Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Load Forecast & Power Market Analysis, City of Unalaska, Alaska, January 1987
LOAD FORECAST AND POWER MARKET ANALYSIS CITY OF UNALASKA, ALASKA PREPARED FOR THE ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY R. W. BECK AND ASSOCIATES, INC. ENGINEERS AND CONSULTANTS: JANUARY 1987 Paration upon the intended | Load Forecast and Power Market Analysis City of Unalaska, Alaska Prepared for the Alaska Power Authority by R. W. Beck and Associates, Inc. Seattle, Washington January, 1987 R. W. BECK AND ASSOCIATES, INC ENGINEERS AND CONSULTANTS RO. BOK 2400 FOURTH & BLANCHARD BUILDING Le oer SITKA, ALASKA 2121 FOURTH AVENUE | 99835 — SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 96121 206-441-7500 ENO. PHENO. $S-1559-EP1-AX January 5, 1987 Alaska Power Authority 701 East Tudor Road Anchorage, Alaska 99503 Pursuant to our agreement, we have completed a Load Forecast and Power Market Analysis for the City of Unalaska. This report sets forth the results of our analysis, including alternative scenarios representing low, base case, and high forecast assumptions. We appreciate the cooperation both of the Alaska Power Authority and of the City of Unalaska personnel in provid- ing information and materials necessary for the completion of this study. Respectfully submitted, RUWTak aid Aetretoty Section II III IV Table of Contents Title Letter of Transmittal List List of Tables of Figures Introduction and Summary of Results Introduction Report Overview Summary of Results Consideration and Limitations Prior Studies of Unalaska Unalaska Overview General Profile Recent Population and Employment Economic Activity and Growth Potential: The Fisheries Industry Economic Development Potential: Other Areas Existing Power Facilities and Loads City of Unalaska Electric Utility Data Sources and Methodology Residential Usage Commercial Usage Municipal Usage Total Non-Industrial Load Survey of Existing Large Commercial Customers and Commercial Generators Load Overview Descriptions, Installed Generation Capacity and Power Requirements of Individual Companies Potential for Extending Power Market Forecast Scenarios Demographic and Economic Assumptions Base Case Forecast Assumptions Base Case Forecast Low Case Scenario Assumptions Low Case Scenario Forecast High Case Scenario Assumptions High Case Scenario Forecast Monthly Load Distribution Summary of Forecast Results References Appendix Page Number ean oe)eeeeese OoODmfrw— II - 1 Il - 2 Il -7 II -12 III- 1 III- 2 III- 4 III- 7 III- 9 III-11 <x<e<c<ecccc<c< ' _ N om ' oe OWOWODNNAADH LS HL ' oowoov om Tee eee rene ' ~ Oo a List of Tables Title Summary of Forecasted Energy Requirements Summary of Forecasted Peak Demand Summary of Low, Base Case, and High Scenario Results Installed Generation Capacity of the Industries Large Commercial and Self Generator Assumptions and Basic Data Anticipated Industrial Loads at Various City Power Costs Industries Base Case Forecast Assumptions Non-Industrial Energy Requirements Base Case 1984-1993 Non-Industrial Energy Requirements Base Case 1994-2006 Total Estimated Community Energy Requirements 1986-1996 Total Estimated Community Energy Requirements 1997-2006 Total Estimated Community Peak Demands 1986-1996 Total Estimated Community Peak Demands 1997-2006 Industries Low Case Forecast Assumptions Non-Industrial Energy Requirements Low Case 1984-1993 Non-Industrial Energy Requirements Low Case 1994-2006 Total Estimated Community Energy Requirements 1986-1996 Total Estimated Community Energy Requirements 1997-2006 Total Estimated Community Peak Demands 1986-1996 Total Estimated Community Peak Demands 1997-2006 Industries Forecast Assumptions High Case Non-Industrial Energy Requirements 1984-1993 Non-Industrial Energy Requirements 1994-2006 Total Estimated Community Energy Requirements 1986-1996 Total Estimated Community Energy Requirements 1997-2006 Total Estimated Community Peak Demands 1986-1996 Total Estimated Community Peak Demands 1997-2006 Non-Industrial Monthly Distribution Peak Demand and Energy Requirements Industries Estimated Monthly Distribution Peak Demand and Energy Requirements Historic Demographic and Economic Data Dutch Harbor Finfish and Shellfish Landings City of Unalaska Electric Department - Monthly Operating Results from 1984 to 1986 City of Unalaska Electric Department - Estimated Sales, Generation, and Customers from 1982 to 1986 ii Page Number mH — ee <_< <= = <= <<<<< << << << cece ec c cc = > > FP ' ' > w ann eee ' _ oon @ Figure Number “se ' nom et tt et et oo AnNDNPWNH— III-1 