The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutRegional Electric Utilities in Rural Alaska 1989 STATE OF ALASKA STEVE COWPER, GOVERNOR REGIONAL ELECTRIC UTILITIES IN RURAL ALASKA DIVISION OF POLICY OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR REGIONAL ELECTRIC UTILITIES IN RURAL ALASKA JULY, 1989 DIVISION OF POLICY OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR P.O BOX AM JUNEAU, ALASKA 99811 TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER PAGE Dy Ee EV BIS UMMA sestecsractesteccnceccavccsescencentatscatsatusctenstsccstuccusscaasacecsivenssossscssastatersses 1 PH yy OB EY Be ce cecces caseasecsecsecsecestecasoasesesousnusessaseatessessasscseususascacssenssessues cascacscsssczscusassssussbesueats 3 TIL) INTRODUCTION rote eluseancarcusecete au nouscoueeseeasvastasontuvsnsseasevonmenssasonsusenseecersdbastseen 3 IV. _BENEEITS OF REGIONAL UTEEITIES «....1cccccsscsssssosssseecosseseesessesssassnsscesesocsesnisezeesossees 5 A. Benefits to the Utility... 5 B. Benefits to the Customer .. .6 C. Benefits to the State............... ne D. . Possible Concerns by Utilities............rccssssesssssssesseseqeneqesensecccsesoessesusonsneaseesseesesneens 6 V. RECONNAISSANCE EVALUATION OF A REGIONAL UTILITY MODEL.... 7 A. Selecting a Proxy. Bee WR APG TP VICAT COSEST on ies sescsesonsosepnsyeoetsvepscdsvacecenssnsasoccsadsesdssibubesacsssessesetecsesees 8 C. Regional Utilities....... 10 D. Comparing Cost ....ssssssssssssesssssesssssessessncsscssessssscsscsncsncencencsncencencensensencenensesecenees 11 VI. STRATEGIES FOR REGIONALIZATION ....ccsssssssssssssssssssnsessnssssecsssessnsssseresserescassers 19 Bas) | PRG see os cealoncavateatteesscesanse Lhe B. Phase Two... sis 2S eee ee cae el elect ee ee eM aaL tay ea caer ca en a atu rat 26 VII. CONCLUSION.........ccccssesseeese Lee ea Ue HeHiUssnpantoaboaneesorseredtetmsenssuatustussssedsestussancanconseuteasesaees 27 VII. APPENDIX A. Comparison of REA Coops that Receive PCE B. Operating Costs by Region FIGURES: 1. Total Cost of Electric Service by Item (from Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc.) TABLES: I. Comparison of nse Items II. PCE Statistics for FY¥88 III. Utilities Not Included Under Raed Utilities IV. PCE Seward Peninsula Regional Utility V. PCE Kuskokwim Regional Utility VI. PCE Interior Regional Utility VII. PCE Aleutians-Bristol Bay Regional vee Vill. oa of Base Case to Regional Utility IX. Breakdown of Operating Costs - Region X. Reported Operating Costs by Region XI. Estimated Costs for Improvements REGIONAL ELECTRIC UTILITIES IN RURAL ALASKA I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The principal objective of this report is to determine if the cost of providing affordable and reliable electricity to consumers in rural Alaska can be reduced by consolidating the operations of several small utilities into one or more regional utilities. A regional utility offers the Fen of better economies-of-scale and a stronger management structure. As a result of these advantages, benefits should accrue to the consumer and the State as well as the respective utilities. The benefits to the State would result from lower utility rates for State funded facilities, lower costs for the Power Equalization Program, and less need for emergency assistance. The approach used for making this determination was to use, as a proxy, statistics from the Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC) which is a regional utility that serves 49 villages in rural Alaska. AVEC’s operating costs were compared to the aggregate operating costs of small rural utilities that serve a single community. For the purpose of analysis, these rural utilities were grouped into four e—— regions, based on geographic proximity. Larger utilities that serve regional hubs or several communities were excluded from the analysis. The analysis indicates that in all four hypothetical regions, consolidation of small rural utilities into a regional utility should result in better fuel efficiency and lower fuel costs. Although the operating costs of the regional utilities tends to be higher than the base case (status quo), the regional model includes interest, depreciation and insurance expenses. Most of the small rural utilities do not (but should) have these expenses. It appears that, in most cases, regionalization would result in better economies-of-scale and lower total costs. If so, rural utilities should be more self-reliant financially and less dependent on subsidies. Less dependence on State assistance should result in more effective local control. In addition to direct benefits, a regional utility could yield substantial indirect benefits which are difficult to quantify; namely, safer facilities, better reliability, and fewer emergency situations. Based on estimates for the cost of power brownouts and blackouts in pr: a, it is conceivable that reduction of these costs could be of greater value than irect benefits. In light of this analysis, it is recommended that the Alaska Energy Authority, in cooperation with the Alaska Public Utilities Commission and the ice of Energy Programs in the Department of a Regional Affairs, initiate efforts to organize regional utilities in rural Alaska. is effort should consist mostly of technical assistance rather than financial assistance. eg appage a could provide the central theme that is needed to tie together several of the energy programs that State agencies offer rural utilities and communities. It is further recommended that a three phase approach be used to enable utilities to develop confidence in the concept and to work out details at a manageable pace. Phase One is to develop cooperative arrangements for bulk fuel purchasing, a circuit rider preventive maintenance program, and insurance coverage. Phase Two is to provide technical assistance to smaller utilities that want to merge into a regional utility, which should result in a more efficient and centralized management structure. Phase Three is to consider opportunities for including other utility services, such as water, sewer, and solid waste, under the management of the regional electric utility in order to further improve the economiesof-scale. Phase one could begin in FY90. The Energy Authority has completed some initial efforts at inventorying generation/distribution systems in rural villages. This data can be used to determine which villages could benefit oh ea ring in a cooperative. Also, the Energy Authority has received funding in its FY90 budget that could be used for Phase One efforts. REGIONAL ELECTRIC UTILITIES IN RURAL ALASKA Il. OBJECTIVE The objective of this study is to determine if the cost of providing affordable and reliable electricity to consumers in rural Alaska can be reduced by consolidating the operations of several small utilities into one or more regional utilities. Ill. INTRODUCTION The Power Cost Equalization (PCE) program provides rural Alaskans with relief from high electric rates. Most of the certified utilities that serve rural communities participate in this State-funded program. It is these utilities that may benefit from regionalization. Currently, there are 102 utilities that are eligible to participate in the PCE program. Of these, 82 serve less than 200 customers. As demonstrated by information in the First Annual Statistical Report of the Power Cost Equalization Program (published by the Alaska Energy Authority in December 1988), these utilities tend to have the highest fuel and operating costs. They also tend to receive the most PCE subsidy per kilowatt-hour (KWH) and to serve communities that have the lowest ro capita incomes in the state. Without the PCE program, many of these utilities would probably be unable to provide electricity at rates that are affordable to many of their customers. Clearly, unsubsidized rates would be more affordable if costs were reduced. However, most of the utilities that serve less than 200 residential and commercial customers are too small to have the technical or financial resources needed to improve the efficiency and reliability of their systems and to maintain them on a financially sound basis. Also, most of these communities are too remote to economically justify an electrical intertie with a larger, more efficient, power system. The State has a vital interest in improving the efficiency, safety and reliability of small rural utilities for the following reasons: ¢ Improved efficiency will reduce rates to the consumer, including State facilities and State funded schools, and reduce the cost of the PCE poe The City of Nikolai is an example of what can be achieved. From FY85 to FY88, the fuel efficiency of its utility improved from 5.2 to 10.2 KWH sold/gallon of fuel, and operating costs were reduced from 16.4 to 10.9 /KWH sold. ely because of these efficiencies, PCE disbursements dropped from $64,241 in FY86 to $35,754 in FY88. ¢ Improved safety should also reduce the occurrence of catastrophic failure and the need for emergency assistance from the State. Since 1977, twelve rural power plant failures have cost the State $2 million in disaster assistance, exclusive of contributions in time and equipment by State agencies and the record breaking cold spell in January 1989. Power outages in January 1989 resulted in freeze-up and total loss of the water and sewer system in Noatak, which will cost about $2 - 3 million to replace, and about $300,000 in damages in a dozen other rural communities. In addition, the State Fire Marshal reports that there have been 27 power plant fires in Alaska during the past three years. All of these have resulted in extensive damage which is estimated to total $5.7 million. This amounts to an average of $1.9 million per year in damages. ¢ Improved reliability will reduce power fluctuations, outages and damages to consumer oe A 1987 report by the Institute of Northern Engineering, University of Alaska-Fairbanks, entitled Rural Electric Power Quality Analysis Dats Base Development, concludes that the "statewide annual cost of electrical equipment repairs due to AC power system disturbances is estimated to be between $1.4 million and $5.2 million." The State, particularly the Alaska Energy Authority and the Alaska Public Utilities Commission (APUC), will play a key role in assisting any effort to organize regional utilities. The Energy Authority is primarily interested in achieving efficient, safe, and reliable power systems in rural Alaska. In addition, the Energy Authority manages the disbursements for the PCE program. The APUC is interested in the operational, financial and other regulatory aspects of these utilities. One of its responsibilities is to determine the PCE subsidy that a utility is entitled to, based on its eligible costs. Other agencies that have a mutual interest include the Office of Energy Programs in the Department of Community and Regional Affairs, the Division of Emergency Services in the Department of Military and Veterans Affairs, and the Fire Marshall in the Department of Public Safety. The Energy Authority received funding in its FY90 capital budget that could be used to advance the concept of regionalization. The appropriations are not specifically for assisting utilities that are interested in the regional concept, but the projects that are intended would be enhanced by regionalization. These appropriations include: ¢ Operation, Technical and Emergency Assistance $1,400,000 ¢ Circuit Rider Maintenance $ 250,000 ¢ PCE Utilities Efficiency Improvements $ 2,500,000 In addition, the Energy Authority will be administering the Bulk Fuel Revolving Loan beginning in FY90. IV. BENEFITS OF REGIONAL UTILITIES The consolidation of several small independent utilities into a larger regional utility should provide benefits to each utility, their customers and the State. There must be mutual Denodittll be equeity shard, 2 those fivoived sow be wintaids PUriaps ome more than others. Some of the regional utility benefits that should occur include the following: A. BENEFITS TO THE UTILITY 1. Having the technical capability that is needed to: a. improve generator efficiency, b. reduce distribution losses and fluctuations, c. install waste heat systems if economically feasible, d. correct situations that do not comply with safety standards, e. provide better routine maintenance. 