Rural Alaska Community Action Program, “Energy Profile for Alaska", December, 1979. An attempt was made to ‘directly address ail of these considerations in generating the forecasts for prices of diesel fuel and gasoline on a regional basis. The first step in was to compute rates of growth in base prices for each five year increment of the forecast period. Base prices were then selected for each region, This selection process was accomplished from historical survey data representing a large sample of Alaskan villages and cities.* In those regions for which there waS not one predominant bulk plant, the median bulk pliant prices for diesei and gasoline were chosen as being representative for the given region. These base period (1979) values were then increased over the forecast period by the annual average rates.of growth computed from the base price forecast. The resultant series represents real prices of petroleum fuels at the buik plant for each region. The arithmetic mean transport (shipping) charges were then estimated for each region. This estimation proceeded on a judgmental basis as the ¢ross-sectional data available on a village by village basis included bulk prices and various shipping rates but did not include - consumption data which might have been used to weight the transportation charges. : With continuing research, data were also available for the cross-sections as to storage facilities and type of transport Mormally utilized which enabled ‘estimation of the appropriate shipping rates for each village. As consumption statistics for the cross-sections were not available, the regional estimates of average shipping charges were made on the basis of relative populations of the cities and villages and the informed judqement of the analysts. On the basis of available information, these average shipping rates were determined to have changed much more slowly than fuel prices over the historical period for which data was available. As a first approximation for this forecast the mean shipping rates were held constant over the forecast period. These shipping rates c-54 by region were then added to the forecasts for rea representative regional bulk plants. The re taxes, markups and all transportation costs. ELECTRICITY PRICE FORECAST At present there is no comprehensive forecasting the price of electricity in the state noted, numerous times in this report the Alaskan extremely diverse and the electricity pricing 1 prices at the Sultant forecasts represent reali fuel prices at the point of consumption inclusive of methodology for of Alaska. As energy picture is scheme is no exception. The price ultimately charged the consumer is a function of not only the fuel source and the conversion technology utilized in the production of the electricity but also on the various subsidy programs that have been, are now, and will be implemented in the the Alaska Power Administration that the energy sources utilized by the state in the future by the state. It has been estimated by generation of electricity are as follows: Natural Gas 56% oil 18% ! Coal 10% Hydro 14% Other 6% ' Given the alternatives now being utilized and geographical spread, what is necessary is a comprehensive capacity their expansion model that would allow the analyst the capability of estimating the changes in electricity price under alternative technological or capacity expansion assumpions as well as alternative scenarios regarding fuel prices. At present such a model does not exist at the State-wide or regional level. Tn addition, the State has implemented a subsidy program in an effort to mitigate the impact on residential consumers of the .rapidly increasing prices of fuels such as oil on the costs of supplying electricity and the ultimate price the consumer pays. The forecast of the price of electricity was regionally specific. In those regions that are highly dependent upon diesel for the generation of electricity the increases in the price of electricity were tied to increases in the price of diesel through the following formula: Price of Diesel (t) = Price of Niesel (t-1) (Pe (t) = Pe (t-1)) = ------------------- 2o---------- ooo ene ----- == Kwh / Gallon of Diesel We assumed that in the areas of the Arctic where natural gas is abundant and the Southwest were hydro is installed ‘and, the potential is high for increased hydro capacity the forecast of price of electricity is constant in real terms. 6-58 FORECAST OF ENERGY DEMAND This section summarizes the forecasts of energy demand by energy Source, economic sector, region and the State. Given the level of detail involved in the forecasts, only portions of the forecasts will be explicitly anaiyzed and it will be left to the reader to review the results of the individual sectors. FORECASTS RY ENERGY SOURCE A. ELECTRICITY Electricity is forecasted to increase in all regions and the State as a whole for the study period. The growth rate for the State as a whole for all sectors and the sum of the non-railbelt regions is 1.995% per year to the year 2045. This is significantly less than the growth that has occured in the State from 1976 to 1979 which has average 8.5% per year. This difference can be explained partially by the reduced forecasts of growth in population and economic activity as forecasted by the MAP economic model. The growth of electricity consuomption at the regional level range from 2.1511 average annual rate of growth in the Southeast to e8480 average annual rate of qrowth in the interior. The lower growth rate in the interior reqion can be attributed to the price effects of increased petroleum and subsequent generation costs resulting in retention in growth in the commercial and industrial use of electricity. Residential consumption increased at a level somewhat greater than the growth in population reflecting a relatively constant per capita use. National Nefense energy requirements are assumed to remain constant for the state at 524 thousand Mwh (526 x 14**3 Mwh) of net 0-59 generation. Self supplied industrial net energy requirements are determined exogenously and are composed of projects identified and included in the ISFR economic forecasts. B. PETROLEUM Given the level of detail in the forecasts, only some of the results will be presented. Petroleum consumption is forecast to increase in the State and in ail six non-raiibelit regions and for the three fuel types: gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel. For both the total of the six regions and the State diesel is the fastest qrowing fuel, on average, followed by jet fuel and gasoline, respectively. This pattern is also true for the historical period 1971-1979 for the State totais from which statistical parameters were estimated. The State total growth rate for 1980-2045 for diesel consumption is forecast to he approximately 3.19 percent, for jet fuel consumption about 3.14 percent, and for gasoline consumption about 2.55 percent. These compare with the forecast average annual growth rate of population which is 2.4 percent for the State total. The expected pressures for economic qrowth in Alaska combined to generate higher rates of growth in these fuels, the more they are business-related and at a increasing per-capita use level. For the six non-Railbelt reqions, the picture is slightly different. The population growth rate, following ISER, is forecast to be, again, 2.4 percent. But the fuel use growth rates are below those for the state totals, reflecting the relatively strong economic growth projected for the railbeit. The fuei use growth rates are projected to be 2.98 percent for diesel, 2.53 percent for jet fuel, and 2.11 percent for gasoline. The total, or weighted average, growth rate is 2.f4§ percent, slightly above population, since the use of diesel in the six non-Railbelt regions is C-54 Proportionally higher than for the State total. The same patterns generally hold in the individual regions. There are differences, but they are small. For instance, in the Southeast, the projected growth rate for gasoline siightiy exceeds that for “Jet fuel. This may be due in part to Southeast being service- rather than export-oriented insofar as the employment data categories used herein are concerned. In the Northwest, the growth rate for jet fuel exceeds that for diesel; it should be noted that the base for jet fuel is very small. The projected growth rates are generally reasonable and reflect likely economic and population growth in Alaska. However, the more disaggregate the analysis, the less accurate the forecasts are likely to be. It is more comfortable to agree with the State totals and non-railbelt totals than with any of the individual non-railbelit reqional forecasts. This is for two reasons. First, the lack of data at a regional level necessitated relatively primitative estimates of initial petroleum use conditions. Second, itis inherently easier to forecast spatial economic activity the larger the area chosen. Put another way it is easier to broadiy suggest the direction, type, and location of economic activity, than to pinpoint its location, timing, extent, etc. For all these reasons it is easier to feel comfortable with the division, say, between Railbelt and non-Railbelt than between Arctic and Northwest. C. NATURAL GAS Natural Gas consumption is projected to approximately double between 198% and 2405. This forecast follows Goldsmith and O'Connor (1981) and was exogenously forecasted by them. The projection is broken down by consuming sectors and includes electricity qeneration and LNG exports but not reinjection. Table C-11 indicates the actuals for 1980 and the projections for 70085. c-41 The projections are based on the following assumptions. Population grows to 740,444 by 2445 as a result of basic economic growth and State fiscal policy. This is similar to the mid-level forecast employed in the Railbelt electricity study. Natural qas is the preferred spaceheating and industrial fuel for new customers’ in the Anchorage area. New electricity generation in Anchorage is assumed to be provided by natural gas through 199A, New projects which stimulate natural gas use include the natural gas pipeline in 1985 and the facility for shipping LNG to California in 1984, TABLE C-11. ALASKA NATURAL GAS CONSUMPTION NET OF RETNJIFCTION (million barrels of crude oil equivalent) use/year 1926 2000 Utility Flectricity 4.9 8. Space Heat 2.5 4.a Industrial 24.4 55.7 LNG Exports a7 elisa Total 9:5 79.8 Total Net of LNG 26.9 59.7 GOLDSMITH, Scott and Kristina O'Conner, "Alaska - Historical and Projected O11 and Gas Consumption," tnstitute of Social and Feonomic Research, Anchorage, January 1981. C-6? ‘ITS ARE BILLIONS OF BTU.S (16##9 BTU.) cLECTRIC RESIDENTIAL TOTAL COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL OTHER TOTAL BLECTRIC TROLEUM DIESEL "RESIDENTIAL HEATING COMMERCIAL HEATING INDUSTRIAL TRANSPORTATION TOTAL DIESEL GASOLINE . TOTAL GASOLINE JET FUEL TOTAL TOTAL PETROLEUM NATURAL GAS TOTAL NATURAL GAS © TAL ENERGY CONSUMPTION FOR THE REGION ALL FUELS APPLIED ECONOMICS ASSOCIATES: INC. / ALASKA LONG-TERM ENERGY PLAN 1978 3.7381 63,8913 7 882 «3856 84, 2232 mn 85.6288 26.6508 49.6789 148.7908 295, 1488 241.0608 73.2008 689.4008 im 728.8088 1979 1413.6232 REGIONAL FORECASTING AODEL 1935 9.2524 78.4514 7.304 4852 87.4738 1985 89,8739 74.5799 $8. 3865 241.7874 374.5478 297.7168 92,5212 764.7349 839.3859 1988 1691 .6938 ARCTIC 99 es 18.8864 74.1688 7.7356 ; A3b6 92.0274 “Tm i 97.7254 76.9629 33.0776 238.7832 498.4722 304.9713 ig4, 3154 817.3598 953.7797 999 1863.7661 j C-63 1995 12.8782 82.5426 9.2786 -ai8i 104.3934 1995 116.3374 W.7311 68.3898 289.5673 497.7249 343.3906 126.1389 967.2465 198 1983.8158 1998 2155,.4549 2088 13,5627 88.4799 {8.2555 112.3624 zon 136.2787 33.2284 65.4114 335.6566 564.5752 364.5689 138.9228 1068 .6667 1231.5798 2008 2412,5083 285 15.0192 94,8238 11.2827 +6164 12b.8621 zon 143.8408 36.6878 Ti. 2Zi4 383.9999 636.7491 382.7762 158.7695 4178.2948 oa 1399, 4698 ios 26986468 AARG 2.1051 1.2489 1.8205 1.8205 1.3988 lg 2.5181 ITS ARE BILLIONS OF BTU.S (10*#9 BTU.) ECTRIC RESIDENTIAL TOTAL COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL OTHER TOTAL ELECTRIC TROLEUM DIESEL RESIDENTIAL ‘HEATING COMMERCIAL HEATING INDUSTRIAL TRANSPORTATION TOTAL DIESEL GASOLINE TOTAL GASOLINE JET FUEL TOTAL TOTAL PETROLEUM TAL ENERGY CONSUMPTICN FOR THE REGION ALL FUELS APPLIED ECONOMICS ASSOCIATES? INC. / ALASKA LONG-TERM ENERGY PLAN 1979 31.3358 44,9249 68,3618 15.1398 168.0687 ist B14, 43008 197.5868 118, 3688 43,4898 1525,7780 653, 6505 198.4968 2377,9108 4 REGIONAL FORECASTING MODEL NORTHWEST 1585 1598 1995 2008 34.6683 42.6678 48,8669 54,9104 £77898 53.9989 58.5463 $2.7522 72,5874 84,0308 GL.Si67 96.9451 15,9572 18,4756 20,9759 21.2513 173.9137 LSS 213,208 235.7991 598, 2067 1898, 9794 12536952 1483, 9539 265.1595 366.3373 378.8754 414.5753 146,1559 V7 284o £89, 5864 731.6584 556.1984 635.1938 847.9997 1923.2878 1869,7885 22:4, 7054 2686, 3566 3873..4746 796 9813 345.4178 1084, 3018 1185, 9799 295.2546 356.8167 4S74,3147 539.4384 C562. B189 S41E 9936 $162,473: 4718,2369 es EE MSZ. 9586 Bb15. 1491 4954, 3359 68.8354 66.6338 186.9758 22.1994 250.6039 1558, 9533 457,745? 255.7814 1170,.6935 3434, 2748 1167,4558 616.5199 S216, 2508 2665 9468.91.59 at 2.5885 1.5387 1.4832 1.4832 1.7353 2,506: 3.2656 3.2658 41821 3.1696 2.2559 44554 3.8648 aa 2.9905 APPLIED ECUNOMICS ASSOCIATES INC. / ALASKA LONG-TERM ENERGY FLAN REGIGNAL FORECASTING MODEL INTERIOR UNITS ARE BILLIONS OF BTU.S {idee9 BTU.) ~ ECTRIC 4979 1985 1998 1995 2006 2085 AARG RESIDENTIAL TOTAL 44,0489 14,1498 15.4249 17.6671 18,6496 28.6518 1.3318 COMMERCIAL 19.8578 16.5382 41.1997 12.1438 12.5487 13.3264 TH INDUSTRIAL 9.8982 9.2889 9,678 18.5118 19.5687 11.8144 A188 OTHER 6.7899 6.3665 6.6358 7.2188 7.2443 7.3536 488 TOTAL ELECTRIC 42,1868 49.4346 42,9338 47,5326 48.9947 32.5432 8488 PETROLEUM 197 1985 1998 1995 2008 2085. AARC DIESEL RESIDENTIAL HEATING 457, 6406 442, 7058 481 4186 549.2094 578.8196 639.8733 1.2927 COMMERCIAL HEATING 118. 9508 435.5897 158.6312 175.6298 198.9268 209.7951 2.4885 NDUSTRIAL 62,5500 76.4418 84.9218 990199 197.1305 148.2756 2.4805 RANSPORTAT ION 331.0906 436. 6656 542.2297 628.4065 715.8742 818.9342 3.5405 TOTAL DIESEL 962.2308 1135, 4018 1259.1927 1444, 3188 1591.8583 17868782 2.4875 GASOLINE TOTAL GASOLINE 351, 6688 446.0417 472.1289 583.6509 53%. 4602 578, 9467 1.8814 JET FUEL fora, 526.3888 689.7351 794.8254 977 6385 1087 2892 1242.4434 3 5988 M TOTAL PETROLEUM 1849, 1906 22712282 226.1438 2975, 6081 3217 .5197 35994383 “26140 »vTAL ENERGY CONSUMPTION FOR THE REGION ALL FUELS 1979 1985 1996 1995, 2008 2005, ARG 18823760 2311,.6628 2569.0768 2973.1487 $266.5144 36519815 2.5817 C-65 APPLIED eCONGNICS ASSOCIATES: INC. / ALASKA LONG-TERM ENERGY PLAN REGIONAL FORECASTING MODEL TTS ARE BILLIONS OF BTW.S (1##9 BTU, ) geTRIC 11985 RESIDENTIAL TOTAL 47,9693 60.6354 COMMERCIAL 485.4828 55. 2167 INDUSTRIAL 15.6338 18.4983 OTHER 21.3967 3144 TOTAL ELECTRIC 578, 4826 667.6628 TROLEUN 1785, DIESEL RESIDENTIAL HEATING 1393.1788 =——1749,0209 COMMERCIAL HEATING 937 8580 379.8575 INDUSTRIAL 292.9608 329.3868 TRANSPORTATION 1589. 7808 = 21748506 TOTAL DIESEL 313.6808 = 4633, 1149 GASOLINE "TOTAL GASOLINE 1707.2368 = 2083,1046 VET FUEL “TOTAL 242.7108 = 2884, 5159 TOTAL PETROLEUM 7783.8208 = 9608, 7354 TTAL ENERGY CONGUMPTION FOR THE REGION ALL FUELS 1979 1468 954.3026 10263,9962 SOUTHWEST ee i996 65.2831 583.3275 19.8714 2b. i814 693.7833 1998 1879.8258 405.4331 351.5633 2384.3968 5629, 4182 21673962 3149 4605 $6357 .2145 $1030,9932 C-66 1995 74,7787 632.4443 28.7235 28.3626 756. BLS 1998 2143,5934 448.8262 388.4971 2857 .9995 5838, 1162 2406.5081 3683.4881 W842. 1424 1298 12598.4148 2008 84, H163 677.9357 21.9778 38.8792 814.8089 2008 2468. 4661 472.5938 469.7997 3267 5583 6496 .4692 2525.3159 38724157 128861399 ‘wes 13782, 1498 2085 93.9377 726.4891 22.5156 31.5627 867.7251 285 7658. 3134 521.7917 452.4614 3669 .6537 7294. 2282 2686.2581 44256025 14406,0307 2s 15275, 8058 a 2,3463 UNITS ARE BILLIONS OF BTU.S (1889 BTU.) ELECTRIC RESIDENTIAL TOTAL COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL OTHER TOTAL ELECTRIC PETROLEUM DIESEL RESIDENTIAL HEATING COMMERCIAL HEATING INDUSTRIAL TRANSPORTATION TOTAL DIESEL GASOLINE TOTAL GASOLINE JET FUEL TOTAL TOTAL PETROLEUM TOTAL ENERGY CONSUMPTION FOR THE REGION ALL FUELS APPLIED ECONGHICS ASSOCIATES: INC. / ALASKA LONG-TERM ENERGY PLAN 74 65.2511 138.6275 124.1286 3.6372 323.6444 1974 694.9608 168.5198 419.6368 729.0400 4712, 1408 522.6680 155.3768 2398, 1788 1979 2713,6144 REGIONAL FORECASTING RODEL 1985 76.8814 443.1423 141.7846 $.1546 365.1629 1985 866.6828 204.8967 144.9948 196i .2239 2216.8975 668.6629 791.1686 9086, 7289 1985 2451 8918 CORDOVA/ KODIAK 1998 87.9721 156.0781 100.7855 #73 489.5478 1998 928.8182 225.7587 168.2696 189.6892 2504.5176 708.5128 738.4713 3443,5009 1996 3853.0479 C-67 1995 189.7934 169.2216 188.8375 5.2989 450.1164 1995. 1959. 6819 261.7968 185.8564 1487.8223 29959757 819.9932 281.4157 4987 4846 1995 45436018 2000 443.2177 181.3937 209.9508 5.8618 508.5231 1186.5781 282.6273 268.6451 1757 .37b6 34272278 887. 4884 312.0189 4626. 6544 2008 5127.1775 2085 125.3737 192.7573 218.5231 6.4831 543.0572 2085 1319.8712 312.0556 221.5378 7016. 4857 354.1494 946.789 356, 6886 5157. 4596 2005 5700,5168 AARG 7.8956 APFLIED ECCNOMICS ASSOCIATES: INC. / ALASKA LONG-TERM ENERGY PLAN | REGIONAL FORECASTING MODEL SOUTHEAST 5 ARE BILLIONS GF BTULS (idee? BTU.) TRIC 3974 1985 1998 1995 2088 2085 AARG | RestieNTIAL TOTAL AA9.4G28 = SAL.Z9B7 5044972 88.9846 759.4984 = BAE.9723 2.5185 COMMERCIAL 393.7872 «377.3675 «398.9787 = A8Z.STES | AGLLGAEZ 98.5479 1.4929 INDUSTRIAL 1143.2693 167.3786 1483.0417 1687.9953 1893.3556 2887. 0586 21774 OTHER 126.1314 158.7772 «163.5311 «183.9254 = 282.1593 228.8279 2.1774 TOTAL RESTRIC 2044.1992 —«72434.7498 = 2088.04BG = 29G5.ABZL ©=—«-3254.5864 3585. 8718 2.4511 | saves i979 1985 1998 195 2088 2085 AARG ESEL | “SESTUENTIAL HEATING © 3148.7988 «= BNE.975—«AZ1Z.7183 5.9235 5243.1994 5809. 2144 2.4bKB SONMERCIAL HESTING 73.4988 = «BL THR? = ELL7Z93.—BZLALAS = 1878,8268 = 11918787 1.7252 TNDUSTEIAL 5i.86ad 594.9325 093.1343 «78146077 «= 741.8837 818, 1588 1.7252 | TRENSPSRTATLON 31932888 4808.8552S854.3576 —GAL4BL «718.7948 «= 8828.91 5.9847 TOTAL DIESEL 738.5008 999.9322 18821915 12998.7995 148732731 14729. 3596 3.9653 ASILINE TOTAL GASSLINE 228 2918.9518 = 3BA1.7361. «© -354B.O5I7—3986,7863 4172. 0483 2.3345 HET FUEL mora S00.478R Ht 35AP OTT AKI = LAT.7677—«“1084.8886 —1299.7792 2.3338 | "GTAL PETSLEU 18698,9888 $3643.29 1A7AB.5289 17599.2129 1986494127141. 1811 2.873% | & ENERGY CONSURPTION FOR TRE REGION ‘ be FUELS 9 1985 1998 1995 2088 | V2545,.0788 = 16870.9585 = 17988.0775 «= 285B4OISL = 23121.5265 = 25596. 2021 2.7047 Cc-68 YTS ARE BILLIONS GF BTU.S (1089 BTU.) BLECTRIC RESIDENTIAL TOTAL COMMERCIAL OTHER TOTAL ELECTRIC S°TROLEUM OYESEL RESIDENTIAL HEATING ~CORMERCLAL. HEATING INDUSTRI. TRANSPORTATION TOTAL DIESEL GASOLINE TOTAL GASOLINE WET FUEL TOTAL TOTAL PETROLEUM TURAL GAS TOTAL NATURAL GAS TOTAL ENERGY CONSUMPTION FOR THE REGION LL FUELS APPLIED ECONOMICS ASSOCIATES: INC. / ALASKA LONG-TERM ENERGY PLAN 74 3572. 9620 5550. 9008 91,3482 F344, 3822 Ww 14355. 1268 3480. 5808 2764.1000 12215. 1808 32814, 9008 19949. 0698 44481, 2600 942362408 1974 72879, 9080 1475 VPbALY 9422 REGIONAL FORECASTING MODEL 1988 $793. 9164 7792, 9876 227.2756 12724.0998 4985 47165.5628 541.8773 40040838 17628 ..3254 43839. 7085 25376.4699 683674261 137583, 6046 1985 94750. 5000 1955 245058 . 2836 RAIL BELT 1998 5426 .7082Z 8722.7439 261.6883 14411,1404 1998, 18533, 1911 5344,.5614 42443794 19708.9511 47830.9829 26869.2642 739584989 1486497386 1998 117915, 6080 1998 288974 4784 C-69 1995. 6685.3642 11497. 8634 338.5837 18513.7313 1995 21130.8269 5836 .8379 4634, 6851 25983,3737 56984,9295 31498, 9074 83272. 4bb4 171696,2974 1995, 146739. 4008 336949 4287 cd 8239. 9008 14438,4575 406.1844 23084.5419 Ld 23722.2821 6231.2823 4948 5046 99871815 657738046 95175.1693 99963, 2057 191912.1796 2h 182612, 0008 2600 397608.7215 2 AAR 9510.6419 3.8972 17247 .9998 4.4576 475.0079 3.5591 27233.6496 42129 2005. ARG 2672304508 2.4189 6976, 1821 2.3557 9063. 6402 2.3597 37951 3379 4.4566 7b114.2053 3.2889 39578. 7038 2.6718 93828. 2681 3.1891 2095211964 3.1209 LoS ARG 227254. 1000 4 AZ 464008. 9461 3.7892 1S¥9°¢ ayy v9Sh"t Suv $208" Ite §266°2 b81"€ G82" 992° 26122 Saly'z Saw OLE 9888°2 91212 1666"? ¥L99°E ‘oud £218" 186226 S082 O68S° £59822 S062 1106"€22192 TEL6" L98T8T L168" 98S6¢ £088" 648681 SS19°9Z289S 698" 2061 Q9EE *SBTb 219° ST68E S662 2225" 6292 O1L6°S9L S182" L982 919L"S288t 6205°99961 Saaz 8869" 26 TOSe 0682 OLS" EP8E8T 6062 ¥BEL*S628E2 ¥168°866L6 6288 °OSty THT9" #6256 eSB" 129Gb SET" #029 S816°S0/8 6189" S9LHE 6062 S9TE" E5882 WBE" EL9 Loye"€L12 L902°E26S1 $989°8824 ‘OR OL-9 BL2b°SBTWBE = WHIZ" LBZ TZE “SbbT 9661 OSIZ°E28/¢1 = LOLE* L981 Geet 661 @SEe'G2ZE1Z BLS BELERT 61224168 «= SGLZ" PL ¥bd BEGbZeOGY = SZZH HOEHE EGE LEVER ©8882" LSHBL TLLO" bwLE = MT" S¥L62 LSE1"8829 BRS" 8495 Bb86°ST8 = bbS#" IBEL SBT ECBTE = B9SB"TEZLZ ‘Set ‘8b6T QLL2°298E2 = @9S2" 68481 2188°S2S 1898S" 18% ¥SS9" 8841 95S" H9LT - O2EE'S8BZT = ST be" O888T 228e'879L =—— BREN" 2429 ‘SoeT ‘wat SLNLS HST £629" 986182 eT BLT 1668°916S82 STand TW NOI934 3HL WO4 NOTLAWMSNOD AOWINE “Wi: SGeB"G8SS6 = ABB" HOSEL ‘Set eLet ¥BEE"OO69T == B19" BEBHTT LESb*TEEEL == B22" BLSSY blob" L8SZE = HTB" 9BLG2 6286°68669 GABE HSSBY 8926°SEL92 = BAB" 11981 OboT SHES — ATL" HT4E Si88°2169 «= OBS" ALAS YOLZ*BbbE2 = SAE T“bvbOZ eet buat OShHLAVIT = 1482" BESTT O0S2" OEt 628° 99 6988°9191 = BEE "4961 Se9e'90db =: L969" £299 9b86°bES == -PHLE" TBI Seer 6iaT SHO TWHOLYN WLOL $¥9 “Wan! WAFTOULSd WLOL “Wi0L 3d Lat INI WOSH) WiOL ant sed 739310 WL0L NOLLY -Wwiulsn QNTLY3H WH ONTLY3H wai 73814 wea ul ~ Q1ML03@ ‘WiOL WHO ‘WIHLSNGNE ‘WIIUIMNOD WLOL WILNSOIS9y 1133 ("Ud beABT) S*MLE 30 SNOTTIIG SW Sit THOM SNILSHISHO4 WWNO193Y NW Td ADHINS WHIL-ONOT HHSUTW / “INT‘SILYIIOSSY SOTHONOII M31 Tdd¥ (10 Btu's) ALASKA ENERGY GROWTH (By Fuel) 250 © (261.2) 225 O (213.2) 200 7 A 7 4 O (183.9) nn - ; J (183.8) Fe O (169.9) / f a, 150 x JN (147.8) Ee ra 125 i O(119.) 7N (118.9) 7 ee 100 on ¥ UZ N (95.6) KEY: vw “s Me Oil (Petroleum Prod.) N (73.6) Natural Gas Electricity 50 4 eo 8) 25 BPS sag E (28.1) tein E (23.0) — E (18.5) —— (16.5) E (12.5) Year 85 90 95 2000 2005 APPENDIX D ALASKAN UTILITY ELECTRICITY SALES 1978-79 Utility - Alaska Electric Light and Power Company (Juneau) AEL&P 1970 Generation’ Losses” Energy Use Residential Commercial Industrial Population Customers* Revenue® 1971 1972 1973 Utility - Anchorage Municipal Light and Power Department —- AML&P 1970 Generation’ 267802 Losses* 16194 Energy Use 251608 Residential 54518 Commercial 159538 Industrial 29322 Other? 8230 Population Customers‘ 10780 Revenue® $4794773 Source: Alaska Power Administration Footnotes: ‘All electrical numbers are in MWH. 1971 316750 24016 292734 63038 181374 39020 9302 11293 $5427870 1972 1973 363167 411966 22303 22916 340864 389050 72993 82663 205288 233312 53062 63448 9521 9627 12622 13048 $6064607 $6788551 ?\ncludes miscellaneous station and utility losses, transmission, and company uses. includes street lighting, boats (which sometimes are in residential data), town government, etc. “includes all categories of customers. “includes all categories of revenue. “Estimate PPrek 1974 31875 21367 D-1 1975 24533 1975 105214 321 10632 14674 $8193086 1976 36175 27018 1976 500634 30275 470359 119474 339550 1990 9345 15138 $11901075 1977 38702 29553 1977 537130 492436 117986 365510 10 16159 $13831669 1978 42143 31406 1978 §50210 51756 498454 115639 372511 39 10265 16740 $14228946 1979 45815 1979 568798 46142 116211 396811 16887 $16804130 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 Utility — Alaska Power Administration — Eklutna (Anchorage) — APA-E Generation’ Losses* Energy Use 152265 140085 157069 88236 115739 Residential 80865 70405 89278 51167 69252 Commercial 45900 44180 45880 14841 29961 Industrial 25500 25500 21911 22228 16526 Other? Population Customers* 3 Revenue® Utility - Aniak Power Co. - APC 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 Generation’ Losses* Energy Use Residential Commercial Other? Population Customers* Revenue Source: Alaska Power Administration Footnotes: ‘All electrical numbers are in MWH. ?includes miscellaneous station and utility losses, transmission, and company uses. includes street lighting, boats (which sometimes are in residential data), town government, etc. “includes all categories of customers. Sincludes all categories of revenue. EEstimate Preliminary D-2 1975 132937 51253 57864 1975 247 218 153© 273 49 1976 114217 36512 1976 547 524 367€ 157= 49 $107584 1977 194992 111144 56789 1977 599 15 175 7 $123751 1978 176555 107112 42002 27441 1978 13 670 201 $138259 170929 97200 25676 87 $225987 Utility - Alaska Power & Telephone Company (Craig, Hydaburg-Skagway, Tok) - AP&T 1970 Generation’ 5941 Losses” 1265® Energy Use 4676© Residential 1431© Commercial 2356© Industrial ag® Other? Population Customers* 490 Revenue® $343100 1971 7098 1511 5587 1710 2815 1062 $409918 1972 7906€ 1683® 6223 1905© 3135® 1183 652€ $456580 Utility — Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (48 Villages) - AVEC 1970 Generation’ 3246 Losses* 571 Energy Use 2675 Residential 861® Commercial 321F Industrial 1474 Other® 17 Population Customers* 698 Revenue® Source: Alaska Power Administration Footnotes: ‘All electrical numbers are in MWH. includes miscellaneous 1971 6621 763 5858 1886© 703® 3228" 37 1528 $655776 $1436089 1972 2046€ 1973 398° 1404€ 6994° 2136° 4a5e® $550878 2472 station and utility losses, transmission, and company uses. 1974 1975 9501 10931 1588 1950 7913 8981 2417 2966 5496 6015 802 836 $623249 $762455 1974 1975 11785 13628 1876 2274 9909 11354 3192© 3658 1190® 1364 5463 6260 63® 72 2584 2684 $1923447 $2323532 $2429192 $2842953 includes street lighting, boats (which sometimes are in residential data), town government, etc. “Includes all categories of customers. Sincludes all categories of revenue. “Estimate Preliminary D-3 1976 11568 1733 3401 $861720 1976 16572 13663 4252 1491 2761 $3430513 1977 14015 1964 12051 3730 3744 1145 $1116588 1977 17665 15371 1486 8911 $4242299 1978 15038 2031 13007 4017® 1229 1033 $1221230 1978 19118 3134 15984 5213 1627 $5475318 1979 16136© 2180® 13856 4294€ 3952€ 4310® 1319 1109© $1310372 1979 19574 16365 1714 $5610560 Utility — Arctic Utilities, inc. (Deadhorse) — AU! 1970 1971 1972 Utility - Barrow Utilities and Electric Cooperative - BU & EC 1970 Generation’ Losses* Energy Use Residenti Source: Alaska Power Administration Footnotes: ‘All electrical numbers are in MWH. 1971 1972 1973 1974 1973 1974 2512 1987 916 1071 431 $229498 ?\ncludes miscellaneous station and utility losses, transmission, and company uses. includes street lighting, boats (which sometimes are in residential data), town government, etc. ‘includes all categories of customers. ‘includes all categories of revenue. “Estimate Preliminary 1975 $513797 1976 1441 1948 1908 477 $551380 $1089289 $978389 1978 8196© 774 2075* 2748© 1 $1258718 Utility — Bethe! Utilities Corporation, Incorporated — BUC 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 Generation’ 17041 8317 16738 18217 18745 Losses* 1549 2960 670 729 750 Energy Use 15492 5357 16068 17488 17995 Residential 3309 1441 4020 4376 4915 Commercial 5195 1948 5764 6273 13080 Industrial 6988 1908 6284 6839 Other® 60 Population 2921 Customers* 971 478 1021 1284 1430 Revenue® $1170837 $587621 $1612561 $1847071 $2372942 Utility — Bettles Light and Power— BL & P 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 Generation’ 524 629 755€ 905* 1069 Losses* 12 35 78= 105® 165 Energy Use 512 594= 677= 800 904 Residential oF 15 12€ 14 16 Commercial 1238 143 163® 192 217 Industrial . Other® 380 4aie 503° 594® 671 Population ! 50 Customers‘ 16 18 20& 22 24 Revenue® $117702 $139514© $174393 $217991 — $272489 Source: Alaska Power Administration Footnotes: ‘All electrical numbers are in MWH. ?Includes miscellaneous station and utility losses, transmission, and company uses. includes street lighting, boats (which sometimes are in residential data), town government, etc. “Includes all categories of customers. Sincludes all categories of revenue. “Estimate Preliminary Utility - Chugach Electric Association (Anchorage) ~ CEA 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 Energy Use 483029 515105 Commercial Industrial va Public Utilities (Cordova Electric Cooperative)’ — CPU (CEC)* 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 Generation’ 8683 10114 10853 Losses* 1188 1338 1526 Energy Use 7495 8776 9327 Residential 2604 2747 3159 Commercial 1457 1845 1507 Industria! 2441 3392 3454 Other? 993 1092 1207 Population Customers* 726 729 769 Revenues® Source: Alaska Power Administration Footnotes: ‘All electrical numbers are in MWH. 2\ncludes miscellaneous station and utility losses, transmission, and company uses. Sincludes street lighting, boats (which sometimes are in residential data), town govern'nent, etc. ‘includes all categories of customers. Sincludes all categories of revenue. “Estimate Preliminary 0-6 1975 946151 351443 594708 359922 97578 113164 24043 $16958479 1975 11936 1544 10392 3765 5237 1390 799 1976 1090986 424146 666841 397845 110327 131472 27196 39463 $21186692 1976 13567 1900 11667 3821 3907 1276 1977 1236499 510283 726210 432070 118800 147003 43182 $26083951 1978 1351005 570832 780173 472040 130859 172403 4870 46675 1979 1449102 646570 477189 137623 182742 4977 47268 1979 16445" 1884® 14561 216 Utility - Copper Valley Electrical Association (Glennalien & Valdez) - CVEA 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 Generation’ 10702 11726 11803 12591 18624 Losses” 1207 1323 1511 1422 1583 Energy Use 9495 10403 10292 11169 14041 Residential 2382 2610 2796 2887 3751 Commercial 2098 2299 2204 2519 3659 Industrial 4708 5158 4969 5423 6320 Other? 307 336 323 340 ant Population N/A Customers* 850 931 937 1000 1260 Revenue*® $719511 $788356 $793533 $846511 $1041680 Utility - Dot Lake Electric - DLE 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 Generation’ 1 Losses” Energy Use Residential 196 205 Commercial Industrial Other® Population Customers* 16 Revenue® $20825 Source: Alaska Power Administration Footnotes: ‘All electrical numbers are in MWH. ?Includes miscellaneous station and utility losses, transmission, and company uses. includes street lighting, boats (which sometimes are in residential data), town government, etc. “includes all categories of customers. Sincludes ail categories of revenue. "Estimate Prelim 0-7 1975 26887 6194 601 1568 $1809769 1975 190 190 $25210 1976 10235 14565 2120 1976 224 $27875 1977 47461 10895 7144 23473 861 2163 1977 190 190 $24504 1978 $20246 $4512790 1979 Residential 23619 26456 Commercial 37941 36448 Industrial Other® 13088 34577 Population Customers* 5493 5510 Revenue® $3175885 $3661125 Utility — Fort Yukon Utilities - FYU 1970 1971 Generation’ ‘All electrical numbers are in MWH. 1972 120349 21945 24248 $4130770 1972 1973 1974 115410 122980 20751 10809 94659 112171 25952 25909 39029 45771 2952 29678 37539 5531 5734 $4494590 © $4789400 1973 1974 ?includes miscellaneous station and utility losses, transmission, and company uses. includes street lighting, boats (which sometimes are in residential data), town government, etc. “includes all categories of customers. ‘includes all categories of revenue. ©Estimate Preliminary 1975 137157 3106 134051 30180 60132 2932 40807 5769 $5733357 1975 1305 1305 170 637 198 $232470 1976 139608 4149 135459 31302 63177 2757 5906 1976 1365 1365 255 174 $250864 1977 133409 2544 130865 29497 62693 35623 5941 1977 1336 41 1295 173 $252343 1978 128170 7991 120179 27109 62000 3410 27660 5675 1978 1403 1355 314 797 242 $279722 1979 130500 15201 115299 30100 5675 1979 1737 1691 324 1001 $380876 Utility — Glacier Highway Electric Association (Juneau) - GHEA 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 Generation’ 7136 Losses* 904 Energy Use 6232 Residential 3794 Commercial 868 Industrial 754 Other® 816 Population Customers® j 667 Revenue® ‘ $372194 Utility - Golden Valley Electric Association, Inc. (Fairbanks Area) - GVEA 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 Generation’ 249761 332018 Losses* 19144 37471 Energy Use 230617 294547 Residential 127873 160200 Commercial 44263 51822 Industrial 58079 82150 Other? 