Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Nikolai Lighting Project, March 1989
CON Alaska Energy Authority 019 LIBRARY COPY Alaska Power Authority S Nikolai Lighting Project March 31, 1989 Acknowledgements Special thanks go to the residents of Nikolai for their cooperation in participating in this project. Ron Baker, Athena Logan and Roger Jenkins spearheaded this lighting project locally, and their leadership made it a success. They also reviewed the final report. The review committee in fact, spent a great deal of time evaluating this report and providing suggestions. Thanks goes to Joe Franco, Alaska Public Utilities Commission, and Alaska Public Power Authority staff Dick Emerman, Peter Hansen, Dave Denig-Chakroff and Brent Petrie. 3727/909/2 Con O1A Table of Contents Conmminity Proftle..c cs <cicesesice apie ssrikaie EXOCUCAVS DUNT 55 0055.8 oscd Saeticc Bice oe sale Meas ed ails eae ake o ets TEP OOREANGN: 565 5. ciowtigw ces wuee pier cosh neteeibtarsesce onde Bees Obi eerVGt.. <i. ccs. ceresee se secuce a Wtete bs waagee Mens wet Se Limitations. ...... ib clone ruusienmaahone caveiuete la RCH ales Sahota the Sis tC Methodoliogy:........... RPSICH I awe ola ile eG neha cig a lolsiaie’s eterkibie oles i ~ Survey Methodology... 15.55.0600. gia ag less a g's o-< Seber ~ COSt Savings Metnodo 1OGN.< 2 << cic cies cco ccs sess eoapelere ise Progect ResuIte... cident Wh ae aaa SS. . Changes in Residential Kilowatt Hour Use.............-. . Incandescent & Fluorescent Lighting Wattages........... . Bulb rGosts.. <3. i dpress AeleiaGaimisie = weiste'ss Me ipageis sie wees 3% - Calculating Dollar Savings from the PtGitine EROGCED «oso ce tw icin ccceeo vee ce Se ee . Estimated Savings to the Community and Ure See as 5 cin a Gaeea's eels er . Cost Paybacks for the Lighting Project... . Consumer Response to the Lighting Project.............. Bulb Performance Data... = SN I ode Sos ccna snes = MGRROCING Daum iaiS iesis stele a eiesiwec's Certara tase taint - Appliance Information..... evisteraitataiasiote.e disisie\eioic ae Electrical System Efficiency Improvements........eeeecceee . Generator Improvements...... eee eereee rr . Reconfiguration of Resistance Loads.......... . Distribution System... cc. e< Heating System Efficiency Improvements........cceceeceeeee « Waste Heat Project: «. 2% ascites Analysis of Nikolai's Power Cost Equalization Rates....... = GnaMges “IN UedItGy PMet Uses cscs sss ocise e's cine PeEne esas Evaluation of Fuel Cost Reductions on Nikolai's Power Cost Equalization Rate.......... Impact of Kilowatt Hour Sales Reductions on Annual Utility Cash Flow..... 3727/909/3 - i ween ecece 41 44 Impact of Changes in Utility Costs on Rates......... sissies 45 GONCMUSTONS) <2 stenieisissine <ecies Rieiscaiels ateaiciiniesete Danie siajsteisiatets cies 46 TASB Ess Table 1 Changes in Monthly Residential Kilowatt HOUT USE. s.ccic eeaeciacee Beiercicrs stein tia s cies c's i 14 Table 2 Changes in Appliance Inventory..... aiviavcielste siete 16 Table 3 Number of Appliances in Residential Households........eeeeeeee Sraisicrers:s 17 Table 4 Wattage Distribution Before ae Bulbs Were Installed...... pirasieas icici: «cis s 18 Table 5 Kilowatt Hour/Gallon Efficiency. Gall CUTaGtOns:. <3:80c/.' 5% slre slate sare sie sit Bais emis 7c 20 Table 6 Estimated Savings Split Between State and Community.......... hse eicieiers oo. eee 22 Table 7 Alaska Public Utilities Commission Approved Schedule of PCE Rates.......... Rflowiracleiss koe 3 39 Table 8 Changes in Utility Fuel Records Sikes eievste Seisrs eis 40 Table 9 Impact of Fuel Cost Changes ‘On PGE 'PayMents's ai 'sc00s¢ Riad tatetlare! bicleie sis stakes’ 6 43 GRAPHS . Changes in Residential Kilowatt Hour Use......... Breeers ils . Monthly Kilowatt Hour use for Lodge/Duplex Building........... ifetoreicts cteieierereane pio ee sols 32 A: PO BZE NC DOE CcEss Page Appendix A Monthly Meter ReadingS.......eeeeeeeeeceeees é 49 Appendix B- Preliminary Consumer Survey..... Bi Lieeteieheievess clsis 55 Appendix C Consumer Follow-up Survey......... iiciste siciele =. 60 Appendix D Distribution of Household Appliances......... 67 Appendix E Distribution of Incandescent/Fluorescent Lighting Wattages........ss.ceeee Seis hereisio ose 72 Appendix F Distribution of Bulb Costs........ Ramee cous 75 3727/909/4 eel 1 Community Profile Nikolai is located in interior Alaska on the south fork of the Kuskokwim River. It is roughly 200 miles northwest of Anchorage and 46 air miles east of McGrath. Nikolai has a cold climate with slight maritime influences during the summer months. Average daily maximum summer temperatures range from 60-70 degrees Fahrenheit, minimum winter temperatures are well below zero and may go as low as -60 degrees Fahrenheit. There are year-round employment opportunities with the school, city, clinic, post office, State Department of Transportation & Public Facil- ities' (DOTPF) airport maintenance facility, and store. Seasonal and part-time employment is provided by capital improvement projects. Other types of employment include guiding, subsistence hunting and gathering, and crafts. Native residents of Nikolai are shareholders in MTNT, Ltd., which is a village corporation formed by a merger of four Kuskokwim River village corporations: McGrath, Takotna, Nikolai and Telida. Locally, MTNT, Ltd., owns and operates a general store that sells food and supplies. Presently, there are 37 occupied homes in Nikolai. Most are constructed with logs and heated with wood. Oil supplements wood heat in a few public buildings. There are eight community buildings, including the lodge (Nikolai Inn), the school, the satellite communications building, combined public facilities building, community building, store, DOTPF maintenance shop and the Russian Orthodox Church. There is also a gazebo and a sod-covered traditional bath house which is used by town residents. 3727/909/5 = kia Nikolai was incorporated as a second class city in 1970. The City functions under a seven-member city council which employs an administra- tor. The tribal council, which is recognized by the federal government as the tribal governing body of the village, shares the same membership as the City council. They work with state and federal agencies on behalf of the community's residents. The current population is 119 inhabitants. U.S. census data shows a steady population growth: 88 residents in 1950, 85 in 1960, 112 in 1970, 91 in 1980 and 121 in 1985. 3727/909/6 -2- ALASKA ¢ FAIRBANKS McGrath © <— NIKOLAI e@ DILLINGHAM KODIAK \ PETERSBURG . WR ieee KLAWO Ke e KETCHIKAN wo Executive Summary The Nikolai Lighting Demonstration project was conducted from July 1987-June 1988. Its purpose was to measure energy savings from replac- ing incandescent with low-energy fluorescent lighting in 36 community residences. The project resulted in a 12.7% reduction in electrical use and an estimated savings of $1,151 in avoided oil costs for the communi- ty over the one year period. Other project objectives included the following: to determine the impact of changes in kilowatt hour sales on the utility's annual fuel and operating costs, to develop a profile of how homes use electricity; and to identify installation and operating problems with low-energy fluorescent bulbs. While the lighting project was underway, several other energy improve- ments were completed in Nikolai. These included replacing the City's generator and electrical distribution lines, installing a waste heat system, phase balancing the distribution system, and reducing the electrical requirements of the City's Lodge/Duplex building. A section of this report provides details on these projects, and empha- sizes the importance of evaluating all parts of the utility's system to determine the best type of improvement. These combined activities should result in significant fuel savings for Nikolai over the next several years. 3727/909/8 ee Using the simple payback method, the projects' costs and benefits are described in the table below. Nikolai Energy Improvements Cost/Payback Estimates Project Description Cost Estimated Estimated Payback ($) Fuel Savings Ist Year (Years )** (Gallons )* Savings ($)* Generator Replacement 8,000 3,200 5,000 1.58 Lighting Project 2,246 738 1,151 1395 Lodge/Duplex 4,000 1,000 1,560 2.56 Load Reductions Waste Heat Retrofit 19,000 4,700 7eaae 2259 Distribution System 123,000 5,000 7,800 16.00 cy Savings cannot be added. Multiple improvements affect savings calculations for the total system. ** ~~ Payback Years are based on assumptions such as fuel cost, system efficiency and estimated savings that may vary in practice. Without sub-metering households, electricity savings can only be es- timated. Estimates can be improved, however, by identifying how elec- tricity is used in the home. A preliminary household survey was conducted to accomplish this objec- tive. The survey identified the number and type of appliances in each home, and the lighting wattages before and after the low-energy fluores- cent bulbs were installed. This information was used to estimate the percentage of electricity used by light bulbs in community homes. 