2. Having the administrative experience that is needed to: a. centralize customer billing, b. provide uniform and acceptable accounting records, c. provide employee benefits. 3. Having the negotiating strength that is needed to achieve: a. lower bulk fuel oil prices, b. more favorable equipment and spare parts prices, c. an interchange, with distributors, of parts and equipment. 4. Having the financial resources to: a. obtain financing for capital improvements, b. obtain insurance coverage having acceptable premiums. BENEFITS TO THE CUSTOMER 1. Lower rates and electric bills and more discretionary income. 2. More job opportunities wherever the regional utility is headquartered. 35 — power resulting in fewer appliances being damaged by power BENEFITS TO THE STATE 1. Reduced PCE program costs. 2. Less dependence by rural utilities on the State for funding electrification projects. 3. Reduced need and expenses for emergency assistance. 4. Lower utility rates for State funded facilities. Organizing a regional utility would result in changes from the status quo and existing utilities may have some concerns about the impacts of a merger. POSSIBLE CONCERNS BY UTILITIES 1, Set Consolidation of local jobs. Less control, at the community level, over utility operations and rates. Loss of a source of revenue for municipal utilities. Loss of a business enterprise for investor-owned utilities. V. RECONNAISSANCE EVALUATION OF A REGIONAL UTILITY Developing a model of a regional utility, and comparing its hypothetical costs to the existing costs of several small utilities, provides a reconnaissance level estimate of whether any economies-of-scale might actually result from consolidation. The costs used in this model should, preferably, be based on actual data. A. SELECTING A PROXY There are several regional utilities in Alaska that provide power to a number of isolated communities. These utilities include the Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (which serves 49 villages throughout rural Alaska), the Middle Kuskokwim Cooperative (which serves 5 communities on the Kuskokwim River), the North Slo rough Power and Light Co. (which serves 7 villages in the North Slope Secon), and the Tlingit-Haida Regional Electric Authority (which serves 5 villages in Southeast). None of these utilities ere an ideal model but data from them can serve as a proxy for a regional model. Of these regional utilities, Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC) appears to be the best proxy for a regional utility model. Its operation is eT efficient and similar in scope to how other regional utilities might be organized. The villages served by AVEC are scattered throughout much of rural Alaska and nearly all have less than 200 customers. Also, electric consumption and per capita income statistics for AVEC communities closely match the communities that are likely to be candi- dates for a new regional utility. In terms of organization, AVEC has sufficient size to afford a management structure, circuit rider operation and maintenance (O&M) program, spare parts inventory, engineering department, bulk fuel oil purchasing, central billing, financial credit and insurance. There are some differences between AVEC and the hypothetical regional utility model: 1) AVEC’s location and 2) its policy on minimal village size. AVEC is headquartered in Anchorage rather than one of the rural hub communities, which has its pros and cons in terms of costs. In terms of support for the regionalization concept, however, it may be better to locate the headquarters (and the jobs that will be associated with it) in a rural regional center where there will be better access for consumers. In addition, it is AVEC’s policy not to add any villages to its system that have a population of less than 125. AVEC believes that these villages are too small to economically justify centralized power. Although there may be some merit to this policy, it does not help resolve what should be done to improve the economies-of- scale for those utilities that already exist and serve villages with populations of less than 125. roximately one third of the utilities that are candidates for consolidation fall into this category. B. WHAT ARE TYPICAL COSTS? Figure 1, taken from AVEC’s 1987 Annual Report, provides a breakdown of its total costs. This cost breakdown can be used as a cornerstone for initially estimating the costs of a regional utility model, providing it is representative of a utility of this size. To determine if AVEC is a representative utility, its costs were compared to the costs of other large utilities that participate in the PCE Program, though all are smaller than AVEC. These utilities include Cordova Electric Cooperative SEAy Kotzebue Electric Association (KEA), Naknek Electric Association (NEA), Nushagak Electric Cooperative (NEC), and Tlingit-Haida Regional Electric Authority (THREA). of these utilities are Rural Electrification Administration (REA) cooperatives. Details regarding their costs were obtained from the Form #7 that each utility must annually file with the REA. Table I illustrates that the ee items (i.e. costs) for AVEC Suneers favorably to other utilities. (See Appendix A for a more detailed analysis.) Based on this, it appears reasonable to use the data from Figure 1 as a proxy for estimating the costs of a regional utility. TABLE I COMPARISON OF EXPENSE ITEMS By Percentage of Total Expense for 1987 EXPENSE ITEM AVEC CEC KEA NEA NEC THREA_ AVG. Power Production 58.2 53.9 6.8 59.6 57.2 50.1 578 Distribution-Oper. 09 3.7 3.6 19 28 2.1 19 Distribution-Main. 63 11 0.9 2.4 0.6 19 3.6 Consumer Accounts 12 19 18 21 52 2.6 2.0 Customer Service 0.7 03 0.2 0.0 0.4 0.7 0.5 Sales 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Admin. & General 12.5 11.7 14.2 20.8 16.4 23.6 15.1 Deprec. & Amort. 15.6 B.1 19 8.5 10.9 12.7 12.9 Taxes 11 03 12 21 03 0.2 1.0 Interest 35 14.0 33 25 62 $5 5.1 Other 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.6 0.1 TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Although AVEC’s data for Figure 1 and Table I comes from the same source, there are slight differences in arrangement. Figure 1 provides a more useful breakdown of costs and will later be used as the basis for estimating a breakdown of costs for a regional utility. FIGURE 1 ALASKA VILLAGE ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE INC TOTAL COST OF ELECTRIC SERVICE BY ITEM CONSUMER ACCOUNTS 2% DISTRIBUTION: BOARD DELEGATES 1% OPERATION & , NTENCE 7% ; — INSURANCE 3% PLANT OPERATORS, PARTS,ETC. 30% PRODUCTION T1% CALENDAR YEAR 1987 Additional data are needed to compare the current fuel and operating efficiencies of candidate utilities (base case) to a regional utility model. Statistics from the PCE program can serve this purpose. These statistics include: a) fuel oil prices, to determine if there might be any economic advantage in larger quantities of bulk fuel purchases, b) KWH sold per gallon of fuel to measure generator/distribution system efficiency, and c) operating costs per KWH sold to measure the overall efficiency of all other cost factors. The regional utility model is based on AVEC’s PCE data for FY88. These values are listed below and compared to the overall weighted averages for the PCE program during FY88. TABLE II PCE STATISTICS FOR FY88 COST FACTORS CA VEC CW PCE PROGRAM Fuel Price ($/gal.) 0.965 0.970 KWH Sold/Gal. Fuel 9.6 11.2 Op Costs ($)/KWH Sold 0.245 0.132 The comparison given in Table II once again illustrates that using AVEC data for the regional utility model appears to be a reasonable and achievable assumption. The model does not use a standard that would favor the consolidation of small utilities which then turns out to be an unreachable goal. In fact, the overall fuel efficiency achieved by AVEC is less than some of the more efficient small rural utilities but, perhaps, is representative of a system that is still being upgraded in order to correct previous problems. Operating costs/KWH sold for AVEC are nearly twice the average for the PCE rogram and higher than most of the candidate utilities. AVEC’s operating costs, owever, include some essential factors that tend not to be included by many of the smaller rural utilities; namely, depreciation (15% of total costs), interest (4% of total costs), and insurance (3% of total costs). Utilities that do not account for these costs are taking a risk that could prove to be much more expensive, either to the utility or to the State, at a later date. REGIONAL UTILITIES. The next step in developing this model was to identify the existing independent utilities that could benefit from becoming part of a regional a As previously mentioned, participants in the PCE program include 82 independent utilities that serve less than 200 customers each. These utilities, and a few of the larger utilities that might be suitable for a headquarters location (such as Galena), are the initial candidates for consolidation. 10 : am Boundaries were established for four regional utilities. Since better pricing on bulk fuel oil purchases seems to be one of the principal economic benefits of consolidation, the boundaries for the regional utilities were based mostly on those communities that could be served by the same mode of transportation. The area covered by these regions is reasonably consistent with election districts and Regional Education Attendance Areas (REAA’s). The regions include: 1. The middle and upper Yukon River drainage upstream from Kaltag. 2. The lower Yukon River drainage downstream from Kaltag and the Kuskokwim River drainage. 3. The Seward Peninsula. 