III-2 III-3 III-4 III-5 III-6 III-7 III-8 III-9 III-10 III-11 _ <= ' ~ ONANPWNH— List of Figures Title City of Unalaska - Energy Requirements Base Case Forecast City of Unalaska - Base Case, Low and High Scenarios Unalaska Population Unalaska Total Private Monthly Employment Unalaska Monthly Employment by Fish Processors Unalaska Sales and Use Taxes Unalaska Enplanements Dutch Harbor Finfish and Shellfish Landings Dutch Harbor Finfish and Shellfish Ex-Vessel Value Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Groundfish Yields Residential Usage Per Customer - Full PCE Coverage Residential Usage Per Customer - Above PCE Maximum Residential Usage Per Customer - All Residential Customers Small Commercial Usage Per Customer Large Commercial Customer - Alascom Monthly Sales Large Commercial Customer - Carl's Store Monthly Sales Municipal Usage - City Accounts (Excluding School) Monthly Sales City of Unalaska School Monthly Sales Unalaska Electric Customers Unalaska Estimated Monthly Sales Unalaska Estimated Monthly Generation City of Unalaska Industrial Load at Current Rate Levels City of Unalaska Energy Requirements Base Case Forecast City of Unalaska Energy Requirements Low Case Scenario City of Unalaska Energy Requirements High Case Scenario Anticipated City Energy Requirements - Three Scenarios Anticipated City Peak Demand - Three Scenarios City of Unalaska Non-Industrial Energy Distribution City of Unalaska Non-Industrial Peak Load Distribution City of Unalaska Total Industries Energy Distribution iii <<<<<<<< ' _ SECTION I INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF RESULTS Introduction The Alaska Power Authority is in the process of evaluating the feasibility of an electric generating plant which would utilize a productive geothermal reservoir near the Makushin volcano some 12 miles west of the City of Unalaska, Alaska (Unalaska or the City). In order to assist in the evalu- ation of this project, a market analysis of potential energy requirements for Unalaska was deemed necessary. Historically, the City utility has served a limited load consisting primarily of residential, small commercial and munici- pal users. The City utility has recently added two large industrial customers which have greatly increased the City utility's power supply requirements, and the utility is in the process of negotiating service agreements with other in- dustrial customers that will add significant additional requirements. Because of this change in load requirements and the limited historic data that was available for earlier load forecast analyses, the Power Authority has request- ed that a new 20-year forecast for Unalaska be prepared. This study has been conducted by R. W. Beck and Associates, Inc. pursuant to an agreement with the Power Authority. The study was conducted using historic data obtained from existing records at the City, from direct surveying of potential industrial customers and others knowledgeable about the area, and from other studies recently conducted in the area. The specific scope of services which was the basis of our study and this report can be sum- marized as follows: 3. 1-2 Collect historic data from City utility records on customers, demand, energy, revenues, generation and losses, as available. Interview major existing and potential industrial and large com- mercial consumers concerning power loads and energy consumption patterns for peak and typical days, fuel and operating cost data, future demand and energy requirements, potential for wheeling pow- er, quantity of waste heat recovered, and other data, as available. Prepare a power market analysis and forecast of large potential loads under the assumption that self-generators switch service to the City utility and develop a matrix of forecasted loads as a function of price of electric service from the City. Model the City utility's residential and commercial classes using linear time series regression and econometric analysis basing elec- tric energy consumption on population projections for the area. Develop a 20-year forecast for the system and the community by month based upon the analysis performed in the above tasks, includ- ing various scenarios for oil prices for self-generation, combined with the industrial/commercial market analysis to form a matrix of load forecasts and electric service prices. I-3 6. Prepare draft and final copies of a report summarizing analysis results and methodologies and provide data bases and computer models to the Power Authority. Report Overview This report contains analyses and results with