3727/909/9 - 5 - Monthly energy use for all residences began to decline three months after the bulbs were installed. Changes in appliance use were con- sidered negligible, and the decline was attributed wholly to the change in lighting. Monthly kilowatt hour use is described in Table 1 of the report. Savings were calculated by comparing electrical use for each household 12 months before and after energy-efficient lighting was installed. A follow-up consumer survey was conducted 12 months after low-energy fluorescent lighting was in place. This survey evaluates consumer response to the lighting project. It provides information on durabil- ity, lighting quality and costs of low-energy fluorescent bulbs. The results of the two surveys are discussed in the report. The report evaluates the affect of declining fuel costs on Nikolai's Power Cost Equalization (PCE) rate and consumer tariff. During the two year study, Nikolai's PCE rate dropped from 41.8¢ per kilowatt hour to 21.0¢. The community's tariff dropped from 60.0¢ to 50.0¢ per kilowatt hour. The final portion of the report discusses the potential impact of energy projects on utility cash flow and tariffs. This section presents different points to consider when planning an energy project. Both regulated and non-regulated utilities are discussed in this section. The report stresses the importance of prioritizing energy projects to achieve the best return on investment. Improvements in generator efficiency, for example, can have positive, long-term benefits in reducing utility fuel use and costs. These benefits can be realized quickly and can provide a positive cash flow from the date of installation and operation. 3727/909/10 -6- Each rural electrical system is unique, and should be considered as a whole when prioritizing energy projects. The projects in Nikolai demonstrate the effectiveness of looking at supply and end-use as a dynamic system. A combination of energy improvements keeps the whole system sized to the community's needs, and provides effective long-term savings for rural consumers. 3727/909/11 Sy Introduction Rural energy costs in Alaska are the highest in the nation. It is often noted that rural households spend almost 30% of annual income on heating and lighting expenses. This figure is quite high compared to the estimated 10% spent by urban households. Many rural Alaskans have limited cash incomes and employment opportunities, and the reduction in a home's operating costs is very important under these circumstances. Projects aimed at reducing utility costs for consumers can have a positive impact on homeowner budgets. In Nikolai, residents heat with wood, providing some relief from the high cost of heating oil. The cost of electricity is another matter--Nikolai has one of the highest utility tariffs in the state. At the time this study began in June 1987, Nikolai's 60 cent per kilowatt hour (KWH) tariff had just dropped to 50 cents. At the 60 cent rate, Nikolai's municipal utility was receiving the maximum Power Cost Equalization (PCE) rate of 41.8 cents/KWH. Over the course of the year, the approved rate dropped to 21.01 cents/ KWH. This was largely a result of the Alaska Public Utilities Commission (APUC) re-evaluation of Nikolai's fuel costs, fuel consumption, operating costs and other eligible PCE expenses. The complex and changing relationships between PCE and consumer rates tend to mask the long-term benefits of reducing utility costs through improved system efficiencies and reduced energy consump- tion. For purposes of this report, the analysis of cost savings for lighting project does not consider direct consumer savings. 3727/909/12 -8- The focus, on the other hand, is on generator fuel savings resulting from lower kilowatt hour requirements. E Objectives The overall objective of the lighting project was to evaluate the potential for reducing electric costs by improving residential lighting efficiencies. Other objectives were to: (1) determine the impact of changes in residential electric use on the utility's annual operating and fuel costs, (2) develop an electric end-use profile for residential consumers, and (3) identify installation and use problems associated with low- energy fluorescent bulbs. Limitations Analysis of these objectives was limited by several factors outside the control of the study. The following limitations were applied to the evaluation of project data: (1) No special residential sub-metering took place to separate lighting from appliance use. Lighting savings were based on estimates. (2) Degree day data were not considered. Residential electric heating load was assumed to be non-existent. (3) Appliance load was considered constant between the first and second year of data analysis. Consumers were surveyed after 12 months of data collection to determine changes in appliance 3727/909/13 ota) = use that might have taken place, but the effect of these changes was assumed to be negligible. (4) Other energy improvements were completed in Nikolai at the time the lighting project was underway. These improvements may have had an impact on utility costs in the second year of the study, but the effect they had on the analysis could not be quantified. (5) Household meter readings may have been affected by occupants transferring from one house to another, but it appeared that only 2 such moves took place. Methodology Work on the lighting project began in April 1987. The first step in the process was to collect residential meter data for a 12 month period prior to installation of the fluorescent bulbs. This period ran from July 1, 1986 to June 30, 1987. The low-energy replacement bulbs were installed in late June, when residential lighting use was the lowest for the year. A second 12 months of data was collected after bulb installation (July 1, 1987 - June 30, 1988). A LOTUS 1-2-3 spread sheet was developed to record monthly meter readings for the 36 homes in the study. Prior and current year monthly data was placed side-by-side, so that a seasonal monthly comparison of electric use could be established. A percent change in consumption was recorded for each prior year-current year month. Meter reading records are shown in Appendix A to this report. Six of the homes were removed from the data base during the course of the study. One household was removed because its meter was connected to the store and included non-residential loads which would have skewed results. Four others were removed because of 3727/909/14 - 10- spotty or inconsistent metering data, indicating possible vacancies for different periods of time. One was removed because the resi- dent could not be reached for preliminary survey information. Survey Methodology An initial survey was conducted by City staff prior to the onset of the project. The survey recorded data on the following items: (1) existing incandescent and tube fluorescent lighting wattages (2) location of installed lighting (living room, kitchen, bedroom, etc.) (3) appliances present in the household (4) the number of low-energy fluorescent bulbs needed for each household. This item allowed the survey form to be used as as a materials list, so that the bulk shipment of bulbs could be split and delivered to the appropriate residences. Preliminary survey results were tabulated in a LOTUS 1-2-3 spread- sheet. A copy of the initial survey form is presented in Appendix B to this report. Between July 1, 1987 and June 30, 1988, the City Administrator sent monthly meter data to Power Authority staff. Toward the end of June a follow-up survey was prepared, approved by the City Administrator, and mailed to the City for another round of house- hold interviews. Results of the first survey were taken to each residence, so that households could respond more accurately to questions concerning 3727/909/15 -ll- changes in appliance use. The follow-up survey recorded informa- tion on the following topics: (1) Quality of bulb performance. This section included a set of questions aimed at durability of the fluorescent bulbs and the quality of light provided. (2) Marketing information. This section tested consumer sensi- tivity to various price levels of low-energy fluorescent bulbs, to determine the likelihood of future purchases on the retail market. Residents in the survey were told about the longer bulb life of low-energy fluorescent bulbs in comparison to incandescents. The marketing section also asked consumers if they thought they had saved money using the bulbs for a 12-month period. (3) Appliance information. This section recorded information on prior year and current year changes in appliance use. Information recorded on this survey was tabulated on a LOTUS 1-2-3 spreadsheet. A copy of the follow-up survey and its results are presented in Appendix C to this report. Cost Savings Methodology The goal of cost savings methodology for the lighting project was to determine the volume of fuel saved by reducing kilowatt hour use. Operating and capital cost savings were not included in the analysis because the change in kilowatt hour sales was deemed too small to have an impact on these costs. It was assumed that 100% of the reduction in residential meter readings could be attributed to the reduction in lighting wattage. Fuel savings was determined by the following calculation: 3727/909/16 - 12- Gallons Saved = Kilowatt Hour Savings / System Efficiency System efficiency was averaged for the two year data collection period. Efficiency was based on annual kilowatt hour sales and fuel use information submitted to the Power Cost Equalization program. Average system efficiency for the 12 months preceding fluorescent bulb installation was 8.85 KWH/gallon (FY87). For the 12 months following installation (FY88), efficiency was calculated at 10.22 KWH/gallon. These two figures resulted in an average efficiency of 9.54 KWH/gallon, which was used in the analysis. Cost savings was determined as follows: Dollars Saved = Gallons Saved X Price/Gallon Price/Gallon was determined by taking a weighted average of monthly fuel costs reported by the utility to the Power Cost Equalization Program. A review of PCE data showed that 14 months of fuel costs were reported at $1.59/gallon and 10 months at $1.52. This re- sulted in a weighted average price of $1.56 per gallon. Cost savings methodology for non-lighting energy improvements is dis- cussed in Sections VI and VII of the report. Project Results Changes in Residential Kilowatt: Hour Use The base period for historical data was July 1, 1986 to June 30, 1987. Comparative data were collected for the 12 months following installation of low-energy fluorescent lighting in June 1987. Results for the 30 homes included in the study showed an overall annual reduction of 6,402 kilowatt-hours. 