402 375 Population Customers* 9164 10462 Revenue® t $8072256 $12688713 Source: Alaska Power Administration Footnotes: ‘All electrical numbers are in MWH. ?includes miscellaneous station and utility losses, transmission, and company uses. Sincludes street lighting, boats (which sometimes are in residential data), town government, etc. ‘includes ail categories of customers. Sincludes all categories of revenue. "Estimate Preliminary 1976 7671 6744 4126 876 1976 301460 162370 27409 111326 12055 $16097798 1977 8367 1252 7115 4291 987 873 $501822 1977 38774 324116 168275 37808 117618 415 13355 $17536827 1978 1152 4936 1137 $568274 1978 342232 33831 308401 150804 36941 120262 394 14715 $19467621 1979 1442 8467 911 1671 875 1979 327351 298712 142960 37285 118151 316 15363 $20965612 Utility - Homer Electric Association (Kenai Peninsula) - HEA 1970 1971 Generation’ Losses” Energy Use Residential Commercial Industrial Other? Population Customers* Revenue® — Haines and Power —HL & P 1970 1971 Source: Alaska Power Administration Footnotes: ‘All electrical numbers are in MWH. 1972 1973 117712 108407 31848 17813 56130 2616 $3344502 1972 1973 ?includes miscellaneous station and utility losses, transmission, and company uses. includes street lighting, boats (which sometimes are in residential data), town government, etc. “includes all categories of customers. Sincludes all categories of revenue. Estimate Preliminary 1974 126472 10209 116263 34913 20335 58218 2717 5241 $3707711 1974 D-10 1975 146958 11035 135923 24788 3240 5841 $4339359 1975 12186 11333 5297 $586075 1976 8081 7515 5931 1584 1977 207229 13243 193986 71071 35507 3419 $6072774 1977 7074 6578 5541 1037 581 1978 240358 15766 $7027308 1978 6753 1979 265733 18750 108992 47135 87955 2901 10198 $7915581 — Kodiak Electric Association - KDEA 1970 Generation’ 31701 Losses* 4153 Energy Use 27548 Residential 8267 Commercial 6247 Industrial 12340 Other® 694 Population Customers* 1977 Revenue® $1191647 Utility ~ Ketchikan Public Utilites - KPU 1970 Source: Alaska Power Administration Footnotes: ‘All electrical numbers are in MWH. 1971 32797 2684 30113 14746 2040 $1286399 1971 1972 33358 2170 31188 6104 14809 2113 $1347852 1972 1973 37877 10294 19466 737 2166 $1580102 1973 ?includes miscellaneous station and utility losses, transmission, and company uses. includes street lighting, boats (which sometimes are in residential data), town government, etc. “includes all categories of customers. Sincludes all categories of revenue. "Estimate Preliminary 1974 38108 10596 7126 19726 2248 $1947200 1974 73767 13794 59973 31128 20313 7147 1385 7468 Dt 1975 43748 2142 41106 11561 7499 21391 2314 13153 64116 25077 4770 1431 $2369479 1976 51346 3159 48187 12524 26130 2460 $3331361 5073 $2774557 1977 2887 50557 12912 10031 26847 767 $4099714 1977 82194 1978 57817 53740 13961 11388 27613 2870 $4768111 1978 86514 15388 71126 36754 1136 $3883621 1979 60791 4574 56217 14763 9673 31014 767 Utility - Kotzebue Electric Association, Incorporated - KtEA 1970 Energy Use Commercial Industrial Other* Population Customers* 1971 1972 Utility - Matanuska Electric Association (Palmer-Talkeetna) - MEA 1970 Generation’ 54822 Losses” 5258 Energy Use 49564 Residential 29702 Commercial 10533 Industrial 9017 Other® 312 Population Customers* 4213 Revenue® $1722041 Source: Alaska Power Administration Footnotes: ‘All electrical numbers are in MWH. 1971 67238 5111 62127 38465 12730 10566 366 4724 $2105866 1972 72369 3785® 68584® 42311© 14273® 10708 392 5140 1973 196 5253° 1974 1974 98919 91971 59876 17092 14772 231 6191 $2266567 $2539162 $2992701 ?Includes miscellaneous station and utility losses, transmission, and company uses. %includes street lighting, boats (which sometimes are in residential data), town government, etc. ‘includes all categories of customers. Sincludes all categories of revenue. “Estimate Preliminary D-12 1975 6781 781 1681® 2105 2431 1975 137293 20727 116566 18849 19907 218 $3961790 1976 8370 1619 6751 1992 1891 490 $926249 1976 161666 15194 146472 96702 23247 26112 411 1977 9441 1764 7677 2184 2733 532 $1140229 1977 201483 174857 116014 27469 31055 319 9557 $6537934 1978 10053 1491 2397 $1353204 1978 245570 21902 155339 36415 31726 188 11369 $8914352 1979 10454 1209 2448 3718 573 $1540785 1979 255623 21974 233649 160769 35213 37504 163 12520 $10962472 Utility - Manley Utility Company (Manly Hot Springs) - MUC 1970 Generation’ Losses* Energy Use Residential Commercial Industrial Other® Population Customers* Revenue® —Metlakatia Power and 1970 Generation’ 15122 Losses” 1665 Energy Use 13457 Residential 6380 Commercial 443 Industrial 6231 Other* 403 Population Customers* 340 Revenue® Source: Alaska Power Administration Footnotes: ‘All electrical numbers are in MWH. 1971 1971 16181 1758 14423 7026 6387 488 351 $334656 $346109 1972 1972 18210 2440 15770 7104 719 412 $426091 1973 1973 19717 17177 378 $512099 ?includes miscellaneous station and utility losses, transmission, and company uses. “includes street lighting, boats (which sometimes are in residential data), town government, etc. ‘includes all categories of customers. Sincludes all categories of revenue. “Estimate Preliminary 1974 1974 18614 2179 16435 1172 407 $557947 D-13 1975 182 173® 156€ 1975 16845 2748 14097 6814 1350 402 $515959 1976 182 173® 156© 1976 15288 1691 13597 1408 748 425 $615291 1977 182 173° 17= 156® 1977 16025 1190 14835 1330 $750106 1978 10 190& 18 171E 1978 14944 14564 1316 6018 847 $721878 1979 15307” 14918 6531© 1348© 6164® Utility - McGrath Light and Power - MGL & P 1970 1971 1972 ~ 1973 1974 Generation’ Energy Use Industrial Population Customers* Utility - Naknek Electric Association, Inc. - NEA 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 Source: Alaska Power Administration Footnotes: ‘All electrical numbers are in MWH. ?\ncludes miscellaneous station and utility losses, transmission, and company uses. “includes street lighting, boats (which sometimes are in residential data), town government, etc. “Includes all categories of customers. Sincludes all categories of revenue. "Estimate Preliminary D-14 1975 1828 1426 113 1313 $162509 1975 4734 1109 2421 1183 21 1265 $501855 1976 1931 1499 127 1372 95 $176248 1976 1220 4310 1133 1988 1172 17 $567952 1977 1985 1481 147 1334 1977 6021 887 5134 1349 2518 1267 $631843 1978 524 1796 181 1615 116 $259687 1978 976 1478 1566 (296 1979 1705® 172€ 1533© 1127= 6111® 1707© 1808© (-342)€ Utility - Nushagak Electric Cooperative, inc. (Dillingham) ~ NEC 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 Generation’ 2774 Losses* 221 Energy Use 2553 Residential 833 Commercial 942 Industrial 477 Other® 301 Population Customers* 355 Revenue® $226974 — Nikolski Power and —NIP&L 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 Generation’ Losses* Energy Use Residential Industrial Other® Population Customers* Revenue® Source: Alaska Power Administration Footnotes: ‘All electrical numbers are in MWH. ?includes miscellaneous station and utility losses, transmission, and company uses. “includes street lighting, boats (which sometimes are in residential data), town government, etc. ‘includes all categories of customers. ! “includes all categories of revenue. “Estimate Ppuaes D-15 471 $445765 1975 1976 4401 1405 1849 877 $522797 1976 1977 1978 5199 6239 430 710 4769 5529 1596 1829 3136 3663 37 37 501 571 $624788 $728418 1977 1978 150 143® 14 $22106 1979 7016" 6218® 2057* 4119® 1979 143® 14© ’ Utility — Northern Power & Engineering Corporation, inc. (Cold Bay) - NP&E 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 Generation’ 3005 Losses* 124 Energy Use 2881 Residential 525 Commercial 954 Industrial 1402 Other® Population 215 Customers* 22 Revenue” $252544 1970 1971 , 1972 1973 1974 1975 Generation’ 1574 Losses” . Energy Use 1574 Residential 315® Commercial 1259 Other® Population 55 Customers* 43 Revenue® $131201 Source: Alaska Power Administration Footnotes: ‘All electrical numbers are in MWH. ?Includes miscellaneous station and utility losses, transmission, and company uses. includes street lighting, boats (which sometimes are in residential data), town government, etc. “Includes all categories of customers. Sincludes all categories of revenue. “Estimate Preliminary D-16 1976 2782 101 2681 918 1314 $243647 1976 1351 186 1165 $145296 1977 110 2434 395 837 1202 1977 1463© 201© 1262© 1010® 1978 2727 118 492 887 1223 $314564 1978 1432 197 1235 247* 1979 125 2764 1066 245 57 $432823 1979 193® 1207= 2a1e Sie 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 Generation’ 736 725€ 715® 709 768 Losses* 25 25 25 25 25 Energy Use 71 700® 690° 684 743® Residential 79 70° 63 57 118° Commercial 632° 630° 627° 627 625° Other? Population Customers* 1 1 1 Revenue® $7451 $5720 Utility — Petersburg Municipal Power and Light - PMP&L 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 Generation’ 14047 16314 16798 17286 18735 18991© Losses* 2631 3216 3460 3081 3615 3664© Energy Use 11416 13098 13338 14205 15120 15327 Residential 5649 5742 5321 5735 5886 6226 Commercial 3214 3524 4177 4452 4070 4984 Industrial 1992 3232 3139 3118 3746 4117 Other* 561 600 701 900 1418 Population 2042 2042 2042 2042 2024 2386 Customers* 905 936 979 1003 1023 1013 Revenue® $338215 $379095 $419083._ $429097 $738488 = $676487 Source: Alaska Power Administration Footnotes: ‘All electrical numbers are in MWH. ?includes miscellaneous station and utility losses, transmission, and company uses. *Includes street lighting, boats (which sometimes are in residential data), town government, etc. ‘includes all categories of customers. Sincludes all categories of revenue. “Estimate Preliminary D-17 1976 25 763 133 $13375 1976 1108 14900 5891 4703 2126 1046 $796119 1977 25 744e 120 624° 1977 19344 1339 18005 6613 5567 2126 1102 1978 780 755 120 635 $11999 1978 19182 18899 5521 6124 2126 1159 $1082483 1979 737 25 712 125 587 $12460 1979 21545” 18557 7024 4902 6631 2126 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 Customers* Revenue® Source: Alaska Power Administration Footnotes: ‘All electrical numbers are in MWH. ?includes miscellaneous station and utility losses, transmission, and company uses. “includes street lighting, boats (which sometimes are in residential data), town government, etc. ‘includes all categories of customers. Sincludes all categories of revenue. “Estimate Preliminary D-18 1975 1975 1723 1073 142 1976 312 130 1976 2168 173 1995 157 131 1707 81 $74011 1977 4831 4831 704 149 $391392 1977 2169 267 1902 161 164 1577 1 Te $122361 1978 122 "5521 757 4764 147 1978 2552 2126 189 199 1738 76 $138014 1979 5100 5100 4173 125 171 sorgreetines Utility - Sitka Electric Department - SED 1970 Generation’ 28159 Losses* 4221 Energy Use 23928 Residential 8694 Commercial 5305 Industrial 7344 Other? 2595 Population Customers* 1874 Revenue® $671713 Utility - Seward Electric System - SES 1970 Generation’ 11208 Losses? 2366 Energy Use 8842 Residential 3559 Commercial 1472 Industrial 669 Other® 3142 Population 1587 Customers* 907 Revenue® Source: Alaska Power Administration Footnotes: ‘All electrical numbers are in MWH. 1971 25186 9563 5573 7342 2708 1934 $731063 1971 13110 2497 10613 4101 1595 1157 3760 977 1972 31076 26189 10425 6914 $760389 1972 14891 11883 4215 1834 1612 1973 31124 26847 11103 5881 6824 $786158 1973 15310 2152 13158 1997 1943 4521 ?Includes miscellaneous station and utility losses, transmission, and company uses. “includes street lighting, boats (which sometimes are in residential data), town government, etc. “includes all categories of customers. ‘includes all categories of revenue. “Estimate Preliminary D-19 1974 11657 5794 2181 $815871 1974 16065 2937 13128 2251 2102 4110 987 1975 30115 13690 3473 $1002545 1975 19713 3241 16472 5120 4113 1043 1976 32887 14970 8113 2451 $1140043 1108 1977 41622 15623 8467— 6197* 1977 19525 2251 17274 3791 4015 1175 1978 7973 37483"= 14966M= 11458ME 8719M= 1978 23155 17473 6807 4041 3307 5317 1257 $841635 1979 49872” 41124= 16420 12571© 2567© Utility - Tlingit-Haida Regional Electric Authority (Angoon, Hoonah, Kake, Kashan, Kianock) ~ T-HREA 1970 Utility ~ Tenena Power Company - TPC 1970 Source: Alaska Power Administration Footnotes: ‘All electrical numbers are in MWH. ?includes miscellaneous station and utility losses, transmission, and company uses. 1971 1971 1972 1972 1973 1973 1974 1974 Includes street lighting, boats (which sometimes are in residential data), town government, etc. ‘includes all categories of customers. Sincludes all categories of revenue. “Estimate Preliminary 1975 1724 116 1620 437 184 447 $169496 1976 1976 1757 108 1649 184 1013 $192146 1977 1693 3037£ 2122= 1078& 1977 1707 1707 776 $207837 1978 6240 1332 4908 1670 $809010 1978 1737 1737 707 186 139 1979 13972" 2981* 10991" 3740 1899 1979 1740" 17408 710& 186€ Utility - Wrangell Municipal Light and Power - WML&P 1970 Losses* ye 698 Energy Use 6501 Residential 2783 Commercial 3231 Industrial 56 Other® 431 Population - 1973 Customers’ 666 Revenue® $272257 — Yukutat Power -YPI 1970 Generation’ Losses* Energy Use Residential Commercial Industrial Other® Population Customers* Revenue® ‘All electrical numbers are in MWH. 1971 8275 1348 6927 2969 3595 42 321 2029 665 $305472, 1971 1972 1753 7245 3219 24 158 2029 827 $307921 1972 2194 7530 24 102 837 $336337 1973 ?includes miscellaneous station and utility losses, transmission, and company uses. “includes street lighting, boats (which sometimes are in residential data), town government, etc. ‘includes all categories of customers. Sincludes all categories of revenue. "Estimate Preliminary D-21 1974 1975 10305 10753 1668 2141 8637 8612 3597 3826 4392 4085 583 585 65 116 2029 2787 875 905 1974 1975 3651 718 152 $278310 1976 11651 3184 8467 3872 3982 114 3152 957 $662801 172 1977 12732 3916 4143 115 3152 1022 $655174 1977 4499 407 1161 2931 185 $363798 1978 14085 9792 3811 $173 676 132 3152 1057 $796908 1978 4097 1298 186 $373761 1979 387 3700® 1171F 2519 1a 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 Generation’ 200 200 198 200 Losses” 10 10 10 10 Energy Use 190© 190® 188© 190 Residential 19® 19 19 19 Commercial 171e 171e 169° i71e Industrial Other® Population Customers* Revenue® Utility - City of Unalaska 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 Generation’ 657 657 657 900 900 Losses? 33 33 33 45 45 Energy Use 624° 624® 624© 855® 855® Residential 2i1e® 218€ 21e& 299° 299° L Commercial 406® 406" 406® 556° 556° : Other? Population 510 Customers* Revenue® Source: Alaska Power Administration Footnotes: ‘All electrical numbers are in MWH. includes miscellaneous station and utility losses, transmission, and company uses. includes street lighting, boats (which sometimes are in residential data), town government, etc. “includes all categories of customers. Sincludes all categories of revenue. EEstimate Preliminary 0-22 = 008 en em ee Utility - Hughes (Esther J. James) — H(EJJ) 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 Generation’ Losses* Energy Use Residential Commercial Other® Population Customers* Revenue® Utility - liamna (Newhalen, Nondalten) 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 ‘All electrical numbers are in MWH. 2includes miscellaneous station and utility losses, transmission, and company uses. includes street lighting, boats (which sometimes are in residential data), town government, etc. “Includes all categories of customers. ‘includes all categories of revenue. “Estimate PPrelend 0-23 1975 1975 1976 1976 1977 1977 1978 1978 476 24 45° 1979 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 Commercial Population Customers* Utility — Nome Light and Power Utilities - NL&P 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 Generation’ Losses* Energy Use Residential Commercial Industrial Other® Population Customers* Revenue® Source: Alaska Power Administration Footnotes: ‘All electrical numbers are in MWH. 2includes miscellaneous station and utility losses, transmission, and company uses. Sincludes street lighting, boats (which sometimes are in residential data), town government, etc. ‘includes all categories of customers. Sincludes all categories of revenue. "Estimate Preliminary 1975 1975 11996 1976 1976 13589 1572© 12017© 3183® 3257= 745® 1977 1977 13772 1593 12179 3301© 755® 1978 15 275® 247 1979 14398" 1665* 12733 3451® 5121© 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 Generation’ 190 Losses* 10 Energy Use 180° Residents 18° Commercial 162" Industrial Other® Population 30 Customers* Revenue® Utility - Teller Light & Power Utilities (Teller Power Company) — TL&PU (TePC) 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 Generation’ 170 Losses* 9 Energy Use 161© Residential 16€ Commercial 145® Industrial Other® Population 219 Customers* Revenue® Source: Alaska Power Administration Footnotes: ‘All electrical numbers are in MWH. ?Includes miscellaneous station and utility losses, transmission, and company uses. “Includes street lighting, boats (which sometimes are in residential data), town government, etc. ‘includes all categories of customers. Sincludes all categories of revenue. "Estimate Preliminary 1976 190 10 18° 162! 1976 170 161© 16 145® 1977 190 10 180 18° 162! 1977 170 161 16 145© 1978 190 10 18° 162° 1978 180 171 154© 1979 180° 171® 154£ Utility - Tanakee 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 Generation’ Losses Energy Use Industrial Population Customers* Utility - North Slope Borough Power & Light System ~ NSEP&L (NSB) 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 197: Generation’ +334 Losses” 17 Energy Use 317 Residential 32° Commercial 285° Industrial ! Other® Population 384 Customers* Revenue® Source: Alaska Power Administration Footnotes: ‘All electrical numbers are in MWH. ?includes miscellaneous station and utility losses, transmission, and company uses. includes street lighting, boats (which sometimes are in residential data), town government, etc. ‘includes all categories of customers. Sincludes all categories of revenue. “Estimate °Preliminary D-26 1976 1977 10% 190€ 19 171 1978 190° 19® 171E 1978 10 190& 19 a7i* 1979 10 190 19 171= APPENDIX E ENERGY RESOURCES/PROJECTS UNDERWAY MARCH 1981 § Résource/ Purpose’ Region Responsible Capacity or Project Comments Agency Fuel Type r General Technologies Single Wire Ground Demonstrate economic and Southwest DELPD Electrical Distribution Demonstration tuchmeal feasibility of Northwest system which will allow centralization of rural electrical systems. Bethel Nakakiak system energized in October 1980 yanic Rankine Cycle To demonstrate the use of Northwest DOT, PF Electricity er System ORC to power emergency lighting system currently being installed in rural Alaskan communities (Nootvik) Multi Fuel Furnace 3 boilers of different sizes Northwest DEPD Coal, oil, wood, Demonstrations will be used for hot water peat and space heating for a { cluster of new housing 4 Hydrogen Use in Alaska To determine the status of Statewide DEPD Hydrogen different hydrogen production technologies and the poten tal application of the technologies to Alaska Fuel Cell Testing A continuimy program of Statewide DOT) PE Electricity and waste heat Dp augment boderal for space heating. and private programs of development of commercial fuel cells, Railbett Transmission Detailed feasibility Southcentral APA Electrical Distribution Intertie Studies and route Interior selection underway Brevig Mission Selection of contractors Northwest APA/ City Electrical Distribution underway, of Brevig Mission Cordova, Sitka, Angoun, Shungnak, Kiana, Amblet, Scammon Bay, King Cove. Goodnews Bay, Togiak, Grayling, Kaltay, Savoonga White Mountain, Elin, Sand Point, Akhiok, Latsun Bay, Old Harbor, Quzinkie, Russi Mission, Sheldon Point, Hughes: Buckland, Koyukuk, Crooked Crouk, Chuathbaluk, Stony River, Slevtinute, Red Dewi, Takotiia Tadic, anc Nikolar Distribution System t Reconnaissance Studies Underway (Taran. * Statewide: APA N/A Studies 8 b ‘ Southwast Interconnection Foohnncal, econone, and Soutlaayt APA Electrical Distriaition 4 atvailysits OF the feasibility Vat Gan ether tencell Urn ianiessbonn Weve Watest cao at eeticny willy Southeast Alaska Resource/ Project Peat Rural Alaska Peat Farm Biomass ve AVEC Wood Gasification Demonstration Project Deita Agriculture Project Blomass Assessment Study Interior Wood Assessment Study Hoonah Wood-Fueled Generation Project Noatak School Wood- fired Boiler Project Feasibility of using Gasohol and Alcohol Fuels in Alaska Solar Energy State Solar Planning Prototype of Passive Solar Alaskan School Design Manual Develop- ment Solar Heated Fire Station Demonstration Project Wind Rockwell Wind Energy Program Purpose! 7 Comments The demonstration of the harvesting and use of peat as a fuel resource for space heating in rural areas Phase | ha veloped a wood and coal gasifier that can be used with diese! generators. Phase |I will conduct testing in Anchorage area (Nulato will be site of rural testing). Assessment identified potential energy uses of biomass from land clearance. Contract has been awarded Feasibility assessment System design underway Determine potential use problems by field testing in DOTPF vehicles Continuing solare planning activities and State participating in Western Sun. Design of a modular school building that will incorporate solar heating and the preparation of a manual for use in new design and retrofit of school buildings. The design and construction of solar assisted buildings that will serve as garages for fire fighting equipment. Demonstration of two small wind energy systems in Alaska Region Statewide Statewide interior Interior Southeast Northwest Statewide Statewide Statewide Interior Northwest/ Southcentral Responsible Agency DEPD DEPD/AVEC DEPD DEPD APA APA DOT/PF DEPD DOT/PF DOT/PF, Chena Goldstream Volunteer Fire Department. DEPD/USDOE Capacity or Fuel Type Peat Gas to power diesel 87-100 tons per year proc fuel pellets 13.2-15.8 MW electrical potential, 10-12 million galions/year methanol Unknown 2.7MW Space Heating ‘Transportation N/A Space Heating Space Heating 2.2kW:Ko- tzebue. 18kW: Homer Resource/ Project Kotzebue Wind Project Alaska Wind Demonstration Wind Monitoring and Supplemental Budget Homer Wind Project Line Village: Wind Regime Analysis Nelson Lagoon Wind Demonstration Project Wind Anemometer Loan Program Newhalen Wind Demonstration Project Sheldons Point Wind Demonstration Project Wind Power Demonstration (Skagway) Unalakleet Wind Demonstration Project Geothermal Alaska Geothermal Development Plan-1979 Geothermal Commercialization Grant Kotzebue Geothermal Study Tenakee Springs Geothermal Study Pilgrim Hot Springs Geothermal Study Dutch Harbor-Unalaska Geothermal Project Purpose/ Comments Wind system intertied into community college This project is proposed to support the current wind energy demonstration projects in the state by providing data on results and information on equipment operation. Move the current wind machine in Homer to a permanent site. Wind insufficient for use. Photovoltaic cell use for refrigeration is under construction (Lime Village Region?) Feasibility of grid demonstrated. System encountered difficulties. Provides 30 anemometers on loan to citizens of the state. Wind generator was con- structed for use in providing use for community laundry (facility is down for repair). Prototype to be tested 12/80. If successful, wind farm to be erected spring ‘81 with a max of 13 systems. Find and install vertical axis machine, intertie into existing electrical system. Install Wind Machine Summer of 1981. Determined 15 sites with greatest geothermal potential. Three sites will be selected by the contractor for commercial analysis Heat resource determined to be insufficient for direct use, may be used as a pre- heater for other district heating techniques. Core drilling to confirm geothermal resource will take place. 1979 drilling results indicate potential for direct use. Determine extent of geothermal resource on the island Region Northwest Statewide Southcentral Southwest Southwest Statewide Southwest Southwest Southeast Northwest Statewide Statewide Northwest Southeast Northwest Southwest Responsible Agency DEPD/Chukchi Community College DEPD Alaska Energy Center DEPD DEPD/USDOE DEPD DEPD/USPHS DEPD APA/DEPD/ City of Skagway APA/DEPD/ Unalakieet Valley Electric DEPD/OIT/ U.S.D.E. DEPD DEPD/APA DEPD DEPD APA/DEPD Capacity of Fuel Type 2kW NIA Electricity Electricity 18kW NIA 8kW 1.8kWieach N/A 20-40kW NIA Geothermal heat Geothermal Water Geothermal Water Hot Water 300kW Hot water Steam Resource/ Purpose/ Region Responsible Capacity or Project Comments Agency Fuel Type Tidal Angoon Tidal Power Tidal resource determined not to be Southeast APA Unknown Alternative Study competitive with other resources. Cook Inlet Tidal Study To determine the technical Southcentral Office of the Unknown and economic feasibility of Governor/APA/ the construction and DEPD/DPDP operation of tidal energy facilities in the Cook Iniet. Resource/ Purpose/ Region Responsible ity oF Project Comments Agency Fuel Type Waste Heat, Waste Heat Organic Rankine To demonstrate use of low Interior DEPD/ 2.5kW, Cycle eta Electrical temperature fluids to in- University Pie Generator stration crease efficiency of of Alaska ed Hot Project electrical generation by prings) diese! from waste heat, or geothermal. A demonstration is underway at Manley Hot Springs. Waste Heat for Agriculture To develop demonstration Northwest/ DEPD N/A Feasibility Study prey to establish the Interior feasibility of economic waste heat capture systems for agricultural uses. Golden Valley Waste Heat Use of waste heat from the Interior DEPD/ Tobe 7 Recovery Project Trans-Alaska Pipeline to Golden Valley determined produce electricity Electrical Cooperative/ Alyeska Nushagak Waste Heat The Nushagak Electric Southwest APA/Nushagak N/A Recovery Project Cooperative will con- Electric ‘ struct and operate waste Cooperative heat recovery equipment on diesel generators (Dillingham). Rural Waste Heat Design for several Statewide APA Tobe Demonstration Project waste heat demonstration determined projects is underway. Fairbanks District Heat Feasibility study underway Interior APA/Fairbanks Space Heating Study APPENDIX F ECONOMIC AND JOB IMPACTS OF SOLAR AND CONSERVATION Appendix F ECONOMIC AND JOB IMPACTS OF SOLAR AND CONSERVATION Prepared by: Alternative Energy Development Commission, Task Force Final Report, July, 1984. A. Introduction and Findings Several studies recently have attempted to document the economic benefits to society of solar and conservation. We have not been able to do a detailed critique of these studies or an analysis specific to Oregon. However, we were sufficiently impressed with the direction and magnitude of their findings to believe they will be relevant to Oregon, and have summarized them here. Many conservation and solar energy measures are cost-effective compared to conventional energy supplies (coal and nuclear generated electricity, oil, and natural gas). The dollar savings resulting from these measures will increase economic activity and consumer satisfaction. Jobs are a common measure of this activity, and are used as a proxy in the studies surveyed here. The studies indicate that: 1. Solar and conservation create more jobs ver doliar invested and per unit of energy produced (saved) than conventional energy and power supplies. The secondary effects created by increased discretionary income resulting from cost-effective solar and conservation are a major component of this henefit, often F-1 exceeding the direct effects. 2. A larger portion of the money and jobs associated with solar and conservation would remain in the state or region rather than being exported out of the state or country. These studies do not include, amonq others, the following considerations: a. environmental damages; b. the uncertainty associated with continued dependence on energy imports; ¢. effects on peak capacity; and, d. costs to the State of regulatory proceedings. If these social costs/benefits could be adequately translated into dollars, the economic benefits (jobs) of solar and conservation would likely be even more attractive. B. Methodology Solar and conservation can effect the economy and create jobs in four ways. Y. Direct effects. The Conservation/Solar Scenario provides direct, on-site employment for insulation installers, solar equipment specialists, heating and ventilation workers and Plumbers, among others. 2. Indirect effects. The industries that supply on-site workers with materials and services experience indirect employment effects when they step up production to satisfy an increasing demand. Their greater activity, in turn, diffuses employment effects to other economic sectors, such as mining and transportation. Nis Induced effects. The workers and businesses directly and indirectly affected by increased economic activity receive wages or profits, some portion of which returns to the economy as further spending. This induces a second round of employment effects. 4. Respending effects. The Conservation/Solar Scenario would lower fuel costs, thereby increasing household discretionary income. Diverting this money to consumer goods rather than energy purchases would generate a large number of additional jobs. The two most complete studies to date have heen done hy Leonard Rodberg for the U.S. Congress Joint Fconomic Committee, and by the Council of Fconomic Properties (CEP). These studies have attempted to assess the direct, indirect and respending effects of a conservation/solar scenario for their target areas. Fiqures F-1 and F-2 illustrate CRP's methodology, which is similar to Rodherq's approach. Basically, the studies began with an analysis of the costs for the conservation/solar and conventional scenarios of providing an equivalent amount of energy, based on official projected energy needs for the target areas. A bill of goods was prepared itemizing the costs of the components and services for the scenarios, hy SIC code. Using the Bureau of Labor Statistics's (BVLS) Tnput-Output tables they calculated the national direct and indirect employment effects of each scenario. CEP used the Regional Industrial Multiplier System (RIMS) of the Nepartment of Commerce to calculate the regional impact associated with the conservation/solar scenarios were assumed to be spent as increased discretionary income on personal consumer goods and services, and the direct and indirect employment effects of this were calculated. Jobs lost by avoiding the conventional route were subtracted from the sum of the direct and indirect employment qenerated by the Conservation/Solar Scenario (employment of the solar and conservation measures plus employment resulting from personal consumption expenditures). F-3 C. Survey of Case Studies Rodberg's study for the Joint Economic Committee of the U.S. Congress found that to meet projected 199% new enerqy demand in the U.S. by conventional means would cost $118.8 billion, producing 1.137 million jobs. Saving the same amount of enerqy by solar and conservation would cost only $45.4 billion, creating 2.17 million jobs (direct and indirect), a net creation of 1.432 million new jobs. In addition, the $53.2 billion saved could be used to purchase other goods and services, creating an additional 1.87 million jobs. Thus, solar/conservation would create a total of 23.5 times as many jobs as an equal investment in conventional energy, or 2.5 times as many jobs after the jobs lost in the conventional energy sector are deducted (Table F-1). Rodberg also notes that: “within a few years after the onset of a substantial conservation and solar investment, the savings from reduced use of nonrenewable fuels will far exceed the investment, allowing funds to be shifted from energy into the purchase of other goods and services.... With (conventional) energy prices rising relative to other costs, increasing portions of the consumers's dollar will be taken up with direct and indirect energy costs...(R)elatively less income will be available for the purchase of other goods and services having low energy, high job content." The BLS projections Rodh «rg used assumed that the cost of energy rises no faster than the general rate of inflation. Tf, as Rodberg assumes, "the price of these fuels will very likely rise faster than this, the dollar saving will probably be greater and the number of jobs created by the shift in spending correspondingly F-4 jarger." The Council on Economic Priorities has recently completed an analysis of the job impacts of solar and conservation relative to conventional fuels and nuclear energy on Lonq Tsland, and reached conclusions similar to Rodberg's. Table F-2 summarized CFP's* findings. Nationally, the Conservation/Solar Scenario would create ?.4 to 2.7 times more jobs than continued consumption of oil, gas, and electricity, and 3.9 to 4.4 times more jobs regionally. They aiso estimate that the Conservation/Solar Scenario would create 1.4 times as many jobs nationally as an equal investment in nuclear energy, and 2.2 times as many jobs regionally. The Conservation/Solar fceenario actually creates fewer direct and indirect jobs nationally than conventional energy consumption, but the employment effect of the increased discretionary income tips the balance. in favor of Conservation/Solar. Investment in the Conservation/Solar Scenario would create more jobs within the region, while simultaneously enhancing national employment. In other words, the region does not gain at the expense of other regions, but both benefit. CEP found that unemployment on Long Island would be reduced from 6.3 to 5.5 percent with the Conservatioon/Solar Scenario. The respending effect is the crucial variable in both CEP's and Rodberg's analysis. A 1979 report by the California Energy Commission investigated the comparative employment effects of various energy-technologies. They reached three important conclusions: 1. In producing the same amount of useful energy, Solar energy can create 5 to 124 times the number of jobs as coal or nuclear power and at least 3 times as much as oil-based power plants. 2. Most jobs created by solar energy will not be directly in the F-5 Solar field. Over 9A percent will be indirect and induced employment. 