4. The Aleutian Islands, Alaska Peninsula, and Bristol Bay. The next step was to sort the candidate utilities according to appropriate regions. Once this was done, a "base case" was developed by aggregating the data of each utility that was assigned to that region. The four regions do not cover all of the utilities that have less than 200 customers. Listed below are several utilities in Southeast, Prince William Sound, and Kodiak Island which may not be enough in number to form a regional utility and are too far from the proposed regional utilities to be included. Perhaps a larger utility in the region can be enlisted to provide some management assistance to these utilities. Utilities that might be able to provide this assistance include THREA for Southeast, = al Prince + William Sound, and Kodiak Electric Association for Kodiak slan TABLE Il SMALL UTILITIES NOT INCLUDED UNDER REGIONAL UTILITIES SOUTHEAST ___mou_____s PRINCE WILLIAM SOUND _ KODIAK ISLAND _ Coffman Cove Utilities Chenega Bay Akhiok, City of Elfin Cove Electric Chitina Electric Alutiiq (Karluk) Gustavus Electric Co Tatitlek Electric LarsenBay Utility Pelican Utility Co. Ouzinkie Utility Tenakee Springs Elec. Thorne Bay Utility D. COMPARING COSTS. The following four tables provide data for each of the candidate utilities located in each of the four regions. Each table compares the base case to the regional utility model. For most utilities, the regional utility uses AVEC data for average fuel price, KWH Sold/Gallon Fuel, and Operating Costs/KWH Sold. If a utility has more than 200 customers and fuel prices or operating costs that are more favorable than AVEC’s, then the base case data was used for the regional utility. The rationale for this is that these utilities have already achieved some efficiencies which would probably accrue to the regional utility, if it were to be organized. The base case fuel efficiency was also used for the regional utility wherever a utility was more efficient than AVEC (9.6 KWH sold/gallon of fuel). The rationale for this is that if a utility is now operating 11 er 21-Feb-89 TABLE IV POWER COST EQUALIZATION SEWARD PEMINSULA REGIONAL UTILITY FY 88 DATA BASE CASE REGIONAL UTILITY | Comm TOTAL AVR PCE TOTAL | ave. FUEL Kiwi op | AVR. FUEL KWH oP | PoPuL TOTAL un ELIGIBLE AMOUNT DISBURSE- | FUEL CONSUMED FUEL SOLD/ OPERATING —COSTS/| FUEL CONSUMED FUEL SOLD/ OPERATING —-COSIS/ uTiLity | atiom cust ‘SOLD ue C/KuH «MENTS ($) | S/GAL GAL. COST ($) GAL FUEL COSTS ($) KWH = | $/GAL GAL. COST ($) GAL FUEL COSTS ($) Kui I I | — Brevig Mission Utility | 167 48 105,337 96,216 21.7 20,857 | - 0 0 - 26,996 0.338 | - 0 0 : 25,808 0.245 Buckland City Council *| 269 n 173,006 192,854 17.0 32,785 | 1.492 43,196 80,770 3.2 16,290 0.09% | 0.965 18,021 17,391 9.6 42,586 0.2465 Diomede City Council 1 157 48 365,920 175,470 12.0 21,031 | 1.000 36,778 37,048 9.9 192,316 0.526 | 0.965 36,778 35,491 9.9 89,650 0.2465 Golovin Power Utility 1 135 60 267,383 205,255 29.2 59,977 | 0.993 = 41,523 41,169 6.0 57,199 0.231 | 0.965 25,769 26,867 9.6 60,609 0.245 Ipnatchiag Co. (Deering) | 1468 53 426,149 293,519 18.0 52,721 | 1.000 44,556 44,766 9.5 80,596 0.190 | 0.965 44, 182 42,636 9.6 103,917 0.245 Kobuk Valley Elec. Co-Op *| 86 42 130,268 106 , 209 aut 21,973 | Ss o o * 60,772 «0.467 | : o o : 31,911 0.245 Sheldon Pt. City Council *| 127 uN 251,421 104,810 22.5 22,966 | 0.951 26,260 25,679 8.9 48,989 0.195 | 0.965 26,190 25,273 9.6 61,598 0.245 Teller Power 1 2568 Cy 526,418 263,993 32.5 79,303 | 1.461 62,764 91,635 6.4 134,073 0.239 | 0.965 54,835 52,916 9.6 128,972 0.245 Unalakteet Valley Elec. | 760 273 2,962,065 1,555,732 12.2 189,867 | 0.805 229,932 182,212 12.9 324,410 0.135 | 0.805 229,932 182,212 12.9 399,876 0.155 white Mountain Utility 1 167 78 371,338 235,876 21.8 51,475 | 1.029 53,905 55,401 6.9 90,136 0.2463 | 0.965 38,681 37,327 9.6 90,978 0.245 seeeeee cececceccececcecccoel eee teeeeee TOTAL 1 2,276 790 «5,557,265 3,207,932 17.2 552,935 | 0.912 540,936 559,261 10.3 1,031,772 0.186 | 0.839 476,389 416,113 W.7 1,035,705 0.186 * utility did not provide 12 months of data for PCE report but date has been adjusted to be equivalent to a full year. ** FY 67 date. FOOTNOTES 1. If a utility hes more than 200 customers, the Regional Utility date used Base Case date, rather than AVEC, for Avr. Fuel $/Gal if less than 0.965 and Op Costs/KWH if less than 0.245 2. The Regional Utility dete used Base Case KWH Sold/Gal Fuel deta for an utility that exceeded 9.6. el 21-Feb-89 TABLE V POMER COST EQUALIZATION KUSKOKWIM REGIOWAL UTILITY FY 68 DATA BASE CASE REGIONAL UTILITY | come TOTAL «= AVR PCE «TOTAL, «| AVR. FUEL kw op | AvR. FUEL Kw o | popu. = ToTAL i ELIGIOLE AMOUNT DISBURSE- | FUEL CONSUMED FUEL SOLD/ = OPERATING COSTS/| FUEL (COMSUMED FUEL SOLO/ = OPERATING COSIS/ urmity | Atiom cust ‘SOLD a C/Ktm = MENTS (8) 1 ‘$/GAL GAL. COST ($) GAL FUEL COSTS ($) Kum | $/GAL aA. COST ($) GAL FUEL COSTS ($) KWH I | t Akiachak Ltd. 1 468129 —586,1466 = 409,389 28.3 115,689 | 1.110 69,166 78,851.46 191,293 0.327 | 0.965 60,848 58,719 «9.6 «143,115 0.265 Akiak City Council 1 267 65—227,938 210,530 18.0 37,061 | 1.033 47,361 = 48,901 4.8 48,812 0.216 | 0.965 23,766 = 22,9139. 55,845 0.45 Aniak LP 1 518 203 1,665,169 932,521 26.6 = 229,117 | 1.192 152,538 170,968 += '10.8 = 360,000 0.219 | 0.965 152,538 147,199 10.8 + 360,000 0.219 Atmeuttuek Joint Utility | 238 57 296,978 260,553 4.6 4,213 | 1.201 48,032 58,061 «6.2 «139,069 0.468 | 0.965 «30,935 29,8529. 72,760 0.245 Chetornak Elec. Co. *| 275 7 = 347,621 «286,237 17.6 = 50,276 | 0.890 42,775 8.1 53,030 0.153 | 0.965 36,217 34,963 9.6 85,167 0.245 Kottik 2] 617-198 453,572 381,068 = 19.6 = 74,575 | 1.090 46,130 50,701 9.8 = 47,922 0.106 | 0.965 «46,283 44,663 9.8 1,125 0. 245 Kwethluk, Inc. | 507 150 629,057 415,291 16.7 69,437 | 1.608 87,530 153,530 7.2 72,457 0.115 | 0.985 «65,527 63,233 9.6 154,119 0.245 Kwig Power Co. 1 356 62—«397,386 «39,573 26.1 81,457 | 1.012 43,502 43,865 9.1=——109,062 0.276 | 0.965 41,3 39,946 «9.6 (O7,360 0.245 McGrath LP [| 510 261 2,008,910 1,267,066 23.1.» 293,191 | 1.158 296,676 307,768 = 9.5 «420,000 0.150 | 0.985 292,595 282,354 9.6 = 20,000 0.150 Middle Kuskokwim Co-Op | ' | Cheuthbetuk 1 120 60 175,488 = 109,313 38.9 = 42,653] 1.1462 25,659 29, 364 446,025 0.251 | 0.965 18,280 17,660 9.6 42,995 0.245 Crooked Creek | 123 468 (160,876 136,236 = 38.9 §=— 52,193 | 1.1462 23,098 26,442 44,026 0.276 | 0.965 16,758 16,171 9.6 39,416 0.245 Red Devil | 3% 19 196,606 57,166 38.9 = 22,002 | 1.162 15,953 17,152 44,025 0.386 | 0.965 11,938 = 11,520 9.6 = 28,078 0.245 Steetmute | 07) 39 —s121,861 84,871 38.9 = 33,035 | 1.162 17,0 19,540 44,025 0.361 | 0.965 12,6 = 12,250 9.6 29,856 0.245 Stony River 1 62 25,627 54,87 38.9 = 21,235. 1.162 17,5465 20,071 44,031 0.460 | 0.965 9,961 9,613 9.6 23,429 0.245 Mapekiok Ircinraq Power | 353 106 = 461,546 = 326,40 = 38.5 125,700 | 0.990 ° o ° = | 0.965 0 0 : 0 Wapeskiak Inc. *] 311 93 (307,809 236,202 38.5 90,843 | 1.420 43,938 62,392 23,455 0.076 | 0.965 32,072 «30,49 9.6 75,433 0.245 Mightmute Power *e] 4537 43,806 59,218 14.3 8,406 | 1.276 © 7,583 (10,665 7,186 0.189 | 0.965 4,571 4411 9.6 10,752 0.245 Wikotei LBP 1 199 © 69 -269,935 172,855 20.7 «35,7546. 1.532 26,459 37,388 27,250 0.109 | 0.965 26,459 23,603 10.2, 61,2346 0.245 Puvurneg Power Co. (Kong.) | 233 64 = «375,520 -258,07%% = 24.2 62,554 | 1.1468 42,745 48,206 119,001 0.317 | 0.965 39,117 37,768 9.6 92,002 0.245 Tekotne Com. Assoc. 1 7% 62—=s«139,262 196,921 12.9 15,057 | 1.218 17,560 21,326 7.9 18,726 0.134 | 0.965 16,506 13,999 9.6 34,119 0.245 Telida Village Utility *| 26 10 36,286 27,662 40.6 «11,189 | 2.480 8,278 20,5304. 1,833 0.396 | 0.965 3,780 3,667 9.6 8,890 0.245 Tulkisarmute inc(Tuluksek)*| = 321 7 256,612 237,529 2.3 50,709 | 1.990 22,7799 45,318 We 38,409 0.150 | 0.965 22,779 21,981 Ws 62,870 0.265 Tuntutuliek Com. Serv. *| 216 83 487,786 272,607 = 16.3 44,504 | 0.995 44,906 44,595 10.9 83,722 0.19% | 0.965 46,906 43,332, 10.9 119,508 0.245 Unquereg Power Co (Wewtok) | 207 469-—=*132,143 131,807 35.1 46,319 | 1.380 17,705 23,910 7.5 (52,584 0.398 | 0.965 13,765 13,283 9.6 32,375 0.245 \ \ ed TOTAL 15,969 1,895 10,550,070 6,753,9% 26.8 1,678,030 | 1.191 1,160,168 1,377,599 9.1 2,033,939 0.193 | 0.965 1,019,658 985,970 10.3 2,100,444 0.20 * Utility did not provide 12 months of data for PCE report but date hes been adjusted to be equivalent to a full year. ** FY 67 date. FOOINOIES 1. If @ utility has more than 200 customers, the Regional Utility date used Base Case data, rather than AVEC, for Avr. Fuel $/Gal if Less than 0.965 and Op Costs/KuH If less than 0.265 2. Ine Regional Utility data used Base Case Kw Sold/Gal Fuel date for an utility that exceeded 9.6. v1 21-Feb-89 TABLE Vi POWER COST EQUALIZATION INTERIOR REGIONAL UTILITY FY 88 DATA BASE CASE REGIONAL UTILITY | com TOTAL AVR PCE TOTAL | Ave. FUEL Kwa op | AVR. FUEL Kwit oP | PopuL TOTAL xan ELIGIGLE AMOUNT OISBURSE- | FUEL CONSUMED FUEL SOLD/ OPERATING COSTS/| FUEL CONSUMED FUEL SOLD/ OPERATING —COSIS/ UTILITY | atiom cust SOLD Kun C/Kum = MENTS ($) | S/GAL GAL. COST ($) GAL FUEL COSTS ($) Kun | $/GAL GAL. COST ($) GAL FUEL COSTS ($) Kwet { i I! S Allakaket Energy Systems | 195 67 106, 150 106 ,875 0.9 32,369 | 1.569 18,718 29,400 5.7 16,978 0.141 | 0.965 11,057 10,670 9.6 26,007 0.2465 Arctic Village Elec. *| 150 oo 195,950 77,101 21.5 15,767 | 1.626 26,212 43,450 7.5 19,906 0.102 | 0.965 20,411 19,697 9.6 48,008 0.2465 Beaver Elec. *| a7 6 153,836 92,296 27.0 26,886 | 1.077 28,592 30,417 5.4 22,353 0.145 | 0.965 16,025 15,4646 9.6 37,690 0.245 Bettles LRP I or 62 625,261 280,097 n.7 86,916 | 1.153 86,931 103,609 9.5 152,891 0.358 | 0.965 85,967 82,958 9.6 202,194 0.245 Birch Creek Village I so 2% 106,487 76,857 31.3 26,021 | 1.389 13,633 19,278 7.7 13,973 0.131 | 0.965 11,092 10, 704 9.6 26,089 0.245 Chatkyitsik 7] 103 % 167,430 62,158 40.8 25,391 | 1.538 22,876 4,678 7.3 34,878 0.176 | 0.965 17,441 16,830 9.6 41,020 0.265 Circle Elec. utility 1 70 22 180,031 99,810 %.1 36,050 | 0.826 27,843 23,031 6.5 7 - | 0.965 18,753 18,097 9.6 - Eagle Power Co. 1 185 Ws 423,186 265,639 27.1 72,067 | 0.937 = 41,465 38,462 10.2 94,829 0.224 | 0.965 41,465 40,014 10.2 103,681 0.245 Eagle Village 1 3 22 57,323 57,290 41.8 23,967 | 1.026 15,030 15,376 3.8 15,400 0.269 | 0.965 5,971 5,762 9.6 14,064 0.265 Far worth Utility (Central)| 42 “ 277,893 192,833 27.6 53,228 | 0.765 30,350 21,723 9.2 115,192 0.415 | 0.965 28,967 27,934 9.6 68 , 084 0.245 Galena, City of *| 996 307 2,270,533 1,405,403 10.1 141,697 | 0.628 218,923 183,922 10.4 459,478 0.202 | 0.626 218,320 180,769 10.4 458,648 0.202 Guwitchyaa Zhee (Ft Yukon) | 641 310) 1,939,387 = 1,078,138 18.8 202,232 | 1.250 184,775 261,722 10.5 276,128 0.161 | 0.965 184,775 178, 308 10.5 273,454 0.141 Wughes PBL ! Ww » 141,566 199,422 %6.3 40,406 | 1.533 23,420 40,601 6.0 33,938 0.2460 | 0.965 16,7466 14,230 9.6 34,684 0.245 Koyukuk, City of | 131 49 91,651 29,716 = 22.0 15,676 | 0.8% 4,887 4,350 12.5 10,369 0.113 | 0.965 7,354 7,097 12.5 22,454 0.245 Manley Utility Co. 1 v7 a 260,079 182,189 38.0 69,205 | 1.048 33,376 32,731 7.8 59,950 0.231 | 0.965 27,092 26,143 9.6 63,719 0.2465 Worthway P&L 1 M2 110 1,326,216 446,717 17.4 77,456 | 0.853 138,799 118,261 9.5 127,115 0.096 | 0.965 137,939 133,111 9.6 326,433 0.265 Rampart Village 1 so » 101,780 66,517 41.68 27,806 | 1.163 23,674 27,699 4.3 28,104 0.276 | 0.965 10,602 10,231 9.6 24,936 0.245 Ruby Elec. Co. | 23 133 479,992 307,882 23.7 73,167 | 1.283 48,709 63,829 9.9 53,375 0.111 | 0.965 49,999 48,249 9.6 117,598 0.2465 Stevens Village Sys. 1om “ 101,366 68,406 26.5 18,125 | 1.030 28, 866 29,732 3.5 20,698 0.204 | 0.965 10,559 10, 189 9.6 24,835 0.245 Tanana Power Co. 1 420 1800—«1,585,733 670,309 18.6 123,290 | 1.135 148,260 167,974 10.7 363,417 0.229 | 0.965 148, 240 143,052 10.7 388,505 0.245 Tetlin Village Energy | 125 »” 75,057 55,883 24.2 12,612 | 1.498 21,998 32,975 3.4 2,007 0.027 | 0.965 7,618 7,545 9.6 18,389 0.245 Venetie Village Elec. | 37 68 181,202 157,423 17.0 26,803 | 1.238 50,336 63,380 3.6 19,479 0.107 | 0.965 18,875 18,215 9.6 