3727/909/17 - 13 - Comparative monthly data for the combined 30 homes is broken down in the table below. Month duly August September October November December January February March April May June Totals Changes in appliance use between FY87 and FY88 were Table 1 Nikolai Lighting Project _Changes in Monthly Residential Kilowatt. Hour Use FY87 Usage (KWH) 3,638 4,090 3,376 4,740 4,370 5,763 4,855 3,748 4,212 3,706 3,901 4,205 50,604 FY88 Usage Difference Difference (KWH) 4,162 3,524 3,858 3,756 3,783 4,421 3,538 35290 3,492 3,194 3,701 3,478 44,202 (KWH) 984 + - 566 + 482 -6,402 (%) +14. -13. +14. -20. -13. =2o. -27. -12. -17. -13. ="0. -17. N WRPORPRrPrWHROWOLF -12. identified so that savings resulting from the lighting project could be reason- Table 2 provides a description of these changes ably isolated. during the two years of the study period. 3727/909/18 = Aes -GI- KWH USE Nikolai Lighting Project: Changes in Residential KWH Use 6000 + 5500 + 5000 + 4500 + oN t t t t t t t 1 3000 4 t } | JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN @ FY87 FY88 Appliance changes were found to be negligible and assumed to have no effect on the analysis. Table 2 Nikolai Lighting Project Changes in Appliance Inventory House Number om Th A=zcCuNnonwv oO an a xcreoonnMmMooNgD << 3727/909/20 FY88 Appliances Discontinued none electric fry pan none none fry pan, coffee maker none hot plate none coffee maker; fry pan; wash machine; record player none coffee maker; radio; wash machine none wash machine, coffee maker, mixer none none none none hot plate none none none coffee maker, fry pan; record player None fan; coffee maker none coffee pot television ape FY88 Appliances Added refrigerator none none electric fry pan curling iron, VCR none none none none toaster stereo, hot plate mixer, heating pad, hair dryer hot plate; VCR none none deep fryer none refrigerator microwave fry pan, fan, bug zapper wash machine; humidifier electric starter for oven vacuum cleaner none none none Based on the initial survey, the three most widely-used appliances were the radio, solid state television set and the coffee maker. The fre- quency with which various appliances occur in households is listed in the table below. Table 3 Nikolai Lighting Project Number of Appliances in Residential Households Appliance Number Appliance Number Wener q Corfe Maker 21 Deep Fryer 2 E. Fry Pan 13 Hot Plate 6 Mixer z Stove/Oven 1 Toaster i Waffle Iron 0 Radio 28 Record Player T3 Water Heater 1 Iron 5 Washing Machine i2 Clock i Sewing Machine 8 Vacuum Cleaner - Electric Blanket 0 Portable Heater 2 Heating Pad 0 Humidifier i Hair Dryer 16 Color TV Black & White TV Tube 4 Tube 0 Solid State 22 Solid State 9 Water Pump Wd Water Bed 1 Fan 1 Welding Machine - Freezer Refrigerator 15 Gu. Ft: (FE)> 2 War Cu. Foe (EF) 0 15 3 12 5 20 10 15 4 25 4 30 3 FF indicates frost-free refrigerator or freezer The distribution of these appliances by household is presented in Appendix D to this report. 3727/909/21 =i is Incandescent and Fluorescent Lighting Wattages At the outset of the preliminary survey, the 30 homes had a total lighting wattage of 13,126. This figure included 306 watts of tube fluorescent lighting, which was carried over into the replacement lighting figures, so that equivalent before and after comparisons could be made. The initial incandescent and fluorescent lighting wattages in the 30 homes were as follows: Table 4 Nikolai Lighting Project Wattage Distribution Before ~ Low-Energy Bulbs Were Installed Living Room 4,882 watts Dining Room 1,620 watts Kitchen 1,677 watts Bedrooms 4,440 watts Bath 135 watts Hallway 97 watts Porch 275 watts TOTAL 13,126 watts Low-energy fluorescent lighting replacements reduced installed wattage from 13,126 to 2,801 watts (see Appendix E). It should be noted that some de-lamping occurred because of one-to-one bulb replacements. In some cases, for example, 100 watt incandescent bulbs were replaced with 60 watt fluorescent. Project savings were slightly affected because some before and after lighting levels were not equivalent. 3727/909/22 - 18 - Three types of bulbs were used in the project: Brand Fluorescent Incandescent Rating Equivalent (watts) (watts ) Mitsubishi G15 L 15 60 Philips Omega 750 17 60 Philips PL 13 13 - Bulb Costs As noted earlier, total materials and transportation costs for the project were $2,245.90. $1,217 in low-energy bulbs were installed in the 30 homes participating in the analysis. These costs were broken down as follows: Cost Breakdown for Low-Energy Lighting Brand Unit Cost($) Total Cost($) Mitsubishi G15L 8.03 915.00 Philips Omega 750 19.00 285.00 Philips PL 13 17.00 17.00 45217500 It should be noted that Mitsubishi bulbs are no longer manufactured, and retail costs of replacement bulbs may range from twelve to twenty 3727/909/23 - 19 - dollars. These higher costs should be taken into account in cost-savings evaluations for future projects. Appendix F provides information on materials expenditures by household. Calculating Dollar Savings from the Lighting Project Both the community and the state saved money and energy as a result of the lighting project. As mentioned earlier, there was a 6,402 kilowatt hour savings for the 30 residences over a 12 month period. Although there was some change in appliance use, this change was judged as having little impact on the drop in kilowatt hour use. Consequently, the total drop is attributed to lighting savings in this report. Estimated fuel savings for the lighting project, were based on avoided fuel use by the generator and avoided line losses. The annual 6,402 kilowatt hour savings was divided by an average system efficiency of 9.54 kilowatt hours per gallon for the two year study period. This calculation resulted in an estimated savings of 671 gallons of fuel oil. Note: System efficiency is calculated by dividing kilowatt hours used sold by gallons of fuel used for the entire system. Utility figures for monthly system efficiencies were used to establish an average efficiency for each of the two 12 month periods of the study. These figures were based on PCE data. System efficiency calculations are shown in the table below. Table 5 Nikolai Lighting Project Kilowatt Hour/Gallon Efficiency Calculations KWH Gallons Efficiency FY 87 ~ 237,672 26 845 8.85 KWH/Gallon FY 88 249,928 24,459 10.22 KWH/Gallon 3727/909/24 - 20 - The next step in the fuel savings estimate was to determine the average cost of fuel. This was done by calculating a weighted average of the monthly price during the 24-month data analysis period. In FY86 for example, the cost of fuel reported to the PCE Program was $1.59 for 14 months and $1.52 for 10 months. The weighted average of these costs comes to $1.56/gallon: 14 Months X $1.59 Gallon 10 Months X $1.52 Gallon 22.26 15520 37.46 / 24 = $1.56/gallon This price was multiplied times the 671 gallons saved from the lighting project. The resulting calculation showed an estimated cost savings of $1,047. An estimated 10% in avoided line losses was added to this figure, bringing total estimated savings to $T515%. Estimated Savings to the Community and the State These dollar savings are based on the share of utility tariff paid by the PCE Program and consumers each year. Nikolai's utility tariff was 60 cents/KWH the first year of the study and 50 cents/KWH the second year. The table below calculates an average 75/25 split in the tariff between the state and the community for the two year period. 3727/909/25 - 21- Table 6 Nikolai Lighting Project Estimated Savings Split Between State and Community Tariff PECL EPR aatee % Total Tariff Resident State Share Share Resident State (Cents/KWH) (Cents/KWH) (%) (%) 60.0 1832 41.8 30 70 50.0 10.6 39.4 21) 79 Using the $1,151 fuel savings estimate for the lighting project, the 75/25 percentage split shows an estimated savings of $863 to the state and $288 to the community. The table above assumes that all costs claimed in the utility tariff are approved in the APUC's PCE determination. This was not the case in Nikolai during FY88. For example, the PCE rate dropped from 41.8 cents/KWH to 21.01 cents/KWH during the two-year study period. The rate varied several times during the period, making an actual split between state and community savings difficult to calculate. For this reason, the average of the maximum allowable PCE rates at 50 and 60 cents were used to illustrate how savings can be shared. Cost Paybacks for the Lighting Project Simple payback for the lighting project is just under two years. This is based on a project cost of $2,246 and an estimated fuel savings of $1,151. If residents continue to use the low-energy bulbs, savings should continue beyond the simple payback period. 