7. Relatively few solar installers are needed. Consequentiy, maximum feasible implementation need not he constrained by a shortage of trained solar installers. Meg Schacter of the U.S. Department of Energy surveyed several other energy-employment sudies. Most of these studies indicate the same general results, but the analyses were iess comprehensive than Rodberg's and CEP's. The U.S. Congressional Office of Technology Assessment has ealculated that a solar water heating system in Albuquerque, ‘New Mexico, would create 1.5 to 2.5 more jobs than producing the sane amount of energy from a coal-fired power plant. They also estinate that a dollar spent on solar equipment manufactures 4 in the U.S. tather than on imported ofl would increase GNP $2? to $5. The Solar Domestic Policy Review (NPR) compared the direct and indirect employment effects of two accelerated solar scenarios (Maximum Practical and Technical Limits cases) with base case employment from 1978 to 2600. The results indicate that total employment over the period for the Maximum Practical Case is about 3 million man years higher than for the base case, and about 14 million man years higher for the Technical Limits Case. However, RPR did not take account of labor-saving production techniques that would probably be necessary to meet the levels of demand. Bruce Hannon of the University of Tllinois calculated the ehange in direct and indirect employment together with the respending effect for a number of energy-conserving “shifts" in consumer expenditures, including shifts from plane and car to train, throwaway to refillable bottles, and other shifts that would not effect us here. However, he concludes that, largely because of the Fespending effect, full employment would be reached hy reducing F-6 energy use 5 to 18 percent through the implementation of these energy-saving changes, assuming 1975 unemployment levels. Schacter concludes that, for the same amount of eneraqy, solar heating systems create 2? to & times more direct jobs than conventional power plants. Conservation measures such as direct. insulation, weatherstripping, etc., create direct jobs at iess than ene-third the cost per job of nuclear power, and will he economical in all parts of the country. They create less direct jobs than nuclear and other conventional powerplants per energy equivalent. However, she cautions that direct job creation may be misleading, as indicated by the respending effects illustrated in the Rodberq and CEP study. Based on a study by the California Public Policy Genter, solar creates 55-8 times as many direct jobs and LNG, to Provide an equivalent amount of energy. CPPC assumes solar eollector costs to decrease to one-fourth to two fifths the present average cost. If they remain at their present cost, there would he no cost advantage for solar compared to its LNG equivalent, although the direct employment advantage would remain. For the same amount of energy conservation measures create 26 times as many direct jobs as LNG at one-ninth to one-fifth the cost. The respending effect would increase this figure. Finally, preliminary analysis indicates that an energy strategy designed to promote the development of these industries would have a favorable effect on direct job creation. A 1976 BPA study also found that: “High impact conservation Programs create more jobs than would he created by building new Pewer plants to generate an equivalent amount of energy." D. Types of Jobs Created It is unclear what kinds of jobs will be created by solar and conservation, Skill levels are particularly important eonsidering the displacement of labor employed in the conventional energy industry that would occur. For example, if solar technologies create predominantly low-skilled jobs, they offer F-7 limited job opportunities for skilled workers of conventional power plants. Many solar related jobs are skilled or semi-skilled, involved in manufacturing and the building trades. Many of the conservation jobs would be unskilled, involved in installation. Solar and conservation would require one foreman for every ten workers, compared to one for every three workers in conventional Power plants. It is uncertain what kind of jobs will be created by the respending effect, although it will probably he a mix of skilled, semi-skilled, and unskilled. Thus, solar and conservation could create more jobs for unskilled and semi-skilled workers than do conventional energy supplies, without decreasing skilled or managerial positions, We must ask whether the puhlic welfare, in terms of employment and energy security as well as other social benefits, should not override the dislocation of a few individuals. The additional demand for other goods and services generated by the increased personal consumption expenditures involved with the Conservation/Solar Scenario may circumvent dislocation of any workers, while simultanéously creating new jobs. Tf not, measures should be taken to smooth the transition of displaced workers from the convention energy industries into other fields. Technologies that result in a significantly different distribution of income hetween wage-earners and capitalists will have differnt effects in the national level of investment, economic growth, and ultimately employment. However, as Amory Lovins suggests, solar and conservation will provide capital for business people as well as jobs for workers. Finally, most of the direct johs associated with the Conservation/Solar Scenarios will be located where the population is. There will he no major geographical dislocation of the work force, nor any boom towns in remote areas, as with coal, nuclear, or F-8 synthetic fuels plants. E. Applicability of These Studies to Oregon It is difficult to estimate the economic/employment effect of solar and conservation in Oregon short of doing a detailed case study. Oregon's economy and climate, in particular, would influence the cost-effectiveness and employment impacts of solar and conservation measures, However, all the studies to date that we have surveyed are so consistent in their findings that we must question whether the results in Oreqon would vary in any substantial way. CRP's analysis of the job impacts of Conservation/Solar and Conventional Scenarios on Long tTsland appears to have the most relevance for Oregon. It was the most comprehensive study, and it estimated the regional as well as the national economic/joh impacts. Other than the large hydro system, which is near its physical capacity, Oregon, like Long Island, has no indigenous conventional energy resources, Costs for new conventional supplies and conservation and solar measures are comparable between the two regions. The major distinction between the two regions is the mix of sufficiently diverse that the indirect and induced impacts of solar/conservation on the regional level should not differ significantly from the findings of the CEP or other analyses. SOURCES California Energy Commission. MDecade of the Sun: Prodqram Pian for the Maximum Implementation of Solar Energy Through 1994, ADP EL, 19840, California Public Policy Center. Jobs From the Sun: Employment Development in the California Solar Energy Industry. eppc (Los Angeles; Feb., 1979), Council on Feenomic Priorities. Jobs and Fnerqy: The Employment and -Bconomic Impacts of. Nuclear Power, Conservation, and Other Energy Nptions. CFP (NY; 1979), Domestic Policy Review of Solar Energy. USGPO (Feb., 1979). Rodberq, Leonard. “Employment Tmpact of the Solar Transition." Prepared for the tToint Fconomic Commmittee of the ".S. Congress. USGPO (April 6, 1979). Schachter, Meq. "The Job Creation Potential of Solar and Conservation: A Critical Fvaluation." USNOE (May ~ 979). U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment. Application of Solar Technology to Today's Energy Needs. USGPO (June, 1978). U.S. Congress. Subcommittee on Energy of the Joint Economic committee. “Creating Jobs Through Energy Policy." Hearings, March 15-16, 1978, -USGPO. F-140 Figure F-1 EMPLOYMENT/DLEMAND RELATIONSHIPS IN CH”S EMPLCYMENT ANALYSIS Rill of Goods (Materials band Services ‘ Cost of Scenario Recuired) Inter-Industry Output Required Employment Coefficients (Input-Output Table)*** in each from each Industry Industry Increased *Energy savings less costs in Chapter 3; nuclear cost/kWh less conservation/solar cost/kWh in Chapter 4. Discretionary Income* **Personal consumption expenditures matrix. *32*#RIMS or BLS. Figure F-2 SCHEMATIC SUNTMARY OF METHODS— CONSERVATION/SOLAR Dubin-Bloome Detetled Materials) - Engineering/ and Labor Require Cost Estimates! _ nents and Coste fo: National Econo:nic Impact (US Groes Ovtput) Annual Total Bill National of Goods by Input-Output > der. Seer “} 104 Conservation/ sit we ’ aneiyeis (S35) 4 Reiteosi rvat a AR ecb s Employment Sola> A, ploy ae aoont| 2 “Zpplications| Impact (On-Site & - Multictier) Annual On-Site Labor Requirements Scenario US DOE Appliance Efficiency Analyses and Other Studies Generator® Regional Employment Impact (On-Site & Multioher) Saturstions; Hous- ing Protections: —> “| Applicability aod Irnmplementation 4s sumotions Energy Savings Eetimates for 184 Conservation/ Soler Applications Annual Localized Bill of Goods by RIMS Industry®* Regional Input-Output Analysis (RIMS Regional Economic Impact (Regione! Gross Output) LILCO 149-b Report of the NY State Power Pool Increased Discretionary Income*** Energy Program Module® Annual Energy Savings by Fuel Type Personal Consumptucn Expenditures Matrix *Progrems cai select measures and Implementation assumptions for the varices scensrios {see Appendix G). **lncludes hoveehold income. eeeEnercy aavings less costs in Chapter 3: nuclear coot/kWh less conservation/solar cost/kWh in Chapter 4. F-3 APPENDIX G ALASKA WIND SUMMARY sf Up’ o, ~. ALASKA WIND SUMMARY AVERAGE wanna “ % of year % of year ii ws ind Blows Wind Blows _— 8-38 7-28 4-31 LOCATION MPH MPH MP! MPH Anchorage 6.4 34.4 Adak 15.1 74.9 Alatna 20. Aniak 6.4 37.1 Amchitka 2h. 82.7 Annette 10.9 62.6 Annex Creek 50. Atka 91. Attu 13. 63.4 Barrow 12.2 75.3 Barter Island 12.9 70. Beaver 64. Bethel 11.3 70. Bettles 7.7 Big Delta 9.3 44.3 Broad Pass 34. Candle 40. Cape Decision 76. Cape Hinchenbrook 80. Cape Lisburne AFS 121 63.7 Cape Newenham 11.3 63.6 Cape Romanzof 13.5 68.7 Cape Sarichef 15.8 44.7% between 14 and 36 MPH G=-1 | AVERAGE % of year % of year % of year m ANNUAL: Wind Blows Wind Blows Wind Blows 8-38 7-28 4-31 LOCATION MPH MPH MPH MPH Cape Spencer 80. Cape St. Elias 77. Central House 14. Chicken, 14. Chitna 36. Circle 17. Circle Hot Springs 12. Coal Creek 45. Cold Bay 19. Copper Center 46. Cordova 5.1 27.7 Council 70. Craig 62. Crooked Creek 37. Deering. 69. Dillingham , 11.1 Driftwood Bay 9.5 58.7 Dutch Harbor 9.6 59.6 Eagle : 46. Eielson AFB 3.1 13.4 Eldred Rock 62. Elim 18, Elmendorf AFB 5.1 24. Fairbanks 4.9 23.2 Farewell 13.1 Five Finger Light 18. Flat 16. Fort Yukon 76 46 Gambell 18.3 Galena 4.5 22.6 Golovin 20. Good Pastor 1 Guard Island 15. Gulkana* 6.6 16.8% between 13 and 31 MPH Gustavus 8.5 Haines 9.1 Healy = Holy Cross 2. Homer * 8.1 Hot Springs. 6. Hughes i 5. lliamna ¢ 10.2 Indian Mountain 6.2 34.7 Jack Wade © 0 Juneau 8.5 48.1 Kenai 7.6 44.1 a a iS 7. Kanakanak ‘ 25 Kasilof 3. King Salmon 10.6 32.2% between 13 and 31 MPH Ketchikan . 4 Kodiak 9.8 29.9 between 13 and 31 MPH Kotzebue 12.8 69.9 Koyuk | 12.5 Livengood 4 Lonely 99 Manley 5.2 Mary Island 14. McGrath | 4.8 23.8 Minchumina 6.8 Moses Point 12.1 42.9%, between 13 and 41 MPH Mountain Village 23.3 Naknek see King Salmon a G=2 AVERAGE % of year % of year % of year Wind Blows Wind Blows Wind Blows ANNUAL 8-38 7-28 4-31 LOCATION MPH MPH MPH MPH a Nenana 5.8 34.5 Nikolski 16.3 79.5 No Grub 1. Nome: 11. 61.8 Northeast Cape 12.9 44.3% between 13 and 31 MPH Northway 4.4 6.8% between 13 and 31 MPH Nulato 3. Ohogamute 10. Oliktok 11.6 Ophir 7. Palmer 79 41.4 Paxson 4.5 2 Petersburg 5.4 Pigot 5. Pilgrim Springs 8. Pilot Point 28. Platinum 39. Point Hope 18.3 Point Lay 12.2 Port Heiden 14.8 77.7 Port Moller 10.2 58.4 Portage 4. Radio Ville 14 Black Rapids 33. Richardson 4. Ruby 7. Sand Point 10.7 . Savoonga 21. Scotch Gap 35. Sentinel , 16. Seward 10. Shemya 18.5 81.4 Shishmaref ‘ 11. Sitka 7.9 Skagway 11.8 Skwentna 4.7 Solomon 32. Sparrevohn 5.4 31.9 Stampede’ 0. Stevens Village 3. Stoney River 2. St. Paul Island 17.1 86 Stuyahok 7. Summit 11.3 9. Talkeetna 4.9 Tanacross 5.4 Tanana 8.3 39.1 Tanalian Point 6. Tatalina 4.9 28.2 Teller 10.6 34.5% between 13 and 31 MPH Tenakee 6. Tin City 17.1 82.4 Tree Point 12. Tyonek 1. Umiat 6.9 38.8 . Umnak 17.9 46.5% between 13 and 31 MPH Unalakleet 12.1 66.6 Valdez 5.6 20.2 Yakataga 7.7 Yakutat 8.1 47.2 Wales 21.1 Wainwright 10. Wiseman 1, Wrangell 2. APPENDIX H GLOSSARY APPENDIX H GLOSSARY Alternating Current (a.c.): An electric current that reverses it direction of flow at regular intervals and has alternately positive and neqative values. Ambient: The natural conditions(or environnent) at a qiven place and time. Ambient air quality: The prevailing quality of the surrounding air in a given area in terms of the type and amounts of various air pollutants. Ampere (A): The unit of measurement of electric current. Tt is proportional to the quantity of electrons flowing through a conductor past a given point in one second, Tt is analagous to cubic feet of water flowing per second. Tt is the unit current produced in a circuit by one volt applied across a resistance of one ohn. Andesite: Dark grayish rock consisting essentially of oligoclase or feldspar. Anthracite: A high-rank coal with high fixed carbon, high percentages of volatile matter and moisture. APT: American Petroleum Institute -- a trade associatiton of the American petroleum industry. Aquifer: An underground bed of stratum of earth, gravel, or porous stone that contains water. A geological rock formation, hed, or zone that may be referred to as a water-hearing bed. Area mining: A surface mining technique used on fiat terrain. ARRG: Average annual rate of qrowth. Average cost pricing: (1) Tn an economic context, the dividing of totai cost by the number of units sold in the same period to obtain a unit cost and then applying this unit cost directly as a price. (2) Tn a public utility context, the pricing of the service without regard for the structure of the market, to recover those portions of total costs associated with each service in order to make total revenues equal to totai costs. Barrel (bbl.): Used as a measure of petroleum and related products. A Standard barrel contains 4? U. S. gallons. i H-1 Baseload: The minimum load in a power system over a given period of time. Bee: One billion cubic feet. tIsed as a measure of natural as. Beneficiation: Cleaning and minimal processing to remove major impurities or otherwise improve properties. Bloconversion: The conversion of organic wastes into methane (natural gas) through the action of microorganisms. Blomass conversions: The process by which plant materials are burned for direct energy use or electrical generation, or by which these materials are converted to synthetic natural as. Bituminous: An intermediate=-rank coal with low to high fixed carhon intermediate to high heat content, a high percentage of volatile matter, and a low percentage of moisture. Blackout: The disconnection of the source of electricity from all the electrical loads in a certain geographical area brought about by an emergency-forced outage or other fault in the generation/ transmission/distribution system servicing the area. Bonded jet fuel: Jet fuel stored for use of international flights. Federal duties and taxes are not imposed on bonded jet fuel. BPD: Barrels per day. British Thermal unit (Btu): The standard unit for measurina quantity of heat energy in the English system. Tt is the amount of heat energy necessary to raise the temperature of one pound of water one degree Fahrenheit (3412 Btu's are equal to one kilawat hour). Brownout: An intentional reduction of energy lioads in an area by the partial reduction of electrical voltages, which results in lights dimming and motor driven devices slowing down. Capability: The maximum load that a machine, station, or system can carry under specified conditions for a given time interval, without exceeding approved limits of temperature and stress. Capacity: Maximum power output, expressed in kilowatts or meqawatts. Equivalent terms: peak capability, peak generation, firm neakload, carrying capabilty. In transmission, the maximum load a transmission line is capable of carrying. Capacity factor: The ratio of the average load on a generating resource to its capacity rating during a specified period of time, expressed in percent. Carcinogenic: That which produces cancer. H-2 Casinghead gas: A mixture of gasses produced in conjunction with crude oil. Coke: The solid combustible residue left after the destructive distillation of coal, crude petroleum, or some other material. Combined Cycle: Combination of a steam turbine and qas turhine in an electrical generation plant. The waste heat form the first turbine cycle provides the heat energy for the second turhine cycle, Conservation: Improving the efficiency of eneray use; using iess enerqy to produce the same product. Contour mining: A mining technique used in steenly-sioped terrain where a seam outcrops on a slope. Demand: (1) In an economic context, the quantity of a voroduct that will be purchased at a given price at a particular point in time. (2) In a public utitlity context, the rate at which electric energy is delivered to or by a system, expressed in kilowatts or megawatts, kilovoltampers, or over any designated period, Direct current (d.c.): A undirectional current having a maqnitude that does not vary, or that varies only slightly. District heating: A system which provides heat for a qroup of noncontiguous buildings from a central heat source, Pry gas: Natural gas produced hy itself, not in association with crude oil. Effluent: A discharge or emission of a liquid or qas, usually waste material. Blasticity of demand: The degree to which the quantity of a product demanded responds to changes in price, income, or other factors. Electrostatic precipitator: A device that collects particulates hy Placing an electrical charge on them and attracting them into a collecting electrode. Emissions: A discharge of pollutants into the atmosphere, usually as a result of hurning or the operation of internal comhustion engines. Emissions: Material that is released into the air either hy a distinct source (primary emission) or as the result of a photochemical reaction of chain of reactions. Energy: The ability to do work; the average power production over a stated interval of time; expressed in kilowatt-hours, meqawatt- hours, average kilowatts, or average meqawatts. Fquivalent terms: energy capability, average generation, firm energy load carrying capability. Energy capability: The net average output ability of a qenerating plant or plants during a specified period, in no case iess than a day. Energy capability may he limtted by available water supply, Plant characteristics, maintenance, or fuel supply. Firm power: Power intended to be available at all times during the period covered by a commitment, even under adverse conditions, except for reason of certain uncontroliable forces or service provisions. Fquivalent terms: prime power, continuous power, assured power. Component power: firm eneraqy, firm capacity, dependable capacity. Fixed carbon: The solid, nonvolatile, combustible portion of coai. Fluidized bed: A reaction chamber in which reactants (e. q. coai or wood pulp) are maintained in a fluid-like suspension hy a flow of gas or liquid from below. Forced outage: An outage that results from emergency conditions directly associated with a component requiring that component he taken out of service immediately or as soon as switching operstions can be performed. Forced outage reserves: An amount of peak aenerating capability planned to be available to serve peak loads during forced outages of generating units. Fossil fuels: Coal, oil, natural qas, and other fueis originating from fossilized geologic deposits and depending on oxidation for release of energy. Fracturing: Splitting or cracking by explosion or other source of pressure to make rock more permeable or loose. Gasification: The process of converting a solid or iiquid fuel into a gaseous fuel. Groundwater: Water which is underground in an aquifer. Gigawatt (GW): One million kilowatts, one thousand megawatts. Head: Essentially, the vertical height of the water in the reservoir above the turbine; that is, the difference hetween the elevation of the forebay of the reservoir and the tailrace at the foot of the dam. H-A Heat engine: An engine for changing heat into mechanical energy, such a: a steam engine or gas motor. Heat exchanger: A device that transfers heat from one fluid to another without allowing them to mix. Heat pump: A device that moves, concentrates, or removes heat hy alternatively vaporizing and liquefying a fluid through the use of a compressor. Hydrocarbons: Any of a vast family of compounds containing carbon and hydrogen in various combinations, found especially in fossil fuels. Hydrocarbons in the atmosphere resulting from incompiete combhustio are a major source of air pollution. Insolation: The rate of delivery of solar radiation ner unit area surface, Hydopower : A term used to identify a type o generating station, or power, or energy output in which the prime mover is driven hy water power, (kw) Kilowatt: The electrical unit of power which equais 1,979 watts. (kwh) Kilowatt hour : The basic unit of electrical energy which equals one kilowatt of power applied for one hour. Kwe: Flectrical unit of power. Lignite: The lowest-rank coal, with low-heat content and fixed carbon, and high percentages of volatile matter and moisture. Liquefaction: A process by which a solid or a gas is converted to a liquid. Liquefied natural gas (LNG): A clean flammable iiquid existing under very cold conditions; that is, almost pure methane. Liquid petroleum gas (LPG): Gas extracts from refining netroleum or in treating natural qas. Mostly propane and hutane. Load: The amount of electric power delivered to a given rwoint on a system. Load factor: The ratio of the average load to the neak load Aauring a specified period of time, expressed in percent. Load Leveling: Nescribes the more extensive use of storage to eliminate Most or all conventional intermediate cycling equipment. Load management: Influencing the level and state of the demand for electrical energy so that demand conforms to individual vresent supply situations and iong run objectives and constraints. H-5 Load shaping: Fither the arrangement and operation of generating resources to meet a given load, or the arrangement of (interchange) load to meet a given resource; over specified periods of time (hourly, weekly, monthly, or yearly). Load shaping on a hydro system usualiy involves the adjustment of storage releases so that qeneration and load are continuously in balance. Load shedding: A method whereby loads in isolated areas are dropned by automatic relays to provide protection for the buik power system. This could occur when generation is insufficient to neet ioad. Long run incremental cost pricing: Pricing associated wth meeting the cost of customer requirements for additional increments in utility service on a continuing basis when the utility has fully adjusted to its operation and facilities to the most efficient means of meeting the increased total demand. It includes the immediate expenses the utility incurs in taking on new customers as weil as the cost of utility plant and associated costs necessary to provide and maintain utility service. Low-Btu gas: Gas obtained by partial combustion of coai with air; energy content is usually 14% to 24% Btu's per cubic foot. Marginal cost pricing: A system of pricing whereby each additional unit of a product is priced equal to the incremental cost of producing that unit; or charging a price for all units of a product equal to the incremental cost of producing the last unit. Mcf: One thousand cubic feet. Used as a measure of natural gas. (Note: Usage in the literature varies, Mcf is sometimes used to denote one million cubic feet.) Megawatt (MW): The electrical unit of power which equals one million watts or one thousand kilowatts. Megawatthour (MWh): A basic unit of electrical energy which equals one megawatt of power applied for one hour. Mitigate: In environmental usage, the reduction or control of adverse environmental impact through various measures which seek to make the impact less severe, less obvious, more acceptable, etc. Nameplate rating: The full-load continuous rating of a generator under specified conditions as designated by the manufacturer. Tt is indicated on a nameplate attached mechanically to the individual machine or device. Naptha: A light fraction of crude petroleum akin to the products gasoline and kerosene, =a 1 A Nonfirm energy: Energy which is subject to interruption or curtailment by the supplier and hence, does not have the quaranteed, continuous, availability feature of firm power. Nonfirm power: Flectric power available during surnius periods, which can be interrupted by the supplying party for any reason. One class of nonfirm power currently available from RPA is caled Authorized Increase. NOx? Various oxygen-nitrogen compounds (e. 4. nitrogen dioxide, nitrous oxide) formed during combustion of fossil fuels with air. Offrpeak: A period of relatively low system demand for electrical enerqv as specified by the supplier, such as in the middle of the night. OPEC: The Orqanization of Petroleum Fxporting Countries. Qutage: In a power system, the state of a component (such as a generating unit, transmission line, etc.) when it is not availabie to perform its function due to some event directly associated with the component. Mverburden: The rock and soil covering a mineral to he mined, Particulates: Finely divided solid or liquid particles in the air or in an emission. Particulates include dust, smoke, fumes, mist, spray, and fog. Peaking: Operation of generating facilitiesto meet maximum instantaneous electrical demands. Peaking capability: The maximum peakioad that can he supniied by a generating unit, station, or system in a stated time period. Tt may be the maximum average load over a desiqnated interval of time. Peaking capacity: Generating equipment normally operated oniy during the hours of highest daily, weekly, or seasofuel. Hiqhway gasoline accounted for 28 percent of the total, hut some of this is used for snowmobiles and off-highway vehicles. Highway diesel accounted for only 13 percent, once again, illustrating Alaska's unique transport system. Aviation gasoline was only 2? per cent of the total. Tn the marine sector diesel is the dominant fuel, amounting to %9% of the total marine consumptpeakload plant: A powerplant which is normally operated to provide power during maximum load neriod, Peak shaving: Use of end-use storage of of f-neak power to reduce neak loads. Rhatovoltaic generation: A method for direct conversion of solar electrical energy. Pollutant: A residue (usually of human activity) which has an undesirable effect on the environment (particularly of concern when in excess of the natural capacity of the environment to render it innocuous). Powers: The time rate of transferring or transforming energy, for eheens eee y expressed in watts. Power, in contrast to eneray, always designates a definite quantity at a given time. : Radiogenic: Produced by radioactivity. Reliability: Generally, the ability of an item to perform a required function under stated conditions for a stated period of time, Tn a power system, the ability of the system to continue operation while some lines or generators are out of service. Ragerve capacity: Extra generating capacity available to maet unanticipated demands for power or to generate power in the event of loss of generation resulting from scheduled or unscheduled outages of regularly used generating capacity. Reserve capacity provided to meet the latter is also known as forced outage reserva. Reserves: Resources which are known in location, quantity, and quality and which ane. economicaly recoverable under currentiy availiable technologies. Run of river: A hydroelectric plant with little or no ahbflity to regulate flow. Bolar cell: A semiconductor device that produces a voltage when exposed to the sun, a form of photovoltaic generation. Sour Crude O11: A crude ofl containing relatively large amounts of sulfur and other mineral impurities. fitorage reservoir: A reservoir in which storage is held over from the annual high-water season to the following low-water season. Storage reservoirs which refill at the end of each annual high-water season are “annual storaqe" reservoirs. Those which cannot refill all usable power storage by the end of each annual high-water season are "cyclic storage reservoirs. Subbituminous: A low rank coal with low fixed carbon and high percentages of volatile matter and moisture. flulfur dioxide: One of several forms of sulfur in the air; an air pollutant generated principally from combustion of fuels that contain sulfur. fulfur oxides: Compounds of sulfur combined with oxygen that have a significant influence on air pollution. H-R System r Thermal Thermal eserve capacity: The differencé between the availahle denendable capacity of the system including net firm mower purhases, and the actual or anticipated peak load for a specified period. efficiency: The ratio of the electric power produced hy a’ Powerplant to the amount of heat produced by the fuel; a measure of the efficiency with which the plant converts thermal to electrical energy. electric: The production of electricity from steam-powered turbines. The heat input required can he from a number of sources such as coal, oil, gas, and nuclear fission. Thermal generation: Generation of electricity by applying heat to a fluid Turbine: Volt: or gas to drive a turbine generator. A rotary engine activated by the reaction and/or impulse of a current of pressurized fluid (water, steam, liquid metal, etc.) and usually made with a series of curved vanes on a central rotating spindle. The unit of electromotive force or electric pressure analogous to water pressure in pounds per square inch. Tt is the electromotive force which, if steadily applied to a circuit having a resistance of one ohm, will produce a current of one ampere. Watershed: The area from which water drains to a single point. na Wet gas: natural basin, the area contributing flow to a qiven place on a stream. : Natural gas produced in conjunction with crude oil. APPENDIX | ALASKA’S LONG-TERM ENERGY PLAN AND THE BUDGET PROCESS APPENDIX T ALASKA'S LONG-TERM ENERGY PLAN AND THE BUDGET PROCESS Continuation of the Long-Term energy plan and its integration into the State hudget process. The section 44.56.2774 of S438 calis for the preparation and revision of a long-term energy plan. This plan is to be completed annualiy and submitted to the leqisilature by February 1 of each year. Tn the first year, leqisiative funding for the activity was not approved untii the middie of May, 1986. Consequentiy, the preparation of the plan could not coincide with the normal budqet process of the state and to fit into the mandated schedule had to he completed as a separate activity. This has led to the outcome that the plan contains little in the way of action recommendations by the various aqencies of the state with energy responsibilities. In addition, the Governor and the leqisliature are unable to review the FY 82 agency requests in contextt with the policies enumerated in the plan. To remedy this, the long-term enerqy plan should be prepared in conjunction with the budqet process of the state's executive agencies. To do so will require that the plan due in 1982 be presented as a progress report on the status and development of the 1983 plan. tn addition to the need to put the process in step with the hudget decisions, the plan needs to be able to utilize the annual work of the Alaska Power Administration, the Alaska Eneryy “enter, the Division of Energy and Power Nevelopment, the Nepartment of Transportation and Public Facilities and other agencies with enerqy responsibilities. A plan due February 1 can use little of the information to he obtained from Projects approved for the same fiscal year. Instead, the results of the previous fiscal year wili he utilized since they reflect completed tasks that can be presented in the plan. eri *ueTd Wiay-bLucy yo uozqiod AotTod Ayeay Seivdyead Gaga -- tcsol eune - 2° T Tpady *payatduos Apnyy seAtyeudesty 3Teqtreu -- Scvol Yolew *ueTd Abiaug Wivy-buc7>7 syqQ jo uct z10a ALT TOd ey JO QRUEeUdOTeAep B44 UL esN 10} pequesejid sztnsey *pajzetdwoo uoyyystnboe eyep 10 SqIacdsi1 Yovloig -- saevA Teost} yo pus - Zgot Arenuec *uopTyonaqgsuos quetd pue sjoeloid ucLjvIysSUuOWep ‘UOLAENTeAs pue yusWssesse @oinosalt “4AyiTigq see} ‘{sduUNSS}PLUUODGI] SpNTOUL TTIM aseuL *pazeraqpur syveloid ieaa, teostg Aoueby -- ?[yolt °320 -- Tel Atne SC¥oT AeOA TeOSTA TSOUOASOTIW OTGeaoUTL suetd Abisue Wis} buot yxeu ay 10} |BTNpSYyoS pesodoiG & Sf LULMOTTOG¥ *SSeD0 1d qebpny pue ueld YYyQ JO Mota SL jeWeYyoS e Jusseid {[-] saANbTy *AtTenuue pejytuiqns eq pInos ueTd 84yy ‘pieMUo pot iad AeUuy UCI, UsuL “etool ‘1 AaeNAgeg UO paazyyUgns sq OF URTd |YQ UT peTTTR TINY ®G 3829q p{NnomM yey, “UuKeTd AL sue w1aqz LUOT eY4Q OUT poqeICdIODSUT aq pINCYS UOTIOR SATIeTSIbeT 160 SATINVex| eAINbal ZeYUy SUC] ye PUSsMWOseI Aue pue Apnyas eyy JO sytnset’ uy ‘outa 3e4yR 3e uetd Abisue wie} buot patteqep e jo anten eYyyY UcLysunb OQUy Sbhul1sy oCsSTe esol yoiew UT Apnys SeAPqQuLIByTY YTeu4TTey SYR 4¥O UOTYaTdWwoos auL i pue uetd Abieaug wWiay—buoyT ayy JO w10j3 aYyQ Uy sINQeTS}beq 24uy OF pagazwqns suweibo0olg Abisuyg Feol AeA Te2STa -- Zsolt Arenuey *s@bueyd YIM eoURWIOJUOD 10} +pemetTss1 sqebpnq Aduaby *uoyqiod Aattod au Uy Spew sebueyo pue suo, Zed pOW *paeqetT’wos uetg Ableug waayt-buoy 30 UuoL_Z1Od AdD]TOd UO AUuBUOS PU MeyTAeT OTTYGNg -- 2C¥O1l TeQuoAvon sueta Abisuy wie_-buoy ey jo uct 410d yoaload uypequos TTA STUL *1OUT@ACH OF peyZ}UgnS Jebpnq Teyide5 petTTezeq -- FCBOT 1040390 *matse1 AOuebe 10} paayzwqns pue veyetTduod uetqg Abisaug wWiey-bucy yo uozzied YAoeload Ageaq -- *MeyAal OF Tqnd 10} peyQyuiqns 41> 91 Qjeag -- 2C¥Ol Jequagjdag *seqpTottod ayeqs 3yeip C2 pateduods uopIoeTes PUe MsTAeI Yoelorig -= *sepoueke syeys JO SQebpnyg Aoptod jo uopsspuqns YUATM UOTAIOUNLUOD UT IOUIBACY OF peraziuqns jicdesi 4RRPIG -- *Cs8ol ysnbny ‘uot zeUTpAOOD pue MetAeli AcUsLE 103 poyQ}wqns y10de1 |Azeaq -- *Cxol eunr the State agency budgets and recommended State actions. -- Public review of the project portion of the Long-Term Enerqy Plan is done by the legislature in conjunction with the budget review of each aqency. the Executive may wish to make changes to the -- In addition, January due to Long-Term Fnergy Pian during the month of new information available from the FY 83 projects initiated in July 1982, POLICY PORTTON; Contains: -- Details State policies in energy conservation and development, emergency planning, and sale and use of energy resources. Reports on the status of renewable resources of the State and the technologies to use those resources. -- Outlines changes in State policies. -- Reviews State conservation programs. PROJECT PORTTON: -- Details State supported projects, leqislation or administrative actions to carry out the State policies. -- Details results of current State projects. BUDGETARY PLANNING PROCESS FIGURE 1-1 Jul. 81 Oct. 81 Jan. 82 Apr. 82 Jul. 82 Oct. 62 Jan. 83 Apr. 83 Jul. 83 Oct. 83 Annual Agency Projects: FY 82 FY 83 FY 84 Rallbelt Alternatives Study XProject Reports or Data XProject Reports or Date aa Executive Budget Seo totes oe Re poche Policy Budget ee ——— Detailed Operating : & Capital B it: judge os Same ras LONG-TERM PLAN ' ! \ I | | FY 84 (Feb 83) eels ee \ \ Policy Portion Review x XLong-term energy plan : | eel x 1— Xeubmitted to Legistature ! : Project Portion ney \ \ os Review Agency} \ 85 (Feb 84) : aa \ Policy Portion *Kgeney Policy y Project Part je Project Portion Part a ee en | Public Review: NOTES:————Lines denote path of information to the long term energy plan or the executive budgetary process. X donates the completion of the work or the availability of information or data for the long-term energy plan. APPENDIX J LETTER FROM THE ATTORNEY GENERAL MEMORANDUM State of Alaska 1o Clarissa Quinlan, Director DATE: March 10, 1981 Division of Energy & Power Deve lopment FILE NO: A66-288-81 Dept. of Commerce & Economic Development TELEPHONE NO: 276-3550 FROM WILSON L. CONDON SUBJECT: Governor's Energy ATTORNEY GENERAL Emergency Powers 7" ay Amy J. Stephson Assistant Attorney General Anchorage - AGO You have asked this office two questions relating to the governor's powers in the event of an energy emergency: (1) what energy emergency powers the governor has under present state law; and (2) what powers the governor has under the Federal Energy Emergency Conservation Act of 19795. With regard to your first question, the governor's basic powers are outlined in Article III of the Alaska Constitution. Section 1 of Article III, which is entitled "Executive Power", states that "[t]he executive power of the State is vested in the governor." Succeeding sections then enumerate more specifically the governor's powers. Thus Section 16 states that "the governor shall be responsible for the faithful execution of the laws," and authorizes the governor to bring court actions in the name of the state to enforce compliance with constitutional or legislative mandates and to restrain violations of law. Sections 17-27 of Article III give the governor the power to convene and give messages to the legislature; to head the armed forces in the state and declare martial law; to grant pardons, commutations and reprieves, and to suspend and remit fines and forfeitures; to organize and supervise the executive departments; and to appoint various officials. As the above indicates, the Alaska Constitution gives the governor certain specific powers, none of which includes the power to declare or take action in energy emergencies (except perhaps with regard to state agencies 1/). 