44,396 0.265 TOTAL 14,485 1,892 11,046,129 5,886,960 20.8 = 1,225,275 | 1.069 1,237,850 1,366,778 8.9 1,936,459 0.175 | 0.937 1,093,450 1,025,270 10.1 2,362,865 0.214 * utility did not provide 12 months of data for PCE report but data has been adjusted to be equivalent to a full year. ** FY 86 data. FOOTNOTES 1. If a utility has more than 200 customers, the Regional Utility date used Base Case data, rather than AVEC, for Avr. Fuel $/Gal if less than 0.965 and Op Costs/KWH if less than 0.245 2. The Regional Utility data used Base Case KWH Sold/Gal Fuel data for an utility that exceeded 9.6. SI 21-Feb-89 TABLE VII POWER COST EQUALIZATION ALEUTIANS-BRISTOL BAY REGIOWAL UTILITY FY 88 DATA BASE CASE REGIONAL UTILITY | com TOTAL «AVR PCE «TOTAL, «Ss AVR. = FUEL om op | AvR. FUEL Kun oP [| Popu ToTAL = Kw ELIGIOLE AMOUNT DISBURSE- | FUEL CONSUMED FUEL =» SOLD/- OPERATING —COSTS/| FUEL CONSUMED FUEL SOLD/- OPERATING —_COSIS/ unity | ation cust sou on C/K MENTS (S$) | S/GAL GAL. COST ($) GAL FUEL COSTS (3) KWH | $/GAL Ga. COST (3) GAL FUEL COSTS ($) KWH I \ | = Andreanof Elec. (atke) | 93 44 ~—=191, 853 5.1 23,449 | 1.060 26,818 27,853 7.2 12,860 0.067 | 0.965 19,985 19,285 (9.6 47,006 0.245 Akutan Electric “| 109) 37)—(160,263 16.5 20,889 | 0.819 31,435 25,856 5.1 28,517 0.178 | 0.965 16,6% 16,110 9.6 39,264 0.245 Chignik Elec. “| 132 7% =~ (327,621 13.6 33,397 | 0.626 41,267 25,787 7.9 50,350 0.154 | 0.965 34,127 32,933 9.6 80,267 0.245 Clarks Pt., City of “| 88 33121, 140 15.7 17,538 | 0.956 11,160 10,669 10.9 : = | 0.965 11,160 10,769 10.9 : Egegik La P 1 9% = =7% = 578,753 37.9 119,592 | 1.076 57,966 62,436 10.0 69,856 0.121 | 0.965 57,966 55,935 10.0 141, 79% 0.245 Ekwok, City of “| 108 4101, 482 15.7 15,376 | 1.836 : : 19,109 0.238 | 0.965 : : - 26,863 0.245 False Pass Elec. Assoc. | 72 29 150,133 4.8 15,663 | 0.620 26,423 21,966 53,036 0.353 | 0.965 15,639 15,091 (9.6 36,783 0.245 G&K, Inc. (Cold Gay) | 250 73 3,216,461 23.3 123,739 | 0.913 262,483 223,882 687,336 0.216 | 0.913 262,483 239,667 12.3 688,318 0.214 Igiugig Vil. Councit 1 3 2% 79,932 w.8 25,588 | 1.221 12,685 15,688 21,772 0.272 | 0.965 8,326 6,035 9.6 19,583 0.245 Iw Elec. Co-Op (itiama) | 536 269 1,673,627 32.7 346,526 | 1.125 160,969 158, 327 463,561 0.277 | 0.965 140,969 136,035 11.9 410,039 0.245 King Cove, City of | 673 188 1,255,060 102,098 | 0.729 162,903 110,096 0.162 | 0.965 130,733 126,158 9.6 = 307,485 0.245 Kokhanok Vit. Council 32007 0 o . 0.245 Levelock Elec. Co-Op { 10 % 325,646 212,762 31.2 66,3460 | 1.022 37,539 38,665 6.7 126,606 0.383 | 0.965 33,921 32,734 9.6 79,783 = 0.245 Menokotek Watives itd. *| 299 * 3,171 400,297 at 101,363 | 1.251 = 79,721 100,689 6.7 12,146 0.018 | 0.965 72,205 69,678 9.6 169,827 0.245 lWelson Legoon Elec. 1 53 3 271,212 187,531 21.2 W,092 | 1.500 38,356 44,861 mw 36,065 0.133 | 0.965 26,251 27,262 9.6 66,467 = 0.245 Pedro Bay Vil. Council 1 a 63,092 73,647 40.0 29,447 | 1.337 10,508 25,199 43 26,186 0.315 | 0.965 6,655 8,352 9.6 20,358 = 0.245 Perryville, City of “| 10 » 172,278 112,770 16.4 18,534 | 0.966 = 30,471 29,393 5.7 23,533 0.137 | 0.965 17,9%6 17,318 9.6 42,208 0.245 Pilot Point Vil. Council *| x» 157,515 164 496 20.5 29,570 | 1.033 26,014 26,785 6.4 13,713 0.087 | 0.965 16,408 15,834 9.6 38,591 0.265 Port Weiden, City of | 10 33 ‘332,842 265,067 W.5 28,269 | 0.985 48,8465 44,700 6.8 5,637 0.018 | 0.965 4,671 33,458 9.6 81,546 0.245 Sand Point Elec. 1 890) 209) 5,435,115 2,062,345 44 90,065 | 0.772 447,779 347,930 12.1 560,263 0.103 | 0.772 447,779 45,59 12.1 560,263 0.105 St. George Elec. utility | 195 7 587,732 429,726 2.5 109,396 | 1.060 63,828 66,381 9.2 116,626 0.198 | 0.965 61,222 59,079 9.6 143,996 0.245 St. Paul Mun. Elec. | 595 = 187) 2,334,067) 1,579,111 16.6 227,607 | 0.952 290,036 276,397 6.0 222,611 0.095 | 0.965 243,130 234,620 9.6 571,842 0.245 Usnek Power Co.(Wikolski) *| 50 32 108, 144 95,102 33.5 32,036 | 1.080 67,264 20,364 1.6 20,668 0.191 | 0.965 11,265 10,871 9.6 26,495 0.245 Unalaska Elec. Utility 11,868 «385 16,015,139 2,891,393 6.2 180,379 | 0.654 1,190,922 775,163) 13.6 1,198,251 0.070 | 0.656 1,190,922 778, Tas 13.6 1,118,251 0.0/0 | | a TOTAL | 6,962 2,215 34,607,796 12,602,445 16.6 = 1,863,531 | 0.791 3,105,371 2,477,045 VW.T 5,919,632 0.113 | 0.779 2,864,456 2,293,544 12.10 4,737,307 Ose * Utility did not provide 12 months of data for PCE report but date has been adjusted to be equivalent to a full year. ** FY 87 data. FOOTNOTES 1. If @ utility has more than 200 customers, the Regional Utility date used Base Case data, rather than AVEC, for Avr. Fuel $/Gal If less than 0.965 and Op Costs/KWH If less than 0.245 2. The Regional Utility date used Base Case KWH Sold/Gal fuel date for an utility that exceeded 9.6. more efficiently than AVEC, it should, if anything, improve on this performance under a regional utility. The comparison between the base case and the regional utility for each region is presented in Table VIII. TABLE VIII COMPARISON OF BASE CASE TO REGIONAL UTILITY RE IN B. SEWARD PENINSULA Fuel $ 533,602 $ 392,840 Operating 982,783 974,107 Total 1,516,385 1,366,947 -9.8% KUSKOKWIM Fuel 1,403,278 1,009,243 Operating 2,082,928 2,222,043 Total 3,486,206 3,231,286 -7.3% INTERIOR Fuel 1,366,788 1,025,270 Operating 1,936,459 2,362,865 Total 3,303,237 3,456,315 +4.6% \LEUTIAN-BRISTOL BAY Fuel 2,477,045 2,293,544 Operating 3,911,632 4,737,307 Total 6,388.677 7,030,851 +10.1% Table VIII indicates that a regional utility in the Seward and Kuskokwim regions should result in improved economies-of-scale. Developing a regional utility in these regions should lower costs, yet still allow the utility to pay for insurance, debt service, and establish a fund for future repair or replacement. The Interior appears to be a more marginal case. Data in Appendix B indicates that many of the utilities in the Interior seem to be reporting only a portion of their operating costs on their PCE forms. If full costs were reported, the base case would have higher costs. Also, some of the utilities listed have road access and therefore lower fuel costs than the AVEC average. If the regional utility used these fuel prices instead of AVEC'’s, its costs would have been less. evertheless, the difference between the base case and the regional utility is less than the cost of repairing a major breakdown that might occur because of inadequate operation and enn Major breakdowns should be less likely to occur with a regional utility. The advantages of a regional utility are less evident in the Aleutians-Bristol Bay region. The operating costs for the regional utility are considerably higher than the base case. However, some of the base case operating costs are unrealistically low. For instance, it is doubtful that the actual operating costs for Manokotak and Port Heiden are only 1.8 cents per KWH sold. Another factor that may be unfavorable to the regional utility model is fuel prices. Most of the larger coastal communities have cheaper fuel than AVEC, which serves mostly inland communities. Using AVEC’s average fuel price may unnecessarily add to the cost of the regional utility. 16 Table IX applies the AVEC cost percentages in Figure 1 to the operating costs for each regional utility as provided by Table : Ripe! gage represents nonfuel costs (71% of total costs), not total costs. This ee some indication of the management costs that can be afforded by each regional utility. TABLE IX BREAKDOWN OF OPERATING COSTS REGION SEWARD ALEUTIANS COST FACTOR ____to.4....__+=—%_—s*éPENIN, _KUSKOKWIM____INTERIOR BRISTOL BAY Plant Operation 423 $412,047 $939,924 $999,492 $2,003,881 Distribution O&M 99 96,437 219,982 233,924 468,993 Consumer Accounts 28 27,275 62,217 66,160 132,645 Adm & Gen 13 110,074 251,091 267,004 535,316 Depreciation 21.1 205,537 468,851 498,565 999,572 Taxes 14 13,637 31,109 33,080 66,322 Interest 5.6 54,550 124,434 132,320 265,289 Insurance 42 40,912 93,326 99,240 198,967 Ofer de LI) ae TOTAL 100.0 974,107 2,222,043 2,362,865 4,737,307 The APUC collects data on actual operating costs for each utility that participates in the PCE program. The APUC uses this data to determine the appropriate amount of subsidy that a utility is entitled to. The data can also provide a comparison between actual utility operating costs and operating costs as presented in Table IX. Unfortunately, there are differences in how each data file is organized, thereby allowing only an approximate comparison. Table X provides regional summaries of the APUC data. Appendix B contains a more detailed account of the operating costs for most utilities that participate in the PCE program. Utilities that are not included because of lack of data include Napakiak Ircinraq, Napaskiak, Nightmute, Chalkyitsak, Rampart, Akutan, False Pass, and G & K, Inc. (Cold Bay). 17 TABLE X REPORTED OPERATING COSTS BY REGION SEWARD ALEUTIANS COSTITEMS __ CC PENIN _KUSKOKWIM____INTERIOR _ BRISTOL BAY NON-REGULATED Personnel 197,584 564,734 421,009 602,371 Parts & Supplies 27,951 47,812 38,502 474,073 Repairs & Main. 20,633 116,897 91,980 149,963 Customer Accounts 0 0 0 11,165 Gen. & Adm. 46,504 210,084 113,292 544,940 Depreciation 9,684 47,303 73,079 280,098 Taxes 0 0 8,671 2,540 Interest 0 10,292 60,584 94,891 Other 4506 818 89D 45602 Total 342,861 1,010,997 815,968 2,308,235 REGULATED Total Expenses Operating 624,939 1,384,747 1,429,060 344,961 Maintenance 80,996 99,340 67,116 21,842 Depreciation 89,655 231,946 206,635 171,428 Taxes 13,500 40,959 43,579 8,294 Other 0 5,239 21,686 0 Interest 78,407 59,026 127.675 101,877 Total 887,497 1,821,257 1,895,751 1,815,912 O & M Expenses Production 429,857 921,436 1,120,826 1,065,502 Distribution 21,609 0 74,374 82,993 Customer Accounts 85,454 0 30,923 35,010 Sales 0 0 0 9,832 Adm, & General 84508 584379528338 93S Total 352,968 1,505,815 1,754,461 31,894 18 VI. STRATEGIES FOR REGIONALIZATION The previous section of this report establishes that there is merit to the regionalization concept, at least for those utilities that serve communities on the Seward Peninsula, the lower Yukon River and the Kuskokwim River region, and perhaps the upper Yukon River region. This section proposes strategies for implementing the regionalization concept. Fundamental to the success of any strategy is the understanding that home rule will prevail in any decision to cooperate or merge. In other words, it is up to each and every individual utility to decide whether or not to participate in any regionalization effort. It can be expected that the reason to change must be well understood by these utilities before agreement to change will occur. Consequently, strategies that oo in changes and allow adjustments to be made at a manageable level, will probably be more successful than strategies that implement the regionalization concept in one step. A three phased approach is suggested for implementing the regionalization concept: ¢ Phase One - For candidate utilities to retain individual ownership of their systems but to cooperatively purchase fuel oil, support a circuit rider maintenance program, and acquire insurance. ¢ Phase Two - For utilities to merge their systems into a regional utility that has a centralized management structure. ¢ Phase Three - To consider opportunities for adding other utility functions to the electric utility (such as water, sewer, and solid waste) in order to further improve the economies-of-scale. Each phase is described below in greater detail: A. PHASE ONE The objective of Phase One is to establish cooperative arrangements among neighboring utilities for bulk purchasing of fuel oil, sharing the cost of a locally based circuit rider for routine maintenance and emergency assistance, standardizin, equipment in order to share the costs of a spare parts inventory, and sharing the ris for insurance coverage. The cooperative would not be a fo organization, such as an REA type of coop, but an informal organization that would allow utilities the option to participate and to fully retain ownership and management of their system. The advantages of this approach are: 6 i donc result in many of the benefits that are likely to occur with a regional utility; ¢ It could be operational in less time and with less complexity than a merger; ¢ It would give utilities an opportunity to work with each other to determine, —_ accurately, the logistics and costs of formally establishing a regional utility; ¢ It would give utilities more time to consider the type of regional utility ownership that is best suited to their needs, and; 19 ¢ If the regionalization concept does not work, it would not be difficult to return to the current situation. The disadvantages of this approach are: ¢ Cooperative effort may be more vulnerable than a regional utility to political differences, and; ¢ Inertia may set in after Phase One and add to the difficulties of achieving the full benefits of regionalization. 