3727/909/26 - 22 - For example, low-energy fluorescent bulbs are designed to last about 7,500 hours. If each bulb were lit 6 hours a day for the two year break even period, use would total 4,380 hours per bulb. If this rate continued, each bulb would have a remaining 3,120 hours of life, allowing savings to accrue for the next 17 months after the payback period has passed. In reality, not all of the bulbs will be used 6 hours per day, and some of the fluorescent bulbs may burn out or be replaced with incandescents. Savings would need to be adjusted accordingly. Consumer Response to the Lighting Project Consumer response to the Lighting Program was documented in a follow-up survey with each household participating in the study. Three participants were not available for the final survey. The follow-up survey was conducted in late June by City staff. A copy of the survey results are presented in Appendix C of this report. Bulb Performance Data Of the 27 homes responding to the follow-up survey, 14 homes had replaced some of the low-energy fluorescent bulbs with one or more incandescents. Twenty-three out of 124 low-energy bulbs were removed in all. Only three of the 27 households experienced problems with bulb burn-out. Among the three, a total of 7 bulbs burned out. Ques- tions attempting to elicit information on the number of burned out bulbs replaced with new low-energy fluorescents produced inconsis- tent responses. The question on how many months the fluorescent bulb lasted before burning out, produced no responses. 3727/909/27 = 23 - Quality of Use Data Project participants were asked if the low-energy bulbs provided enough light. Ten households responded "yes" and 17 "no". Residents were also asked if they used supplementary lighting because the low-energy bulbs were too dim. Only one household indicated "yes"; the other 26 households had used supplementary task lighting prior to the onset of the project. Residents were asked if they "noticed anything different about how things looked under the low-energy fluorescent bulbs." While this question may have been a bit leading, it was designed to elicit questions on color perception. Twenty-two of the 27 households responded to this question, with the majority saying that "things looked too dim" under the fluores- cent lighting. Eight of the 27 households made reference to differences in colors under natural or incandescent lights and low-energy fluorescents. One individual, in fact, completed a bead work project where colors were chosen incorrectly using fluorescent lighting. Future residential lighting surveys should include questions about activities that rely on color differentiation so that appropriate task lighting can be provided. One resident said that the bulbs interfered with television reception and two noted start-up problems due to cold weather. The potential for cold weather start-up problems was known prior to the onset of the project, and it was recommended that the low- energy fluorescents not be installed in outside areas like porches. Future lighting projects, should also consider whether rural residents keep heat on inside homes during periods of extended absence. 3727/909/28 ae For example, if rural households are not connected to a community water system, there may be no need to maintain heat when homes are vacant. Cold houses may result in initial start-up problems for inside as well as outside fluorescent bulbs. The overwhelming comments on the dimness of the bulbs is a more serious consideration for future projects. The initial household survey established that the majority of incandescent bulbs in the living room, dining room and kitchen areas were 100 watts. Bedroom and bathroom areas contained some 100 watt bulbs, but also many lower-wattage incandescents. When many of the 100 watt incandes- cent bulbs were replaced with low-energy fluorescents, effective wattage was down-graded to 60. To remedy this problem, the possibility of installing adapters in dim areas of the homes will be investigated. These adapters will allow for the installation of two 15 watt fluorescent bulbs (120 watt incandescent equivalent) as a replacement for a 100 watt incandescent. When asked if residents had any problems in "using" the low-energy bulbs, 20 responded "no" and 6 "yes". One household did not respond. Of the six who noted problems, one said that incandescent bulbs and gas lamps were better than low-energy fluorescents. Another indicated that the fluorescents did not work well when cold, and a third said the lighting was too dim for cooking. The other three had no comments on problems with bulb use. When asked if they planned to continue using the low-energy fluo- rescent bulbs, 21 households said yes, 5 said no and one did not respond. 3727/909/29 - 25 - Marketing Data Residents were asked if they "thought that they had saved money using low-energy fluorescents for the past 12 months". Eighteen households did not know, seven said "yes" and two said "no". At best, it would be difficult for residents to determine savings, as their actual kilowatt hour costs were rising due to the decrease in Nikolai's PCE rate. Residents did not pay for low-energy bulbs used in the survey, so a question was asked to see what they would be willing to pay for these bulbs in the future. Residents were told that low-energy fluorescent bulbs cost more than incandescents, but they would last about 10 times longer (750 versus 7,500 hours). Households were then asked if they would buy the bulbs at four different prices. The response to this question is tabulated as follows: Bulb Price Yes No No_ Response $ 5.00 each 14 12 1 $ 7.00 each 2 24 1 $10.00 each 1 25 il $15.00 each 0 25 i It should be noted that the retail cost of the Mitsubishi G 15 L was about $15.00 in Anchorage at the time of the study. The retail costs of Philips bulbs used in the project ranged from $17.00 to $19.00. There does not appear to be sufficient motivation for consumers to purchase low-energy fluorescent bulbs above the $5.00 level. This fact should be considered in planning future lighting projects where bulbs are not provided as part of project cost. 3727/909/30 - 26 - Appliance Information The follow-up survey asked residents if they has added new appli- ances in the last 12 months of the study. Fifteen of the households had added one or more new appliances. Of those, four households had stopped using other appliances. An additional six households had stopped using one or more appliances, but had not added new ones. Two of the households added refrigerators in the second year of the study period, and a third household stopped using a television set. Other appliances that were added or deleted included things such as electric frying pans, curling irons, washing machines, deep fryers, vacuum cleaners and an electric oven starter. Information on household appliance changes is available in Appendix C. Electrical System Efficiency Improvements In 1985, Alaska Power Authority completed a Rural Technical Assis- tance audit of Nikolai's generation and distribution system. The community's concerns about safety and system reliability were the main reasons for the audit and the resulting projects described below. The photographs on the following pages illustrate many problems Nikolai residents experienced with the old system. Energy improve- ments to Nikolai's engine-generators, the electrical distribution system, and commercial buildings were completed in Nikolai at the time the lighting study was taking place. 3727/909/31 - 27 - Generator Improvements Before electrical improvement projects were initiated in 1987, two of the City's generators had burned out because fuse protection was lacking on old-style transformers. The remaining 85 KW engine generator unit was burning about 26,430 gallons of fuel annually. By reducing end-use loads and reconfiguring phase balances in the system, the City was able to run the entire system on smaller generators. New generator in existing powerhouse module. A 75 KW and a 70 KW unit were purchased to replace the two burned out generators. These units are now run alternatively in place of the 85 KW engine-generator, resulting in an estimated annual fuel savings of 3,200 gallons. At $1.56/gallon, estimated annual dollar savings for the generator replacements is about $5,000. Labor and materials costs for generator replacements are estimated at about $8,000. Simple payback based on these 3727/909/32 - 28 - ves figures is about a year and a half. In addition to the generator replacements, about $8,000 in improvements to the three power houses were also made. Improvements included replacing power house roofs, installing fire-treated plywood on walls, and putting new mufflers and battery charging systems on all three generators. New doors and lighting systems (including emergency lighting) were also added. An electronic governor was installed on the new 70 KW generator, and overload protection on both the 70 KW and 75 KW units. Vent systems were installed in the power houses. Reconfiguration of Resistance Loads One of the main problems with Nikolai's overall system design was the high number of resistance loads. Generator overload- ing was caused by both phase imbalances and large loads capable of coming on line simultaneously. In the Lodge/Duplex, a commercial building, three electric hot water heaters (5 kilowatts each) were replaced with one oil-fired hot water heater. Two of the electric hot water heater tanks were removed, and a third was kept for storing water heated by the two woodstoves in the Lodge. The new oil-fired hot water heater acts as a backup unit to the wood-fired/storage unit. The two systems were piped in series, with the oi] heater set to kick in if wood-fired hot water drops below 140 degrees Fahrenheit. Two small space heaters (3 kilowatts combined) were replaced with one non-electric unit heater connected to the circulating hot water system. A heat tape (about 1 kilowatt capacity) was also disconnected at the Lodge. 