1/ The governor probably could impose energy conservation measures on state executive branch agencies pursuant to his constitutional authority to supervise the executive branch. ‘ 02-001 A(Rev.10/79) Clarissa Quinlan -2- March 10, 1981 More generally, it gives the governor the authority to enforce the constitution and state statutes. Accordingly, we do not believe that the governor has any inherent energy emergency powers but may take action in such an emergency only pursuant to statutory authority. Turning to state laws, the only statute which we have found that even arguably gives the governor authority to take action in an energy emergency is the Alaska Disaster Act, AS 26.23. Under that act, the governor is given a very broad range of powers in the event that he declares a condition of "disaster emergency." AS 26.23.020. Among other powers, the governor is given the authority to issue orders, proclamations, and regulations necessary to carry out the purposes of the act, which orders, proclamations and regulations have the force of law. AS 26.23.020(b). In addition, the governor is specifically given the authority to allocate or redistribute fuel. AS 26.23.020(g)(10). A declared disaster emergency stays in effect until the governor finds that the danger has passed or that emergency conditions no longer exist, subject, however, to a variety of powers given the legislature to terminate a disaster emergency. AS 26.23.020(c). The act additionally contains numerous provisions regarding financing of disaster measures, cooperation among different states and political subdivisions in meeting disaster emergencies, establishment of the Alaska Division of Emergency Services, establishment of disaster plans, etc. For your purposes, the key question with regard to the Disaster Act is under what circumstances it applies. As was noted above, the governor's powers under the act are predicated on a declaration that there exists a "disaster emergency." AS 26.23.230(2) defines "disaster emergency" as "the condition declared by proclamation of the governor or declared by the principal executive officer of a political subdivision to designate the imminence or occurrence of a disaster." AS 26.23.230(1) then states: "Disaster" means the occurrence or imminent threat of widespread or severe damage, injury, or loss of life or property resulting from any natural or non- military manmade cause including, but not limited to, fire, flood, earthquake, landslide, mudslide, avalanche, wind-driven water, weather condition, tsunami, oil spill or other water contamination requiring emergency action to avert danger or damage, volcanic activity, epidemic, air contaminiation, blight, infestation, explosion, riot, equipment failure, or shortage of food, water, fuel or clothing. Clarissa Quinlan -3- March 10, 1981 Although this definition of "disaster" is broad, and although it specifically includes a shortage of fuel among the situations which might constitute a disaster, the definition appears to envision situations which are more serious than those in which the division might wish the governor to be able to take action. Thus the definition requires the "occurrence or imminent threat of widespread or severe damage, injury, or loss of life or property," i.e., a fairly catastrophic state of affairs. Accordingly, it would appear that the Disaster Act might have some utility in an energy emergency but it is probably not broad enough to cover a number of situations in which the Division of Energy and Power Development might wish the governor to be able to take action. As was noted above, the Disaster Act is the only law which even arguably empowers the governor to take action affecting the public in an energy emergency. This leads to your next question concerning the federal delegation of powers under the federal Emergency Energy Conservation Act of 1979 (EECA). Your memorandum of January 29, 1981, indicates that you are familiar with the provisions of EECA and that your only question at this time relates to the delegation provisions of Sections 212 and 213 of the Act. Section 21l(a) of EECA gives the President of the United States the authority to establish for the nation generally, and for each state, monthly emergency conservation targets for any energy source if he finds with respect to that energy source that a "Severe energy supply interruption exists or is imminent or that actions to restrain domestic energy demand are required in order to fulfill the obligations of the United States under the international energy program." Section 212(a) in turn directs each state to submit to the Secretary of the Department of Energy a state emergency conservation plan designed to meet or exceed the emergency conservation target in effect for that state under Section 21l(a). Section 212(b) then outlines the conservation measures that each state plan must contain. For purposes of your question, the pertinent portion of Section 212(b)(1) is as follows: Such plan may provide for reduced use of that energy source through voluntary programs or through the application of one or more of the following measures described in such plan: Clayvissa Quinlan -4- March 10, 1981 (A) measures which are authorized under the laws of that State and which will be administered and enforced by officers and employees of the State (or political subdivisions of the State) pursuant to the laws of such State (or political subdivisions); and (B) measures -- (i) which the Governor requests, and agrees to assume, the responsibility for administration and enforcement in accordance with subsection (d); (ii) which the attorney general of that State has found that (I) absent a delegation of authority under Federal law, the Governor lacks the authority under the laws of the State to invoke, (II) under applicable State law, the Governor and other appropriate State officers and employees are not prevented from administering and enforcing under a delegation of authority pursuant to Federal law; and (III) if implemented, would not be contrary to State law; and (iii) which either the Secretary determines are contained in the standby Federal conservation-plan established under section 213 or are approved by the Secretary, in his discretion. As can be seen from the above, a state emergency conservation plan may have one or both of two types of measures: under section 212(b) (1) (A), measures which are authorized under state law, and under section 212(b)(1)(B), Measures which the governor of the state may take pursuant to a federal delegation. Since Alaska law provides for energy emergency measures only in the event of a disaster, as discussed above, it does not appear that Alaska could formulate an adequate emergency conservation plan employing measures authorized by state law pursuant to section 212 (b) (1) (A). This is particularly true inasmuch as under section 211 (a) Clarissa Quinlan -5- March 10, 1981 the President may establish energy conservation targets and call for state plans in situations which do not meet the definition of disaster found in AS 26.23.230. In addition, AS 26.23.020(c) gives the Alaska legislature the authority to terminate a declared disaster emergency, which imposes an obvious limitation on the governor's disaster powers. Accordingly, unless there is new state legislation, Alaska may have to rely on a federal delegation of authority in its EEC plan. If a state emergency conservation plan is to contain measures pursuant to a federal delegation of authority, the following requirements must be met: (1) the governor must request and agree to assume responsibility for administration and enforcement, through himself or his designees, of the measures; (2) the attorney general must find that (a) absent a delegation of authority undér federal law, the governor lacks the authority under state law to invoke the measures in question, (b) that under state law, the governor and other state officers and employees are not prevented from acting pursuant to a federal delegation of authority, and (c) that if implemented, the measures would not be contrary to state law; and (3) the measures must be contained in the standby Federal conservation plan established under section 213 or be approved by the Secretary of the Department of Energy. As the above indicates, in addition to being requested by the governor and approved by DOE, any measures which Alaska might seek to employ pursuant to a federal delegation must be analyzed under state law. Although it is already clear that the governor generally lacks the authority under state law to invoke the type of emergency energy conservation measures contemplated by EECA, this office would have to review the particular measures proposed to be included in Alaska's plan to further determine whether state law in some way prohibits the delegation or implementation of those measures. We hope that this memorandum answers your questions. AJS:dr APPENDIX K ENERGY EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS BY NCSL April 1981 ENERGY EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS PROPOSALS ALASKA ENERGY PROJECT NCSL ENERGY PROGRAM National Conference of State Legislatures National Headquarters 1125 Seven Conference ee cab Seniesa of State Suite 1500 Denver, Legislatures Colora 30 March 1981 The Honorable Terry Gardiner House of Representatives Alaska Legislature Pouch V Juneau, Alaska 99811 Dear Representative Gardiner: Enclosed is the second report on energy emergency preparedness, entitled Proposals. President Richard S. Hodes Majority Leader, Florida House of Representatives Executive Director Earl S. Mackey The National Conference of State Legislatures drafted the suggested legislation contained in this report in response to your interest in following up on a number of the options presented in our first report. Two bills are suggested to meet Alaska's energy emergency preparedness needs: 1. An energy emergencies act granting certain authorities the responsibility to the Division of Energy and the Governor, and others in state government; and 2. An act creating a central repository for state energy information within the Division of Energy and Power Development and granting authority to collect information on energy emergencies. These bills have been drafted with Alaska's particular circumstances and governmental structure in mind, and could serve as the basis for important additions to the Alaska Statutes. Sincerely, ele T. Dwight Connor Senior Program Director, Energy TDC/ jm ENERGY EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS PROPOSALS A report to the Alaska legislature by the NCSL Energy Program April 1981 National Conference of State Legislatures 1125 Seventeenth Street, Suite 1500 Denver, Colorado 80202 (303) 623-6600 The Alaska Project of the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) is funded by a contract with the Alaska Legislature House Research Agency to provide technical assistance to the Alaska legislature. The assistance is designed to aid in the development of effective policies and state programs for solar, wind, and other renewable energy resources; energy emergency preparedness; and state energy organizations. The materials and opinions in this report are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Alaska legislature or its staff. The principal author of this report is Jill Verdick, Senior Staff Analyst, in consultation with NCSL legal staff members George W. Sherk and Ken Wonstolen.Douglas Sacarto, Associate Director of the Energy Program and Research Coordinator, supervised preparation of the report; Staff Associate Joslyn Green undertook final editing. Production was in large part the responsibility of Pat Shearer. Pe fi. Ht. Contents Introduction The initial report of the National Conference of State Legislatures to the Alaska legislature on Energy Emergency Preparedness proposed several steps the state may take to improve its readiness for future energy shortages and perhaps even its ability to help avert shortages. Included among the i iiptiees Meseneed were planning, authorizing and coordinating state response efforts and also collecting and storing vital energy data within a central repository. The two draft bills which comprise this report suggest legislative response the state can make to help meet its needs in these areas, The first proposed bill, entitled "Alaska Energy Emergencies Act," creates a framework within which the state can prepare for and respond to energy emergencies. It vests in the Division of Energy and Power Development responsibility for creation of a phased, comprehensive state energy contingency plan to shape state response. It sets goals and criteria for both the plan and the planning process. It requires legislative approval of the energy contingency plan. The bill also provides for declaration of a state of energy emergency by the governor and authorizes him to take steps to activate the contingency plan. In addition, it requires state agencies and local governments to cooperate with the Division of Energy in taking steps to reduce the risk of future energy shortages in Alaska. The second proposed bill, entitled "Alaska Energy Information Act," is aimed at providing the state with the data needed to foresee energy supply problems and therefore perhaps avert them or lessen their impact. The bill directs the Division of Energy and Power Development to collect information and requires other state agencies, local governments, energy consumers, and suppliers to assist in the task. It creates an energy information center within the Division. The bill authorizes the Division to collect the information necessary to fulfill the responsibilities outlined in the Energy Emergencies Act, and also provides for the protection of confidential information. Enactment of this proposed legislation should provide Alaska with a strong, balanced approach to energy emergencies. ii ALASKA ENERGY EMERGENCIES ACT--DRAFT A BLEL For an Act Entitled: "An act requiring an energy contingency plan; providing for the declaration of an energy emergency; granting necessary energy emergency powers to the governor; defining conditions under which such powers are to be exercised; providing penalties; providing a period of effectiveness; and amending the state disaster act and the public utilities commission act." Section 1. Legislative findings and intent. The legislature recognizes that the people of Alaska are highly dependent upon available energy resources for their health, safety, and well-being; that energy in various forms is increasingly subject to shortages and disruptions; and that only with adequate information systems and a comprehensive emergency response plan for reducing and allocating energy use, Can a severe impact on our state's citizens be avoided in an energy emergency. The legislature finds that prevention or mitigation of the effects of such shortages or disruptions is necessary for preservation of the general health and welfare of the citizens of this state. (2) It is ‘the intent of this act to: (a) grant necessary planning, information gathering, energy emergency powers to the governor and the Division of Energy and Power Development, and define the conditions under which such powers are to be exercised. Be it therefore enacted that: 1. AS 44.33 18 amended by adding a new section to read: Section 2. Definitions. For the purposes ot tnis act: (1) “Energy” means all forms of energy or power used in Alaska, including but not limited to oil, gasoline and other petroleum products; natural or manufactured gas; electricity in all forms and from all sources; and other tuels of any description. (2) "Energy emergency" means an existing or imminent domestic, regional, national or international shortage of energy which threatens curtailment of essential services or production of essential goods, or the disruption of significant sectors of the economy unless action is taken to conserve or limit the use of the energy form involved, or to allocate available energy supplies among users. (3) “Person" means an individual, partnership, joint venture, private or public corporation, cooperative, association, firm, public utility, political subdivision, municipal corporation, government agency, or any other entity, public or private, however organized. (4) “Energy supplier" means a person who furnishes energy in the state, or any part of the state, as determined by the Division. (5) "Director" means the director of the Division of Energy and Power Development. (6) "the Division" means the Division of Energy and Power Vevelopment in the Department of Commerce and Economic Development. Section 3. Energy contingency plan. (1) Within | months after the effective date of this act, the Division shall prepare and issue a comprehensive plan specifying actions to be taken in the event of an energy emergency in the manner set forth in subdivision (2). (2) Such plan shall describe in detail a variety of strategies and energy conservation measures to be implemented in a phased response to an energy emergency, and shall establish guidelines and criteria for the emergency allocation of energy to priority energy users as defined in the plan. The plan shall contain alternative conservation actions and allocation plans designed to meet various foreseeable shortage circumstances and allow a choice of appropriate responses. The plan shall be consistent with relevant tederal laws and regulations and shall: (a) seek to employ voluntary measures before mandatory measures; (Db) prevent unnecessary hardship and threats to public healtn and safety; (c) minimize economic and environmental impacts of emergency response; (d) establish programs, controls, standards, priorities or quotas for the allocation, conservation and consump- tion of energy; and for the suspension and modification ot existing standards affecting or affected by the use of energy, including but not limited to those related to the type and composition of energy sources to be used and to the hours and days of operation of public buildings, commercial! and industrial establishments, and other energy consuming facilities; (e) establish programs to control the use, sale, or distribution of commodities, materials, goods or services; (f) establish programs and agreements for the purpose ot coordinating the energy contingency actions of the state with those of the federal government, local governments, other states, Canadian provinces, and their localities; (g) determine at what level or phase of an energy emergency the governor shal! petition the president for a temporary emergency suspension of air quality standards as required by the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C., Section 110(f); (nh) establish procedures for fair and equitable review of complaints and requests for exemptions from emergency conservation measures and allocations. (3) In developing the plan, the director shall seek the advice and assistance of: (a) the Office of the Governor; (b) the Division of Emergency Services in the Department of Military Affairs; (c) the Division of Community Planning and the Division ot Local Government Assistance in the Department of Community and Regional Affairs; (d) the Public Utilities Commission; (e) electric and natural gas utilities; (t) local governments; (g) energy suppliers; (h) business, industry, and labor. (4) All agencies and political subdivisions of this state shall cooperate with the Division in developing the energy contingency plan. The directors of the Division of Energy and Power Vevelopment and the Division of Emergency Services in the Department of Military Affairs shal | exchange letters of understanding describing their respective duties and responsibilities during an energy emergency. The director may exchange such letters of understanding with any other persons as deemed appropriate. Such jetters shall be incorporated into the state energy contingency plan. in developing the plan, the Division shall seek to assign specific responsibilities to local governments, and shall report to the legislature any additional authorities to be delegated to local governments as required by the plan. When requested to do so by the chief executive of a local government, the Division shall render assistance with energy contingency planning to such local government. (5) The governor shall submit an approved energy contingency plan within __ Montns after the effective date of this act to the legislature for ratification. Ratification shall be by joint resolution of the legislature. (6) Tne energy contingency plan shall be reviewed annually as part of the Long-term Energy Plan, as set forth in Section 44.56.224. (/) In addition to preparation of the state energy contingency plan, the state, in order to reduce the state's vulnerability to energy emergencies, shall institute measures including but not limited to: energy conservation measures, stockpiling of energy supplies, and increasing energy storage facilities. In accordance with the aims of this subsection, the Division shall: (a) take appropriate measures within its jurisdiction; (0) recommend measures which other state agencies and political subdivisions may take to reduce the risk or impact of an energy emergency; and (c) report to the legislature any additional authorities that are needed to fulfill the intent of this subsection. Section 4. Energy emergency declaration. (1) The governor, after making a written determination setting forth the basis for his decision that an energy emergency exists, and providing such basis to the presiding officer of each house of the legislature, may issue a declaration that such an emergency exists. Upon the issuance and publication of such a declaration, the governor shall issue such orders and take such steps as are necessary to activate the ratified state energy contingency plan. The governor's extraordinary powers in an energy emergency snall be limited to those described in the energy contingency plan ratified by the legislature. (2) The governor may make temporary revisions to the energy contingency plan it he finds that an emergency situation so requires. All such findings and temporary revisions to the plan shall be provided to the legislature in writing concurrently with their issuance. All temporary revisions of the energy contingency plan shall cease to be in force it not ratified by the legislature within 15 calendar days after their issuance. All temporary revisions of the energy contingency plan shall become void 30 calendar days after their issuance. (3) An energy emergency declared under this section and any rule or order issued as a result thereof shall remain in effect until 30 days from the date of the declaration, unless the governor rescinds it and declares the emergency ended prior to expiration of this 3U-day Ye cxemersencl Wiemains.Ain WnWet tect alongerathankou days” oy pehewecknyriney Ghegisiature?? fhe" legislature’ me "may ‘ferminate an en energy 7 SADR RGR {" by concurrent ‘resolution. .> (4) If the legislature is not in session when a declaration is issued, the legislature shall be called by the governor into a special session concurrently with the issuance of the declaration to consider ratification of the declaration. Such special session may be cancelled by unanimous agreement of the presiding officers of the Senate and House of Representa- tives and the governor before actual convening of the special session. If a special session is held, actions taken by the governor under this chapter wnich are not ratified by the legislature within 15 days of its convening shall be void. (>) Each person shall carry out the responsibilities specified in the ratitied energy contingency plan; violation of any provision of such plan or order pursuant thereto shall be deemed a violation of this act for purposes ot entorcement under Section 6 hereof. Section 5. Information obtainable by the Division of Energy and Power Development. Authority to obtain information relating to an energy emergency is granted to the Division under Section 44.33.070. Section 6. Penalties and enforcement. Any person wno violates any provision ot this act or any provision of a rule, regulation, or order issued thereunder is, upon conviction, guilty of a » and punished as provided in . section /. Severability. It a part of this act is invalid, all valid parts that are severable from tne invalid parts remain in effect. If a part of this act is invalid in one or more of its applications, the part remains in effect in all valid applications that are severable from the invalid applications. Section 8. Amending Alaska Disaster Act. (|) Powers of the governor under an energy emergency shall be distinguisned from tnose granted under a disaster emergency by striking from the detinition of "disaster" in the Alaska Disaster Act the word "fuel." Section 26.23.230(1) shall be amended to read: sec. 26.23.230. Definitions. As used in this chapter (1) “disaster" means the occurrence or imminent threat of widespread or severe damage, injury, or loss of life or property resulting from any natural or nonmilitary man-made cause including, but not limited to, fire, tlood, earthquake, landslide, mudslide, avalanche, wind-driven water, weather condition, tsunami, 01/1 spill or other water contamination requiring emergency action to avert danger or damage, volcanic activity, epidemic, air contamination, blight, infestation, explosion, riot, equipment failure, or shortage of food, water, -fuet, or clothing; <H- Section 9. Amending Public Utilities Commission Act. The Public Utilities Commission Act, AS 42.05, is amended by adding a new section to read: Sec. 42.05.700. Energy contingency planning requirements for public utilities. (T) Tn order to insure continuity of service to customers of Alaska's electric and natural gas utilities, the Commision shall require, by rule, each such utility to: (a) report promptly to the Commission any anticipated shortage of electric or natural gas supply or capacity which would affect such utility's capability to serve its customers, (b) submit to the Commission, and periodically revise, contingency plans respecting shortages of electrical or natural gas supply or capacity, and circumstances which may result in such shortages, and (c) accommodate any such shortages or circumstances in a manner which shall give due consideration to the public health, safety, and welfare, and provide that all persons served directly or indirectly by such public utility will be treated without undue prejudice or disadvantage. (2) The Commission shall cooperate with the Division of Energy and Power Development within the Department of Commerce and Economic Development in incorporating plans required by this section into the state energy contingency plan. Section 10. Period of effectiveness. This act shall become effective immediately in accordance with AS 01.10.070(c), and shall terminate on March 1, 1985. ALASKA ENERGY INFORMATION ACT--DRAFT A BILL For an Act Entitled: "An act creating within the Division of Energy and Power Development of the Department of Commerce and Economic Development a central repository for state energy information; requiring coordination with and cooperation by all state agencies collecting energy information; assigning responsibilities for the safeguarding of confidential information to the director; providing penalties; and authorizing the director to obtain all necessary information to determine whetner energy shortages are imminent and whether energy conservation measures prescribed under the state energy contingency plan will be required." Legislative findings and intent. (1) The legislature finds that there is a need for a central repository for state energy information and for cooperation among various state agencies in the collection of energy information in order to make such collection more efficient and less costly, and in order to make state energy information more uniform and accessible for use in planning, during energy emergencies, and for all other legitimate state uses. (2) It is the intent of this legislation to: (a) establish within the Division of Energy and Power Development a centralized system of energy data storage and retrieval; -10- (b) require all state agencies involved in the collection of energy data to cooperate with the Division in the efticient collection, storage, and use of such data; (c) authorize the Division to specify the form in which data shall be submitted to the Division; (d) assign to the director responsibility for safeguarding confidential information provided under this act; and (e) provide penalties for violation of this act. Definitions. Definitions for the purposes of this act shall be those in the Energy Emergencies Act. Be it therefore enacted that: AS 44.33 is amended by adding a new section to read: Section 44,33.070. Central energy information repository established. (1) There is established in the Division of Energy and Power Development a central repository for state energy information. (2) The Division shall coordinate the collection, storage, and use of energy information in Alaska with other state agencies and political subdivisions engaged in these activities. 11 (c) inventories of energy supplies from manufacturers, suppliers, and consumers; (d) local distribution patterns of the information in (a), (b) and (c). (2) In obtaining information under this section, the Division may subpoena witnesses and any relevant material, books, papers, accounts, records and memoranda; to administer oaths; and take depositions of persons residing within or without Alaska. (3) In obtaining information under this section the director shall: (a) avoid requesting information already furnished by a person in this state to a federal, state, or local authority when such information is available to the Division; and (b) cause reporting procedures, including forms, to conform as nearly as practical with existing state, federal, and local requirements. “Confidential information. (1) Information furnished pursuant to this act and designated by the source person as confidential shall be maintained as confidential for two years by the director and any person who obtains information which he knows to be confidential under this act. The director shall not make known in any manner any particulars of such information to persons other than the governor and those persons determined by the director. (2) Nothing in this section shall prohibit the use of confidential information to prepare statistics or other general information for Responsibilities of the Division. (1) The Division may specify the form in which energy information shall be submitted for inclusion in the central repository in order to make the collection, storage, and use of the information more efficient and economical. (2) The director shall safeguard the confidentiality of information designated as confidential by the information's supplier in the manner provided in this act under "Confidential information." Responsibilities of state agencies. (1) All agencies and political subdivisions of this state involved with the collection of energy data shall cooperate with the Division in carrying out its responsibilities under this act, by means including but not limited to providing energy data in the form directed by the Division. Information collection by the Division. (1) On a regular basis the Division may obtain information from energy producers, manufacturers, suppliers, consumers and others doing business in Alaska, and from political subdivisions and state agencies as necessary to carry out its duties under the Energy Emergencies Act and to determine whether energy shortages may be imminent or will require energy conservation or allocation measures provided for in the state energy contingency plan. Information may include, but shall not be limited to: (a) sales volumes; (b) forecasts of energy requirements; APPENDIX L BIBLIOGRAPHY Energy End-Use Alaska Power Administration, “Electricity Generation and Sales Data," Unpublished Report. Box, G.E.P. and Jenkins, G.M., Time Series Analysis, Forecasting and Control, 197%, Holden-Day, San Francisco. Community Research Center, Fairbanks North Star Borough, The Energy Report; Volume I, No. 4, February, 1981. Environmental Research Center, Washington State University, Energy Forecasts for the Pacific Northwest, 1975. Goldsmith, Scott, and Husky, Institute of Social and Economic Research, Anchorage, 1984, Goldsmith, Scott and Husky, Lee, “Electric Power Consumption for the Railbelt: A Projection of Requirements," Techical Appendices, Institute of Social and Economic Research, Anchorage, 1984, Goldsmith, Scott and O'Connor, Kristina, “Alaska-Historical and Projected Oil and Gas Consumption," Institute of Social and Economic Research, Anchorage, 1981. Huskey and Nebesky, “Northern Gulf Petroleum Scenarios: Economic and Demographic Systems Impacts," Socioeconomic Studies Program, Alaska OCS Office, 1979, Institute of Social and Economic Research and Department of Natural Resources, Alaska-Historical and Projected Oil and Gas Consumption - 1980. Northwest Energy Policy Workshop, "Petroleum and the Northwest: Disruption or Transition," Portland, 1988. Office of Minerals Policy and Research Analysis, U.S. Dept. of Interior, "Final Report of the 185 (b) Economic and Policy Analysis," 1979. Pacific Laboratory, “Beluga Coal Field Development: Social Effects and Management Alternatives," 1979. Porter, E., "“Bering-Norton Statewide-Regional Economic and Demographic Systems," Impact Analysis, Alaska OCS Socioeconomic Studies Program, Bureau of Land Management, 1984. Rural Alaska Community Action Program, “Energy Profile for Alaska," December, 1979, Scott, M., "Prospects for a Bottomfish Industry in Alaska," Alaska Review of Social and Economic Conditions, 1984, Scott, M., “Southcentral Alaska's Economy and Population, 1955-2625: A Base Study and Projections," Economics Task Force, Alaska Water Resources Study, 1979. U.S. Department of Energy, Fuel Oil Sales, Annual. Woodfill, Douglas, “Forecast of Electrical Energy Sales for the Seattle Service Area to 1999," Dept. of Lighting, City of Seattle, July, 1975. Energy Development Alaska, State of, Division of Energy and Power Development: Interior Wood Assessment, Request for Proposal; 1988. Battelie Pacific Northwest Laboratories; Assessment of Biomass Conversion to Energy for Delta Agricultural Project; October 1979. Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratory; Preliminary Evaluation of Wind Energy Potential --_Cook Inlet Area, Alaska; June 1984. Basescu, Neil, et al.; Alaska: A Guide to Geothermal Energy Development; June 198%. Dachowski-Stokes, "Peat Resources in Alaska,” 1941. Dolton, G.L., et al, Estimates of Undiscovered Recoverable Resources of Conventionally Producible Of1 and Gas in the United States, A Summary; U.S. Geological Survey, Open-file Report R1-De Report. Ekoro, Inc.; "Peat Resource Estimation in Alaska," Final Report, 1984, Electric Power Research Institute; 1981-1985 Overview and Strategy; October 1984, Goldsmith, Scott and Kristina O'Connor, Alaska - Historic and Projected Alaska Gas Consumption; Alaska Dept. of Natural eSources, January, 18. Site Data Base and Markle, Don; Geothermal Ener in Alaska: Development Status; Aprid 1575 McConkey, W. et al, Alaska Ener Resources Plannin Projects SS Phase I; Alaska Diviston of bnaray and “Power beve opment, October, 1977. L-2 McMillan, Bob, U.S. Geological Survey, Branch of Oil and Gas: Telecon; 9 April, 1981 Office of Technology Assessment; Energy From Biological Processes, Volume II-Technical and Environmental Analysis; September 1989, Office of Technology Assessment; Energy From Biological Processes; July 1984. Office of Technology Assessment; Appi ication of Solar Energy to Today's Energy Needs; September, 1978. Oregon Alternate Energy Development Commission; Final Report of the Wind Task Force; June 1980. Oregon Alternate Energy Commission; Final Report of the Biomass Task Force; June 1984. Oregon Alternate Energy Development Commission; Final Report of the Geothermal Task Force; June 1988. Oregon Alternate Energy Development Commission; Final Report of the Solar/Conservation Task Force; June 1984, R.W. Retherford Associates, “Waste Heat Capture Study," June, 1978. Reeder, John W. et al and Markle, Don; Geothermal Implementation Plan; July, 1980. Rocket Research Corporation; Industrial Cogeneration Potential in the Bonneville Power Administration Service Area; February 25, T9RA. —— Rutledge, Gene et al; Alaska Ener Resources Planning Projects = Phase II; Alaska Df{viston of Koray and Power evelopment; 19898. Seifert, Richard D. and John P. Zarling; Solar Energy Resource Potential in Alaska; March, 1978. State of Alaska, Division of Energy & Power Development; Power Development Plan; May, 1984. State of Alaska, Alaska Power Authority; Hydroproject Analysis; March, 1981. Swedish Secretariat of Future Studies. Swift, W.H. et al, Beluga Coal Market Study, Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories for Alaska, vision of Policy Development and Planning, December, 1984. L=3 University of Oklahoma, Science and Public Policy Program, Energy Alternatives; i.e., A Comparative Analysis, May, 1975. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; Thermal Springs List for the United States; June, 1980. U.S. Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Hydropower Project Assessment; January, 1981. U.S. Department of Energy; Technolo Characterizations, Environmental Information Handbook; June, lott es U.S. Geothermal Survey; Geological Surve Circular 794 Assessment of Geothermal Resources of the United States -- 1O78; Bree ee Degree eis eee aa U.S. Department of Energy, Region X, Transportation and Market Analysis of Alaska Coal, Second Draft; November, 4 United Technology, “Fuel Cell Power Generation"; December, 1989. Wentink, Tunis Jr.; Alaska Wind Power: An Introductory User's Manual; June, 1986. Energy Conservation Alaska Center for the Environment, THE WIND BLOWS, WATER FLOWS, SUN SHINES, ENERGY FOR AN ALASKAN LIFESTYLE, lst Alaska Alternative Energy Conservation Proceedings, November 9-11, 1979. Alaska Municipal League, PUBLIC TRANSIT PROJECT, FINAL REPORT, Janvary 1981. Alaska Power Authority, SELECTED RECONAISSANCE STUDIES, December, 198”. Alaska Renewable Energy Associates, SB 438, IMPLICATIONS FOR THE DIVISION OF FNERGY AND POWER DEVELOPMENT, October 2, 1988. Alaska State Legislature, HCS CSSB 438, Enacted and Signed by Governor Jay Hammond, June 12, 1984. Aiaskan Public Utilities Commission, TENTH ANNUAL REPORT TO THE L-4 LEGISLATURE, For the Year Ending December 31, 1979, June 2, 1989. Alaska Center for Policy Studies, ENERGY ALTERNATIVES FOR THE RAILBELT, Study of End Use Structure, Energy Conservation Potential, Alternative Energy Resources, and Related Public Policy Issues, Prepared for the Alaska State Legislature, House Power Alternatives Study Committee, August, 1986. Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, A GUIDE BOOK FOR MEMBERS. Applied Economics Associates, Inc. et.al., THE ROLE OF ELECTRIC POWER IN THE SOUTHEAST ALASKA ENERGY ECONOMY, Phase I, Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy, Alaska Power Administration, March, 1979. Arthur Young & Company, A DISCUSSION OF CONSIDERATIONS PERTAINING TO RURAL ENERGY POLICY OPTIONS, April, 1979. Common Cause, THE PATH NOT TAKEN, A Common Cause Study of State Energy Conservation Programs, March, 1980. Department of Commerce and Economic Development, JOBS AND POWER FOR ALASKANS, A Program for Power and Economic Development, July, 1978. Division of Energy and Power Development, 1984 DRAFT POWER DEVELOPMENT PLAN. Division of Energy and Power Development, Federal Application, WEATHERIZATION PROGRAM FOR LOW-INCOME PERSONS, November 12, 1988. Environmental Research Center, Washington State University, ENERGY CONSERVATION POLICY EVALUATION, Study Module IA, Final Report, Volume IT: Technical Appendix, Submitted to the Northwest Energy Policy Project, 1978. Hodson, Lloyd M., Personal Correspondence with Michael Whitehead, Division of Development and Planning, State of Alaska, May 2, 198A. L-5 Idaho Office of Energy, IDAHO ENERGY CONSERVATION PLAN, March, 1977. Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of Alaska, THE IMPACT OF RISING ENERGY COSTS ON RURAL ALASKA, Submitted to the Alaska Growth Policy Council, November 11, 1984. Malone, Representatives Hugh and Brian Rogers, Co-Chairman, FINAL REPORT, HOUSE POWER ALTERNATIVES STUDY COMMITTEE, ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE, September, 19896. Maynard and Partch Architects, ALASKA STATE PLAN FOR TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS AND ENERGY CONSERVATION MEASURES, For the Division of Energy and Power Development, 1979. National Conference of State Legislatures, RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT, SOLAR HEATING, WIND POWER AND BIOMASS PROFILE, November, 1984, ENERGY ’ MERGEN CONSE TON, SION V “GTSL ASSISTANCE PROJECT, November, 1984. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., CHOOSING AN ELECTRICAL ENERGY FUTURE FOR THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST: AN ALTERNATIVE SCENARIO, August, 1984, Northwest Energy Policy Project, ENERGY CONSERVATION POLICY OPPORTUNITIES AND ASSOCIATED IMPACTS, Study Module 1-A, 1977, Pages 5 & 14, Oregon Alternate Energy Development Commission, FINAL REPORT, Submitted to The Hon. Victor Atiyeh, Governor, State of Oregon, September, 19896. Poray, Peter, Personal correspondence with Kyle Weaver, Division of Energy and Power Development, State of Alaska, December 3, 1984. Retherford, Robert W. & Associates, WASTE HEAT CAPTURE STUDY FOR THE STATE OF ALASKA, June, 1978. Robertson, Jack B., “Alaska Coal to West Coast Kilowatts," Presented at the “Focus on Alaska's Coal: A Three-Day Conference," University of Alaska, Fairbanks, Alaska, October 21-23, 1980. Rural Alaska Community Action Program, Inc., WEATHERIZING BUSH ALASKA, 1978. Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, BONNEVILLE POWER ADMINISTRATION ELECTRIC ENERGY CONSERVATION STUDY, July, 1976. Solar/Conservation Task Force, Oregon Alternate’ Energy Development Commission, FINAL REPORT, June, 1984, Sparck, Harold, DIRECTIONS OF GROWTH: A PRELIMINARY REPORT ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF A PLANNED VILLAGE ECONOMY, 1984. Stahr, Thomas R., "We Must Act Now to Ensure a Future With Enough Energy,” ANCHORAGE NMATLY NEWS, Saturday, December 4, 1980. The Conservation Foundation, ENERGY CONSERVATION TRAINING INSTITUTE MANUAL, Submitted to the U.S. Federal Energy Administration, 1975. Tuck, Dr. Bradford H., A REVIEW OF ELECTRIC POWER DEMAND FORECASTS AND SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVING FUTURE FORECASTTS, Prepared for the House Power and Alternatives Study Committee, Alaska State Legislature, May, 198A. Tussing, Arion R. and Assoc., INTRODUCTION OF ELECTRIC POWER SUPPLY PLANNING, With Special Attention to Alaska's Railbelit Region and the Proposed Susitna River Hydroelectric Project, Prepared for the Alaska State Legislature, May 9, 1988. Ulmer, Frances A., ENERGY POLICY ISSUES, October 24, 1988. U.S. Department of Energy, Alaska Power Administration, POTENTIAL FOR RESIDENTIAL HEATING ENERGY CONSERVATION AND RENEWABLE RESOURCE UTILIZATION IN SOUTHEAST ALASKA, Appraisal Analysis, January, 1984. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Planning and Evaluation, COMPREHENSIVE EVALUATION OF ENERGY CONSERVATION MEASURES, FINAL REPORT, March 1975, Pages 1-1 through 1-27. ENERGY EMERGENCY PLANNING Aspen Institute, "Petroleum Interruptions & National Security," May, 1984. Assorted Studies Prepared by Center for Transportation Studies, L-7 Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Emergency Energy Conservation Act of 1979, PL 95-102, November Sie 19795 Institute for Local Government, Draft Guideline for Local Contingency Plans for Gasoline Shortage, California Fnergy Conservation. National Conference of State Legislatures, Energy Emergency Preparedness, Alaska Energy Project, November, ° Pacific Northwest Energy Workshop, Petroleum in the Northwest: Transition Disruption, December, 1984. Subcommittee on Environmental Energy and Natural Resources Emergency Energy conservation Programs," September, 1986. U.S. Government Accounting Office. “Improved Energy Contingency Planning is Needed to Manage Future Energy Shortages More Effectively." Washington, D.C.: Energy Information Services, October 14, 1978. [®MD-78-196] Western Interstate Energy Board. "Survey Update of Western States Energy Conservation Plans." Denver, Colorado: WIEB, August 27, 198%. 25 pp. APPENDIX M TABLE OF CONVERSIONS APPENDIX M ENERGY UNTTS ANT) CONVRRSTON FACTORS BRITISH THERMAL UNTT (Btu): The amount of energy required to raise the temperature of one pound of water one degree Fahrenheit a] P) at or near the point of maximum density (39.1 ry). The 8tu is equivalent to %.252 kiloqram-calorie. ELECTRICITY Kilowatt Hour (Kwh): The amount of energy used in one hour by a load of one kilowatt. At the point of ConSumpGion. <...ccwpwcccecccce.. e4lr2.8 BtB/Kwh At the point of generation (approximate) ....... 14,549.99 Rtu/Kwh COAL Short Ton (ST) = 2,044 ih, Alaskan (domestic) Cod] ....cccccocscccsccccse 2229.0 Btu/ib. OL, s'siuis'p/e/elela eisicl eis ols e1el4.s/elsidielslsicloje wlcleielololclejeleieielcie Ota Mill ton BUUs sh NATURAL GAS VOU Y-ci ela \ci0'si ois 010 =/s10) 01s) 0] 0101 ole ole lo cleielels olclelcioleslolelecieiciowsil tet REU/CUSs oft. O€iscs.c. 0010 ¥bibhisi 5 6.01015 + 0 6.0 GWleWiels 0.6 0 sje0'e01o ce ass civilian o Lip OMe Ope, Rem PETROLEUM PRODUCTS Barrel (bbl) = 42.4 U.S. gallons Crude O11 Rquivalent.. oo crcccocsccecccctiacds Det Misagon Btu/hbi Asphait (5.45 DbDI/EON) .ccccccccccccsesvvcce [e535 Mizzion Btu/hbi AVLation Gasoline... ccccccccscscscccdcoccccs SsAER MIigaeOn RtU/has Diesel Fuel (No. 2) .cccccccccvcccccvccecesce Seh25 Mitsaion Btu/bbi BrStillate, Fuel O11... cvccccccccccoccccseses SERPS Menaten BCU/ ini GASOLINE. 25 cc ccccccccccccvccccccccescccctce SeAAR Million BEYUAUHL JOE POD. 0.0.0.0 00.0 0 01.0,0,0.01010:00:6 016 0.6.0.0:0.6:6.000,0066 Sod) 5: ud amet. Bikiy ted KR@FOSENG. 0. ccccccccccccccccccccccccecccoos SehT Milsaem wCU/HhL Liquified Petroleum Gas (LPG)...ccceeeeeees 4.911 million Btu/bbi EUB ES COR CR 6 60 0100.0 o1v\olcivlololeicicjole 6's 010 0 ole vision o he tte Mima een. els mem RESTAUAl Evel Ofd..ccecccvcccccscesscnccscs He 2e) Midaaon Htt/7 hon SOURCE: Applied Fconomics Associates, Inc. and Energy Analysis and Planning, Inc. M-1 APPENDIX N PUBLIC COMMENTS JAY S. HAMMOND, Governor OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR DIVISION OF POLICY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING TONEAU ALASKA Soar 1 Governmental Coordination Unit PHONE: (907) 465-3565 June 9, 1981 Ms. Clarissa Quinlan Department of Commerce & Economic Development bug , Division of Energy & u Power Development 338 Denali St. o 7th Floor, MacKay Building ALA Anchorage, AK 99501 Subject: STATE OF ALASKA LONG TERM ENERGY PLAN State I.D. No. SD300-81050504 Dear Ms. Quinlan: The Alaska State CLearinghouse (SCH) has completed review of the referenced proposal. The Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) commented: “The Alaska Department of Fish and Game has reviewed the above referenced long term energy plan draft. “We have no specific comments regarding this plan but do support comprehensive long term energy planning which emphasizes develop- ment of renewable energy resources, environmental soundness and proven feasibility. “We request the opportunity to review subsequent energy plans and specific energy related projects as they are developed.” We received fhe following comment from the Department of Natural Resources (DNR); “"Page 60--The Water Management Section is concerned with water allocations for hydropower, especially where the potential for conflict among users exists. This potential is greatest where there is limited water resource and competing users, for example, small individual hydroelectric facilities. A program of water rights education and water flow record is suggested as part of the long term energy plan. This program should be initiated thru a cooperative effort involving various state agencies having expertise in the areas of hydroelectric generation, water measurement, and water rights procedure. Streamflow measurements should be coordinated Ma. Clarissa Quinian -2- June 9, 1981 “"Page 87--Cost of geothermal energy-geothermal resource below 120 deg C is treated as a water resource and requires a water right permit to develop the resource. DMEM procedure for leasing geothermal resources should be covered. “"Page 88--Recommendations - Complete regulations for hydrothermal and geothermal resources to implement HB779.' “General Comments - There is no mention of any attempts to cut government red tape and encourage development of energy resources.” The Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (DOT/PF) has the following comment: “Our research section has reviewed the subject document and submitted the following comments: “"State of Alaska Long Term Energy Plan' is an extremely well written and well prepared document. It is probably the most readable report of it's kind that I have seen produced by a State agency. It should be praised for it's comprehensiveness and the clarity of the language which allows the reader to grasp the implications of what is being said instead of being put to sleep. “The separation of the information into three separate volumes permits the reader to select what level of detail is germane to his or her needs. The Executive Sumary is particularly good because it is an ‘accurate’ summary of the detailed report, unlike many I've seen which bear little substantial resemblance to the material actually presented. P “I believe that if every Alaskan read this report it would create a general understanding of the total state energy picture which would shatter a major part of the irresponsible rhetoric concerning energy which is continually heard from all sectors both inside and outside of State government. I say this in spite of the fact that there are a few small shortcomings which require attention; these are itemized below: "Note: The following comments are related to the plan volume only and do not consider the executive summary of the appendix. “1. Page 77, Solar Energy - Historical Background and Information: It should be Richard Seifert and John P. Zarling. Somewhere in this section it should be pointed out that DOT/PF is in the process of publishing a Solar Energy design manual for Alaska which should be available July 1, 1981. We also have a report out entitled 'Passive Solar Heating in Alaska‘. "2. Page 79, Current Costs, Passive Solar: The figures given for Alburquerque and Madison are meaningless as presented and tend to distort rather than clarify. While ‘no such figures are available for Alaska' is a true statement, it would be better in this case to let it go at that rather than introduce a number Ms. Clarissa Quinlan : -3- June 9, 1981 "3. "4h. "5. "6. which is relative at best, with no understandable point of reference. It would be appropriate perhaps, to say the Passive Solar building design was already proved cost effective in most regions of the lower forty-eight states. However, in passive design each design is so unique it is impossible to quote numbers without misleading the reader since a number suggests a norm and no one yet has such numbers for anywhere in the nation. Page 83, Alaskan Activities: DOT/PF has available now an ‘Alaskan Wind Power Users Manual' and is preparing a second, more comprehensive version. Page 92, Potential Fuel Cell Development: It is not true to say that 'an additional problem is created by the current requirement to use fossil fuels, as a fuel source,' as is stated at the bottom of the second paragraph. Fuel cell which use methanol and other alcohols are at the same stage of development as are methane fueled models. Methanol is of course a fuel which can economically be derived from renewable sources as well as from fossil fuel sources. At this point in time a fuel cell in combination with a methanol reformer appears to be a most promising alternative to diesel electric generation for rural areas of Alaska since a liquid fuel such as methanol could be supplied using the existing infrastructure. Page 92-93, Current State Actions: DOT/PF is conducting a research project which would lay the ground work for a fuel cell demonstration in a prototype school building. In this ease the fuel used would be methanol. The report often alludes to the fact that energy is a ubiquitous consideration which requires involvement by many sectors of government. What is missing, however, is some description of exactly (or as closely as possible) which agencies are responsible for or are working on which areas of the general problem. I realize this is a request of not small proportion, but if the report is to be a definitive statement by the executive branch then it is this type of hard policy which would be most useful.” The suggestions and recommendations as provided by DNR and DOT/PF are self explanatory and will be of interest to the Division of Energy and Power Development as this enerpy plan is developed. Thank you for giving us the opportunity to review this plan. ccs Sincerely, David W. Haas State-Federal Assistance Coordinator Bob Baldwin, DNR Laurence Soden, DOT/PF Nei JAY S. HAMMOND, GOVERNOR pelea DEPARTMENT OF MILITARY AFFAIRS P.O. BOX 2267 ALASKA DIVISION OF EMERGENCY SERVICES PALMER, ALASKA 99645 June 24, 1981 Lloyd Pernella, Director Division of Energy & Power Development 338 Denali Street Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Dear Mr. Pernella: We have completed a review of your Long Term Energy Plan draft. This was accomplished for the Department of Military Affairs and this Division. I commend your efforts to accomplish this much needed item of contingency planning. We will expect to maintain active liaison as you complete the Energy Emergency Plan. I have no doubt that the Alaska Disaster Act, AS 26.23, as written, will serve the needs of this plan. It may be appropriate that this document be designated and incorporated as an annex to our State Emergency Plan. Initial contact has been established between your Energy Emergency Planner and my Plans & Programs Branch; I trust this will continue. Sincerely, dward S. Director ESEN:HEW:dg Q US.Department Alaskan Region 701 C Street, Box 14 of Transportation Anchorage, Alaska Federal Aviation 99513 Administration June 15, 1981 Dr. Lloyd Pernella, Director Division of Energy & Power Development 338 Denali Street Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Dear Dr. Pernella: I appreciate the opportunity to comment on the State's Long Range Energy Plan. The FAA has a vital stake in the supply of the various forms of energy in Alaska--as do all forms of transportation operating in the State. Some length of time has ensued since I received a copy of the plan from Mr. Noonan, and I regret the delay in response. Our staff has been rather drastically reduced, but the number of studies and related documents have not appreciably abated. The plan is of personal interest to me--not just because I have been involved in the energy sphere here in FAA, but also because the years I spent in the "bush" dramatically called to my attention the vital role of energy resources in rural Alaska. Further, I believe that probably some of the State's most significant decisions for the future will be made in the area of energy resource development. We are most interested in following the progress of State energy planning in the forthcoming stages as envisioned in the draft. Sincere] OW etn, A. Te nh la wne— Planning-Appraisal Officer Department Of Energy Alaska Power Administration P.O. Box 50 : Juneau, Alaska 99802 May 27, 1981 Ms. Clarissa Quinlan, Director Dept. of Commerce & Economic Development Division of Energy & Power Development 338 Denali Street Anchorage, AK 99501 Dear Clarissa: We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the April 1981 draft, State of Alaska Long Term Energy Plan. We recognize that you and your consultants were under tight constraints on both time and money for this ambitious project. While we don't agree with all the material between the covers, we think the new study and report represent important strides forward and will help focus attention on Alaska's important energy issues. We expect the data on energy balances will prove especially valuable. With only minor reservations, we agree with the 22 recommendations. The reservations are as follows: # 2 “Establish a clear delineation between planning, advocacy, and evaluation and designate appropriate State agency responsibilities for each." We certainly support a strong, independent evaluation process, but believe that further division of responsibilities in energy project development is unwise. #5 (the Advisory Council) The report doesn't have enough information on the role, makeup, and staffing of the Council to justify the recommendation. # 7 (with respect to comprehensive economic and demographic forecasting model) The modeling techniques are fine in theory, but the results to date in Alaska and elsewhere do not suggest the technology will be all that helpful in the foreseeable future. We certainly support 2 further work to develop and test the models, but additional (mostly simple and traditional) methods will probably be the best basis for most decisions the next several years. #16 (with respect to Bush programs) This should be expanded to note the stark reality that fairly extensive investigations have turned up very few energy supply alternatives for most of the bush communities, at least for the near term. Our other comments follow: We strongly support the recommendations for evaluating and monitoring success of the conservation programs. However, we think the report section on conservation (Chapter V) is off base. Lacking specific data, there are many evidences that many Alaskans are concerned with the subject and making decisions and investments that result in real energy savings. New housing throughout the State reflects upgraded design standards; the Hondas are legion; so are the woodstoves; etc. Each new technical evaluation seems to support your confidence that conservation is an exceptionally high payoff area for Alaska. We think the new "Plan" should recommend retaining very high priority for the conserva- tion efforts. The draft plan accurately notes that solutions to energy problems are taking longer than some would like. At the national level, 1980 appears to be the first year of major payoff for conservation efforts (major reduction in oil use and imports and a sizable overall reduction in energy consumption). There's been much criticism of the various energy programs--particularly the Federal ones in conservation--but the evidence is mounting that the programs are now yelding results. With a little patience, the same will be true in Alaska. We did not do a thorough review of the projections. We suggest that future work on both the balances and the projections make a separate breakout for oil and gas used in production and transportation of those two fuels. We suspect that (1) the growth rates in the 90's and beyond will prove smaller than the present estimates because of efficiency improvements, and (2) the electricity component will prove to be some- what larger because electricity is such a favorable way of using coal, hydro, and other alternatives. We think the treatment on hydro resources tends to overstate the potential of very small and run-of-river potentials. There's been quite extensive work in recent years to search out Alaskan applications. A few (very few) potentially viable sites have been found, but there is no longer any basis for assuming these particular types of power developments hold great significance for Alaska. 3 We're pleased the new plan could make use of our power statistics, but caution that much of 1979 data will be revised. There are quite a few problems with appendix D, and Bob Loney suggests that data be used with caution. Finally, parts of the report come off more as a lecture in economic theory than an energy plan related to Alaskan facts. This may be the main problem with the chapter on conservation. It is a serious problem in Chapter II, "The nature and scope of Alaska's energy policy." We suggest Chapter II be rewritten to include the legislative base for Alaska's present energy policy (including the basis for the statewide plan), the policies as articulated by the Governor, and then commentary on the policy choices facing the State. Once again, we concur in the principal recommendations, and believe the new report is an important contribution to solving Alaskan energy problems. Sincerely, Ye yea Robert J. Cross Administrator APPENDIX N PUBLIC COMMENTS JAY S. HAMMOND, Governor OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR DIVISION OF POLICY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING TOMEA AL hak Ener? Governmental Coordination Unit PHONE: (907) 465-2565 June 9, 1981 Ms. Clarissa Quinlan Department of Commerce & Economic Development ioaa Pe . Division of Energy & AUN PS FORE Power Development 338 Denali St. ste 7th Floor, MacKay Building ALA Anchorage, AK 99501 Subject: STATE OF ALASKA LONG TERM ENERGY PLAN State I.D. No. SD300-81050504 Dear Ms. Quinlan: The Alaska State CLearinghouse (SCH) has completed review of the referenced proposal. The Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) commented: “The Alaska Department of Fish and Game has reviewed the above referenced long term energy plan draft. “We have no specific comments regarding this plan but do support comprehensive long term energy planning which emphasizes develop- ment of renewable energy resources, environmental soundness and proven feasibility. “We request the opportunity to review subsequent energy plans and specific energy related projects as they are developed.” Wa received fhe following comment from the Department of Natural Resources (DNR): “"Page 60--The Water Management Section is concerned with water allocations for hydropower, especially where the potential for conflict among users exists. This potential is greatest where there is limited water resource and competing users, for example, small individual hydroelectric facilities. A program of water rights education and water flow record is suggested as part of the long term energy plan. This program should be initiated thru a cooperative effort involving various state agencies having expertise in the areas of hydroelectric generation, water measurement, and water rights procedure. Streamflow measurements should be coordinated Ma. Clarissa Quinlan =2= June 9, 1981 “*Page 87--Cost of geothermal energy-geothermal resource below 120 deg C is treated as a water resource and requires a water right permit to develop the resource. DMEM procedure for leasing geothermal resources should be covered. “"Page 88--Recommendations - Complete regulations for hydrothermal and geothermal resources to implement HB779.' “General Comments - There is no mention of any attempts to cut government red tape and encourage development of energy resources.” The Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (DOT/PF) has the following comment: “Our research section has reviewed the subject document and submitted the following comments: “"State of Alaska Long Term Energy Plan' is an extremely well written and well prepared document. It is probably the most readable report of it's kind that I have seen produced by a State agency. It should be praised for it's comprehensiveness and the clarity of the language which allows the reader to grasp the implications of what is being said instead of being put to sleep. “The separation of the information into three separate volumes permits the reader to select what level of detail is germane to his or her needs. The Executive Sumary is particularly good because it is an ‘accurate’ summary of the detailed report, unlike many I've seen which bear little substantial resemblance to the material actually presented. “I believe that if every Alaskan read this report it would create a general understanding of the total state energy picture which would shatter a major part of the irresponsible rhetoric concerning energy + which is continually heard from all sectors both inside and outside of State government. I say this in spite of the fact that there are a few small shortcomings which require attention; these are itemized below: “Note: The following comments are related to the plan volume only and do not consider the executive summary of the appendix. “1. Page 77, Solar Energy - Historical Background and Information: It should be Richard Seifert and John P. Zarling. Somewhere in this section it should be pointed out that DOT/PF is in the process of publishing a Solar Energy design manual for Alaska which should be available July 1, 1981. We also have a report out entitled 'Passive Solar Heating in Alaska'. "2. Page 79, Current Costs, Passive Solar: The figures given for Alburquerque and Madison are meaningless as presented and tend to distort rather than clarify. While 'no such figures are available for Alaska' is a true statement, it would be better in this case to let it go at that rather than introduce a number BF Ms. Clarissa Quinlan oa June 9, 1981 “3. “he "5. "66 which is relative at best, with no understandable point of reference. It would be appropriate perhaps, to say the Passive Solar building design was already proved cost effective in most regions of the lower forty-eight states. However, in passive design each design is so unique it is impossible to quote numbers without misleading the reader since a number suggests a norm and no one yet has such numbers for anywhere in the nation. Page 83, Alaskan Activities: DOT/PF has available now an ‘Alaskan Wind Power Users Manual' and is preparing a second, more comprehensive version. Page 92, Potential Fuel Cell Development: It is not true to say that 'an additional problem is created by the current requirement to use fossil fuels, as a fuel source,’ as is stated at the bottom of the second paragraph. Fuel cell which use methanol and other alcohols are at the same stage of development as are methane fueled models. Methanol is of course a fuel which can economically be derived from renewable sources as well as from fossil fuel sources. At this point in time a fuel cell in combination with a methanol reformer appears to be a most promising alternative to diesel electric generation for rural areas of Alaska since a liquid fuel such as methanol could be supplied using the existing infrastructure. Page 92-93, Current State Actions: DOT/PF is conducting a research project which would lay the ground work for a fuel cell demonstration in a prototype school building. In this case the fuel used would be methanol. The report often alludes to the fact that energy is a ubiquitous consideration which requires involvement by many sectors of government. What is missing, however, is some description of exactly (or as closely as possible) which agencies are responsible for or are working on which areas of the general problem. I realize this is a request of not small proportion, but if the report is to be a definitive statement by the executive branch then it is this type of hard policy which would be most useful.” The suggestions and recommendations as provided by DNR and DOT/PF are self explanatory and will be of interest to the Division of Energy and Power Development as this enerpy plan is developed. Thank you for giving us the opportunity to review this plan, ec: Sincerely, David W. Haas State-Federal Assistance Coordinator Bob Baldwin, DNR Laurence Soden, DOT/PF JAY S. HAMMOND, GOVERNOR BPEPARTMENT OF MILITARY AFFAIRS P.O. BOX 2267 ALASKA DIVISION OF EMERGENCY SERVICES PALMER, ALASKA 99645 June 24, 1981 Lloyd Pernella, Director Division of Energy & Power Development 338 Denali Street Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Dear Mr. Pernella: We have completed a review of your Long Term Energy Plan draft. This was accomplished for the Department of Military Affairs and this Division. I commend your efforts to accomplish this much needed item of contingency planning. We will expect to maintain active liaison as you complete the Energy Emergency Plan. I have no doubt that the Alaska Disaster Act, AS 26.23, as written, will serve the needs of this plan. It may be appropriate that this document be designated and incorporated as an annex to our State Emergency Plan. Initial contact has been established between your Energy Emergency Planner and my Plans & Programs Branch; I trust this will continue. Sincerely, Director ESEN: HEW: dg @ US. Department Alaskan Region 701 C Street, Box 14 of Transportation Anchorage, Alaska Federal Aviation 99513 Administration June 15, 1981 Dr. Lloyd Pernella, Director Division of Energy & Power Development 338 Denali Street Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Dear Dr. Pernella: I appreciate the opportunity to comment on the State's Long Range Energy Plan. The FAA has a vital stake in the supply of the various forms of energy in Alaska--as do all forms of transportation operating in the State. Some length of time has ensued since I received a copy of the plan from Mr. Noonan, and I regret the delay in response. Our staff has been rather drastically reduced, but the number of studies and related documents have not appreciably abated. The plan is of personal interest to me--not just because I have been involved in the energy sphere here in FAA, but also because the years I spent in the "bush" dramatically called to my attention the vital role of energy resources in rural Alaska. Further, I believe that probably some of the State's most significant decisions for the future will be made in the area of energy resource development. We are most interested in following the progress of State energy planning in the forthcoming stages as envisioned in the draft. Sincere] At. Williams Planning-Appraisal Officer Department Of Energy Alaska Power Administration P.O. Box 50 . Juneau, Alaska 99802 May 27, 1981 Ms. Clarissa Quinlan, Director Dept. of Commerce & Economic Development Division of Energy & Power Development 338 Denali Street Anchorage, AK 99501 Dear Clarissa: We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the April 1981 draft, State of Alaska Long Term Energy Plan. We recognize that you and your consultants were under tight constraints on both time and money for this ambitious project. While we don't agree with all the material between the covers, we think the new study and report represent important strides forward and will help focus attention on Alaska's important energy issues. We expect the data on energy balances will prove especially valuable. With only minor reservations, we agree with the 22 recommendations. The reservations are as follows: # 2 “Establish a clear delineation between planning, advocacy, and evaluation and designate appropriate State agency responsibilities for each." We certainly support a strong, independent evaluation process, but believe that further division of responsibilities in energy project development is unwise. # 5 (the Advisory Council) The report doesn't have enough information on the role, makeup, and staffing of the Council to justify the recommendation. # 7 (with respect to comprehensive economic and demographic forecasting model) The modeling techniques are fine in theory, but the results to date in Alaska and elsewhere do not suggest the technology will be all that helpful in the foreseeable future. We certainly support 2 further work to develop and test the models, but additional (mostly simple and traditional) methods will probably be the best basis for most decisions the next several years. #16 (with respect to Bush programs) This should be expanded to note the stark reality that fairly extensive investigations have turned up very few energy supply alternatives for most of the bush communities, at least for the near term. Our other comments follow: We strongly support the recommendations for evaluating and monitoring success of the conservation programs. However, we think the report section on conservation (Chapter V) is off base. Lacking specific data, there are many evidences that many Alaskans are concerned with the subject and making decisions and investments that result in real energy savings. New housing throughout the State reflects upgraded design standards; the Hondas are legion; so are the woodstoves; etc. Each new technical evaluation seems to support your confidence that conservation is an exceptionally high payoff area for Alaska. We think the new "Plan" should recommend retaining very high priority for the conserva- tion efforts. The draft plan accurately notes that solutions to energy problems are taking longer than some would like. At the national level, 1980 appears to be the first year of major payoff for conservation efforts (major reduction in oil use and imports and a sizable overall reduction in energy consumption). There's been much criticism of the various energy programs--particularly the Federal ones in conservation--but the evidence is mounting that the programs are now yelding results. With a little patience, the same will be true in Alaska. We did not do a thorough review of the projections. We suggest that future work on both the balances and the projections make a separate breakout for oil and gas used in production and transportation of those two fuels. We suspect that (1) the growth rates in the 90's and beyond will prove smaller than the present estimates because of efficiency improvements, and (2) the electricity component will prove to be some- what larger because electricity is such a favorable way of using coal, hydro, and other alternatives. We think the treatment on hydro resources tends to overstate the potential of very small and run-of-river potentials. There's been quite extensive work in recent years to search out Alaskan applications. A few (very few) potentially viable sites have been found, but there is no longer any basis for assuming these particular types of power developments hold great significance for Alaska. 