1. FUEL OIL A 1984 report by the House Research Agency entitled Fuel Consumption and icing i states that, "Fuel prices in rural Alaska villages are among the highest in the nation. Factors which cause high prices include small delivery volume, village inaccessibility, distance and isolation from fuel supplies, storage requirements, financing costs and limited competition in wholesale and retail del- ivery systems." Not much can be done about the isolation of rural villages but, as demonstrated by the Coastal Yukon Mayors Association, something can be done about increasing delivery volumes in order to reduce transportation costs and increase competition. In 1987, nine of the 14 villages that belong to the Coastal Yukon Mayors Association signed a cooperative fuel purchasing agreement. The p’ of this ee was to pool the gasoline and stove oil needs of each village (about 700,000 gallons) into one bid request. Only non-profit organizations were allowed to participate. According to an article in the January 1988 issue of RurAL CAP’s foe pereiaae the cooperative agreement described how "fuel estimates will be submitted, how the bids will be solicited, how vendors will be chosen, and how contracts between the selected vendor and the villages will be established". The award went to a bid that had an average price of $0.88 per gallon, which was about 19% less than what the price would have been without the bid process. After the award was made, each village contracted directly with the vendor and assumed responsibility for payment. It is estimated that the villages that took advantage of the agreement saved about $145,000 that year. In essence, the cooperative fuel agreement turned a seller’s market into a buyer’s market. Last year’s bid resulted in an even lower price of $0.83 per gallon. This year, however, the lowest bid was $1.21 per gallon. This increase appears to be consistent with the rise in crude oil prices over the past few months. Despite the increase, the bid price establishes a market price for the area that other fuel oil distributors will have to beat if they want the business. No serious imp diments to organizing fuel cooperatives in other regions of rural Alaska exist. the agreement by the ¢ ‘al Yukon M Ss i ides a model that - villages can copy. Furthermore, the Office of Energy Programs in the ne of Community and Regional Affairs and RurAL CAP are both prepared to assist any villages that are interested in organizing fuel cooperatives. In fact, the Office of Energy Programs is oe a publication that lists what steps are needed to establish a cooperative for bulk fuel purchasing. Also, now that the Energy Authority will be a istering the Bulk 20 Fuel Revolving Loan Fund (effective as of July 1, 1989), consideration should be given as to how the loan fund can be used to provide incentives for creating fuel cooperatives. 2. CIRCUIT RIDER PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE PROGRAM A preventive maintenance program costs money but should save even more money. An authoritative book on the subject, Complete Building Equipment Maintenance Desk Book, edited by Sheldon Fushs states, "Generally, the cost of installing a good PM program will equal about of the total savings realized by the poi 10 percent A circuit rider preventive maintenance program allows small utilities to share costs with other utilities that do not have full time need of the service. Without cost sharing, many utilities might not be able to afford the level of technical support that is required for an effective preventive maintenance program. The circuit rider could also help standardize equipment which would be necessary for pooling spare parts. Specific benefits that could be realized by a rural utility with a good preventive maintenance program are: ¢ lower fuel consumption and fuel costs due to improvements in generator efficiency and reductions in line losses; ¢ lower operating costs because of fewer breakdowns; ¢ fewer power blackouts or brownouts and less occurrence of damage to electric appliances and motors, and; * - need for capital expenditures due to major breakdowns or catastrophic losses. ¢ having a regional spare parts inventory which should decrease costs and the time it takes to get a part. A circuit rider preventive maintenance oe would cost an estimated $100,000 a year (including salaries, benefits, and travel costs) for each mechanic. If each mechanic could service ten to fifteen — then one mechanic would be sufficient for oes Peninsula region and the other regions would each need two mechanics. In FY89, the Energy Authority received an eprceninicn of $325,000 for its Rural Technical Assistance poe. A portion of appropriation was to be spent on a circuit rider program. Although the funding was not sufficient for initiating the program, it did allow for an inventory of the power systems that serve 23 communities in the Interior and the upper Kuskokwim River. The objective of the inventory was to determine the condition of the generation and distribution system and to determine if — improvements were needed to improve efficiencies and reduce safety hazards. The results n in two ag’ 1989 reports, {village Power Suatem Survey and Assesment of Utlty Condition, Table XI provides a summary rt. The power system inventory is now being extended to other utilities that participate in the PCE program. 21 Additional information revealed by the inventory is that there is considerable Monta in generation and distribution systems in rural Alaska. In the 18 villages included in the Village Power System Survey, there are 47 generator sets. This includes nine different engine manufacturers and 35 models, nine different ponerate manufacturers and 34 different models, and seven different voltage ranges or the distribution system. This variety in equipment increases the complexity and costs of having a spare parts inventory. A circuit rider program could provide a means for having more standardization within a region and less costs for a spare parts inventory. 3. INSURANCE The principal reason why a utility should have insurance is to provide a source of funding that can help meet expenses that result from unexpected problems. Many of the smaller rural utilities, however, are not covered by insurance and depend on state assistance whenever unexpected expenses occur. Out of the 54 non-regulated utilities listed in Appendix B, only 19 had any expenditures for insurance. These expenditures ranged from $303 a year for Pedro Bay Village Council to $27,656 for St. George Electric Utility. The average was $5,760 per utility. For comparison, the cost of insurance for AVEC (Figure 1) amounted to 3 gt of its total cost of electric service. This averages out to about $6,600 for each village that it serves. Considering the fiscal problems now facing the State, it is uncertain at best for uninsured utilities to depend on the State budget to serve as a defacto insurance policy. These utilities need to give serious attention to actually having insurance coverage. What may be the most reasonable approach for uninsured utilities to obtain insurance is to combine efforts with other utilities in the region, including those that already are insured. If several utilities pool their insurance needs, they would be spreading risk which should result in lower premiums. Also, pooling should reduce the administrative burden of selecting a carrier. The oat Authority has extensive experience in obtaining insurance coverage for power facilities. The Energy Authority should use this experience and the assistance of the Division of Risk Management to develop a model insurance es oh similar in pereote to a fuel cooperative. Once a model has been established, the Power Authority could then provide technical assistance to those utilities that are interested in participating. Paying for the policy should be the responsibility of the respective utilities. One problem that may be encountered in attempting to obtain insurance is that many of the rural utilities may not be in compliance with the National Electrical Safety Code or other relevant safety codes. This may add to the cost of the premium or, in the worst case, preclude coverage. The Energy Authority’s Rural Technical Assistance program has been instrumental in identifying where many rural utilities have safety problems and has provided technical support and some financing to correct these problems. The condition of these utilities is considered to be typical of other small rural utilities. Table XI oleae a summary cost estimate for some of the safety improvements that are needed. The Energy Authority’s efforts to improve rural utilities, so that they comply with the National Electrical Safety Code, complements an initiative to expand insurance coverage. Fewer safety hazards should result in lower insurance costs, and hence, lower rates for the consumer as well as reducing the cost of the PCE program for the State.Consequently, it is recommended that the Energy Authority's efforts to correct safety hazards be extended to encourage insurance coverage by rural utilities. TABLE XI VILLAGE POWER SYSTEM SURVEY ESTIMATED COSTS ($) FOR IMPROVEMENTS | TOTAL PAYBACK Allakaket Energy System | 6,750 5,850 12,600 1 Arctic Village Electric | 13,200 600 13,800 2 Beaver Electric | 65,450 10,350 75,800 6 Birch Creek Village | 44,600 200 44,800 7 Far North Util. (Central) | 0 20,600 20,600 NA Chalkyitsik | 5,900 0 5,900 1 Circle Electric Utility | 17,200 24,300 41,500 a" Eagle Power Co. | 0 100 100 NA Eagle Village | 29,000 900 29,900 4 Gwitchyaa Zhee | 0 46,300 46,300 NA Hughes Power & Light | 36,150 10,850 47,000 4 Nikolai Light & Power | 0 15,000 15,000 NA Rampart Village | 66,500 30,300 96,800 5 Ruby Electric Co. | 7,100 3,200 10,300 4 Stevens Village System | 22,400 1,800 24,200 2 Takotna Comm