3727/909/33 - 29 - Electrical loads in the Lodge/Duplex were reduced to avoid problems with a theoretical peak load of 19 kilowatts on one phase of Nikolai's distribution system. Nikolai's electrical system is capable of providing 85 kilowatts of capacity when the largest generator is used, or 60 kilowatts when either of the two smaller generators is used. One phase is capable of supplying slightly more than one-third of the 60 kilowatt generator's capacity. Consequently, the Lodge's heavy load created problems for the entire system. One-phase and three-phase service connections to washeteria. The City Hall washeteria had two single-phase, 5-kilowatt dryers and two, three-phase washing machines. The 10 kilowatt dryer load was split among the three phases coming into the building. Five kilowatts was connected to one phase and 2.5 kilowatts to each of the two remaining phases. Nikolai's City Hall also had two service drops, one of which was eliminated 3727/909/34 - 30 - aus due to safety problems. The redistribution of this load also helped to balance the system, allowing the utility to use the smallest of the three generators without fear of overloading a single phase. No direct electrical savings can be attributed to the phase balancing activities at City Hall, although there will be some indirect savings from the utility's ability to operate a smaller generator with the same electrical load. Estimated labor cost for the work at City Hall was approximately $100. Improvements to the Lodge/Duplex cost approximately $2,500 in materials and $1,500 in labor. Since March 1988, when im- provements were completed, kilowatt hour meter readings for the Main Lodge showed savings as follows: Month Year Difference % Change 1987 1988 March 2,080 1,416 - 664 -31.9 April 1,494 253 -1,241 -83.1 May 1,247 231 -1,016 -81.5 June 1,327 16 -1,212 -91.3 July 1,114 122 - 992 -89.0 August 418 181 = 207. -56.7 September 538 198 - 340 -63.2 October 413 424 = eae 2.7 November 675 498 - -26.2 December 1786 562 -1,224 -68.5 Totals 11,092 4,000 -7,092 -63.9% Compared to the same ten months for the previous year, there has been a reduction of 7,092 kilowatt hours or 63.9%. Monthly kilowatt hour savings should continue to improve during January and February, as higher electric heating costs are avoided. 3727/909/35 - 31- 2500 7 2000 + - 2 - 1500 = KWH USE 1000 + 500 + Nikolai Lighting Project: Monthly KWH use for Lodge/Duplex Building MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC @ 1987 1988 A rough payback for Lodge/Duplex improvements can be calculat- ed using an annual 10,000 KWH estimated savings. Divided by a system efficiency of 10 KWH/gallon, about 1,000 gallons of fuel could be saved. At $1.56/gallon, this results in an annual savings of $1,560. Actual savings may be less due to lower fuel prices. Distribution System Electrical improvements in Nikolai included complete replace- ment of the distribution system. The old 480 volt, three- phase system had low clearances, distribution wiring was suspended from trees, and transformers were open and accessi- ble to children. Safety problems were considered extreme, as some transformers were as low as four feet off the ground. Project staff also discovered the use of overhead cable in an underground application, a situation posing extreme safety problems. Overhead line was buried under the airport runway and extended out to service customers in a separate part of the community. As mentioned above, the old distribution system included dry-style transformers with no fuses, which resulted in burnout of two generators. With all of these problems, the system was extremely inefficient, with line losses estimated as high as 25%. 3727/909/37 - 33 - Interior type transformers, exterior mounted 3 and 6 feet above ground. Uninsul- ated splices accessible behind cover. 480 volt. In 1987 a new 12,470 volt, three-phase system was installed throughout the entire community. Design and construction were based on Rural Electrification Association (REA) standards. Most poles were replaced and new poles were added to bring the system up to REA standards. A 7200 volt, underground, single-phase line was run to the north side of the runway to serve customers located away from the central part of the community. The project also included upgrading all service drops to homes and other buildings. 3727/909/38 eee Replacement cost for the entire distribution system was approximately $123,000. A portion of these funds was paid to the City for local work crew salaries, thus contributing to the local economy. The primary reason for replacing of the distribution system was safety, but fuel savings also resulted from reducing line losses. These savings are estimated by taking an annual net generation of 250,000 KWH per year and figuring 25% line losses at 62,500 KWH/year. Under the improved distribution system, a net generation of 250,000 KWH per year at 5% line losses yields 12,500 KWH/year, resulting in a _ reduced generation requirement of about 50,000 KWH/year. Close-up view of 480 volt duplex line mounted in tripod approximately 8 feet above ground. 3727/909/39 - 35 - ! Dividing this 50,000 KWH by a generator efficiency of 10 KWH per gallon, an estimated annual fuel savings of about 5,000 gallons may be realized from improvement to the distribution system. Using the average cost of $1.56/gallon for oil, this results in an estimated dollar savings of $7,800. With estimated project costs at $123,000 and first year savings of $7,800, a simple payback for this project is just under 16 years. The older distribution system also had high operating costs because the larger, 85 KW generator was needed to handle the high load requirement caused by extreme line losses. Reducing line losses by an estimated 20% and reducing commercial loads enabled the City to use a newer, smaller generator. All of these improvements resulted in increased reliability, fuel efficiency, lower operating costs and improved safety for the community. The original appropriation for this project was motivated by safety concerns, but system modifications resulted in energy savings as well. It should be noted that combined energy savings for generator, distribution system, and end-use improvements may be less than the savings that is calculated for each of the projects individually. Heating System Efficiency Improvements Waste Heat Project In 1987 the City of Nikolai completed work on an existing maintenance building. Originally constructed in 1985, the maintenance shop did not have a heating system. The original building consists of a two-story, 40' x 40' shop area and two 20' x 40' maintenance bays. The maintenance bays are used for 3727/909/40 - 36 - storage and repair of heavy equipment such as the City's fire truck and earth moving machinery. In 1988 the Power Authority designed and installed a waste heat system for the building. There are four separate generator buildings adjacent to the maintenance building; three belong to the City and one to the school. The cooling systems for the three City-owned generators were tied together with a heat exchanger system that transfers heat from the generators' jacket water to a circulating system in the maintenance building. Waste heat utilidor from generator house to maintenance building. 3727/909/41 - 37 - Heating lines from the power house were run about 20 feet to the maintenance building through a 12" x 12" fully-insulated utilidor. Heat is distributed through six unit heaters suspended throughout the building. A pump circulates anti-freeze through the distri- bution system. Separate unit heaters provide heat to the four power houses. Since this is a newly-installed system and there are no heating records for earlier years, fuel use was estimated to be about 4,700 gallons per year. Using the average fuel cost of $1.56 established for the lighting project, annual first-year costs for heating the building would be about $7,332 if this level of fuel consumption actually occurs. Estimated simple payback for the waste heat project, based on a $19,000 project cost, is a little over two and one-half years. This figure will vary depending on the actual avoided heating fuel costs, which will be available after the first heating season. Maintenance Building. 3727/909/42 - 38 - Analysis of Nikolai’s Power Cost Equalization Rates Between June 30, 1985 and June 30, 1988, the cost of diesel fuel decreased dramatically. In early 1985 Nikolai purchased fuel for 1.96/gallon. In its July 1985 report to the Alaska Public Utili- ties Commission, Nikolai noted a new purchase price of $1.74/gal- lon. By July 1986 the price had dropped to 1.59 a gallon, and July 1987 to $1.44/gallon. In June 1987, Nikolai's consumer tariff dropped from 60 to 50 cents per kilowatt hour. While operating cost had gone down over the past year, the decrease in tariff was largely due to lower fuel costs (price and volume used). Power Cost Equalization payments to Nikolai decreased as a result of these factors. The table below presents the changes that took place in the APUC payment schedule over the data collection period. Table 7 Nikolai Lighting Project Alaska Public Utilities Commission Approved Schedule of PCE Rates (Cents /KWH) (a) (b) (c) (d) Effective Tariff Operating Fuel Total Approved Date Cost Cost Cost Rate (¢/KWH) (¢/KWH) (¢/KWH) (a)+(b) |(c)-8.5 X .95 1327.85 60 15520 40.76 55.92 41.80* 8.01.86 60 15.16 26.67 41.83 31.66 122.37 60 10.06 26.67 36.73 26.82 9.01.87 50 10.06 25.40 35.46 25.61 12531687 50 13.52 17.10 30.62 21.01 * This computation is based on the maximum allowable PCE rate of 41.8¢/KWH. 3727/909/43 - 39 - As shown earlier in the report, it is important to separate the drop in tariff and PCE rates caused by reduced fuel costs, operat- ing costs, end-use conservation, and improvements in overall system efficiency. Changes