3 We're pleased the new plan could make use of our power statistics, but caution that much of 1979 data will be revised. There are quite a few problems with appendix D, and Bob Loney suggests that data be used with caution. . Finally, parts of the report come off more as a lecture in economic theory than an energy plan related to Alaskan facts. This may be the main problem with the chapter on conservation. It is a serious problem in Chapter II, "The nature and scope of Alaska's energy policy." We suggest Chapter II be rewritten to include the legislative base for Alaska's present energy policy (including the basis for the statewide plan), the policies as articulated by the Governor, and then commentary on the policy choices facing the State. Once again, we concur in the principal recommendations, and believe the new report is an important contribution to solving Alaskan energy problems. Sincerely, a ee ; EG (Cet Robert J. Cross Administrator ables, vw Tesoro Alaska Petroleum Company R.J. Downey Senior Vice-President May 19, 1981 Clarissa Quinlan Director State of Alaska Department of Commerce & Economic Development 338 Denali Street Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Dear Ms. Quinlan: Thank you for sending me the draft of Alaska's Long Term Energy Plan. On page 47 of the report the statement is made that Tesoro is also a crude oil producer and that the net crude oil production in Fiscal Year 1979 averaged 36,068 BPD. It should be pointed out that all but about 5,000 bbls of that production came from Trinidad Tesoro Petroleum Company and the majority interest in this company is owned by the government of Trinidad and Tobago. Trinidad and Tobago also own a refinery and they have directed that the production of the Trinidad Tesoro Company be used to supply the local refinery. Therefore this production is not available for use by Tesoro. You have obviously spent much painstaking time on preparing this report. We think that this information should be included in your report in the interest of accuracy. Very truly yours, R.J. Downey RJD/ph cc: Dennis Juren John Tagliarino P.O. Box 6272. Anchoraae. Alaska 99502 (907)279-5446 GENERAL COMMENTS 1, Effects of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA): e Alaska Lands Act in its title 11 contains some of the most far-reaching effects on newly proposed transportation and utility systems that bave ever been encountered in governmental project formation. To omit any reference to the effects of this Act on new utility systems is to launch a grossly incomplete plan. Very detailed consideration should be given to the conservation units set up under ANLICA: and the Act's possible influence on various kinds of new energy systems should be pssessed. 2, Transportation: Almost no consideration has been given in this Plan to the very considerable influence of the limited modes of transportation in Alaska. Very concise strategies must be developed for maintaining transportation systems in times of scarce resources. Any plan not taking into consideration the very serious reliance of the State's people upon transportation, especially air transportation, would be of little consequence. 2. 5. 6. COMMENTS: DRAFT, STATE OF ALASKA LONG-TERM ENERGY PLAN EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Page 1: Final paragraph of column 1: In regard to the sentence "Revenue from petroleum and natural gas can be combined with a willing work force and vast energy resource potential to provide an amay of local energy supply and conservation options." COMMENT: The need is for a dedicated political decision to plan for specific energy options by regions in the State. Page 1, column 2, paragraph 2: With regard to the sentence: "As Alaska's long-term energy plan evolves, criteria for energy decisions and the information base on which they are made will become more definitive." COMMENT: This is a purely “reactive” approach. It is, in fact, a “cart before the horse" response. My recommendation would be that a specific program be developed as a commitment of the State to: (1) Compile an inventory of modal availability; (2) Examine options by area; (3) Prioritize such options; (4) Attain political decisions ratifing such options; (5) Embody those actions and political commitments in the State long-range Plan. Page 2, column 2, paragraph 2: In respect to the sentence "Because of the timing of preparation, the Governor and the legislature are unable to review agency requests in the context of policies enumerated in the plan." COMMENT: The nature of the field of Energy Planning is such that multi-year planning and programming is a necessity. Page 3, column 2, penultimate paragraph: Regarding the sentence "Alternative energy development in Alaska will be encouraged by research and development activities and by grant and loan programs." COMMENT: This is a second step. Basic assumptions and political decisions as to desired regional development should preceed this step. Page 4, first paragraph, first column: Regarding the sentence Coordination among all of the agencies involved in energy production, distribution and regulation is the responsibility of the Governor's office." COMMENT: Here again, if we have no basic assumptions, why coordination with producers/distributors? Is this just window shopping? Page 6, Figure 2: This figure, at this point, is quite confusing. COMMENT: Numbers are not explained and the diagram is somewhat difficult to use without more preliminary discussion. 7. Page 9, column 1, first paragrah under heading Expanding Energy Options: In regard to the sentence "Given today's rapidly changing energy conditions, it is important that Alaska keeps its energy options open." COMMENT: However, such options should not be so "open" as to preclude some basic assumptions. Page 14, under recommendations, item 5: "Establish an Energy Advisory Council to assist in the annual update and refinement of the Plan." COMMENT: Further comment will be given below. For the present, the reviewer would only state that no case has been made for such a council in the executive summary. 4. 5. COMMENTS: DRAFT, STATE OF ALASKA LONG-TERM ENERGY PLAN Page 1, column 2: With respect to the sentence "The most important role of Alaska's long-term energy plan, and those who administer it, should be that of evaluation and not advocacy." COMMENT: This is not necessarily true. Compartmentalization leads to stumbling, uncoordinated action. Those involved in developing and placing into operation such a plan will, in the nature of things, be advocates to some extent. Page 6 column 1, paragraph 3: COMMENT: Regarding the energy data base, I believe that one of the first comprehensive efforts must be that of compiling inventory data. Page 7, Figure 12: COMMENT: To the extent that the plan will be used by those not acquainted with planning techniques, such involved and complicated diagrams and illustrations should not be used. A State Plan is not the place for scholastic exercises. What point (or points) are being made here? If the purpose is to compare Plan timing with other events, it does not do the job very simply or well. Page 9, column 1, paragraph 2: Regarding the sentence "Alaska Statutes require that the Plan be submitted to the legislature no later than 1 February each year, and yet funding for the Plan is not available before the beginning of the fiscal year." COMMENT: The answer to this problem is that the plan should be an on-going multi-year program. This concept merely follows the method used for many years in other massive capital-improvement endeavors such as highways and airports construction. Page 9, paragraph 4, column 1: Regarding the sentence "To remedy this problem, the long-term energy plan should be prepared in conjunction with the budget process." COMMENT: Agree. But on a multi-year time track. Page 9, column 2, third paragraph, last sentence: Regarding the need for a central repository and coordination center for energy data and information. COMMENT: Agree basically. However, the answer is not the creation of a new agency. Page 10, second column: Regarding the administrative handling of the Plan. COMMENT: The entire column illustrates, graphically, the present fragmentation of the energy program. 8. 10. ll. 12. 13. Page 11, column 1, third paragraph, penultimate sentence: Regarding setting standards for evaluation and establishing a single method for information and data collection. COMMENT: Such a standardized system can, of course, be achieved. But not without organizational purification. COMMENT: What is wrong with using simple words from everyday language? Throughout the study we find such agrandizements of simple words like "method" (using instead, "methodology") as well as the use of ordinary words in unusual contexts, as in the use of "secular" on page 8 of the Executive Summary. Page 11, column 1, last paragra first sentence: Regarding a clear distinction between energy project/program advocacy and evaluation. COMMENT: Perhaps. However, there is no reason why such division of responsibility can not be accomplished within the frame work of a well-organized Energy Division or Department. Page 11, column 2, first paragrpah, last sentence: "In Alaska that process will not work because the State government is heavily involved in most of the projects." COMMENT: This is pure nonsense. State governments are always involved in projects where state funding is provided. I would agree, however, that the divisions' business be de-politicized to the degree possible. Page 11, column 2, paragraph 5, first sentence: Regarding the clear and present danger of the isolation of planners from the real world. COMMENT: Agree totally. There is a real problem in state-wide expertise in this respect. Wholly “urbanized” people, fresh from their ivory towers, are making life style-affecting decisions for rural communities. How many planners in Alaska have had any association with the "bush"? Page 11, column 2, final paragraph: Regarding regular contact and assistance from outside the immediate planning sphere. COMMENT: Field work is what is needed here. Page 11, column 2, final paragraph, final sentence: Regarding the establishment of an Energy Advisory Council. COMMENT: Totally disagree. There is no need for additional organizations. These are all functions that can--and should be--handled by a cohesive and inter-acting Energy organization. The problem now is fragmentation of the program--and it is a problem that can only be exacerbated by the creation of new organizational entities. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. Page 12, recommendations: a. Regarding timing of the Plan: We would substitute on-going multi-year planning. b. Regarding deliniation among planning, advocacy, and evaluation; this can be handled intra-organizationally. c. Inculding within the Long-Term Energy Plan responsibility for technical and economic review and evaluation: Agree completely. d. Regarding specific technical and economic criteria: Agree. e. Establish Energy Advisory Council: Do not agree. See above. There are good reasons for elevating Energy to a Departmental level (and one of them is not merely because the Federal Government has done so). State policy should, among other things, use energy initiatives to build creditibility with other states and Congress. For example: If we bave as a keystone policy the rapid transition to alternative energy sources (prime example: Hydro), we could, and should, proclaim loud and clear that one of our primary objectives in doing so is to reserve fossil fuels for states that are not as blessed with natural resources as we are. Page 15, entire page: Background. COMMENT: There seems to be a good deal more padding here than is absolutely necessary. Page 16, column 2, second paragraph, first sentence: Regarding the State's energy policy. COMMENT: This is a questionable, if not argumentative, statement. First of all, it is not an energy policy, but an economic one. Page 18, entire page: COMMENT: This last section is "motherhood and apple pie." There is not much meat on these bones. For example: The matter of preplanning and cost benefit analysis is not touched upon. General Comment on Chapter 2: It is the reviewer's opinion that the State should embark upon a comprehensive energy planning program. The needs seen in such an effort are as follows: a. A complete organizational study should be accomplished involving all energy-involved departments. b. Massive data gathering and structuring of same would be an early requirement. 20. 21. 22. c. After such organizational and data gathering projects have been completed, assessment of all possible options (by geographic areas) should go forward: (1) Local input should be solicited. (2) Cost benefit studiesshould then take place for all options. (3) Regional recommendations, as to proposed future development, would be a next step. (4) Multi-year strategies would then be developed for the recommended options within regional areas. (5) Emergency alternates should be included. d. A total plan with all its strategies should be submitted to the legislature. e. A multi-year programming strategy for overall State promulgation should be developed. f. The multi-year plan should be geared to budget-legislative cycle. g- Provision should be made for monitoring of technological advances. h. Oversite of programmed accomplishment should be carried out. i. Continuous revalidation and adjustments should occur. j- Publication (to all states) on progress of the plan would be a continuing part of the program. Page 21, column 1, paragrphb 1: With respect to the sentence "Essentially, there are five independent energy systems..." COMMENT: Artificial categories of geographic areas they obviously are. Homogeneous systems they are not. Page 22, column 2, second paragraph, last sentence: "As a major energy producer, Alaska uses a lot more energy per capita than does Oregon, where only 1/5 of the State's energy consumption is provided from in-state resources." COMMENT: This is pure sophistry. We do not use more energy because we produce it. This kind of sensationalism will present a deleterious image to residents of other states. Page 23, Table III-1: This data adequately explains Figure III-2. If it is not to be included in the Executive Summary, then III-2 should not be included either. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. The reason for an Executive Summary is to provide reviewers with an overview of the basic document. It must stand on its own. Page 27, final paragraph on the page: Regarding the sentence "The Arctic bas 1 percent of the State's population, and with Prudoe Bay produces over 2,000 times the end-use energy consumed." COMMENT: This is not particularly relevant. Probably the same kind of relationship could be shown for the area around Midland-Odessa, Texas. Page 29, column 2, third paragraph, penultimate sentence: Regarding the sentence "Other than an evaluation of airline schedules not a lot can be done to improve the efficiencies in the short term." COMMENT: This certainly is not true. How about some new and innovative approaches? Page 31, Tables III-8 and III-9: The use categories in the study give this reviewer a great deal of trouble, e.g., Marine is really a part of transportation. Also, were is the line drawn between Industry and Commercial? Assumptions and definitions of terms are very poorly articulated throughout the document. Page 39, first column, second paragraph, final sentence: Regarding planning beginning at the community and regional levels. COMMENT: There is a confusion here, as to who is doing the planning. Page 40, column 2, third paragraph under Resource Availability: This first paragraph does not make sense. Page 47, first column, final paragraph, final sentence: The sentence is incomplete. Page 49, column 2, thrid paragraph under Recommendations: First paragraph is very poorly written. Perhaps the words "compatibility" and "should" need to be omitted. Page 58, second column: The entire paragraph beginning at the bottom of the column down to the next paragraph beginning "The topography...", should be deleted. It is repeated again on page 59, second column, and is out of place. Pages 63 and 64: These pages merely repeat Table IV-8 given on pages 60 and 61. Page 65, column 2, beginning fourth paragraph: Something is missing bere. Note the words "is reviewed" and "...a description of the resource size and location is presented..." Is this an introduction to the following pages? 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. Page 66, section beginning "resources should be selected on the basis of" of This is exactly the "first step" previously alluded to--and must be done on a regional and subregional basis. In fact, this process would establish a State blueprint for future activities. Page 68, column 1, second paragraph: The binding on pages 69 and 70 should be reversed. Page 69, column 2, under Resource Uses: "Peat has long been an energy resource in Finland and Ireland." COMMENT: Yes. But how does our total resource compare with theirs? This is the most basic relevant point and should be covered, if only peremptorily. Page 75, end of the page: Conversion of municipal and residential garbage is given rather short shrift bere. That method, with its attendant avoidance of collection and disposal costs should be investigated in some depth. Page 79, column 1, under Photovoltaic: Regarding final sentence stating that photovoltaic use is not yet economically competitive. COMMENT: Except when ancillary costs avoidances are a by-product. Page 79, column 1, under Current Costs: No mention is made of the Homer and Wasilla projects. It is bard to understand how these were overlooked--both have been well publicized. Page 80, second column, third recommendation: How about an incentive program for those living in active and/or passive solar homes (to provide for data gathering)? Page 81, column 1, first paragraph: Included should be the FAA on-going uses at Kenai and Sitka. Page 82, column 2, top of page in the table: What do the notes following small-scale and large-scale refer to? Page 83, final paragraph, second column: Terrible sentence structure. How about: "Operating data and development information gathered from existing systems should be collated and made available to potential users?" Pages 84 and 85, Figures IV-7 and IV-8: With the scanty discussion on wind power, preceding, the relevence of these figures is difficult to grasp. For example: How many readers of the Plan will be familiar with the concepts of "wind power density" and "ridgecrest estimates"? Page 86, column 2, under Availability of Geothermal Energy: First paragraph is repeated immediately below it, in its entirety, and should be deleted. » 46. 48. 49. 50, 51. 52. 53. Page 96, column 2, second paragraph: The phrase "Organic Fluid Ranking Cycle systems" is exploded upon the scene without any preliminary discussion. What does it do? How does it operate? It is small wonder that the politicians don't pay any attention to the engineers and technicians. They can't understand them! Page 103, column 2, second paragraph, penultimate sentence: With respect to the statement: "In Alaska, energy conservation activities in the transportation sector are almost non-existant." COMMENT: This is absolutely not a true statement. What segment(s) of the transportation sector did the consultant contact? Page 107, column 2, final sentence: The final part of the sentence is missing. Page 112, second column second paragraph: Regarding discussion on impact of federal mandates. COMMENT: It is time for the State to initiate and carry out its own program. It should be an instrument of inter-state influence. Page 120, the International Problem: Entire discussion centers about embargoes and other oil flow disruptions due to economic and political exigencies. COMMENT: How about US/Foreign-Power war? That contingency should be a part of the Plan. Page 124, column 2, second paragraph: Regarding the sentence "As a result, the contingency plan for dealing with a serious shortage will bave to be very carefully prepared and implemented as soon as officials are certain about the disruption." ; COMMENT: If we wait that long, it's too late. Page 127, column 1, Measures to Constrain Demand: Item11l: Prohibit or limit the use of private planes for nonessential uses. COMMENT: The State needs to perfect a State and Regional Defense Airlift plan (SARDA) such as that available in many other states. In times of scarce resources, that plan should also include use of certain designated aircraft as is done in the SARDA plan. Page 127, second column under Measures to Provide Supplemental Supplies: Item 4: The Alaska Energy Contingency Plan should be completed and submitted to the legislature for approval by January 1982." COMMENT: A very laudable ambition that is absolutely impossible of achievement. Resource Development Council for Ala ska } INC. 444 West 7th Avenue, Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Box 516, Anchorage, Alaska 99510 - 907/278-9615 COMMENTS ON THE STATE OF ALASKA'S EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Paula P. Easley Fe covuuiien LONG-TERM ENERGY PLAN (DRAFT), DATED APRIL 1981 Charles F. Herbert, President Mano Frey, Vice Pre: Dorothy Jones, Vice Bob Swetnam, Secre! jent Dorrel Rexwinkel, Treasuter The Energy Committee of the Resource Development Council te warcce has reviewed the State's Energy Plan and has made the eco utr following comments: ab Haig O.K. “Easy” Gilbreth . Dan tinker This is neither a good plan nor a wed potter rr peared ment. It appears to be a critique of the presen John Kel: & i Tom Povgeer system rather than a plan or policy. ll Sumner j Hameed almed As a plan it does not determine needs or how the needs Chaniectortes are to be addressed. There is no action plan to ini- Pia tiate incentives for the development of resources for Tarr Brody energy. A long-range plan should establish —— Frank Chapados and goals; this was sadly lacking. The documents do Toke treet contain many suggestions which, if adopted, would re- nest sult in more studies and a larger bureaucracy. Or. James Drew James G. “Bud” Dye William D. English As a policy, some suprising and potentially dangerous Wayne Fecher thoughts are expressed. Two examples: lee E. Fisher Kel Gey "The State's policy initiatives are aimed at ensur- Howard Grey ing that energy is reliably available at reasonable nite reid rates."" That statement is in direct opposition to Se eae the State's standing policy on its royalty energy, paride: which is to get top dollar for it. Robert Hickel Secehne "The State will ensure that energy facilities are ee developed in an economically and environmentally eet: sound manner. The State cannot ensure economic Dr Charles Logsdon viabilitv; or at least should not. Dennis Lohse Robert Loscher Eien The study has revealed a lack of coordination, res- eon ponsibility, and a lack of centralized data collecting. Nate Olemaun ater Feoey Oil and gas are major sources of energy in Alaska. Wilton Borringtsn Little emphasis is placed on this in the plan (note: Pot Quinton one paragraph on Cook Inlet natural gas). Much of Wiliom Ross the information is inaccurate and misleading. Any Comoe long-range plan using such limited information re- ei al lating to a major source of energy asa basis for Eapecisourses decisions must have a negative value. Nothing in the Dale Teel report mentions the beneficial effect that new oil and Dane t triplet gas discoveries would have as known fields are depleted. James Waketield Den Wold The study did point out that most of the state money eee Pe is being spent haphazardly on alternative energy re- Bete Hemptal sources (not true research) or conservation programs Frank H. Jones with unknown predicted results. Almost nothing was Dr James Drew Dole Tubbs spent to further develop the known resources or to use them well within the state. (For example, resolution of a means for providing Fairbanks with natural gas.) In conclusion, the plan suggests reorganization. If this means creating a new department, that would only hinder progress, especially if it follows suit of the DOT/PF. Possibly a plan is not needed since most energy is developed by the private sector. Consider instead development of a realistic policy statement and goals to promote the development and effective uses of energy. COMMENTS concerning STATE of ALASKA LONG TERM ENERGY PLAN (DRAFT) submitted by the KODIAK AREA NATIVE ASSOCIATION May 27, 1981 The Kodiak Area Native Association (KANA) appreciates the oppor- tunity to submit comments concerning the Draft State of Alaska Long Term Energy Plan. The KANA has been regularly involved with energy issues affecting Alaskan Natives since the organization became incorporated. The KANA is a member of the Alaska Rural Energy Association (AREA) and has actively participated in the association's programs that have developed a position on rural energy. The subject document draft has been perceived by the KANA not as a plan but, more astutely as a report to the state on the pur-~ pose and intent of developing an evergy plan. A plan is com- prised of a set policy on an issue, goals and objectives which provide a process to deal with that issue, and accurate infor- mation to base decisions which resolve the issue. This draft only presents itself as a necessary handbook giving information and recommendations to the state so that an energy plan can be developed. The KANA supports all recommendations stated in the Draft to develop a plan. The AREA has advocated similiar recommendations to the state to establish an orderly process for making energy decisions for Alaska. One important recommendation that AREA has advocated is the need for regional energy planning. Because of Alaska's immense geographical size, energy resource variety, socio-economic and socio-cultural diversity, regional energy planning is extremely essential in the development of a state energy plan. The ANSCA Act has identified thirteen (13) regions within Alaska. In each of these regions is an organization that has the ability to assist the state in the coordination of state energy programs and to provide, as inicated in this draft, the keystone of accurate and reliable information on energy, espec- ially rural energy. Attached to these comments is a preliminary work plan for a Regional Energy Planner conceptualized by the KANA. The planner plays a vital role in the energy planning process. Responsi- bilities of the planner are illustrated in the attached preliminary job description developed to correspond with the work plan. The responsibilities are condusive only to the Koniag Region: There- fore each region would have to develop its own specific work program to address the particular energy needs of the region. The KANA is pleased that the state of Alaska is pursuing an energy plan and feels that the draft provides the necessary information and guidelines to develop one. This orgranization reemphasize KODIAK AREA NATIVE ASSOCIATION Post Office Box 172 - Kodiak, Alaska 99615 - Phone (907) 486 - 5725 COMMENTS Re: Draft State of Alaska Long Term Energy Plan Page two (2) the importance of regional energy planning and strongly urges that the concept be incorporated in the final document. The KANA board has formalize their attitudes towards the state's position on energy planning in resolution form to be adopted at the next board meeting in June, 1981. The resolution accomp- anies these comments. Again, thank you for allowing the KANA to express their views on the Draft Plan. Sincerely, KODIAK AREA NATIVE ASSOCIATION IONH,M. NORTON, everson Economic Development Planner WORK PLAN KODIAK AREA NATIVE ASSOCIATION REGIONAL ENERGY PLANNING PROGRAM JUNE 1, 1981 TO JUNE 30, 1982 TASK I: REGIONAL ENERGY COUNCIL FORMATION AND ASSISTANCE OBJECTIVE: Establish the Regional Energy Council and provide technical assistance. WORK STEPS RESULTS. TARGET DATES 1. Establish REC a) Composition Formation of REC July, 1981 1. One member representing each village. 2. One member representing Kodiak proper. 2. Establish REC as Standing Com- Standing Committee July, 1981 mittee to the KANA Board of Directors TASK II: GRANT-IN-AID ASSISTANCE OBJECTIVE: Provide Technical Assistance to KANA and: villages. WORK STEPS 1. Provide assistance in appli- Completed applications. As grants become cation for energy related fund- available. ing projects and grants. TASK III: INFORMATION AND REFERRAL OBJECTIVE: To provide assistance to agencies conducting energy programs. Work Plan Page 2 WORK STEPS RESULTS 1. Make regular field trips to Information concern- villages to retrieve infor- mation on energy resource, production, and use. Research and develop sta- tistical data base on re- ing Base data infor- mation gathered. Completed Base data information. gional energy. 3. Provide as liaison for the Region to Federal, State, and local agencies involved with energy programs. Information exchange, strengthened program delivery. TASK IV: ENERGY PROGRAM ASSISTANCE OBJECTIVE: To provide assistance to WORK STEPS 1. Provide coordination with agen- cies conducting energy programs within the region and villages. 2. Provide assistance to agencies conducting energy programs within the region and villages. Quality program deliv-— ery. 3. Provide interaction between agencies conducting energy pro- grams with the REC. Quality program deliv- ery TASK V: SERVICE DELIVERY TO REGION AND VILLAGES OBJECTIVE: Assist REC in the development of Regional Energy WORK STEPS 1. Develop energy strategies for each village. Completed Energy plan- ing strategies. TARGET DATES Quarterly October, 1981, and May, 1982 On-going agencies conducting energy programs. Quality program delivery As programs are initiated. As programs are in progress. As programs are in progress. strategies and plan. Work Plan Page 3 WORK STEPS TASK VI: OBJECTIVE: as TASK VII: OBJECTIVE: Assist the REC in prepara- tion of the Regional Energy Akhiok Karluk Kodiak proper (with Borough planning assistance) Larsen Bay Old Harbor Ouzinkie Port Lions Plan Assist the REC in implementing village energy plan programs. Assist the Borough in imple- menting energy plan program. Provide information to REC and Borough from energy re- lated agencies in the imple- mentation process. WORK STEPS ds Provide workshop topics, agenda and materials Coordinate with agencies wishing More workshops to conduct further workshops. Address regional energy issues in workshops. Provide followup on workshops. PLAN IMPLEMENTATION ENERGY WORKSHOPS RESULTS Completed plan. Assist in implementing the Regional Energy Plan. Begin efforts for FY83 Two (2) workshops Qualitative workshops. TARGET DATE First quarter First quarter First quarter Second quarter Second quarter Third quarter Third quarter May, 1981 June, 81 June, 1981 June, 1981 Provide educational workshops related to energy issues. August, 81; May, 82 As assigned during workshops. As assigned during workshops. Three weeks post workshops. DUTIES: KODIAK AREA NATIVE ASSOCIATION Post Office Box 172 - Kodiak, Alaska 99615 - Phone (907) 486 - 5725 JOB DESCRIPTION REGIONAL ENERGY PLANNER Under the general direction of the President, the Regional Energy Planner will be responsible for the following: 1. Inventory existing and alternative energy resources for the region and villages. 