Assoc. | 6,500 6,600 13,100 4 Telida Village Utility | 7,550 5,450 13,000 2 Venetie Village Elec. | 42,700 1,500 44,200 5 Mid Kuskokwim Elec. Coop | Chuathbaluk | 34,050 24,350 58,400 6 Crooked Creek | 34,950 32,950 67,900 9 Red Devil | 41,650 31,350 73,000 16 Sleetmute | 37,100 37,500 74,600 B TOTAL | 554,850 336,950 891,800 : B. PHASE TWO The objective of Phase Two is to strengthen overall ment by merging those utilities that have successfully worked together ing Pines One. Forming one regional utility would provide the economies-of-scale time general manager and necessary sup operations manager and a accounting financi: The advantages of Phase Two are: t are needed to have a full rt staff, such as an experienced Ar manager. having a _ manager and support staff should result in more experienced management and operation of each village system, although there may be individual exceptions; having a stronger management structure will reduce dependency on one person, a situation that often exists with many of the small utilities; having a centralized management structure should better insulate day-to-day utility operations from local politics; having a centralized management structure reduces the complexities involved in m ing routine decisions, such as relocating generators in order to match loads, reducing the variety of equipment being used, etc., and; consolidating staff should provide better employee benefits such as group insurance, retirement benefits, training, and opportunity for advancement. The disadvantages of Phase Two are: o merging the assets of existing utilities into a regional utility may encounter difficulties, such as determining a fair value for the assets, and; if utilities now have significant differences in employee pay and benefits, it may be difficult to arrive at a compromise that all could agree on. Virtually all communities that might be served by a new regional utility are now being served by a local utility. Each local utility has an established service area and a certain type of cheba Forming a regional utility changes both. Following are some steps that must be en to merge service areas and a list of ownership options to be considered. 24 1. LEGAL CONDITIONS There are two legal conditions that generally apply before a merger can be consummated: a. The conditions of the merger must be approved by each utility. Agreement will require a vote by either the board of directors (in the case of an investor owned utility), the members being served (in the case of a cooperative), or the public (in the case of a municipally owned utility). b. The transfer of certification must be approved by the commissioners of the APUC. While the APUC has no specific criteria for approving a transfer, they can be ant to ask whether or not the regional utility will be "fit, willing and able to provide the utility services applied for and that the services are we for the convenience and necessity of the public" (from AS 42.05.241, Conditions of Issuance). There are a number of additional legal matters to consider prior to a merger. This includes filing incorporation papers, writing bylaws, and defeasance of existing loans or bonds. ere are also accounting matters such as audits and developing compatible accounting systems as well as personnel matters, such as labor contracts and differences in pay and benefits. However, it would be premature to provide, at this time, a review of these matters. The details for each issue will be specific to the type of — that is being sought and the individual utilities that are involved. e time for a detailed review is when specific utilities have expressed interest in consolidation. 2. OWNERSHIP OPTIONS There are seven s of ownership to consider. Four of the these (municipal, berene state, and regional electric authority) are variations of a public utility and could be eligible for tax-exempt financing, notwithstanding other technical matters. Three types of ownership (cooperative, investor-owned, and Native corporation utility) would be private utilities and, therefore, would not normally be eligible for tax-exempt financing. a. Municipal Ownership - About half of the rural utilities that participate in the PCE program are owned by municipalities. Since ....municipalities are a legal subdivision of the state, they have fewer impediments to receiving financial assistance from the State. b. Borough Ownership - There are two utilities in Alaska that are owned by boroughs: the North Slo; ae Power and Light and the City and Borough of Sitka. Some of the new boroughs that are being considered, such as the proposed Lake and Peninsula Borough, do not include a hub city within their boundaries. In such cases, borough ownership of a regional utility may be an attractive option. c. State Ownership - a the State has assumed considerable responsibility for keeping utilities financially viable, it does not have an agency which sells retail power to consumers. The Alaska Energy Authority however does own and operate several power projects and sells wholesale power to utilities. One approach that has been mentioned for improving the operation and efficiency of rural utilities is to have the Energy Authority 25 become, in essence, a rural regional generation and transmission utility. In this case, the Energy Authority would own and operate the generators and sell wholesale power to the local utility. Another version of this option, which would be simpler to get started, is to have the Energy Authority assume operation of the generation systems used by rural school districts (REAA’s) and sell wholesale power to the communities. New legislation would be needed, however, to authorize the Energy Authority to sell retail power. d. Regional Electric Authority - State statutes provide for the establishment of regional electric authorities by housing authorities. These are quasi-public agencies. If the statute were amended to allow other entities the opportunity to establish regional electric authorities, it would provide a convenient means of merging municipally owned facilities and allowing for State involvement. THREA is the only regional electric authority in the state. e. Cooperative Utility - Eleven of the utilities that participate in the PCE program are cooperatively owned. Although a cooperative is considered a private utility, its customers are its investors. As a result it tends to operate more like a public utility. The cooperative utilities in Alaska have generally demonstrated good management and a good mix of private and public objectives. Because of this record, a regional cooperative deserves consideration. f. Investor Owned Utility - Approximately 22 of the utilities that parecpe in the PCE program are investor owned utilities. Although it would be possible to have an investor owned regional utility, there are some potential barriers. Many of the candidate utilities are municipally owned and may encounter legal problems in selling their utility assets to a private organization. Also, State participation in the consolidation of rural utilities, which may be a financial necessity, could encounter some legal barriers that would not exist with a publicly owned utility. g. Native Corporation Utility - Some rural utilities are owned by local Native organizations. Like cooperatives, these tend to be a hybrid between public utilities and investor owned utilities. The distinction between the two becomes even more ambiguous between municipalities and IRA councils. Despite the ambiguities, Native corporations, whether they be profit or non- profit, could be good candidates for forming a regional utility. C. PHASE THREE The purpose of Phase Three is to consider the possibility of including other utility functions, such as water, sewer and solid waste, within the organizational structure of the regional electric utility. The reason for this is that, even with consolidation of electric utilities, the regional utility will still be small, even by Alaskan standards, and not have the economies-of-scale of other electric utilities. Adding other utility functions to the regional electric utility may compensate for some of the low population density and high costs that are inherent in any infrastructure that serves rural Alaska. However, while there are similarities between electric utilities and other utilities, there are also differences. Phase Three may have merit, but it needs to be considered on a case-by-case basis. 26 VII. CONCLUSION During the past several years, the State has generously supported small rural utilities by providing them with much of the financial resources and some of the technical resources that are needed to continue operation. Dependence on the State by small rural utilities, however, is not a long-term solution, particularly in light of declining revenues. The most effective long-term strategy may be to improve the economies-of-scale of rural utilities by consolidating small independent operations into regional utilities; in essence, the utilities become administratively intertied. Regional utilities, being larger, are more likely to have the management strength needed to become more efficient and financially self-reliant. Regionalization could be considered a natural progression in the effort to provide rural Alaska with efficient, safe and reliable power. Regionalization could also provide a central theme over the next few years for State programs that provide technical and financial assistance to rural utilities. VIII APPENDIX A. COMPARISON OF REA COOPS THAT RECEIVE PCE B. OPERATING COSTS BY REGION 22-Feb-89 EXPENSES Power Production Distr ibution-Operation Distribution-Maintenance Consumer Accounts Customer Service Sates Administration & General Depreciation & Amort. Taxes Interest Other Total POWER REQUIRMENTS @ of Customers (Dec.) Kw Sold KWH Generated Data From REA Form 7's for 1987 KOTZEQUE ELEC ASSOC C/K Gen COMPARISON OF REA COOPS THAT RECEIVE PCE WAKWEK ELEC ASSOC VALUE x OF TOTAL C/K WUSHAGAK ELEC COOP VALUE % OF TOTAL C/K Gen TLINGIT-HAIDA REA VALUE & OF TOTAL C/K Gen VALUE AVERAGE x OF C/KWH TOTAL GEN | | | 1 | | 6,268,208 1 91,802 | 682,861 1 132,921 1 72,762 I o 1 1,348,270 1 1,675,801 1 116,568 | 371,922 { 500 | 10,761,595 1 | 1 | ' 11,685,989 5,017 | 31,271,088 | 34,531,878 58.2 0.9 6.3 1.2 0.7 ° 12.5 15.6 wt 3.5 0.0 100.0 18.15 0.27 1.98 0.38 0.21 0.00 3.90 4.85 0% 1.08 0.00 31.16 1,599, 165 111,060 31,173 56,436 8,616 ° 347,682 389,231 9,481 416,650 606 2,968,060 3,378,607 1,370 18,962,373 20,392,820 wa 1.9 0.3 0.0 W.7 13.1 0.3 4.0 0.0 100.0 7.8 0.54 0.15 0.28 0.06 0.00 1.70 1.91 0.05 2.03 0.00 14.55 4,621,202 07,166 21,917 43,909 4,901 1,205 345,559 190,852 29,663 79,408 o 2,425,840 2,825,157 99 13,337,801 16,222,861 9.9 0.54 0.16 0.27 0.03 0.01 2.13 1.18 0.18 0.49 0.00 4.95 1,669,776 56,288 66,906 58,637 ° ° 583,210 238,508 59,810 69,207 3,205 2,803,545 2,801,120 73 14,711,406 16,502, 100 59.6 10.12 1.9 2.4 2.1 0.0 0.0 20.8 6.5 2.1 2.5 0.1 0.33 0.41 0.3% 0.00 0.00 3.53 1.465 0.3% 0.42 0.02 1,299, 188 64,539 13,452 117,593 8,237 ° 373,605 266,585 6,364 139, 737 2,781 2,272,060 2,358,437 1,081 12,849, 749 13,618,540 57.2 9.56 2.8 0.47 0.6 0.10 5.2 0.86 0.4 0.06 0.0 0.00 16.6 2.7% 10.9 1.81 0.3 0.05 6.2 1.03 0.1 0.02 100.0 16.68 1,280,685 53,111 49,585 66,075 17,060 0 602,616 326,121 6,331 161,874 14,977 2,556,435 2,991,391 1,008 9,001,323 10,513,000 50.1 2.1 1.9 2.6 0.7 0.0 23.6 12.7 0.2 5.5 0.6 100.0 12.18 0.51 0.47 0.63 0.16 0.00 5.73 3.08 0.06 1.35 0.1% 24.32 2,289, 704 76,991 166,316 79,275 18,593 201 600, 157 510,850 38,030 202,800 3,678 3,964,593 4,306, 784 1,701 16, 688,956 18,630,200 57.8 12.29 1.9 0.41 3.60 O.77 2.0 0.43 0.5 0.10 0.0 0.00 5.10 3.22 12.9 2.7% 1.0 0.20 5.1 1.09 0.1 0.02 100.0 21.26 W XIGNaddv 22-Feb-89 KOTZEQUE ELEC ASSOC SOF 6% OF BOF & OF sus TOTAL VALUE sus TOTAL WAKMEK ELEC ASSOC % OF TOTAL MUSHAGAK ELEC COOP % OF TOTAL TLINGIT-HALDA REA x OF TOTAL VALUE AVERAGE % OF sue | | ' ! ' ' Payroll- Expensed 1 1,026,814 Payroll-Capitalized 1 483,782 Payrott-Other ! 