In Utility Fuel Use This section evaluates changes in the amount of fuel used by the utility in the 12 months before and after lighting conservation improvements were made in Nikolai. The table below summarizes Nikolai's fuel use for the two-year period. Table 8 Nikolai Lighting Project Changes in Utility Fuel Records FY87 FY88 Month Gallons Gallons 7.86/87 2,494 1,050 8.86/87 2,700 1,958 9.86/87 2,450 1,346 10.86/87 2,588 25826 11.86/87 1,858 2,563 12.86/87 1,987 2,285 1.87/88 2,186 2,21 2.87/88 2,262 3,091 3.87/88 3,456 2,349 4.87/88 2,722 1,382 5.87/88 1,023 2,146 6.87/88 1,069 1,840 Totals 26,845 24,459 3727/909/44 = 40. There is not a uniform monthly decrease in fuel use, but end-of- year totals show an overall reduction of 2,386 gallons or about 9% over the previous year. Figures are not based on metered fuel use by the generator. It was estimated earlier that 671 gallons of oi] were saved by the lighting project. The remaining 1,715 gallon reduction in fuel use resulted from a combination of factors, including a reduction in load for the Lodge/Duplex. System efficiency improvements came on line at the end of March 1988, three months before the end of the two-year study period. Because of this, total fuel and kilowatt hour savings attributable to the improvements are difficult to estimate at this time. Evaluation of Fuel Cost Reductions on Nikolai’s Power Cost Equalization Rate During the two-year study period, Power Cost Equalization rate dropped from 41.8 cents/KWH to 21.01 cents/KWH. This reduction is broken down as follows: Amount of Cause Reduction {Cents 7KWH) January 1987 10.14 Between November 1985 and January 1987, Nikolai's purchase price for fuel dropped from $1.74 to $1.59 per gallon. This resulted in a change in the PCE rate from 41.80¢ to 31.66¢ per kilowatt hour. June 1987 - December 1987 10.65 The PCE rate was reduced from 31.66¢ to 21.01¢ 3727/909/45 Sate per kilowatt hour for this period. This drop was the result of a change in APUC-approved weighted average fuel cost from $1.59 to $1.51 per gallon (actual delivered costs dropped from $1.74 to $1.44 per gallon). The APUC determination also included fuel consumed during the year, rather then total fuel purchased. 20.79 Total reduction in PCE rate between 1985 and 1988. The formula for determining the Power Cost Equalization rate for each community is based on the utility's allowable fuel and non- fuel (operating) costs. Each component is calculated separately, and the two are added, to form the basis for additional compu- tations. Non-fuel costs may include things such as salary expenses, space rent, equipment rental and maintenance, depreciation and other general expenses. The fuel component of the rate is based on the number of gallons used and the cost per gallon. Residential consumers are credited with PCE payments on a kilowatt hour basis up to 750 kilowatt hours per month. The table below demonstrates the effect of a fuel cost reduction on the PCE rate calculation. Non-fuel costs remain constant in this example. In the fuel component of the PCE rate, revisions can be caused by changes in fuel cost, the amount of fuel used or the number of kilowatt hours used. The table below shows the effect of fuel price changes on the PCE rate calculations and PCE payments for utilities with tariffs of 50 cents/KWH or higher. 3727/909/46 - 42 - Table 9 Nikolai Lighting Project Impact of Fuel Cost Changes on PCE Payments Price/ Gallons Annual PCE Op PCE Fuel New PCE New Total Gallon Used Energy Cost Comp Component Rate Rate ($) Sales (Cents/KWH) (Cents/KWH) (Cents/KWH) (C/KWH) (KWH) (a) (b) (a)+(b) | (c)-8.57*,95 1.96 25,000 238,000 10.06 20.59 30.65 21.04 1.74 25,000 238,000 10.06 18.28 23.34 18.85 1.59 25,000 238,000 10.06 16.70 26.76 17835 bz 25,000 238,000 10.06 15.97 26.03 16.65 1.45 25,000 238,000 10.06 15523 2529 15295 Summary Annual Price Reduction PCE ($/Gallon) Saved From To ($) 1.96 1.74 bi2e5 1.74 1.59 3,562 P59 52 1,662 Te52Z 1.45 1,662 In this example, figures are annual. Kilowatt hour sales, the operating cost component of the PCE rate, and fuel use remain constant so that the impact of fuel price changes on the fuel cost component can be demonstrated. System efficiency, established by dividing energy sales by gallons of fuel used, remains constant with those figures. The PCE fuel component is calculated by multiplying fuel cost times the number of gallons used and dividing by the number of kilowatt hours sold. After the fuel cost component is revised, it is added to the operating cost component. For utilities whose PCE level is based on eligible costs, 8.5 cents is subtracted from this total and the 3727/909/47 - 43 - resulting figure multiplied by 95% to determine the new, approved PCE rate. Savings in PCE payments are calculated by multiplying the new, approved PCE rate times a constant, annual kilowatt hour sales of 238,000. Annual dollar savings are calculated by subtracting new payment levels from old. Impact of Kilowatt Hour Sales Reductions on Annual Utility Cash Flow Although overall kilowatt hour sales in Nikolai did not decrease between the first and second years of the study, there is potential for utility revenues to drop as a result of reduced sales in communities where conservation improvements are implemented. Fuel loan payments or other fixed costs continue--a factor which may have a short-term impact on a utility's cash flow. For conservation activities which reduce utility revenues, the cash flow problem may be limited to fuel loans. Few utilities have long-term, fixed debt (depreciation and interest) because their systems are "contributed" by state grants. Here, the major cash flow consideration is the interest and principal owing on short- term fuel loans. For example, if there were an annual drop in sales of 20,000 kilowatt hours, fuel use would go down accordingly (depending on generator efficiency). At the end of the year, the utility would have a fuel surplus over the previous year and would not have to buy as much fuel in year two. The level of payment on the fuel loan for year one, however, would remain the same. The utility might have to renegotiate the fuel 3727/909/48 SAgy = loan over a two-year period to allow sufficient time to recover funds through second year revenues. Unless the utility is in a situation where it has long-term debt, the impact of reduced revenue stream on the utility is probably temporary in nature. If it is not, the utility's solution is a rate increase to cover the costs not met by the reduced revenue stream. Impact of Changes in Utility Costs on Rates Will tariffs decrease if fuel and generating costs are reduced? Allowing for variations in consumer payments caused by surcharges, the answer is "yes" for a regulated utility. The regulated utility is allowed only a certain profit margin, which would increase if costs went down and the tariff remained constant. Regulated utility profit margin is generally calculated on a rate base (plant assets used to provide electrical service). For exam- ple, if there were a 50-50 ratio between long-term debt and return on equity, the allowable profit margin would be calculated by multiplying 50% times the interest rate (say 10%) on long-term debt and 50% times the rate (say 13%) return on equity. These two figures would be added together and multiplied times the rate base to arrive at the allowable profit margin. Annual changes in profit margin can be estimated by dividing the net operating income of the utility by the rate base at the end of each year. In cases where rates are not reduced, but utility costs are, the consumer receives only partial cost/benefit, while the utility receives a larger cost/ benefit (profit) as a result of reduced expenses. 3727/909/49 - 45 - This report does not deal with the potential for changes in utility rates brought about by changes in operating costs. The utility's manner of identifying expenditures, covering administrative costs and handling collections is the subject of another evaluation. It should be pointed out, however, that there is potential to impact rates through improved management efficiencies and accounting procedures. Conclusions This study underscores the importance of using energy and cost savings to prioritize projects. Communities should focus on the types of energy projects that provide the best long-term return on investment. For the short term, end-use electrical conservation projects should be geared to communities with an immediate potential to exceed existing generator capacity. Here, the replacement cost of a newer, larger generator can be delayed by implementing low-cost programs to reduce average load requirements or shave peaks. By reducing the number of kilowatt hours sold, a future generator purchase may be avoided. When purchased, the generator may be smaller and have lower operating costs. The purchase and operating costs of the current generator compared to a smaller, more efficient generator will determine the long-term cost savings to the community. On the other hand, existing engines may be derated to improve fuel efficiency at a lower cost than purchasing a newer, smaller engine- generator set. The improvements described in an earlier section of this report are an example of this type of efficiency improvement. 