2. Development of a comprehensable statistical data base illus- trating energy production and use in the region and villages. 3. Assistance to the Regional Energy Council comprised of one representative from each village. 4. Coordination and assistance to all agencies conducting energy programs in the region and villages. 5. Performance Analysis of energy programs conducted in the region and villages. 6. Development of the Regional Energy Plan. 7. Development of Regional Energy strategies. 8. Assistance in the implementation of the strategies and plan for the region and villages. 9. Assistance to energy related education regional and village workshops. 10. Delegate to the Alaska Rural Energy Association. QUALIFICATIONS Preferably a college degree or at least two (2)years of practical experience in energy technology or business management related fields. Should be familiar with rural Alaska and its characteristics. Must be able to express himself/herself articulately in conversation and in writing. KODIAK AREA NATIVE ASSOCIATION Post Office Box 172 - Kodiak, Alaska 99615 - Phone (907) 486 - 5725 KODIAK AREA NATIVE ASSOCIATION RESOLUTION NO.81-2 THE VILLAGE ENERGY RECONNAISSANCE AND CONSERVATION PROGRAM WHEREAS, the Kodiak Area Native Association has recognized the dramatic increase of fossil fuels supplied to villages in the Koniag Region; and WHEREAS, low income residence of those villages are becoming heavily burdened by the rising costs; and WHEREAS, continued neglect and disorderly energy program delivery by the State to provide a comprehensive energy program to decrease the amount of fossil fuel use in villages will jeopardize its existence; and WHEREAS, the need for energy conservation, weatherization, and most of all, energy awareness through education in the villages is of paramount issue; and NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Kodiak Area Native Associ- ation urges the Governor and the Alaska State Legislature to support full funding of SSHB9, specifically Section Three (3) pursuant to the provision of development and administering a Village Energy Reconnaissance and Conservation Program and to financielly support Regional Energy Planners to provide the catalyst to achieve a successful program. Accepted this day of _ po Ol. Chairman, Board of Directors Secretary, Board of Directors ATTEST: | TESORO YP May 22, 1981 ADASSA BRLaGY Orne Dennis F. Juren Group Vice President Refining, Marketing and Transportation Ms. Clarissa Quinlan Director Department of Commerce & Economic Development 7th Floor Mackay Building 338 Denali Street Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Dear Ms. Quinlan: We have reviewed your draft of the State of Alaska's Long Term Energy Plan with great interest, particularly with regard to petroleum supply/demand projections and the area of emergency planning. Although the draft emphasizes Alaska's dependence on petroleum products, we believe that this dependence vis a vis the lower 48 states is understated. First, the draft states that the 59 percent of energy end-use consumption (56.8 percent on total basis) in Alaska represented by petroleum is only slightly higher than the national average. Data published by the Federal Department of : Energy in their Monthly Energy Report indicate that petroleum supplies _. only about 47 percent of national energy needs--some 10 percentage ‘ points below Alaska's. Secondly, we note that about 15 percent of the petroleum energy for the nation as a whole is in the form of residual fuel oil, whereas essentially no residual fuel is consumed in Alaska. If we corrected for residual fuel oil use, then a more valid comparison would be that light products (gasoline, diesel, turbine fuel, etc.) account for 56.8 percent of energy consumed in Alaska vs. about 40 percent for the nation as a whole. We believe that Alaska should take account of its unique product demand slate in developing the long term energy plan. Specifically, it should be recognized that more "bottom of the barrel" refining capacity is required per barrel of product supplied in Alaska than for the nation as a whole. Alaska's high per capita energy consumption, use of only the lighter products, and unique distribution problems make it desirable to maintain in-state refining capacity at maximum throughput rates during periods of petroleum supply disruptions to the nation. Tesoro Petroleum Corporation, 8700 Tesoro Drive, San Antonio, Texas 78286 (612) 826-6484 Ms. Clarissa Quinlan May 22, 1981 Page 2 In this regard, we would like to point out that actions taken by the State of Alaska during non-shortage periods can have an impact on how well the State fares during shortfall situations. Although the ideal goal of any federal allocation plan would be that everyone is entitled to purchase a set percentage of his base period purchases, the implementation of the plan will not meet that objective. Based on past history, it is likely that the real allocation will take place at the interface between crude oil producers and refiners in the following manners: ° Existing supplier/purchaser relationships will again be frozen ® Under a buy/sell program, crude deficient refiners will be entitled to purchase crude up to a percentage of base period runs, not capacity (thus the need to keep runs up during non-crisis times) ° Non-major refiners having crude avails in excess of the national average will not be forced to share crude supplies If, as expected, the standby emergency program contains the above provisions, it is very apparent that the supplier/purchaser relation- ships and the base period runs will have a significant impact on a particular refiner's crude availability during shortfall situations. This will, in turn, determine the product availability to consumers historically supplied by that refiner. We believe the State of Alaska should carefully consider the potential impact during petroleum emergencies of the alternative methods of disposing of the State's royalty oil during non-emergency periods. We would be glad to project the impact on Tesoro's supply/demand balances for various scenarios. No doubt the other Alaska refiners would be willing to supply similar information. Thank you for giving us the opportunity to comment on this plan. Very = yours, a Bhs cc: R. J. Downey Tesoro Alaska Petroleum Company DFJ /pmb 95/81 TO; FROM: MEMORANDUM State oi Aiaska Department of Transportation & Public Facilites Clarissa Quinlan, Director DATE: May 26, 1981 Division of Energy and Power Development Department of Commerce and FILENO: 300C ; Economic Development sh be oe A TELEPHONE NO: 266-1462 : ANUS) Se tle eae Brstine suBJECT: 198] Alaska Long Term /* Division of Planning & Programming Energy Plan * Central/Southcentral Regions Thank you for the opportunity to review the draft 1981 Alaska Long Term Energy Plan. As you stated in your transmittal memo to me, you indicated that this was the first step towards completion of the comprehensive energy policy and strategy for the State of Alaska. In view of DOT/PF's involvement in energy conservation, our energy audit work on public facilities, and concern of use of energy in transportation modes throughout the state, we have a keen interest in this plan and its ultimate completion, adoption, and annual review and updating. In that light, I would ask that we be strongly considered as members of the energy advisory council, as contained in the recommendations of the plan. Our major comment is that there appears to be need for a definition or separation of. development of energy resources vs. consumption of energy. The two are intermingled in many places in these reports, and we feel that, while development of energy resources should be part of an energy plan, there should be a more distinct separation of the two. One deals with policy issues such as oi] and gas leasing and development of petro- chemical resource processing industries within the state. The other section should properly deal with supply, consumption, conservation, and ein policy issues. These report drafts do not clearly make this stinction. Once again, thank you for the opportunity to comment and good luck in the continued development of a long range energy plan for the State of Alaska. KD:RS/ih f Municipality ~ 6s POUCH 6-650 ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99502 | (907) 264-4415 / y)/ GEORGE M. SULLIVAN, M/ MAYOR > e MUNICIPAL UTILITIES June 2, 1981 Mr. Lloyd Pernela, Director Division of Energy and Power Development 338 Denali Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Dear Mr. Pernela: I am offering support on the following recommendations that have significant impacts for the Anchorage area in addition to the non-Rail Belt areas. My earlier understanding of the geographic areas included in the plan would not allow con- sideration of the energy ties between the Rail Belt areas and the rest of the state. I was relieved to find the document developers included consideration of these energy ties. The end use data base should be improved by incorporating the Battelle Rail Belt alternative study information, and others, into a centralized data base. The other recommendations listed in the Eenergy End Use section are also needed. Anchorage is in a very weak energy planning situation. We have been tracking energy consumption in our public build- ings and are currently sampling 200 homes that have had weatherization repairs. However, we have no accurate liquid petroleum end use information. Standardization and central- ization of Alaskan energy information for dissemination to local advisory groups and planners is our most urgent need. Legislation to provide the Governor with authority to re- spond to energy emergencies should be approved as soon as possible. It should be noted that the Governor would be un- able to optimally respond to energy emergencies without the data base listed above. It is also difficult to constrain demand, manage shortages, and provide supplemental supplies at the local level without an adequate data base and tech- nical interpretation. ‘I strongly support the recommendation for the state to con- tinue financial support of hydroelectric resource development. ‘The combination of our dwindling natural gas resource for Anchorage's current electric generation base, air quality considerations, and long hydroelectric development schedules makes it essential for the state to finance firm renewable energy. § A 40 5 Ey ve Mr. Lloyd Pernela June 2, 1981 Page 2 The recommendation for active and passive solar heating demonstra- tions to determine actual performance, operating characteristics and economics assistance is needed in all localities. Theoretical applications of solar technology and benefits to specific local- ities have little value in gaining consumer acceptance. I expect few active solar installations in Anchorage until consumers can physically touch a collector before installing one on their own residence, to “keep up with the Jones'". Although fuel cell development is still only in the commercial demonstration phase, I see significant merit in fuel cell appli- cations. In addition to the DOT/PF demonstrations and pending results, I would encourage the state to incorporate demonstra- tions' results from the lower 48 when considering statewide applications. I appreciate the opportunity to offer these comments to the draft of a long-term energy plan. As a final comment, excluding any possible errors in the data presented, I found the draft plan informative and specific in pointing out unfulfilled state policies to Alaskan communities. Sincerely yours, (itr fea Peter aay Bee Municipal Energy Coordinator Municipal Utilities PP/nms July 6, 1981 Heinz Noonan Energy Economist Department of Commerce and Economic Development Division of Energy and Power Development, State of Alaska Dear Heinz, You asked me some time ago to respond to two letters from Tesoro Alaska Petroleum Company. In a May 22, 1981 letter, Mr. Dennis Juren, Vice President for Refining, Marketing, and Transportation makes the point that Alaska is more dependent On petroleum products than the U.S. as a whole. In fact, Mr. Juren argues that this dependence is understated in your Draft Long Term Energy Plan, if you consider there is no demand in Alaska for residual fuel oil. Stated otherwise, Alaska petroleum product demand is concentrated in lighter products --- gasoline, jet fuel, and middle distillates (diesel and heating oil). Mr. Juren then argues, since Alaska is so dependent on petroleum products, particularly light products, the State should make sure all Alaskan refiners have enough crude oil (royalty crude oil) to be able to operate at maximum through- put capacity. Hence, if there is a major supply disruption, Alaskan refiners will be allocated a larger share of scarce crude oil supplies. Presumably, Alaska refiners could then continue to supply vital petroleum products. Mr. Juren correctly notes, Alaska petroleum product demand is concentrated in light products, and there is little or no demand for residual oil. The curious fact is, however, Alaskan refiners produce a high proportion of residual oil for which there is no in-state demand, and a relatively small proportion of light products where the demand is high. Chevron and North Pole produce no gasoline, a fuel that makes up a large percent of the petroleum product market. , Refineries in Alaska can be characterized as having little downstream refining capacity or flexibility. Chevron and North Heinz Noonan Page Two Pole are topping plants. Tesoro has a hydrocracker and produces some gasoline. Tesoro still produces a substantial fraction of residual oil (approximately 50%) and does not have the heavy oil cracking capacity to refine residual oil into light products which can be sold in the Alaskan market. This means, Alaskan refiners must export a large percent of the oil processed in- state as resid. Residual oil produced in Alaska is sold on the West Coast (District V) market. As in Alaska, Distric V demand is also concentrated in lighter petroleum products, relative to other parts of the U.S. Mild winters and air quality restrictions dampen demand for heating oil and residual oil, particularly high sulfur residual oil. At the same time, West Coast crude supplies are heavy (low API° gravity) and high in sulfur content and, thereby, relatively costly to refine into a light product slate. The combination of low demand for residual oil and the prevalence of heavy high sulfur feedstocks makes the diposal of resid a chronic problem for West Coast refiners. It is therefore into a West Coast market awash in high sulfur residual oil that Alaskan refiners must sell their resid. Tesoro currently has an advantage since it produces low sulfur resid from "sweet" Cook Inlet crude. Cook Inlet erude oil production is declining, however, and Tesoro will soon have to switch to heavier higher sulfur ANS crude. Hence, it to will soon have to unload high sulfur resid into the West Coast market at a substantial discount in price, a price which is now well below the price of crude oil. _In order for a refiner to operate, the value of petroleum products refined from a barrel of crude oil must at least equal (or preferably exceed) the acquisition cost of its crude oil. If the residual oil prices are lower than the cost of crude oil because of weak demand and inflexible refinery stock, distillate fuel and gasoline prices must be high (or higher) to make up the difference. If not, the refiner must shut- down to avoid an operating loss. Hence, the consumer of the light products must foot the bill for the marginal refiner. This relationship is part of the reason prices of refined products in Distric V remained stable or continued to rise during the second quarter of 1981, despite falling crude oil prices everywhere, and falling petroleum product prices everywhere but the West Coast. Heinz Noonan Page Three I draw your attention to the last paragraph of Mr. Juren's letter where it states, "We believe the State of Alaska should carefully consider the potential impact during petroleum emergencies of the alternative methods of disposing of the State's royalty oil during non-emergency periods. We would be glad to project the impact on Tesoro's supply/demand balances for various scenarios. No doubt the other Alaskan refiners would be willing to supply similar information." ‘I believe it would be worth your while to take up Mr. Juren's offer. This would enable you to match the disposition of royalty crude oil supplies and the proposed expansion plans of the in-state refiners to the demand for petroleum products. This type of information would be invaluable for your division and for the Department of Natural Resources. An analysis of this type, with the co-operation of the refiners, might show the efficient use of each barrel of oil, or bottom of the barrel refining capacity, is just as important as through- put volumes in supplying Alaskans with a product slate consistent with in-state demand. In regards to the May 19, 1981 letter from R.J. Downey, I have attatched an errata sheet to this memorandum. Sincerely, Ah Wle Bob Williams cc: Mary Halloran Arlon Tussing ERRATA Draft Long Term Energy Plan State of Alaska Add the following after the final sentence on page 47, "Approximately 31,000 bpd of this production is owned by Trinidad Tesoro Petroleum Company and the majority interest in this company is owned by the governments of Trinidad and Tobago. They have directed that their share of this production be used to supply a local refinery." Add the following to the third paragraph under Acknowledgement after the word Williams, "who acted as a consultant on the section of this report entitled Royalty Oil and Alaska's Instate Oil Refining Industry. “61 for 66” ALASKA OIL FOR ALASKANS NOW 452-1745 P.O. Box 60389 456-6403 Fairbanks, Alaska 99706 May 26, 1981 Mr. Heinz Noonan Energy Economist Division of Energy Power and Development Subject: Public Hearing - Long term energy development plan Dear Mr. Noonan, On behalf of a local citizen's group called Alaska Oil For Alaskans Now, we wish to present the attached document concerning the use of our State's royalty oil and gas. Included in this policy statement is our concerns for a long-term energy plan such as you are proposing and some suggestions how our proposed use of royalty oil and gas will fit into an overall energy plan. Our group would be pleased to receive a copy of your proposed energy plan and to be kept informed as your plan progresses. Very truly yours, ALASKA OIL FOR ALASKANS NOW rry Aj Coyle 7 ALASKA OIL FOR ALASKANS NOW PREAMBLE We, the citizen members of Alaska Oil For Alaskans Now, present for consideration what we feel is a practical and equitable proposal allowing every Alaskan an immediate opportunity to share in Alaska's Royalty Oil and Gas wealth. As can be seen from the length and detail of our proposal, we have spent a great deal of time and thought in its preparation. After our proposal has been given due consideration we expect that it will be given enthusiastic public endorse- ment. In the course of our many discussions with the public at large several statements have been made and a number of questions have been raised regarding the impracticability of having the State of Alaska adopt and carry out our recommendations on behalf of its citizens. The major objections/questions seem to fall along two very distinct lines, each line being generally of two parts. If we may be allowed to paraphrase these objections/questions, they are as follows: The first line - A. What purpose does the State have interfering in private enterprise? B. What business does the State have trying to limit a private company's profits? The second line - A. How can the State implement such a plan without setting up a new regulatory department which would immediately end up in costs, what otherwise could have been a benefit to every Alaskan? B. How can the State monitor the firms who receive the free Royalty Oil and Gas to make sure they pass the $.66 a gallon savings on to the Alaskan consumer? We have heard these objections/questions time and time again. What we find wonderfully surprising is that the individuals who bring up these objections/questions in our discussions invariably pursue both lines. They may start with one or the other, but they eventually touch on both. To us, this says some very special things about the Alaskan citizen. These Alaskans are people who don't want to see State Government curtail business activity and profits or stifle business with unnecessary regulation. At the same time, they rightfully expect the State, when acting as an agent for its citizens in dealings with the private business community, to act in the same manner as any private agent. Namely, to act for the best and highest good of the people it represents. The people deserve no less. As a citizens group we share these same sentiments and concerns with the people who question us and find nothing contradictory in them. We recognize the sense of fair play inherent in these sentiments and find it a very American, very Alaskan attitude. We applaud it. Let us forthrightly say that none of us are experts in the field of oil and gas, nor in the field of law. As Alaskans we are asking our fellow Alaskans join with us in what we feel is a worthwhile endeavor to provide immediate and future benefits to all of the people of our great state. Our recommendations are presented in the accompanying proposal. We welcome from the State Government any con- structive input that might enhance and improve our proposals. The emphasis in implementing our plan is on the adoption of contracting mechanisms which would allow our plan to be utilized in a fair and forthright manner. One mechanism we know of that could advantageously be used in our proposal is a method of contracting already in place and being used by the State Government. This type of contracting is generally known as Design-Construct Contracts. Its main use so far has been in the field of Public works construction through the DOT/PF. Several projects have been built in Alaska using this method of contracting. People in the highly competitive building construction field have told us they fully expect the State to increase their use of this method of contracting. The method itself is fairly simple. The State solicits bids to design and construct a project. The State then furnishes interested firms with specifications covering general items, such as location of the project and what its overall use will be. (Along with much more detailed information, Te, items such as what they expect the overall square footage to be, what the square footage of the various rooms need to be along with the uses of those rooms and the various electrical, mechanical, heating and ventilating systems and how they are to function.) They also outline the method that will be used in awarding the contract. This is generally a combination process consisting of a point grading system based on (1) Page 2 - Alaska Oil For Alaskans Now adherence to specifications, practicability of design and aesthetic value of the design and (2) (most important to our discussion) the State sets out a ceiling price on the project and states that any firm submitting a design with a cost higher than that ceiling will be termed a non-responsive bid and not considered for the contract award. The advantages of this method of contracting are obvious. The State is able to choose the building design that most closely suits its needs and is able to have it constructed for the lowest possible cost. In short, for the consideration of awarding the contract to the successful bidder the State receives the best and highest value for its money. This method of contracting is successful for two reasons; (1) the State knows precisely what it wants the finished product to be and what they want to use it for. Equally important, they know within a very, very few percentage points what the project should cost to design and build. This last information is furnished to the State either by inhouse experts or outside consultants who are knowledgeable about material cost, local labor costs and the national and/or local pricing standards of overhead and profit. We find no reason why a process such as this one could not be modified for use as the operative feature of our plan. Under our plan, the state would contract with refineries and other firms to buy, process and distribute Royalty Oil and Gas at production cost to Alaskan Consumers. The peoples right to a maximum dollar benefit reduction from the free Royalty Oil and Gas can be addressed by the Admini- stration through the type of contract that is written with the Refiners and Distributor in their handling of the products. As.stated above, we recognize that the expertise for this contract development and management now exists in the State Administration. Further, we recognize the ability of the State of Alaska to utilize its financial and technical resources to analyze our plan, and we encourage the State to do so. We do not assert that our plan is technically and legally perfect. We do assert that it is feasible, necessary and in keeping with our democratic and popular ideals of justice, fairness and recognition by the Government of the people's right to act on their behalf to change a policy when they feel a policy is hurting them. Page 3 - Alaska Oil For Alaskans Now CONSTITUTION The pertinent Sections of the Constitution of the State of Alaska regarding Alaska Oil for Alaskans Now are as follows: Article 8, Section 1: It is the policy of the State to encourage the settlement of its land and the development of its resources by making them available for maximum use consistent with the public interest. Article 8, Section 2: The legislature shall provide for the utilization, development and conservation of all natural resources belonging to the State, including land and waters, for the maximum benefit of its people. With reference to the Alpetco Contract: Article 8, Section 8: The legislature may provide for the leasing of, and the issuance of permits for exploration of, any part of the public domain or interest therein, subject to reasonable concurrent uses. Leases and permits shall provide, among other conditions, for payment by the party at fault for damage or injury arising from noncompliance with terms governing concurrent use, and for forfeiture in the event of breach of condition. The reason this is pertinent to Alaska Oil For Alaskans Now is because we've asserted that Alpetco isn't obeying their contract. We are talking about the natural resources of the State of Alaska. We have a specific section which says that in any lease or agreement with someone to develop the resources of the State, if they don't obey the contract, we can break it. Why the Royalty Oil & Gas belongs to the People of the State: Article 8, Section 16: No person shall be involuntarily divested of his right to the use of waters, his interest in lands, or IMPROVEMENTS AFFECTING either, except for a superior beneficial use for public purpose and then only with just compensation and by operation of law. Article 12, Section 8: The enumeration of specified powers in this constitution shall not be construed as limiting the powers of the State. This is pertinent to our proposed use of Royalty Oil and Gas because the Constitution of the State of Alaska encourages and allows the people to participate. Note: Article 8, Section 16, Caps and underline is for emphasis. Page 4 - Alaska Oil For Alaskans Now CONTRACTS Our present plan is to immediately replace the Oil now being used for Instate use by the Refineries with Royalty Oil at no cost, on a Barrel per Barrel basis. This should result in an immediate 66 cents per gallon savings to the people of Alaska. This will instantly generate a beneficial impact on the Alaskan economy through cost of living reductions. The State should develop Contracts that will guarantee Alaskans the lowest Refining and Distribution costs possible, using free Royalty Oil and Gas. This policy will encourage additional Refineries to be placed around the State. The remaining Royalty Oil and Gas can be sold by the State in accord with existing policies. AVAILABILITY It is our understanding that a contract is now in effect with Alpetco which allows them to remove 27.375 million barrels of Crude Oil this year from Alaska to use as they wish. Furthermore, this contract calls for increases of Royalty Oil in the very near future. To this date, no progress has been made towards the development of a Refinery in Alaska, as the contract calls for. An immediate investigation should be made by the Admin- istration. If Alpetco has not lived up to the exact letter of the contract, and its intent, this contract should immediately broken. This would then make available, more than the necessary Royalty Oil to implement this plan. ADMINISTRATION We are certain that within the confines of State Government and their existing Department Structure, that the auditing procedures and processes are in place to administer this policy. There is no need to have a separate Department of Energy nor any new regulatory body to enforce or oversee the Royalty Oil and Gas. The reporting process is in place that determines how many barrels of Royalty Oil is available and how it is distributed from the Oil Wells through the Distributors. Page 5 - Alaska Oil For Alaskans Now Present Schedule of Royalty Oil Figures are in Million Barrels Royalty Oil: North Slope 68.438 Cook Inlet 4.00 Total Royalty Oil 72.438 Instate Use Gasoline 4229 Diesel 53.32 Other 2:09 Space Heating 4.20 Electricity 2.90 Jet (1) SLs Total Instate 21.98 21.98 divided by 72.438 = 30% instate use Source Material: Department of Natural Resources Report, Jan. 1981 and North Pole Refinery. (1) State Report has 10.03 and is broken down, 4.65 Military Use, 2.2 International Carriers, 3.18 Commercial Carriers and Others. Page 6 - Alaska Oil For Alaskans Now INSTATE USE OF ROYALTY OIL Our definition of instate-use of Alaska Royalty Oil and Gas is Instate use. Scheduled Airlines servicing Alaska from points outside Alaska, will be classified as Instate users, while in Alaska Air Space. The International Carriers who only use Alaska for a fueling stop or crew change will not be classified as Instate users. The International Carriers could receive discounts based upon the economic benefit to be gained by Alaskan communities that they serve, as part of their operations, but it will be limited to the fuel they consume while in Alaska Air Space. A resident Fisherman in Alaska, who owns, registers, services and maintains his boat, in Alaska, while operating in Alaskan Fishing areas, would get the full benefit of the Royalty Qil. Any fishing operation whose registration, ownership, crew accomodations, servicing and maintenance is outside the State of Alaska would not. This is intended to encourage more participation in the Alaskan economy by individuals and firms, so that the State receives the maximum economic impact in the use of its Royalty Oil. We feel the 66 cents a gallon should only go to the Alaska fisherman, in their struggle for survival against the Multinational Corporations. Marine transportation, Barge Operations, and Container Vessels would also use Alaska Royalty Oil, while they are operating in Alaskan waters and servicing Alaskan cities. Once out of Alaskan waters, they would be paying the full price for the Oil they consume. The State Ferries would use Royalty Oil. Any Trucker traveling out of Alaska, who fills his tanks before he leaves the State, is benefiting Alaskans, through the decreased cost that he has in his operation. This benefits the Alaskan customers. The same definitions will apply for any other manufacturing, processing type operation, where raw products are removed from Alaska with a minimum benefit to Alaskans, and are taken to other points for processing and final manufacture. Royalty Oil use will be based on economic impact. It is our feeling that we should use the Alaska Royalty Oil and Gas to encourage full use of Alaska's resources and maximum benefits to the people of Alaska. Page 7 - Alaska Oil For Alaskans Now ECONOMIC IMPACT The present plans we have heard discussed, including the most recent proposed Royalty payment of $193.00, would not have the same economic impact on Alaska that our plan would. Using a basis of 600,000 residents times $193.00, the impact would be $115,800,000.00. However, this full benefit would not accrue to the Alaskan community because an estimated 20-25% would be turned over to the Federal Government in the form of Income Taxes. Our plan would have an impact of $609,945,000.00. This is based on $27.75 per barrel, times 21.98 million barrels, which is only 30% of our Royalty Oil. This is not Federally Taxable. All of it would immediately go into the Alaskan economy. The current price on leaded gasoline is $1.40 to $1.689 per gallon. Current home heating oil prices are approximately $1.16 to $1.34 per gallon. The present price of Prudhoe Bay crude is $27.75 per barrel. A barrel of crude has 42 gallons. Dividing $27.75 by 42 equals $.66 per gallon. That is the savings, if Royalty Oil were to be given free for Instate use. Heating oil--$.66 per gallon less. Gasoline--$.66 per gallon less. Golden Valley Electric--30 to 35% reduction in electrical cost. Golden Valley now spends $11,000,000.00 annually to buy oil. MUS electric--2% reduction. MUS uses, mainly, coal. Truck Transportation--7% reduction north of Fairbanks to 10% reduction south of Fairbanks. Air--20% reduction in Air Fares and Freight. Rail Transportation costs--9% reduction. One Fisherman in Kodiak, $64,000 savings in fuel last season, if this policy had been in effect. Page 8 - Alaska Oil For Alaskans Now As you think about the obvious benefits, the savings start multiplying. If Heating costs, Electrical costs, and Transportation costs are down, this eliminates the pressure for cost of living wage increases. This, in turn, reduces the cost of Government, with a resulting savings in tax dollars for their operation. Why should the State and the citizens of Alaska pay higher prices, and bigger profits to the Oil Companies. It also means a reduction in the overhead cost for many businesses, with the resulting savings in retail purchases. The benefits from this plan are not taxable. Grant plans are taxable. This plan, by reducing the basic cost, allows you more purchasing power on your present income. It benefits every Alaskan resident, regardless of time in Alaska, It does not encourage waste, because it is still not a cheap product to use. It gives stability to the Alaskan Energy market as we will not be subject to changes in world prices in the near future. It would increase Tourism in Alaska through lower transportation and operating costs. It would increase Mining as fuel is an important cost item, to this industry. COMMITTEE GOALS 1. Request that Governor Hammond immediately implement our plan for Royalty Oil so that the economic impact of this plan can