respect to the fore- cast of future energy requirements of the City of Unalaska. Existing utility data were analyzed in order to estimate residential, commercial, and municipal usage by month from March 1984 to August 1986. An analysis of various causal factors that explain the change of usage per customer over time was prepared including weather, electric rates, and employment growth. Projected numbers of customers and usage per customer were developed and based on these analys- es, 20-year forecasts of the City utility's non-industrial load were prepared for low, base case, and high growth scenario assumptions. All existing industrial self-generators in Unalaska were inter- viewed to ascertain the current costs of self-generation and the likelihood of buying power from the City utility in the future. An analysis of possible City utility sales to existing and future industrial customers was used to prepare alternative forecasted loads as a function of the price of electric service from the City utility. These forecasts were combined with forecasted non-industrial loads of the City utility to prepare 20-year energy forecasts for both the system and the community representing low, base case, and high growth scenarios. As the number of industrial customers that eventually purchase power from the City utility is likely to be dependent on the rates 1-4 charged for that power, anticipated loads representing alternative energy re- quirements and peak demand levels for both the City utility and for the total community were developed for each scenario which correspond to alternative power cost levels. Section II of this report presents an overview of the City of Unalaska, including a general profile of the community, historic population and employment trends, and a discussion of the potential economic growth of the City. The City's electric utility is examined in Section III, including historic usage patterns of various customer groupings and statistical relationships between customer usage patterns and potential causal factors. Section IV presents the results of a survey of the major self-generating sea- food processors and other industrial companies in Unalaska, and an analysis of the likelihood of these potential loads becoming customers of the City utility is discussed. The anticipated load on the City utility, as well as the total community power requirement under alternative economic growth scenarios over the next 20 years, are estimated in Section V and the likelihood of each industrial self-generator joining the City's system under different electric rate assumptions is examined. Summary of Results Based on the assumptions and analyses discussed in this report, the demand on the City utility is likely to see rapid growth over the foreseeable future and particularly during the next five years (see Tables I-1 through I-3 and Figures I-1 and I-2). In the base case forecast, the City utility's non-industrial energy requirements are projected to increase from 3,876 MWhs I-5 Table I-1 City of Unalaska Summary of Forecasted Energy Requirement Base Case Forecast (MWhs) Compounded Growth Rates 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006 1986-1991 1991-2006 Non- Industrial Load 3,876 4,834 5,528 6,166 6,752 4.5% 2.3% Existing Customer Load 11,206 15,504 16,498 17,436 18,322 6.7% 1.1% Anticipated Load on City Utility 11,206 30,324 36,568 42,756 44,192 22.0% 2.5% Forecasted Community Load 21,436 39,554 46,148 52,706 54,542 13.0% 2.2% Table I-2 City of Unalaska Summary of Forecasted Peak Demand Levels Base Case Forecast (kW) Compounded Growth Rates 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006 1986-1991 1991-2006 Non- Industrial Load Vai, 920 1,052 1,173 1,285 4.5% 2.3% Existing Customer Load 2,257 3,244 3,447 3,638 3,820 6.6% 1.1% Anticipated Load on City Utility 2,257 7,622 9,105 10,578 10,996 26.5% 2.5% Forecasted Community Load 5,747 9,872 11,455 13,028 13,546 11.4% 2.1% Table I-3 City of Unalaska Summary of Low, Base Case, and High Scenario Results Anticipated Load on City Utility Compounded Growth Rates 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006 - - Energy (MWhs) Low Scenario 11,206 21,349 21,619 21,910 22,203 13.8% 0.3% Base Case 11,206 30,324 36,568 42,756 44,192 22.0% 2.5% High Scenario 11,206 40,767 47,820 55,056 57,808 29.5% 2.4% Peak Demand (kW) Low Scenario 2,357 5,484 5,536 5,591 5,647 18.4% 0.2% Base Case 2,257. 7,622 9,105 10,578 10,996 26.5% 2.5% High Scenario 2,257 9,922 11,558 13,231 13,902 . 