3727/909/50 = AG. = Communities should consider different types of end-use projects to accomplish load reductions. For example, large electrical loads and peaks in many rural communities are caused by a single commer- cial facility (such as the school). Implementing a load management program and reducing overall end-use requirements for a single facility may have a more positive, long- term impact on utility costs than a residential load reduction program. Commercial load management might lower the facility's peak requirement and keep the generator's load factor within acceptable limits. The purchase of a larger, more expensive generator might be delayed for a comparatively small investment in commercial end-use improvements. The short-term impact of electrical end-use conservation projects, (residential and commercial) should also be quantified so the community can project their impacts on revenues and operating costs. As mentioned earlier in the report, there are avoided line loss and fuel costs attached to reducing kilowatt hour sales. In the case of the residential lighting project in Nikolai, savings were estimated to be about $1,153. In Nikolai's case, the drop in residential sales was offset by an increase in other sales, and a cash flow problem did not result. This may not be the case with other utilities. Conservation projects which lower utility revenues without signifi- cantly dropping costs, may cause tariff increases over the long- term. The net result for consumers could be payment for fewer kilowatt hours at higher rates. Projects which lower PCE rates for non-regulated utilities may result in actual cost increases to consumers if tariffs are not reduced accordingly. Finally, the impact of fuel price on consumer tariffs and Power Cost Equalization rates should be considered by rural communities 3727/909/51 - 47 - in future energy projects. As Table 9 shows, there is a positive impact on PCE rates as the price of fuel is reduced. If tariff reductions follow, rural consumers will benefit through lower utility payments. This underscores the importance of bulk fuel purchases, bulk fuel storage, and any other fuel marketing activ- ities that promote fuel cost savings. Along with this, fuel metering, generator metering and other activities which document fuel and operating costs should be carefully implemented. Alaska Power Authority's FY90 budget and pending draft regulations address the importance of metering rural electrical systems. Along with metering, fuel oi] sales by the electric utility to non-utility buyers should be carefully documented to keep accurate records on total fuel costs. These activities will assist with the accurate measurement of cost and volume savings in _ future electrical conservation projects. 3727/909/52 - 48 - APPENDIX A Monthly Meter Readings 3727/909/53 Ay = COMPARATIVE MONTHLY ENERGY USE (KWH) CITY OF NIKOLAI FY 1987 - 1988 [house | wr | | HOUSE JUL JUL | MONTHLY AUG AUG |MONTHLY NUMBER 1986 1987 poe | 1986 1987 |PERCENT | | (KWH) (KWH) | CHANGE | | (KWH) (KWH) | CHANGE 7 1 1 8 131 126 -3.8%| 115 117 1.7% c 56 9% 67.9%] 69 52 -26.6% D 180 210 16.7% 203 169 -16.7% E 164 119 aa 165 130 -21.2% FF | 7 39 7 4 23 | 475.0% F 107 92 14.0% 93 80 -14.0% G 129 128 0.8% 140 103 =26.4% J 217 288 | 7 228 189 “17.1% 4 223 104 | -53.4% 108 123 13.9% HH 84 22 a 78 10 -87.2% EE 15 42 | 180.0%] 33 40 21.2% DD 189 260 37.6%| 276 180 -34.8% K 37 143 | 286.5%] 95 137 46.2% L 1 | 35 | 218.2%] 9 25 177.8% \M | 147 17% 18.4% 160 124 -22.5% N 54 | % 77.8% 75 87 16.0% O 131 129 1.5% 121 90 -25.6% P 209 | 220 5.3% 181 218 20.4% R 119 157 31.9% 168 120 -28.6% Q 146 136 6.8% 132 122 -7.6% s 131 135 3.1% | 139 117 -15.8% U 267 285 6.% 288 225 -21.9% W 92 45 51.1% 48 40 -16.7% r 203 182 -10.3% 377 185 -50.9% Y 51 122 139.2% 90 222 146.7% v 192 292 52.1% 212 296 39.6% z 119 126 5.9% 122 135 10.7% cc 1 | 13 | 1200.0% 27 22 -18.5% AA | 239 288 20.5%| | 334 143 -57.2% JA 7 60 | 757.1% 0 0 0.0% 3,638 4, 162 14.4% 4,090 3,524 -13.8% SAb0% = | | SEPT 1986 (KWH) 104 47 189 138 36 65 104 219 90 41 40 208 93 | aah 129 61 91 174 158 109 77 | 289 32 211 68 167 111 11 309 0 3,376 SEPT 1987 (KWH) 1s 54 171 205 76 81 123 185 109 101 50 202 84 0 131 1s St 229 144 127 110 218 43 173 157 280 130 7 258 113 3,858 ! | MONTHLY |PERCENT | | | |CHANGE | | 27.9%! 14.9%] -9.5% 48.6% 111.1% 24.6%] 18.3%| -15.5%| | 21.1%] 146.3%] | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 5 | 2 ie ee | -100. | 1 | 5 | 4 | | | | | | | | | | | FEQNK<AECHORVOZ EMR HOUSE NUMBER om om 63 205 111 163 90 174 206 93 97 392 54 280 120 233 127 230 112 MONTHLY PERCENT CHANGE CITY OF NIKOLAI COMPARATIVE MONTHLY ENERGY USE (KWH) FY 1987 - NOV NOV 1986 1987 (KWH) (KWH) 11 93 137 78 384 260 47 109 4 101 20 | 20 150 158 218 199 213 215 98 127 108 61 155 114 134 100 42 7 173 142 88 54 95 35 188 143 229 110 133 42 88 69 471 319 110 97 313 202 172 191 184 204 36 135 26 20 263 378 0 0 EG ee 1988 |MONTHLY PERCENT CHANGE | 133 173 152 | 182 112 114 | 200 248 | 142 146 791 | 133 338 219 276 114 768 21 DEC |MONTHLY 1987 |PERCENT (KWH) | CHANGE eee ceeeee [rrcreecee 1160] > “174% 83 | -26.5%] 402 | 15.9% 81 | 84.1% 118 | | 21 | -59.6% 208 | = 46.5% 229 | -19.1% 214 | “16.7% 139 | 63.5% | 68 | -48.9% 84 | 51.4% 118 | 22.4% 20 | 300.0% 167 | -8.2% 17 | -86.8% 62 | -45.6% 100 | -50.0% 120 | -51.6% 38 | -73.2% 80 | -45.2% 438 | -44.6%| 109 | 18.0% 259 | -23.4% 183 | -16.4% 294 | 6.5%] 136 | 19.3% 28 | -22.2% 489 | -36.3% Oo | 0.0% 4,421 23.3% PRPAN<KALCCHWORVOZ ERA om om >a 28 (61) 213 232 136 70 94 89 14 134 5 69 74 120 30 53 248 109 300 134 263 112 PERCENT CHANGE -28.2% -215.1% -16.1% 11.58] 76.6% CITY OF NIKOLAI COMPARATIVE MONTHLY ENERGY USE (KWH) FY 1987 - 1988 FEB | FEB Loca 1987 1988 |PERCENT (KWH) | (KWH) | CHANGE 125 7% | -40.8% 85 39 | -54.1% 300 270 | -10.0% 65 33 | -49.2% oe 22 | 29 | 31.8% 235 64 | -72.8% 216 | 175 | -19.0% 108 | 234 116.741 80 | 116 a 90 | 59 | +36.4% 97 77 | -20.6% 87 57 | 34.5% 12 0 | -100.0% 11 101 onl 90 17] -81.1% 57 44 -22.8% 129 82 | -36.4% 159 1 | “Za es| 43 26 | -39.5% 122 60 | -50.8% 283 257 -9.2% 104 3% | -9.6% 279 210 | -24.7% 106 110 3.8% 166 199 19.9% 87 126 44.8% 79 30 | -62.0% 263 537 | 104.2% 148 | 0 | 7 | | | 3,748 3,295 212.4 eee a 240 192 173 60 137 320 92 236 109 211 115 48 148 MAR |MONTHLY 1988 | PERCENT (KWH) | CHANGE 107 “ase 48 46.1% 212 | “30:53 150 | | 61 | 54 | 22.74| 20 | -84.1% 195 | -26.4% | 210 | 38.2%| 121 | am | | 58 | -25.6%] 146 | 19.3%] 75.|.. Gamal 7 | -76.7% 129 | -66.3% 0 | -100.0%| 66 13.8%] 0 | -100.0% 99 | -42.8% 27 | -55.0% 64 | -53.3%| 402 25.6% 110 19.6% 172+]. -2734% 141 29.4% 223 | 5.7% 109 “5.2% 18 | -62.5%] 368 | 39.9%] 100 | = | | 3,492 17.1 CITY OF NIKOLAI COMPARATIVE MONTHLY ENERGY USE (KWH) FY 1987 - 1988 ecccccccc | occccccce ee see eeeeee tee eee ee [ee eee eens rink | Jocsecceee cers t te sl seiscin ces HOUSE APR APR |MONTHLY MAY MAY |MONTHLY JUN | JUN |MONTHLY NUMBER 1987 1988 |PERCENT 1987 1988 |PERCENT 1987 1988. | PERCENT (KWH) (KWH) | CHANGE (KWH) (KWH) | CHANGE (KWH) (KWH) | CHANGE eee ec eee [eee cece ee |e eee ee eee fee e cece e |] | [eee eee eee | -- eee eee |e eee eee ee |orreceee eee cccece feccccccce |p 103 100 | 2.9% 134 173 | 29.13| 129 | 159 23.3% c 49 | 33 “32.7% 738 13 | -83.3% | 97 9 | -90.7% JD 223 227 1.8% 272 234 14.0% 220 | 198 10.0% E 128 138 7.8%| 143 164 14.7% 139 136 -2.2% FF 44 32 -27.3% 0 38 0.0% 80 | 19 | -76.3% | F 68 | 67 21.5% % 90 | 4.3x| 97 102 ERR |g % 64 | -31.9% 100 9 | “1.0% 125 | 109 | -12.8%| J 170 206 21.2%| 250 | 251 0.4% 317 227 | -28.4% H 11 165 48.6%| 130 | 157 20.8% 167 168 0.6% HH 65 101 = 41 105 | 156.1% 54 0 | -100.0% | EE 39 53 35.9% 43 48 11.6% 55 | 49 | -10.9%| joo 191 183 | —-4.2%| 257 173 | -32.7% 251 | 163 | -35.1% IK 69 104 | 50.7%| 70 127 | 81.4% | 109 120 10.1%| JL 39 1 -97 4% 20 10 | -50.0% 15 13. | -13.3% M 149 130 | -12.8% 154 129 | -16.2% 148 122 | -17.6% IN 62 1 -98.4% 82 8] -90.2% | 85 8 | -90.6%] jo 117 49 | -58.1% 132 40 | -69.7% | 142 | 114 -21.8% P 154 0 | -100.0% 192 4 | -97.9% | 225 1 -99.6% IR 140 | 100 =28.6% 159 122 | -23.3% 153 116 | -26.2% Q 157 52 -66.% 46 125:|. 171 te | 146 126 | -13.7%| s 122 75 -38.5% 1 114 25.3% 115 130 13.0% U 249 164 -34.1% 271 425 56.8% 337 | 287 | -14.8% W 95 | 102 7.4% a) 121. | 101.7% 45 102 | 126.7% T 198 318 60.6% 218 133 | -39.0% | 191 184 “3.7% Y 106 92 “13.2% 144 132 -8.3% 162 209 29.0% v 238 234 “1.7% 262 253 “3.4% 272 243 | -10.7% z 86 99 15.1% 128 131 2.3% 150 139 *7.3% cc 32 20 | -37.5% 23 30 30.4% 24 | 24 0.0%| AA 263 284 8.0% 215 252 17.2% 90 200 | 122.2% A 145 0 | -100.0% 92 0 | -100.0% 65 4 0.0% ERR | | | | | | | 3,706 3,194 —--13.8% 3,901 3,701 5.1% 4,205 3,478 17.3% - 53 « CITY OF NIKOLAI Comparative Annual Kilowatt Hour Sales FY87-FY88 prt21 TOTAL TOTAL |TOTAL 1987 1988 |PERCENT (KWH) (KWH) | CHANGE 1,482.0 | 1,429.0 set. | 1,023.0 646.0 -36.9 3,117.0 | 2,861.0 +8.2 1,342.0 | 1,504.0 12,1 271.0 801.0 195.6 769.0-| 723.6 -6.0 1,555.0 | 1,130.0 2n3 | 2,917.0 | 2,602.0 -10.8 | 2,009.0 | 2,101.0 4.6 870.0 | 1,079.0 24.0 816.0 639.0 “Hit 2,324.0 | 1,885.0 | 18.9 | 1,131.0 | 1,242.0 | 9.8 200.0 139.0 -30.5 1,898.0 | 1,615.0 +14.9 980.0 493.0 49.7 1,228.0 754.0 -38.6 2,178.0 | 1,293.0 -40.6 2,089.0 | 1,427.0 Sieg 1,304.0 944.0 | °27.6 1,369.0 | 1,089.0 | -20.5 4,439.0 | 3,554.0 719.9 981.0 | 1,003.0 2.2 3,152.0 | 2,551.0 3901 1,501.0 | 1,820.0 2133 2,613.0 | 3,011.0 15.2 1,249.0 | 1,490.0 | 19.3 378.0 254.0 -32.8 4,652.0 | 3,839.0 ALS | 50,604.0 44,202.0 “Wer aoG4 APPENDIX B Preliminary Consumer Survey 3727/909/56 ; - 55°- Alaska Power Authority and City of Nikolai NEROUCAL bb G@ hla @ } PR Oude ET Homeowner Name: Review Date: 7512a/687/5 ee, APPLIANCE INFORMATION Please check if you have any of the appliances listed below. 