benefit every Alaskan. Starting Thursday, May 14, 1981, begin a Statewide campaign, to send messages to Governor Hammond and the Legislature, through the appropriate Statewide Networks, that we, THE CITIZENS of ALASKA and THE OWNERS of the ROYALTY OIL, feel this plan should be implemented immediately. Page 9 - Alaska Oil For Alaskans Now FOOD SURVEY SAFEWAY STORES May 8, 1981 Products Campbell, Calif. Fairbanks, AK Lucerne 1 gal. milk $2.99 $3.01 1 Doz. lg. Eggs -69 Ld Lucerne Butter 1.85 2.3% Lean Hamburger 1.79 lb. 2259) Eb. Cut-up Fryer Chicken ~62 L239) Hormel Bacon a OT 2.59 Chuck Roast hohe 3.49 Bottom Round 1.99 4.29 Potatoes 10 lbs. i-99 4.98 Asparagus (fresh) -89 159) Celery -79 bunch 1.19 -Ib. Lettuce 3 heads 1.00 «99 Im. Tomatoes «39 1.98 Yellow or white onions -69 ~99 Bananas oe -79 Lg. Box Tide 3539) 4.95 Cascade dishwashing soap Ame S229) Folgers Coffee 3 lbs. 6.85 9.19 Wheaties 1 lb. ro 2.65 Gravy Train 25 lbs. 8.99 12.79 The regular price labels posted on the shelves were used. Source: Connie Kettman, California Stephanie Conant, Alaska Page 10 - Alaska Oil For Alaskans Now EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION We propose that equitable distribution of Oil and Gas now exists in the participation each individual has in the economic conditions and environment in the different communities of the State. To further clarify, we feel our proposal would guarantee an equal reduction in the primary costs to each Alaskan for the products and services they would be purchasing, and in fact are now purchasing at much higher cost. Many plans have been discussed concerning Grants, Energy Credits, Cash Bonuses, and even direct Oil Credits that people could barter or exchange depending on their needs. All of these plans were rejected because there seemed to be no way to fairly balance the Oil that is necessary to support a Fisherman, whose livelihood depends upon the operation of his Boat, as against somebody living in the City who has a Car, as against someone who is in the Bush and depends heavily on an Airplane for his Transportation and Freight. Examples of how the 66 cents fuel and gas savings applies: The person accessible only by Air in a remote area of Alaska might not personally consume large amounts of fuel, however, large amounts of fuel are necessary for the airplanes that supply him and allow him to live in that style and manner. Reduced air and energy costs. The City dweller who might have to commute to reach his place of employment. Reduced gas and energy costs. The Fisherman who might use large amounts of fuel to conduct his business and yet his impact is measured in the maintenance and operation of his boat and the economic environment he creates in the area around him. Reduced fuel and energy cost. We, therefore, offer that the equitability of using Alaskan Royalty Oil and Gas for the benefit of a better life in Alaska and in that development of Alaska is an equitable plan. The economic benefits that such distribution and use creates, is the most fair and equitable plan for Alaska. Page 11 - Alaska Oil For Alaskans Now PUBLICITY The Royalty Oil allows us, for the first time, to lower our general cost of living and at least give parity with the rest of the citizens of the United States. The first efforts for parity were mounted under Bob Bartlett, when Alaska was still a Territory, to have a cost of living allowance for Alaskans, to compensate us for the higher wages we needed to live and exist in this country. No such privilege was granted by Congress. As a consequence over the years, Alaskans have had to pay a higher share of their personal income in Income Taxes to the Federal Government, than the other citizens of the United States. Attached, you will find a comparitive shopping list taken at the Safeway store in Campbell, California and Fairbanks, Alaska, on Friday, the 8th of May, 1981. Unemployment figures, such as Alaska experiences annually, would be a disaster to any other State in the Union. For many years, Alaska's Federal Highway funds have been frozen by Washington Administrations, to the detriment of our Highway network. It is our understanding that next year might be the last year of these Federal Funds for Highways. All future funding will be through the Interstate program. If so, Alaska is the only State not in the Inter- state program. There is no indication Washington will place us in that Interstate program. NATIONALIZATION OF ALASKA OIL We recognize that a strong feeling exists in the Federal Government to nationalize Alaska's Oil and Gas, as more and more of it becomes available. We support every endeavor by the State Government to keep our Oil and Gas allocations in place and even to increase them as more State Oil and Gas becomes available. It is our intention to keep our movement alive and in place to lend immediate support to the administration should the need arise for any partici- pation with the State against nationalization moves. We would also lend such support in the event of movements by the Federal Government for a windfall profits tax or other taxing measures specifically designed against the people of the State of Alaska. Page 12 - Alaska Oil For Alaskans Now ROYALTY OIL TERMINATION In the event Royalty Oil is terminated for any reason, we recommend the following policy be placed in effect. As renewable energy sources such as Hydroelectric Power, Geothermal Power or others come on line, the need for Royalty Oil under this proposed policy will be decreased. Any Oil, as it becomes surplus, as these other sources of energy become available, will be sold at world scale prices or inaccord with current State policies at the time. The proceeds from this fund will be placed in a Royalty Oil Termination Fund. This Fund will be interest bearing and the interest proceeds will also be deposited in the Fund. In addition, our policy recommendations is that once the purchase price of the United States Oil or Gas at the retail level increases $10 a gallon over the retail price of Oil or Gas in Alaska, that our prices will increase at the same time to maintain that $10 a gallon differential. Any proceeds from these increases will also be deposited in the Termination Fund with the interest earned to accrue to that Termination Fund. When the Royalty Oil runs out, the difference in the price of Gas or Oil in Alaska, versus the current United States price will be divided by 10, and in 10 equal yearly in- crements, funds will be removed from the Termination Fund and used to subsidize that differential, so that the cost to Alaskan consumers will only be on a 1/10th, of the total per yearly increase. Any funds left over in the Termination Fund after this takes place, will be transferred to the State's General Fund. In addition, if the fund grows to be in excess of 150% of the differential at any given time, the surplus funds in excess of 150%, can be turned over to the General Fund. Page 13 - Alaska Oil For Alaskans Now ENERGY - LONG TERM POLICY It is our understanding that Governor Hammond is, at present, preparing an Energy Policy for the State of Alaska. We would be pleased, as a committee, to receive copies of that policy and assist in the input. Governor Hammond is to be commended for instituting such a study. The resource potential Alaska has available and the possibilities for development, makes a comprehensive plan of this type a necessity. ENERGY - INTERIM PLAN This policy is intended as an interim measure until the full potential of renewable energy sources are realized in Alaska. We encourage the State Administration to develop as practically and expeditiously as possible, Electrical Interties, Hydroelectric Projects on proven Hydroelectric Sites, development of future Hydroelectric, Geothermal or Solar Projects, that every Alaskan can use for his basic style of living. Through use of these sources of energy, we will not be consuming as much of our Oil and Gas as we are at present. We also encourage the use of these renewable resources, because they will reduce pollution levels in the major population centers of Alaska, that are now caused by Wood and Fossil Fuels. We encourage the State of Alaska to develop plans for test programs to be conducted by the appropriate departments of the University of Alaska for alternate energy programs. These programs could be conducted in conjunction with the major Automobile Manufacturers in the lower 48 states, so that again we can reduce our dependency upon a nonrenewable energy form for our transportation. ENERGY - EFFICIENCY AND USE The State of Alaska should use every means within its power to encourage energy efficient Homes and Transportation. We encourage the continued funding of the energy audit program. We also endorse other efforts to encourage energy conservation. Page 14 - Alaska Oil For Alaskans Now 1094 Coppet Street Fairbanks, Alaska 99701 June 6, 1981 Division of Energy and Power Development 338 Denali Street 7th Floor, Mackay Building Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Dear Sirs: I attended the meeting held by your office in Fairbanks recently. I appreciated very much the presentations given by the staff members. I am very happy that work is being done on a long-term enerzy plan for the state of Alaska. I believe that there is a real need for emer- gency planning here in Alaska. Those of us who have been in Fairbanks without power for hours or in some cases days with the temperature at -40 degrees know that emergency planning is a very real necessity. This is particularly true when we realize how fragile and uncertain are the sources of much of the industrialized world's vetroleum sup»lies. Most experts agree that we really cannot count on political stability or continued cooperation during the 1980's in such key countries as Saudi Arabia. Althowgh it probably would not be practical from a tech- nical standpoint, I would feel much better if we could store a 3 or 6 month supply of oil in Alaska to be used only in an emergency. Perhaps we could justify such action to the other states because of our extreme temperatures, and because Alaska, unlike most states does own a signi- ficant amount of oil. Realistically, it would probably be best for us to contribute to the national reserves. I am enclosing a copy of the proceedings of a town meeting on energy held in Fairbanks in 1977, in case one is not available in your office. I thought that some of the resource people as well as some of the articles might be of interest to you. You may keep this cony. I teach Economics at West Valley High, and I have included a growing ene gy unit each year despite the fact that energy is not now in- cluded in cluded in the course objectives for Economics nor indeed is energy mentioned in any course objectives at the high school level. Some of us are trying to get that changed next year. I will be con- ducting a section on energy education at an in-service work day October 23rd, and I would appreciate any suggestions or materials that you could provide me with for that presentation. I feel that thelack of serious energy education in our district is a disgrace, and as yet I have not been able to persuade others that it is vital. Most seniors do not even know basic conservation practices before I get them. Nor, obviously, do they have any idea of the seriousness of the enercy/ resource/population problems of the world. I would like to see a course covering the main aspects of the energy/resource problems that would be a requirement for all students, but such will take time unless I am more successful, and have more help than I have in the past. I do have one request from your office. I have some copies of the Factsheets on alternative energy sources produced by the National Science Teachers Association under contract by the Department of Energy. They are yellow sheets, and there are 19 separate copies in the series. I feel that they are still quite good even though they were written several years ago. I1 made arrangements with the Hutchison Career Center to bind material for me. They are not really very usable in large classes in 19 separate sheets. I do not know if it is possible, but I would appreciate receiving a class set of 25 or 30 copies of the factsheets. if they are not available from your office, could you suggest where I might get a set so I could get them bound this summer? Thank you. Sincerely, Suck Lire Diek Korvola P.S. I am enclosing a memorandum which I recently sent to Dr. Delores Dinneen, of our school district, which perhaps clarifies better where we are in this district with energy education, and gives you some idea of what I am trying to do. Anchorage SEK 4 _Anchorage, _ \ MAY | @ 36} POLICY CHIEF Fran Ulmer, one of Gov. Jay Ham- mond’s top advisors, has come up with a plan to overhaul the State’s energy programs. Bless ’em for thinking of something. At least Ms. Ulmer and, presumably, the governor know something is amiss. But how discouraging it is that the solutions being pro- posed seem to offer nothing in the way of positive, do-some- thing action and only more of the same old paper-churning planning, more costs, more governmental _ interference, more bureaucracy. All the buzz words are there, of course. If these re- commendations are imple- mented, to use a bureaucratic phrase, things will be “‘more focused.” But it sounds all too much like reshuffling of the same did deck. In fact, one of Ms. Ylmer’s lieutenants, com- renting on the problems that rompted this months-long tudy, expressed the view that »verlapping responsibilities of certain agencies within the state government are, “to a ‘ertain extent, more per- :eptual than real.” Good grief. Overlapping or not, the hole point is missed. By latever measure one might sply to this, the state simply 3 not doing an effective job when it comes to energy. A YEAR AGO, for in- stance, the legislature and ad- ministration came up with a new creature of government called the Alaska Energy Cen- ter. Staffed with a roster of high-priced people and given a big budget, it was supposed to help solve the nation’s energy crisis. Its first project is a contest offering more than $100,000 in prizes for amateur architects who submit plans for energy- efficient houses. Just a week ago, the state’s Division of Energy and Power Paper program Development came forth with what was ballyhooed as a major report. It contained such recommendations as that in the event of another in- ternational oil embargo, Alaska should order schools to . Teduce classes to four days a week, tell businesses to go on a four-day work week, permit private citizens to drive only on alternate days and other equally non-brilliant examples of your government your money for policy manuals that will never be used. Nothing in the study bore a resemblance to the new fed- eral energy task force report submitted at about the same time to the Reagan admin- istration and Energy Secre- tary James Edwards. That plan leaped over the downbeat attitude of the Carter admin- istration, one fully embraced by the Hammond administra- tion, which said the world is running out of energy. Now comes this new state study, which deals in bureau- cratic tables of o ization, lines of authority and all those things that are important to agency heads, supervisors and budget drafters. ALASKA, as_ everyone knows, is a treasure lode of energy resources that needs only a commitment by gov- ernment to help private indus- try do the necessary explora- tion and development work. But you’d never know that from watching Juneau in ac- tion. What's going to solve the energy problem is more en- ergy and what’s going to pro- duce more energy is getting on with the job in the field — not shuffling papers in Ju- neau, or offering big prizes for half a dozen house plans, or telling people to get ready to work a four-day week. There’s plenty of energy out there, if only we'll get off our haunches and go out and get it. 7 | ALASKA CLIPPING SERVICE Anchorage Daily News eee AK An ALASKA’ CLIPPING pollep fermitg functions need, tote tape it arm’s length from energy advocacy. Opere:: The $150,000 plan, mandated b: the | uss last yar, ® addresses a num as 3 related problems the state m incl produc event of an ‘ : bo — << SS v = lk 555 te it Alaska energy use detailed in plan by Neil Davis Alaska pumps into the ground more than twice as much energy it uses each year. ! facts contained in the new State of t : Fs 8 i i il EE i ei i i z i DIGGINGS _ petroleum products it uses. The next most important energy source for Alaskans is natural gas. It satisfies 35 percent of the energy demand. Solid fuel — coal and wood — 2.3 percent of the energy for the state. Electrical demand, amounting to 5.9 percent of total en- ergy used in the state, is we canes of ean oo oe petroleum and natural Riaska Clipping Service ~The Valley Sun ; Wasilla Ak JUN 0.9 1981 Energy plan draft holds surprises Editor’s Note: The following report is contributed by Neil Dafis of the Geophysical Institute. Alaska pumps into the ground more than twice as much energy as it uses each year. That, is just one of the surprising facts contained in the new State of Alaska Long Term Energy Plan, now prepared in draft form by the Alaska Department of Commerce and Economic Development. In 1979, Alaska consumed just over two-tenths of a quad of energy, and it reinjected into the ground just over half a quad of natural gas to keep the pressure high in the Prudhoe and Cook Inlet oil wells. The term ‘quad’ is a shorthand name for unit used tO measure-energy. It is a term used only in the big leagues; but when it comes to energy production, Alaska defintely has arrived. One quad is one quadrillion (10-15) British Thermal Units (B.T.U.s). One quad is the amount of energy contained in a flow of 476,000 barrels of oil each day for one year. By means of the Trans-Alaska pipeline, Alaska exported, in 1979, 2.96 quads of energy. That is about eighteen times as much energy as was used that year in the state. Another surprise is that 25 percent of the Alaskan end-use demand for energy is due to one refinery: on the Kenai Peninsula which makes ammonia and urea from natural gas produced in the Cook Inlet aea. Even discounting “the energy..consumed jnthat plant, Alaskans have significantly higher per capita energy consumption than do other Americans, Alaskans use almost three times as much energy per capita for transportation ‘and marine use. That such high use exists is reasonable, considering the large distances to travel in the state and the great extent of the Alaskan coastline to travel in the state and the great extent of the Alaskan coastline and the fishing and other ac- tivities that transpire along it. Nevertheless, Alaska’s main energy deniand is in the Railbelt area, extending from Anchorage to Fair- banks. With 71 percent of the Alaskan’ population, this area accounts for 86 percent of the energy con- sumed in the state. Fify-seven percent of the energy ‘consumed by Alaskans comes in the form of: petroleum products. Yet despite beign a petroleum exporter, Alaska still imports 43 percent of the petroleum products it uses. The next most important energy source for Alaskans is natural gas. It satisfies 35 percentsof the energy demand. Solid fuel--coal and wood--supply 2.3 percent of the energy demand for the state. Plectrical demand, amounting to'$/9"percepit of total energy used in the state, is supplied by a combination of hydfo, coal, wood, petroleum and natural gas. One of the things that is easy to forget is the loss of energy that-occurs in the process of delivering energy in usable form to the end user. Losses associated with refining, conversion processes such as elecrical generation and with delivery to the user in Alaska burn up another one-tenth of a quad. So fot every two B.T.U.’s that an Alaskan uses, foughly one additional B.T.U. is lost in conversion and delivery One fact that comes clear from the draft of the Alaska Long Term Energy Plan is that Alaskans are nearly totally dependent upon petroleum and natural gas for their energy needs. Coal, wood, hydro and other alternative sources ‘account for only a small fraction of the total energy consumed. Once the petroleum and gas run out, Alaska’ will be in serious trouble unless alternatives are developed. — ALASKA CLIPPING SERVICE Anchorage Daily News Anchorage, AK 5 policy-fo cD tenet need is be baat arm’s length from energy pareerk opera- The gies) bins, seantaied © st addresses a nui oil being produced within its borders. ALASKA CLIPPING ee bo — & se) vy = k Alaska ienergy use detailed in plan by Neil Davis Alaska pumps into the ground more than twice as much energy as it uses each year. That is just one of the facts contained in the new State of Alaska Long Term Energy ‘Plan, now in draft form the Alaska Department of and Economic ent. . In 1979, Alaska consumed just over two-tenths of a quad of efiergy, and it reinjected into the ground just over half a quad of natural to keep ‘the pressure high in the hoe and Cook Inlet oil wells. .. The term “quad” is a shorthand name for a unit used to measure en- ergy. It is a term used only in the big : leagues; but when it comes to en- that year in the state. ~ tances to travel in ergy production, Alaska definitely firing One quad is one quadril- lion (10-15) British Thermal |Units (B.T.U.s). One quad is the amount of energy contained in a flow of 476,000 Gaeta of of eheh day for onatyenr. By’ means of the trans-Alaskai pipe- line, Alaska in 1979, 2.96 ore energy. That is about 18 as much energy as was used Another surprise is that 25 per- cent of the Alaskan end-use demand for energy is due to one refinery on the Kenai Peninsula which makes ammonia and urea from natural gas produced in the Cook Inlet area. Even discounting the energy con- sumed in that plant, Aiadhaap'bawn significantly higher per capita en- ergy consumption than do other Americans. Alaskans use almost three times as much energy per ca- pita for transportation and marine use. That such high use exists is rea- sonable, the large dis- state arid the great extent of the Alaskan coastline et oe Maeve s08 olber. actin that transpire along it. rce ° DIGGINGS _ by Neil Davis banks. With 71 percent of the Alas- kan population, this area accounts for 86 percent of the energy con- sumed in the state. Fifty-seven percent of the energy consumed by Alaskans comes in the form of petreleum products. Yet de- spite being a petroleum exporter, Alaska still imports 43 percent of the en The next most important energy source for Alaskans is natural gas. It satisfies 35 percent of the energy demand. Solid fuel — coal and wood — 2.3 percent of the energy the state. Electrical cemie. amounting to 5.9 percent of total en- ergy used in the state, is a combination of hydro, petroleum and natural gas. One fact that becomes clear from Riaska Clipping Service ™~ Phe Valley Sun Wasilla Ak JUN 09 1981 Energy plan draft holds surprises Editor’s Note: The following report is contributed by Neil Dabis of the Geophysical Institute. Alaska pumps into the ground more than twice as much energy as it uses each year, That, is just one of the surprising facts contained in the new State of Alaska Long Term Energy Plan, now prepared in draft form by the Alaska Department of Commerce and Economic Development. In 1979, Alaska consumed just over two-tenths of a quad of energy, and it reinjected into the ground just over half a quad of natural gas to keep the pressure high in the Prudhoe and Cook Inlet oil wells. The:term ‘quad’ is a shorthand name for unit used to measure-energy. It is a term used only in the big leagues; but when it comes to energy production, Alaska defintely has arrived. One quad is one quadrillion (10-15) British Thermal Units (B.T.U.s). One quad is the amount of energy contained in a flow of 476,000 barrels of oil each day for one year. By means of the Trans-Alaska pipeline, Alaska exported, in 1979, 2.96 quads of energy. That is about eighteen times as much énergy as was used that year in the state. Another surprise is that 25 percent of the Alaskan end-use demand for energy is due to one refinery on the Kenai Peninsula which makes ammonia and urea n natural gas produced in the Cook Inlet aea. Even discounting “the energy..consumed jnthat plant, Alaskans have significantly higher per capita energy consumption than do other Americans, Alaskans use almost three times as much energy per capita for transportation and marine use. That such high use exists is reasonable, considering the large distances to travel in the state and the great extent of the Alaskan coastline to travel in the state and the great extent of the Alaskan coastline and the fishing and other ac- tivities that transpire along it. Nevertheless, Alaska’s main energy demand is in the Railbelt area, extending from Anchorage to Fair- banks. With 71 percent of the Alaskan’ population, this area accounts for 86 percent of the energy con- sumed in the state. : Fify-seven percent of ‘the energy ‘consumed by Alaskans comes in the form of: petroleum products, Yet despite beign a petroleum exporter, Alaska still imports 43 percent of the petroleum products it uses. The next most important energy source for Alaskans is natural gas. It satisfies 35 percentsof the energy demand. Solid fuel--coal and ‘wood--supply 2.3 percent of the energy demand’ for the state.” Electrical demand, amounting to'$79" it Of total energy used in the state, is supplied by a combination of hydfo, coal, wood, petroleum and natural gas. One of the things that is easy to forget is the loss of energy that-occurs in the process of delivering energy in usable form to the end-user. Losses associated with refining, conversion processes such as elecrical generation and with delivery to the user in Alaska burn up another one-tenth of.a quad. So for every two B.T.U.’s that an Alaskan uSes, foughly one additional B.T.U. is lost in conversion and delivery. One fact that comes clear from the draft of the Alaska Long Term Energy Plan is that Alaskans are nearly totally dependent upon petroleum and natural gas for their energy needs. Coal, wood, hydro and other alternative sources account for only a small fraction of the total energy consumed, Once the petroleum and gas run out, Alaska’ will be in serious trouble unless alternatives are developed. ~ — ALASKA CLIPPING ALASKA CLIPPING SERVICE Anchorage Times SERVICE Anchorage Daily News Wiest Ae “Anchorage, AK rm 198) oT ALASKA CLIPPING SERVICE __ Anchorage Times AK Anchorage — er Pr con running 1 fetch a. ALASKA CLIPPING SERVICE Anchorage Daily News Anchorage, AK a |e? —éba.a business ‘je notebook : sy pee, ow. 1 A public hearing on Alaska’s proposed long-term energy pian will be held this evening at the state courthouse, 303 K St. " The energy plan, which was drafted by the state’s Division of Energy and Power ' Development, addresses conservation, energy emergency planning and energy research. The meeting will begin at 7:30 p.m. in the jury assembly room. f A TAC ING SERVICE | Fairbanks i News Miner i Fairbanks AK” iciasentneetnener rad ain se es N06 198) ee om f Ss potter uni Alaska energy use Alaska pumps into the ground more than twice as much energy as it uses each year. That, to me, is just one of the surprising facts contained in the new State of Alaska Long Term Energy Plan, now prepared in draft form by the Alaska Department of Commerce and Economic Development. In 1979, Alaska consumed just over two-tenths of a quad of energy, and it reinjected into the ground just over half a quad of natural gas to keep the pressure high in the Prudhoe and Cook Inlet oil wells. The term “quad” is a shorthand name for a unit used to measure energy. It is a term used only in the big leagues; but when it comes to energy production, Alaska definitely has arrived. One quad is one quadrillion (10 to the 15th power) British Thermal Units (BTUs). One quad is the amount of energy contained in a flow of 476,000 barrels of oil each day for one year. By means of the Trans- Alaska pipeline, Alaska in 1979 exported 2.96 quads of energy. That is about 18 times as much energy as was used that year in the state. Another surprise is that 25 per cent of the Alaskan end-use demand for energy is due to one refinery on the Kenai Peninsula which makes ammonia and urea from natural gas produced in the Cook Inlet area. Even discounting the energy consumed in that plant, Alaskans have significantly higher per capita energy con- sumption than do other Americans. Alaskans use almost three times as much energy per capita for transportation and marine use. That such high use exists is reasonable, considering the long distances to travel in the state and ty Science Forum ~ “Sponsored by the Geophysical Institute of the University of Alaska.” the great extent of the Alaskan coastline and the fishing and other activities that transpire along it. Nevertheless, Alaska’s main energy demand is in the Railbelt area, extending from Anchorage to Fairbanks. With 71 per cent of the Alaskan population, this area accounts for 86 per cent of the energy consumed in the state, Fifty-seven per cent of the energy consumed by Alaskans comes in the form of petroleum products. Yet despite being a petroleum exporter, Alaska still imports 43 per cent of the petroleum products it uses. The next most important energy source for Alaskans is natural gas. It satisfies 35. percent of the energy demand. Solid fuel—coal and wood—supply 2.3 per cent of the energy demand for the state. Electrical demand, amounting to 5.9 per cent of total energy used in the state, is supplied by a combination of hydro, coal, wood, petroleum and natural gas. One of the things that is easy to forget is the loss of energy that occurs in the process of delivering energy in usable form to the end user. Losses associated with refining, conversion processes such as electrical generation and with the delivery to the user in Alaska burn up another one-tenth of a quad. So for every two BTUs that an Alaskan uses, roughly one additional BTU is lost in conversion and delivery. One fact that comes clear from the draft of the Alaska Long Term Energy Plan is that Alaskans are nearly totally dependen! upon petroleum and natural gas for their energy needs. Coal, wood. hydro and other alternative sources account for only a small fraction of the total energy consumed. Once the petroleum and gas run out, Alaska will be in serious trouble unless alternatives are developed.—Neil Davis. / Lent Th. nas ALASKA CLIPP NG SERVICE The Peninsula Clarion Kenai jn ee JUN 05 a 981 Neil’s Notebook year. That, to me, is just one of the surprising facts -con- tained in the new State of Alaska Long Term Energy Plan, now prepared in draft - fozm.,..by, the. Alaska. Department of Commerce dead ‘nce Gunibtllion (0 15) British Thermal Units (B.T.U.’s). One quad is the amount of energy contained - in a.flow of 476,000 barrels of : oil each day for one year. By means of the Trans-Alaska . pipeline, Alaska exported, in 1979, 2.96 quads of energy. - That is about eighteen times as much energy as was used that year in the state. Another surprise is that 25 percent of the Alaskan end- use demand for energy is due_to_one_refinery on, the Kenai Peninsula which in the Cook Inlet area. Even discounting the energy great extent of the Alaskan coastline and the fishing and other activities that tran- spire along it. — . Nevertheless, Alaska’s from’ Anchorage to Fair- banks. With 71 percent of the Alaskan population, this area accounts for 86 percent of the erfergy consumed in the state. Fifty-seven percent of the energy consumed by Alaskans cpmes_in the form of petroleum products. Yet despite being a petroleum exporter, Alaska still im- ports 43 percent of the petroleum products it uses. The next most important energy source for Alaskans is natural gas. It satisfies 35 percent of the wood, petroleum and natural gas. One of the things that is easy to forget is the loss of energy that occurs in the process of delivering energy in usable form to the end user. Losses associated with refining, conversion processes such as electrical generation and with delivery to the user in Alaska burn up another one-tenth of a quad. So for every two B.T.U.’s that an Alaskan uses, roughly one_ additional B.T.U. is lost in conversion and delivery. One fact that comes clear -from the draft of the Alaska Long Term Energy Plan is ‘that Alaskans are nearly totally dependent upon petroleum and natural gas for their energy needs. Coal, wood, hydro and other alternative sources account for only a small fraction of the total energy consumed. Once the petroleum and gas run out, Alaska will be in serious trouble unless alternatives are developed. Miche rage firms, May, 1957 eri SERVivc i Alaska Journal of Commerce Anchorage, AK MAY 11 1981 tain ALASKA CLIPPING ALABRA: CLipPiNC SERVICE isivice Alaska Journal Tundra Times of Commerce Fairbanks, AK_ Anchorage, AK ALASKA LONG-TERM ENERGY PLAN PUBLIC HEARING The Department of Commerce & Economic Develop- ment, Division of Energy & Power Development, has recently _completed a draft of the first Long-Term Energy Plan for the State of Alaska. The Plan addresses energy end-use, devel- opment, conservation, energy emergency planning and rgsearch efforts within Alaska. _ Public hearings will be held to provide an opportunity for public comments. The hearings are scheduled at 7:00 pmon the following dates and locations: _ May 26 Assembly Chambers , North Star Borough Building 520 Fifth Avenue Fairbanks, Alaska May 27 Jury Assembly Room pry se aa TE 303 “K” Street Y Anchorage, Alaska — May 28 Room 210, Juneau-Douglas High School ; Juneau, Alaska “©. Copies of the Long-Term Energy Plan may be reviewed “at all public librariés. in addition, all material pertinent to the Plan may be examined prior to the hearing at the Division of : Energy & Power Development, 338 Denali, Anchorage, 99501, during normal business hours (8:00 am to 4:40 pm). Those unable to attend the hearings may forward comments directly to Division of Energy & Power Development. ALASKA LONG-TERM ENERGY PLAN PUBLIC HEARING ; = t ib Commnmanes i Riise Dats t; $ Division of ye Poon f & Power Development, has recently com- § pleted a draft of the first Long-Term Eni Plan for the State } t of Alaska, The Plan addresses energy end-use, development, } conservation, energy emergency planning and research efforts } within Alaska. , " ng 7 Public hearings will be held to provide an for % public comments, The hearings are F sohediied at 7:00 pm on ¥ H the following dates and locations: lyahageh emp Ayre ’. “No rol 520 Fifth Avenue Fairbanks, Alaska May 27. — Jury Assembly Room Alaska State Building — 303 “K” Street Anchorage, Alaska May 28 Room 210, Juneau-Douglas High School 4 Juneau, Alaska “of the Long-Term Energy Plan may be reviewed at all public libraries. in addition, all mstetial pertinent to the { Plan may be examined prior to the hearing at the Division of $ Energy & Power Development, 338 Denali, Anchorage, 99501, } during normal business hours (8:00 am to 4:30 pm). Those unable to attend the hearings may forward comments directly 3 to Division of a & Power Sa