539,683 | ASSETS 1 Distribution | 12,961,525 Weadquarters ' Lend | 260,538 Structures ' 936,559 Office Furn. & Eqpant.| 1,509 Vehicles 1 45,753 Shop, Tools etc. 1 634 056 Power Eqpant . | 167,333 Communications Eqpant.| 3,2 Wisc. Eqpant. 1 38,566 Subtotal | 2,779,656 Production | 16,113,976 Other | 1,195,003 Total 33,071,282 : : 417,600 - = 138,061 = : 210,983 39.3 4,081,731 8.7 o 33.7 o 4.9 112,236 1.6 144,967 22 87,645 6.0 9,631 0.9 9,426 1.46 1,1%6 100.0 8.4 365,217 48.7 6,198,513 3.6 42,417 100.0 10,690,992 : - STN : : - = 625,852 5 : : 519 38.2 1,960,006 42.3 0.0 200.1 0.0 100,761 21.8 30.7 136,260 29.0 39.7 08,07 19.2 26.0 T7491 16.7 11,209 2.4 13,555 2.9 56,669 7.9 463,023 100.0 10.0 2,189,876 47.2 22,985 0.5 46,635,916 100.0 2,511,531 o 563,530 106,337 234,588 69,050 6,0% 13,528 17,175 1,009, 102 3,996,622 225,416 7,766,671 0.0 55.8 10.3 23.2 6.8 0.7 1.3 Ww? 100.0 13.0 51.6 2.9 100.0 1,620,356 0 515,516 150,410 263,398 38,168 1,236 11,469 390 960,586 3,848,256 260,263 6,889,440 0.0 53.7 15.7 2.3 4.0 0.1 1.2 0.0 100.0 26.4 13.9 55.9 3.8 100.0 3,937,602 3,559 140, 387 213,859 86,663 1,212 915 446,575 2,943,863 57,199 7,385,219 0.0 0.8 31.4 47.9 9.4 0.0 0.3 0.2 100.0 53.3 4,548,792 40,131 353,321 222,187 161,902 165,509 32,751 12,625, 15,801 1,00 ,026 5,882,172 300,543 11,736,256 6.0 9.9 0.8 100.0 4.0 35.2 22.1 1 16.5 3.3 1.2 1.6 100.0 % OF TOTAL 6.6 50.1 2.6 100.0 03-May-89 SEWARD PENINSULA REGIONAL UTILITY DATA Annual PCE Data Reported To APUC From Non-Regulated Utilities |BREVIG MISSION BUCKLAND DIOMEDE GOLOVIN KOBUK IPNATGHIAQ WHITE MT. UTILITY CITY COUNCIL CITY COUNCIL POWER UTILITIES VALLEY ELEC. ELEC. CO. UTILITY TOTAL AVERAGE | ve Report Period- 1 Year Ending | 6/30/88 9/30/88 3/31/88 6/30/87 3/31/88 Total KWH Generated ; 406,167 WA NA NA NA 974,385 324,795 Total KWH Sola | 374 879 258,127 126,674 432,279 398, 388 2,101,543 300,22u WON-FUEL COSTS | Personnel Costs | Operations | NA NA NA 25,862 B 19,045 31,179 76,161 19,040 Administrative | WA NA NA 0 650 25,927 4,924 31,501 7,875 Other (ie Payroll Taxes) | WA WA WA 3,967 0 5,164 3,547 12,678 3,170 Subtotal | 4,012 30,800 45,955 29,829 725 50,160 36, 103 197,584 28,226 Power Plant Parts & Supplies | Lube Oil | NA NA WA 0 0 151 1,564 1715 429 Oil/Fuel Filters | WA NA NA 0 0 273 274 547 137 Small Tools | NA NA NA 0 760 233 0 993 248 Other | NA NA NA 1,629 164 0 6,142 7,935 1,984 Subtotal | 407 10,354 6,000 1,629 924 657 7,980 27,951 3,993 Repairs & Maintenance | Amortized Major Overhauls | WA NA WA 0 0 0 0 0 0 Emergency Repairs | NA WA NA 0 0 1,937 0 1,937 484 Routine Maintenance | NA NA NA 3,923 4,249 2,156 5,325 15,653 3,913 Other | WA NA NA 1,016 0 894 863 2,773 693 Subtotal | 270 0 0 4,939 4,249 4,987 6,188 20,633 2,948 Customer Accounts | 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 General & Administrative | Professionnst Services ! NA NA NA 280 7,238 4,355 1,500 13,373 3,343 Insurance | NA NA NA 0 411 5,470 0 5,881 1,470 Office Expenses | NA NA NA 604 104 2,560 883 4,151 1,038 Vehicles | NA NA NA 0 0 3,600 0 3,600 900 Travel | NA NA NA 154 0 3,764 1,225 5,143 1, 286 Other | NA NA NA 187 241 1,630 569 2,627 657 Subtotal | 1,219) 0 10,510 1,226 7,993 21,379 4,177 46,504 6,643 Depreciation | sey 0 0 7,439 0 1,600 550 9,684 1,383 Taxes | 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Interest Expense | 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other | 0 0 0 0 33,190 3,950 3,366 40,506 5,787 TOTAL | 6,003 41,154 62,464 45,062 47,081 82,733 58, 364 342,861 48,980 Non-Fuel Costs($)/KWH | 0.051 0.104 0.167 0.175 0.372 0.191 0.146 - 0.105 q@ XIGNdddwv 02-May-89 SEWARD PENINSULA REGIONAL UTILITY DATA Data From FERC 1987 Annual Reports TELLER UNALAKLEET POWER CO. VALLEY ELEC. TOTAL AVERAGE Total KWH Generated I | I | Total KWH Sold | 559,264 2,837,967 3,397,231 1,698,616 | INCOME STATEMENT | REVENUES | Electric | 305,680 696,203 1,001, 883 500,942 Other | 0 0 0 0 Total | 305,680 696,203 1,001,883 500,942 | EXPENSES | Operating | 158,278 466,661 624,939 312,470 Maintenance | 55,809 25, 187 80,996 40,498 Depreciation | 19,568 70,087 89,655 44,828 Taxes | 464 13,036 13,500 6,750 Other | 0 0 0 0 Interest | 7,669 70,738 78,407 39,204 Total | 241,788 645,709 887,497 443,749 | O & M EXPENSES | Production | 101,081 328,776 429,857 214,929 Distribution | 0 21,609 21,609 10,805 Customer Accounts | 55,809 29,645 85,454 42,727 Sales | 0 0 0 0 Adm. & General | 57,197 111,818 169,015 84,508 Total | 214,087 491,848 705,935 352,968 02-May-89 KUSKOKWIM REGIONAL UTILITY DATA Annual PCE Data Reported To APUC From Non-Regulated Utilities | AKIACHAK AKIAK ATMAUTLUAK CHEFORNAK KOTLIK KWETHLUK KWIG NIKOLAI PUVURNAQ ITEM | ELEC. co. CITY OF JOINT UTILITY ELEC. CO. ELEC. SERVICES INC. POWER CO. CITY OF POWER CO. eer rere rrr rer rere rere [rvcec nce ee eee e cece cece eect teen teen teen ence ene e cece nce e eee ec ee ee eer ee nee ee ee ec enc ec ec enee en eeceeeecec ne eeeee nee ec ees es es Report Period- 1 Year Ending | 12/31/87 12/31/88 12/31/87 3/31/88 6/30/88 6/30/87 3/31/88 6/30/88 12/31/88 Total KWH Generated | WA NA NA NA NA NA 480,096 NA NA Total KWH Sold | 569,336 258, 222 448,167 370,954 499,237 629,915 384,895 248,805 401,396 WON-FUEL COSTS | Personnel Costs i Operations | WA WA 0 NA 16,486 NA 29,100 14,208 NA Administrative | NA NA 55,945 NA 0 NA 28,108 6,105 NA Other (ie Payroll Taxes) | WA WA 12,232 WA 4,571 NA 0 2,714 NA Subtotal | 55,021 28,160 68,177 24,956 21,057 57,128 57,934 23,027 67,969 Power Plant Parts & Supplies | Lube Oil | NA NA NA NA 619 NA 307 0 NA Oil/Fuel Filters | WA WA NA NA 0 NA 691 0 NA Small Tools | NA NA NA NA 0 NA 128 0 NA Other | NA NA NA NA 0 NA 1,437 2,900 NA Subtotal | 6,970 5,841 10,481 0 619 1,354 3,064 2,900 12,381 Repairs & Maintenance | Amortized Major Overhauls | NA NA NA NA 2,999 NA 0 0 NA Emergency Repairs | NA WA NA NA 0 NA 3,474 0 NA Rout ine Maintenance | NA NA NA NA 194 NA 1,387 1,141 NA Other | WA WA NA NA 0 NA 1,638 0 NA Subtotal | 19,909 948 5,064 7,489 3,193 21,779 6,449 1,141 16,822 Customer Accounts | 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 General & Administrative | Professional Services | NA NA NA NA 14,880 NA 0 4,774 NA Insivr ice ! NA Ne 10, 744 NA 0 NA 11,792 8,874 wa Office Expenses | NA WA 4,295 NA 960 NA 2,546 328 NA Vehicles | NA NA NA NA 0 NA 2,574 797 NA Travel | NA NA NA NA 0 NA 1,082 1,432 NA Other | WA NA NA NA 0 NA 3,496 500 NA Subtotal | 63,436 2,174 15,039 1,679 15,840 18,706 23,576 16,705 16,558 Depreciation | 17,962 0 0 0 0 25,665 0 0 0 Taxes | 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Interest Expense | 8,411 262 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other | 2,349 0 140 3,174 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL | 174,058 37,385 98,902 37,298 40,709 124,632 91,023 45,613 113, 730 Non-Fuel Costs($)/KWH | 0.306 0.145 0.223 0.101 0.082 0.198 0.237 0.183 0.285 03-May-89 KUSKOKWIM | SHELDON PT. TAKOTNA TELIDA TULIKISARMUTE = TUNTUTULIAK UNGUSRAQ ITEM | CITY OF COMM ASSOC. VILLAGE UTILITY INC. COMM. SERVICE POWER CO. TOTAL AVERAGE eee eee nee ewww www ww nnene Oa a aI OOO Report Period- 1 Year Ending | 12/31 87 6/30/88 6/30/88 *** 8/30/8 3/31/88 12/31/87 Total KWH Generated | WA WA 47,819 WA WA WA 527,915 263,958 Total KWH Sold | 220,457 139,262 41,090 248,658 457,541 126,527 5,044,462 336,297 WON-FUEL COSTS | Persoimel Cos .* | Operations | WA 5,896 NA NA NA NA 65,690 13,138 Administrative | WA 8,109 WA NA NA NA 98,267 19,653 Other (ie Payroll Taxes) | WA 3,034 WA WA WA NA 22,551 4,510 Subtotal | 32,165 17,040 0 25,271 61,879 24,950 564,734 37,649 Power Plant Parts & Supplies | Lube Oil | WA 800 WA WA NA NA 1,726 432 Oil/Fuel Filters | WA 900 WA WA WA NA 1a 398 Small Tools | NA 260 NA NA NA NA 388 97 Other | WA 0 WA WA NA NA 4,337 1,084 Subtotal | 2,242 1,960 0 0 0 0 47,812 3,187 Repairs & Maintenance | Amortized Major Overhauls | NA 166 NA WA NA NA 3,165 791 Emergency Repairs | WA 1,216 WA NA WA NA 4,690 1,375 Routine Maintenance | NA 3,656 NA NA WA NA 6,378 1,595 Other | NA 1,500 NA NA NA NA 3,138 785 Subtotal | 9,634 6,538 0 6,149 10,458 1,324 116,897 7,793 Customer Accounts 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 General & Administrative | Professional Services | NA 0 NA NA NA NA 19,654 4,914 Tsu; ance ‘ fee. 465 ua NA NA NA 31,875 6,375 Office Expenses | NA 1,850 WA NA NA NA 9,989 1,998 Vehicles | NA 1,800 NA NA NA NA 5,171 1,293 Travel | NA 1,704 NA NA WA NA 4,218 1,055 Other | NA 600 NA NA NA NA 4,596 1,149 Subtotal | 3,883 4,978 1,680 0 20,310 5,520 210,084 14,006 Depreciation | 795 0 0 0 2,230 651 47,303 3,154 Taxes | 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Interest Expense | 0 1,619 - 0 0 0 0 10,292 686 Other | 0 0 0 0 2,455 0 8,118 541 TOTAL | 48,719 32,135 1,680 31,420 97,332 36,361 1,010,997 67,400 Non-Fuel Costs($)/KWH | 0.221 0.231 0.041 0.126 0.213 0.287 - 0.200 03-May-89 KUSKOKWIM REGIONAL UTILITY DATA Data From FERC 1987 Annual Reports | ANIAK MC GRATH MID KUSKOKWIM ITEM | LIGHT & POWER LIGHT & POWER ELEC. COOP TOTAL AVERAGE Sescenaseeaeeenreees= [renee ence eee n nee e eee nee n eee een e eee een ee te een teen ee ee Total KWH Generated | 1,875,420 3,013,600 649,028 5,538,048 1,846,016 Total KWH Seid | 1,689,785 2,659,034 644 ,665 4,993,484 1,664,495 | sICOME £1 ATEMENT | REVENUES | Electric | 741,912 837,306 375,093 1,954,311 651,437 Other | 0 63,566 0 63,566 21,189 Total | 741,912 900,872 375,093 2,017,877 672,626 | EXPENSES | Operating | 439,412 605,365 339,970 1,384,747 461,582 Maintenance | 38,225 32,820 28,295 99,340 33,113 Depreciation | 98,628 55,190 78,128 231,946 77,315 Taxes | 40,959 0 0 40,959 13,653 Other | 5,239 0 0 5,239 1,746 Interest | 28,396 11,515 19,115 59,026 19,675 Total | 650,859 704,890 465 ,508 1,821,257 607,086 | O & M EXPENSES | Production | 322,848 407,115 191,473 921,436 307,145 Distribution | 0 0 0 0 0 Customer Accounts | 0 0 0 0 0 Sales | 0 0 0 0 0 Acte 2 General | 171327 786, 266 176,792 584,379 194,793 Total | 444,175 593,375 368,265 1,505,815 501,938 02-May-89 ITEM Report Period- 1 Year Ending Total KWH Generated Total KWH Sold WON-FUEL COSTS Personnel Costs Operations Administrative Other (ie Payroll Taxes) Subtotal Power Plant Parts & Supplies Lube Oil Oil/Fuel Filters Small Tools Other Subtotal Repairs & Maintenance Amortized Major Overhauls Emergency Repairs Routine Maintenance Other Subtotal Customer Accounts General & Administrative Professional S+rvices Insurance Office Expenses Vehicles Travel Other Subtotal Depreciation Taxes Interest Expense Other TOTAL Non-Fuel Costs($)/KWH ALLAKAKET ENERGY SYSTEMS 12/31/87 csss on . = on 2,553 1,987 0.0 23,128 0.220 ELEC. CO. 7,548 3,059 10,608 2,256 387 3,430 41 42 0.0 6,152 211 7,062 0.0 712 2,396 24,250 0.124 INTERIOR REGIONAL UTILITY DATA Annual PCE Data Reported To APUC From Non-Regulated Utilities ARCTIC VILLAGE BEAVER VILLAGE ELEC. UTILITY 4,675 27,129 150 130 432 712 cooopo 1,270 897 2,765 200 0.0 1,938 32,744 0.232 BIRCH CREEK UTILITIES 8/30/87 115,094 98,88? 