7512a/687/4 Blender Coffeemaker Deep Fryer Electric Frying Pan Hot Plate Mixer Electric Stove/Oven Toaster Waffle Iron Radio Record Player Freezer (indicate if Frost Free) ile GU ratats sn ONOe GU Titke _. other size Refrigerator seas enCU leather gcuee LO CURE it other size Electric Water Heater = 57. = Iron Washing Machine Electric Clock Sewing Machine Vacuum Cleaner Electric Blanket Portable Heater Heating Pad Humidifier Hair Dryer Television Color Tube Solid State Black and White Tube Solid State Other Other Other LIGHTING INFORMATION Please provide information on the wattage and number of electric bulbs you use for more than one hour every day: ROOM WATTAGE LOCATION ADAPTOR NEEDED HARP mye 7512a/687/3 - 58 - MATERIALS TO ORDER ITEM QUANTITY COST 7512a/687/6 ogre APPENDIX C Consumer Follow-Up Survey 3727/909/55 - 60 - ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY LIGHTING DEMONSTRATION PROJECT Consumer Followup Survey PURPOSE The purpose of this survey is to find out what you thought about the low-energy fluorescent light bulbs that were put in your house last spring. We are interested in your ideas, because we want to know if we should recommend the bulbs to other communities. We are also trying to estimate how much energy you saved by using the light bulbs, so we will need to ask some questions about your appliances too. Your help in answering the following questions is appreciated. We would like to thank you for participating in this one-year demonstration project. QUESTIONS Performance Data How many low-energy fluorescent light bulbs did you have installed in your house last spring? Did you take any of these bulbs out? Yes No Did any of the light bulbs burn out over the last 12 months? Yes No How many? If yes, about how many months did the bulb(s) last before they burned out? months. Did you replace them with another low-energy fluorescent bulb, or with an incandescent? Fluorescent Incandescent (Indicate how many of each) 5023/940(1) =o Quality of Use Data Did the low-energy fluorescent light bulbs give you enough light? Yes No Comments Did you use lamps with incandescent bulbs to provide additional lighting in rooms where the low-energy fluorescent bulbs were installed? Yes No Did you use lamps in those areas before the bulbs were installed? Yes No Did you notice anything different about how things looked under the low-energy fluorescent bulbs? If so, what is your opinion? Yes No Comments Did you have any problems using the bulbs? Please describe them. Comments Will you continue to use the low-energy fluorescent bulbs? Yes No 5023/940(2) - 62 - Marketing Data Do you think that you saved any money using low-energy fluorescent light bulbs this year? Yes No Low-energy fluorescent bulbs cost more than incandescent bulbs, but they last about 10 times longer (about 7500 hours). If the low-energy bulbs were available in your store, would you buy them at the following prices: (please answer each question) $ 5.00 each Yes No $ 7.00 each Yes No $10.00 each Yes No $15.00 each Yes No Appliance Information Last year we did a survey that asked you about the type of appliances you had in your home. Have you added any new appliances to your house- hold since last June? Yes No Please Describe (include wattage if possible) Have you stopped using any appliances that you were using last year? Yes No Please Describe (include wattage if possible) Occupant's Name House Number Community Date 5023/940(3) Ose m m PEQN<K<ACCHORVOZEFAG o ° Nikolai Lighting Project Consumer Survey Appliance Information Results New Appliances Added refrigerator none none electric fry pan curling iron, VCR none none none none toaster washing machine stereo, hot plate mixer, heating pad, hair dryer | hot plate; VCR none none deep fryer none refrigerator microwave fry pan, fan, bug zapper wash machine; humidifier electric starter for oven vacuum cleaner none none none none electric fry pan none none frying pan, coffee maker none hot plate none coffee maker; fry pan; wash machine; record player none coffee maker; radio none washing machine, coffee maker, mixer, frying pan none none none none hot plate none none none coffee maker, fry pan; record player none fan; coffee maker none coffee pot television GALE cCOMNOXRVOZER-AOM T < Vv N cc = Nikolai Lighting Project Consumer Survey Quality Data Results | | Enough | Supplement | Used | Light |Incandes. | Incand. | Before | | | ere [oceeee cess [ee eee eee yes yes | yes yes yes | yes no no no | no “no no | no | yes no | no no no no no yes no | no no | no no | no yes no no no no no ae yes | no | no | yes yes yes yes no no yes no no | yes yes yes no no yes no yes yes no no yes no no no no no no no no yes no no no yes no no yes yes yes no no no Summary Question Enough Light Supplement Incandescent Used Incandescent Before - 65 - not very bright too dim; changed color color of clothes changed dramatically too dim; things looked blurry things looked red; changed colors household things no comment too dim dim no comment too dim; wouldn't light when cold no comment no comment no comment too dim; things looked different too dim; changes colors of things too dim for sewing beads too dim and dull too dim; changed color things in house just as bad as having candle lit low blue light; mot good for porch outside too dim don't work when cold; interfere with TV only enough light when two put together Yes Ty 33 27 37 No (%) 68 a 63 Nikolai Lighting Project Consumer Survey Quality Data Results : ; Marketing Results HOUSE |Problems tinal Comments Saved Acceptable Price NUMBER Using | To Use? on future Money? Bulbs Use $5 $7 $10 $15 |B none yes don't know x 0 0 0 ic: none no yes x 0 0 0 D none no don't know x 0 0 0 E none yes sometimes; only in winter |don't know xX 0 0 0 FF none | yes for awhile |don't know 0 0 0 0 none | no don't know 0 0 0 0 | none | yes in the bedrooms |don't know 0 0 0 0 |J none | yes don't know x 0 0 0 H yes | yes gas lamp; incandescent better |don't know 0 0 0 0 HH EE yes yes no comment |don't know 0 0 0 0 |DD none yes no comment |don't know 0 0 0 0 K none | yes no comment |don't know x 0 0 0 L M none | yes no comment yes xX x x 0 N 0 yes yes no comment |don't know 0 0 0 0 |P none yes no comment yes x 0 0 0 R no yes no comment |don't know x 0 0 0 Q none yes no comment yes x 0 0 0 s none no don't think so no 0 0 0 0 U none yes only in certain rooms |don't know x 0 0 0 W none no don't think so no 0 0 0 0 T none yes no comment |don't know 0 0 0 0 v none yes no comment |don't know 0 0 0 0 Vv yes yes because have backup |don't know x 0 0 0 z, yes yes |too low for cooking; use remaining|don't know x x 0 0 cc none yes no comment yes x 0 0 0 AA yes yes don't work when cold yes 0 0 0 0 A none |yes too dim, but saved energy yes 0 0 0 0 47% 7% 21% 0% Summary Question Yes No Don't Know ) (%) Ue) Gae Problems Using Bulbs 20 80 0 Continue to Use? 83 17 0 Saved Money? 23 7 60 - 66 - APPENDIX D Distribution of Household Appliances 3727/909/56 - 67 - “>< <>< >< <>< > KO x | | x x | ‘ | CITY OF NIKOLAI RESIDENTIAL APPLIANCE INVENTORY FY87 - FY88 Hot Plate Mixer x x x x| x x x x x x x x x S692 Electric Stove/ << << x >< KK OK << KOK OK OK “xx OK KK <x KK KK OK x x KO <>< << KK OK SEQNS<Ae Cue VOZERR om om Frost Free 15 Cu Ft. <>< >< xx CITY OF NIKOLAI RESIDENTIAL APPLIANCE INVENTORY FY87 - FY88 <x 2569: = 12 Cu Ft. Frostless Refrigerator | 12 Cu Ft. Other | [Electric Water Heater >< on zErxRnom PEQN< <tc CHvenvdz ER KOM Washing |Electric rs Clock x x x x x x x x x x x xX x CITY OF NIKOLAI RESIDENTIAL APPLIANCE INVENTORY FY87 - FY88 Electric |Portable Machine | Cleaner | Blanket Heater | (oo Re x x X x x | x ‘ | ‘| | x | | 7 0R9 >< > > KK KOK x | | HOUSE NUMBER <<anfcCHORDO zErxgn >PrPON Po Television Color Tube Solid State >< >< >< > > KK OK OK KOK OK OK << CITY OF NIKOLAI RESIDENTIAL APPLIANCE INVENTORY FY87 - FY88 Te e€ Viiasiicon Black and White Tube Solid State <>< x >< a7 <>< >< <>< >< Other Water Bed Other Welding Machine APPENDIX E Distribution of Incandescent/Fluorescent Lighting Wattages 3727/909/57 - 72 - CURT: Gee LIGHFENG WAT FERORESEEUT Cts ipo con Oo eno eoneoonnpnoose 2g iBRRRR ASR 8X RSE SRRSRSRASRECESSS ge E “ae: ao ee — ——— ——. — : ; 8 rs ; : = = one : ee : . ° . — St cil siiandia inate > : « p . N i = . o . mal : € 3 k a § ik $8 88 88 888 SKRB8EE KBgeaass e : = ee ee -=- - KHAN NN NN a a ’ ig-@@ ge g2 e880 Se 8 eS 88 a Ta nN = = = = N r4 z : Sop 22s a 2 ae 88 83 Ss S88RR ak =§ : - = = - Neer ef : — a . a* : no eon o oo eoo eo ° oooooco g, iRBSRS REN RE S28 SEH SRSRRRSSARKE bs : > . 2a; ~ : Laine Ae igecipinlienlagnitla elit Aerio we: w . ge : t@mvoowk uor zz UBwsxrzoancons z+ >>anbsda 1,620 1,677 3,645 635 160 135 7 275 13,126 4,882 paague CITY OF NIKOLAI Changes in Net Lighting Wattage _ Incandescent to Fluorescent Conversions | No. | Total Unchanged New House |Fluorescent| Fluorescent |Remaining Total Number |Replacement| Replacement |Wattage Wattage | | Bulbs | Wattage (W) | B 5 | 75 75 c 2 96 66 162 D 5 75 75 Ee i 105 105 FF 4 | 60 60 0 0 F 2 | 30 30 G 4 60 60 J | ie | 105 105 0 H 2 75 73: HH a 45 45 0 0 0 0 EE 4 60 60 | oD 3 85 40 125 K 4 230 230 ie 3 129 80 209 M 5 89 40 129 N 4 60 60 ° 4 60 60 Pp 2 110 80 190 R 4 60 60 Q 6 9% % s 5 81 81 U r 105 105 WwW 4 60 60 T 6 90 90 ¥ 5: 77 77 Vv 6 9% % 60 60 cc 5 75 75 AA 8 120 120 A e 30 30 129 2,495 306 2,801 27 APPENDIX F Distribution of Bulb Costs 3727/909/58 CITY OF NIKOLAI Installed Fluorescent Lighting Costs By Heusehold | Total Bulb Replacement Costs Total House $8.03 $19.00 $17.00 Retrofit Number GI5L Omega 750 Philips PL13 Cost ($) Fs ciisdidh ge eco bs eee Meo B 40.15 40.15 c 16.06 16.06 D 40.15 40.15 E 56.21 56.21 FF Se-12 | 32:12 0.00 F 8.03 19.00 27.03 G 32.12 32.72 J 56.21 56.21 0.00 H 40.15 40.15 HH 8.03 38.00 46.03 0.00 0.00 EE 32.12 32.12 DD 24.09 24.09 K 32.12 32.12 L 8.03 38.00 46.03 M 8.03 38.00 46.03 N 32.12 32.12 ° 3242 32.72 P 16.06 16.06 R a2ale 32.12 Q 32.12 38.00 70.12 s 16.06 57.00 17.00 90.06 U 56.21 56.21 WwW 32.12 32.12 T 48.18 48.18 iv ae.T2 19.00 St.ae v Te 38.00 70.12 0.00 cc 40.15 40.15 AA 64.24 64.24 A 16.06 16.06 915.42 285.00 17.00 1217.42 76%