33.3% 2.3% Energy Requirements (Mwh) (Thousands) Energy Requirements (Mwh) (Thousands) CITY OF UNALASKA, ALASKA Figure I-1 Energy Requirements——Base Cose Forecast 70 60 4 50 4 40 Self—Generating Industria) 30 Anticipated Total City Utility Load 20 industrials Under Contract with City Utility 10 Non—Industrial Load +} nn A Sa | 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 2006 City Utility Lood at 1986 Rates 25 ¢/kwh ° = 14 — 15 ¢/kwh 4 < 5 ¢/kwh CITY OF UNALASKA, ALASKA Ne Three Energy Requirement Scenarios i" ny 60 50 4 40 4 High Case Scenario 30 4 Bose Case Scenario 20 4 Low Case Scenario 10 °°. >, ——~ T —+ $$, + ——4 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 2006 Source: See Tables V-3, V—7, and V—11 I-6 I-7 in 1986 to 6,752 MWhs in 2006, representing a 2.8% annual rate of growth. The most rapid growth, however, is likely to occur during the next five-year per- jiod, when a 4.5% growth rate is forecasted for the non-industrial load as a result of moderate development of the groundfish processing industry in Unalaska. A comparable growth of the City utility's non-industrial peak demand is also projected. As explained later in this report, the level for the non-industrial energy requirement also represents the anticipated load on the City utility at effective rates above 25¢ per kWh in 1986 dollars, assum- ing current fuel prices. Forecasts for the anticipated load and the peak demand on the City system at the current effective rates for industrial customers (approximately 14¢ to 15¢ per kWh) are projected to increase from an estimated annual re- quirement of 11,206 MWhs in 1986 to 44,192 MWhs in 2006 (a 22.0% growth rate from 1986 to 1991 and 2.5% growth rate thereafter) and reflect the addition of several existing large industrial loads plus the addition of two new ground- fish processing plants in Unalaska by 1991 (see Table I-1). The existing community load for Unalaska is estimated to be 21,436 MWhs in 1986 and 5.7 MWs including all self-generated loads. This community load is forecasted to increase to 54,542 MWhs and 13.5 MWs in 2006 representing 13.0% annual growth in energy through 1991 and 2.2% growth thereafter. It is estimated that all potential industrial customers would buy City utility power at effective rates below 5¢ per kWh in 1986 dollars, assuming current fuel prices, and conse- quently this total community forecast represents the anticipated load on the City utility at these substantially lower rates. I-8 High and low case scenario forecasts are also presented in this report and are summarized in Table I-3 and Figure I-2. Due to the addition of several large industrial loads during the next five years, the anticipated City utility energy requirement is forecasted to increase at a 13.8% annual rate until 1991 but then grow at only 0.3% annually under the assumptions made for the low case scenario. The City utility's peak demand growth is forecast- ed to grow 18.4% until 1991 and 0.2% annually thereafter in the low case scenario. Under the assumptions of the high case scenario, the City utility's energy requirement is projected to grow at 29.5% annually through 1991 and 2.4% annually thereafter. Peak demand for the City utility is foreseen growing at 33.3% annually until 1991 and 2.3% annually thereafter in the high case scenario. Consideration and Limitations A comprehensive review of the City's historic billing data for electricity sales, revenues, generation, peak load requirements, and other utility data was conducted and data were compiled into a computerized data base and analyzed. This existing data represented only a short time period of between two and five years and much of the data was limited by billing errors, omissions, and other problems. The Unalaska economy is dependent on the high- ly variable seafood processing industry and related support activities which have undergone considerable change over the last three years. In addition, several large processors and other discrete loads were being added to the system at the time this study was prepared which, cumulatively, are likely to triple the load connected to the City utility system during the coming year. 1-9 For all of these reasons, the existing data does not provide with full certainty a clear indication of the magnitude that future load growth in Unalaska will take. A forecast such as this is highly dependent on the understanding and outlook of people interviewed at the time and on limitations of the existing data sources. We have contacted and discussed facts that are likely to influence future load growth with knowledgeable people in the City of Unalaska and with specialized experts