13,261 asses 1,0 0.200 CIRCLE ELEC. UTILITY 12/31/87 WA 202,831 36,370 coooo coo 17,705 17,705 0.0 2,056 4,298 39 3,351 349% 13,238 5,433 0.0 2,295 75,041 0.370 EAGLE POWER CO. 12/31/87 NA 389,178 2,296 45,437 1,567 428 1,399 3,761 2,603 492 1,773 4,868 0 656 2,218 2,248 3,178 0 2,742 11,043 23,010 7,298 4,642 0 100, 058 0.257 EAGLE VILLAGE ENERGY SYSTEMS 6/30/88 NA 54,022 7,150 6,000 1,343 14,523 264 177 0 1,365 1,806 2,568 1,495 4,862 o 244 324 100 728 1,373 23,292 0.431 GALENA CITY OF NA 2,300,533 94,747 30,604 21,238 146,589 5,698 0 5,271 0 10,969 5,082 19,875 16,445 0 41,402 0 3,286 8,705 4,179 8,611 5,595 19,123 49,499 38,544 0 50,208 3,000 340,211 0.148 12/31/87 NA 124,957 NA NA NA 14, 483 NA NA NA NA 3,920 NA NA NA NA 5,856 NA NA NA NA NA NA 347 2,661 0 0 u 27,26/ U2 03-May-89 INTERIOR | KOYUKUK RUBY STEVENS VILLAGE TETLIN VILLAGE VENETIE AVR. LESS ITEM | CITY OF ELEC. CO. ENERGY SYSTEMS EWERGY COUNCIL ELEC. UTILITY TOTAL AVERAGE GALENA 5 [one-ee eee o~ ee = Report Period- 1 Year Ending | *4/30/88 6/30/88 8/18/88 3/31/88 3/31/88 = - Total KWH Generated | WA 551,916 113,932 NA NA 905 ,040 226,260 226,260 Total KWH Sold i 143,229 490,161 105,303 96,316 169,762 4,617,664 329,833 178,241 WON-FUEL COSTS | Personnel Costs | Operations | WA 40,398 NA NA NA 149,843 37,461 18,365 Administrative | WA 9,065 NA WA NA 45,669 11,417 5,022 Other (ie Payroll Taxes) | WA 8,019 WA NA NA 40,630 6,772 3,878 Subtotal | 10,212 58,591 9,515 5,352 12,947 421,009 30,072 21,109 Power Plant Parts & Supplies | Lube Oil | WA 2,102 NA NA NA 11,887 1,698 1,032 Oil/Fuel Filters | NA 4 NA NA NA 1,522 217 254 Small Tools | WA 2,084 NA NA NA 7,913 1,130 440 Other | NA 0 NA NA NA 3,583 512 597 Subtotal | 972 4,190 2,716 621 1,863 38,502 2,750 2,118 Repairs & Maintenance | Amortized Major Overhauls | WA 0 WA NA NA 7,650 1,093 428 Emergency Repairs | WA 4,432 WA NA NA 27,710 3,959 1,306 Routine Maintenance | WA 312 WA WA NA 17,290 2,470 141 Other | WA 1,672 NA NA NA 22,645 3,235 3,774 Subtotal | 0 6,416 810 4,105 1,962 91,980 6,570 3,891 Customer Accounts | 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 General & Administrative | Orn-essional Services ! NA 1390 Re we NA 13,569 1,938 1,714 Insurance | NA 0 NA NA NA 16,518 2,360 1,302 Office Expenses | NA 446 NA NA NA 8,637 1,234 743 Vehicles | WA 0 NA NA NA 11,789 1,684 530 Travel | NA 725 NA NA NA 10,892 1,556 883 Other | NA 9,715 NA NA NA 35,174 5,025 2,675 Subtotal | 4,044 12,246 3 617 7,347 113,292 8,092 4,907 Depreciation | 0 604 0 0 640 73,079 5,220 2,657 Taxes | 0 0 0 0 0 8,671 619 667 Interest Expense | 0 0 0 0 789 60,584 4,327 798 Other | 0 0 0 0 3,546 8,942 639 457 TOTAL | 15,228 82,047 13,114 10,695 29,094 815,968 58,283 36,597 Non-Fuel Costs($)/KWH | 0.106 0.167 0.125 0.111 0.171 s 0.177 0.205 02-May-89 INTERIOR REGIONAL UTILITY DATA Data From FERC 1987 Annual Reports | BETTLES FAR NORTH GWITCHYAA ZHEE = *MANLEY NORTHWAY TANANA ITEM | LIGHT & POWER UTILITIES UTILITY CO. —UTILITY CO. POWER & LIGHT POWER CO. TOTAL AVERAGE =o | Total KWH Generated | 951,000 155,340 2,219,300 NA 1,524,500 NA 4,850, 140 1,212,535 Total KWH sold | 830,119 143,017 1,913,357 220, 666 1,331,011 1,584 , 864 6,023,034 1,003,839 | INCOME STATEMENT | REVENUES | Electric I 373,530 80,248 578,608 128,678 366, 442 527,124 2,054,630 342,438 Other I 0 0 0 0 0 26,647 26,647 4,108 Total | 373,530 80,248 578,608 128,678 366, 442 551,930 2,079,436 346,573 | EXPENSES I Operating | 171,677 48,698 533,447 84, 784 248, 485 341,969 1,429,060 238,177 Maintenance | 10,123 6,753 15,985 2,390 7,038 24 ,827 67,116 11, 186 Depreciation | 0 17,251 54,951 13,662 58,965 61,806 206,635 34,439 Taxes | 0 1,433 0 1,164 0 40,982 43,579 7,263 Other | 0 2,437 26,560 3,154 (10,465) 0 21,686 3,614 Interest | 0 19,041 57,558 6,475 20,178 26,423 127,675 21,279 Total I 181,800 95,613 688,501 111,629 324,201 494,007 1,895,751 315,959 | & M EXPENSES | Production | 173,295 46,057 371,700 58,725 249,649 221,400 1,120,826 186 , 804 Distribution | 8,505 0 414 9,752 52,131 3,572 74,374 12,396 Customer Accounts | 0 0 465 0 0 30,478 30,923 5,154 Sales | 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Adm. & Genera! | 176,217 9,39% 190,424 18,697 22,320 111,286 528,338 88,056 Total | 358,017 55,451 562,983 87,174 324, 100 366, 736 1,754,461 292,410 | * Based on 1986 data. 03-May-89 ALEUTIANS BRISTOL BAY REGIONAL UTILITY DATA Annual PCE Data Reported To APUC From Non-Regulated Utilities | CHIGNIK CLARKS POINT EGEGIK EKWOK IGIUGIG KING COVE KOKHANOK KOL I GANEK MANOKOTAK ITEM | ELECTRIC CITY OF LIGHT & POWER ELEC. UTILITY VILLAGE COUNCIL CITY OF ELEC. UTILITY VILLAGE COUNCIL POWER CO. Pewee seaea cee eae eae eas eaeoene ee Report Period- 1 Year Ending | 12/31/87) *** 12/31/87 12/31/87 9/30/88 9/30/88 6/30/88 9/30/87 ? 6/30/86 Total KWH Generated | WA 208 ,620 WA NA 90,345 NA NA NA NA Total KwH Sold ' 333,095 193,590 59: ,576 99,947 80, 894 1,683,751 97,646 104,461 475,356 WON-FUEL COSTS Personnel Costs | Operations | WA WA NA 3,880 11,085 70,167 3,765 NA NA Administrative | WA NA NA 916 2,438 0 10,106 NA NA Other (ie Payroll Taxes) | WA NA WA 233 652 8,041 3,021 NA NA Subtotal | 29,838 7,367 103,504 5,029 14,175 78,208 16,892 2,298 20,519 Power Plant Parts & Supplies | Lube Oil | NA WA NA 125 0 3,115 0 NA NA Oil/Fuel Filters | NA NA NA 316 281 2,999 0 NA NA Small Tools | WA NA NA 200 3,308 3,282 0 NA NA Other | WA NA WA 286 4,122 5,733 0 NA NA Subtotal | 5,582 6,039 5,499 927 7,811 15,130 0 0 8,458 Repairs & Maintenance | Amortized Major Overhauls | NA NA NA 0 0 0 0 NA 0 Emergency Repairs | NA WA NA 203 50 1,495 0 NA 0 Rout ine Maintenance | NA NA NA 0 1,244 8,865 0 NA 0 Other | NA NA NA 0 781 12,686 0 NA 0 Subtotal | 14,113 1,826 8,066 203 2,075 23,046 0 441 0 Customer Accounts | 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 General & Administrative | Professional Services ' NA uA ua 996 1,560 8,713 0 NA Na Insurance | NA NA NA 0 879 6,729 2,141 NA NA Office Expenses | NA NA NA 0 540 535 1,117 NA NA Vehicles | NA NA NA 0 572 1,787 0 NA NA Travel | NA NA NA 0 770 523 0 NA NA Other | NA NA NA 0 311 0 487 NA NA Subtotal | 13,200 0 27,618 996 4,632 18,287 3,745 0 4,191 Depreciation | 115 16,863 16,649 0 936 33,023 0 0 19,291 Taxes | 0 0 2,540 0 0 0 0 0 0 Interest Expense | 0 8,238 10,069 0 0 20,770 0 0 0 Other | 2,555 506 0 0 0 0 0 0 U TOTAL | 65,411 40,838 173,945 7,155 29,629 188 464 20,637 2,739 52,459 Non-Fuel Costs($)/KWH | 0.196 0.008 0.328 0.072 0.366 0.112 0.211 0.026 U.11U 03-May-89 ALEUTIANS BRISTOL BAY | NELSON LAGOON PEDRO BAY PERRYVILLE PILOT POINT PORT HEIDEN ST. GEORGE ST. PAUL UMNAK UNALASKA | ELEC. COOP VILLAGE COUNCIL ELEC. UTILITY VILLAGE COUNCIL CITY OF ELEC. UTILITY ELEC. UTILITY POWER CO. CITY OF | eccccccs woccce wocee weer Report Period- 1 Year Ending | 12/31/87 3/31/88 9/30/87 6/30/88 12/31/87 12/31/87 6/30/88 12/31/87 6/30/88 Total KWH Generated | NA 156,480 NA NA NA NA 3,286,960 144,578 16,676, 762 Total KWH Sold | 249,548 82,469 183, 257 160,997 299,289 652,991 2,547,001 117,095 16,015,139 NON-FUEL COSTS | Personnel Costs | Operations | WA 12,620 8,400 7,585 4,176 NA NA NA NA Administrative | NA 3,750 7,200 600 4,632 NA WA NA NA Other (ie Payroll Taxes) | WA 826 1,243 845 445 NA NA NA NA Subtotal | 24,037 17,196 16,843 9,539 9,253 93,381 145,785 8,507 NA Power Plant Parts & Supplies | Lube Oil | NA 1,550 NA 1,094 1,039 NA WA NA NA Oil/Fuel Filters | WA 320 NA 983 267 NA NA NA NA Small Tools | NA 48 NA 0 0 NA NA NA NA Other | WA 0 NA 4,422 3,482 NA NA NA NA Subtotal | 0 1,919 5,975 6,499 4,788 0 14,830 2,944 387,672 Repairs & Maintenance | Amortized Major Overhauls | NA 0 0 0 0 0 0 NA NA Emergency Repairs | NA 454 0 0 2,892 0 0 NA NA Routine Maintenance | WA 2,881 0 0 0 14,119 664 NA NA Other | WA 537 0 0 2,455 0 17,926 NA NA Subtotal | 5,153 3,872 0 0 5,347 14,119 18,590 2,180 50,932 Customer Accounts | 0 0 0 0 0 938 0 0 10,227 General & Administrative | Professional Services ; Ma 0 n 0 0 7,180 70 NA NA Insurance | NA 303 0 3,928 1,497 27,656 12,035 NA NA Office Expenses | NA 13 0 119 0 0 0 NA NA Vehicles | NA 0 0 0 0 0 0 NA NA Travel | NA 490 0 0 0 0 600 NA NA Other | NA 25 0 431 0 101 1,115 NA NA Subtotal | $,212 830 0 4,477 1,497 34,937 13,820 7,665 403,833 Depreciation | 0 120 0 2,234 2 0 0 2,820 187,155 Taxes | 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 v Interest Expense | 0 795 0 1,061 4,038 2,087 2,635 1,349 43,844 Other | 0 0 0 0 0 0 142,541 Oo u TOTAL | 36,987 24,732 22,818 23,810 25,835 145,462 338,201 25,465 1,085,648 Non-Fuel Costs($)/KWH | 0.148 0.300 0.125 0.148 0.086 0.223 0.133 0.218 U.Ueds 03-May-89 ALEUTIANS BRISTOL BAY AVR. LESS TOTAL AVERAGE UNALASKA Report Period- 1 Year Ending I | | | Total KWH Generated | 20,563,745 3,427,291 777,397 Total KWH Sold | 23,968, 102 1,331,561 407,871 NON-FUEL COSTS | Personnel Costs | Operations | 121,678 15,210 15,210 Administrative | 29,642 3,705 3,705 Other (ie Payroll Taxes) | 15,306 1,913 1,913 Subtotal | 602,371 33,465 35,434 Power Plant Parts & Supplies | Lube Oil | 6,923 989 989 Oil/Fuel Filters | 5,166 738 738 Small Tools | 6,838 977 977 Other | 18,045 2,578 2,578 Subtotal | 474,073 26,337 5,082 Repairs & Maintenance | Amortized Major Overhauls | 0 0 0 Emergency Repairs | 5,094 463 463 Routine Maintenance | 27,773 2,525 2,525 Other | 34,385 3,126 3,126 Subtotal | 149,963 8,331 5,825 Customer Accounts | 11,165 620 55 General & Administrative | Professional Services | 18,519 1,852 1,852 Insurance | 55,168 Daou. 5,517 Office Expenses | 2,324 232 232 Vehicles | 2,359 236 236 Travel | 2,383 238 238 Other | 2,470 247 247 Subtotal | 544,940 30,274 8,300 Depreciation | 280,098 15,561 5,468 Taxes | 2,540 141 149 Interest Expense | 94,891 Sieve 3,002 Other | 145,602 8,089 8,565 TOTAL | 2,308,235 128,235 72,035 Non-Fuel Costs($)/KWH | 0.096 0.154 28-Jul-89 ALEUTIANS BRISTOL BAY REGIONAL UTILITY DATA Data From FERC 1987 Annual Reports | ANDREANOF INN LEVELOCK SAND POINT ITEM | ELEC. CO. ELEC. COOP ELEC. COOP ELEC. INC. TOTAL AVERAGE Seseocencasssostenaed [rvce eee ec recente nec ee eee cence en eee nent eee eee eee n eee ee ee ree een eee ee ee ee eens Total KWH Generated | 203,197 1,872,900 WA 6,646,958 8,723,055 2,907,685 Total KWH Sold | 200, 829 1,632,608 NA 6,412,828 8,246,265 2,748,755 | INCOME STATEMENT | REVENUES | Electric | 79,872 695,272 144,844 939,039 1,859,027 464,757 Other | 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total | 79,872 695,272 144 B44 939,039 1,859,027 464,757 | EXPENSES | Operating | 33,219 552,055 119,932 674,636 1,379,842 344,961 Maintenance | 14,311 15,119 0 57,938 87,368 21,842 Depreciation | 12,710 76,983 6,368 75,367 171,428 42,857 Taxes | 0 450 0 7,844 8,294 2,074 Other | 0 0 0 0 0 0 Interest | 4,429 66,925 3,443 27,080 101,877 25,469 Total | 64,669 711,532 129,743 909,968 1,815,912 453,978 | © & M EXPENSES | Production | 43,570 263,628 79,058 679,246 1,065,502 266,376 Distribution | 0 29,665 0 53,328 82,993 20,748 Customer Accounts | 0 30,572 0 4,438 35,010 8,753 Sales | 0 0 0 9,832 9,832 2,458 Adm. & General | 8,389 243,309 40,874 81,667 374,239 93,560 Total | 51,959 567,174 119,932 828,511 1,567,576 391,894