in the State of Alaska. We have listed all critical assumptions in detail so that the basis of the forecast can be clearly understood. Because of the relatively small existing load on the City system and the magnitude of potential additions in the near term, changes in these assumptions could alter the forecast significantly. The use of a combination of alternative growth scenarios and industrial load additions to the City system form a matrix of alternative load forecasts and demands on the City utility for each year which model this considerable uncertainty. In addition, these forecasts were initially prepared based on an assumption that the cost of City power would primarily govern the decision of potential large industrial customers to purchase power from the City utility. Our discussions with potential large industrial customers suggested that other factors includ- ing the availability and reliability of power supply may be the primary factors influencing this decision-making process. Changes in these non-quantified factors may significantly alter the forecast results. I-10 Prior Studies of Unalaska Potential energy load growth in Unalaska has been analyzed pre- viously in the recent past, including once by Arthur Young in 1984 in its draft Electrical Rate and Load Projection Study for the City and once by the Power Authority in 1985 in the Unalaska/Dutch Harbor Reconnaissance Findings and Recommendations. Both of these studies were limited by restricted histor- ic utility data and no specific quantified data for potential large industrial users. Additional studies of Unalaska that were reviewed include the 1985 Water System Master Plan for the City prepared by Tryck, Nyman, and Hayes; the 1985 Electric Rate Study for the City prepared by R. W. Beck and Associates, Inc., and the 1982 Airport Master Plan study prepared by Unwin, Scheben, Korynta, and Huett]. All of these studies provided background information on Unalaska's history and economic growth potential. SECTION II UNALASKA OVERVIEW General Profile The City of Unalaska is located on the northern end of Unalaska Island which is one of the islands in the Aleutian Archipelago that stretches along the northern Pacific Ocean separating the Gulf of Alaska from the Bering Sea. Some 800 air miles southwest of Anchorage, the City of Unalaska consists of the two communities commonly referred to as Unalaska and Dutch Harbor and is the only deep-water, ice-free port west of Kodiak and in the Bering Sea. Its proximity to major fishing grounds has made it a center of activity in western Alaska and, along with the port serving as a transfer point for sup- plies headed for northern and western Alaska, fishing and seafood processing has constituted the primary economic activity in the area over the past 30 years. The weather in Unalaska is generally wet and stormy. With winds averaging between 10 and 20 knots, temperatures generally range between 40 to 60 degrees Fahrenheit in the summer months and between 25 and 40 degrees in the winter months. Annual precipitation averages 58 inches, much of which accumulates as snow in the winter months. Originally an Aleut village, Unalaska's history shows a pattern of growth and decline through several cycles based on differing economic indus- tries. In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, Unalaska was an important crossroads for shipping and trade during the fur trapping period. Following II-2 the U.S. purchase of Alaska in 1867, Unalaska's harbor provided a supply stop and commercial trading center for steamships. In the early 1900's, commercial fishing by Americans began in the area and processing plants were established for herring, salmon and whale. Industrial activity declined in the 1930's as the fur trade collapsed and oil replaced coal as the primary maritime fuel. With the advent of World War II, Dutch Harbor's strategic location and deep- water port led to a massive build-up of military facilities and troops with as many as 50,000 personnel stationed at Unalaska in 1942. Shortly after the war the population declined to less than 400. Economic activity in the Unalaska area since World War II has been dominated by fisheries development and shipping. The king crab industry flourished in the early 1960's, declined some in the late 1960's and mid- 1970's, but reached the greatest level of activity in the period 1979-1980 when 12 processing plants were located in Unalaska. Since then the king crab industry has declined precipitously and has been largely closed since 1983. Unalaska “has served as a resupply and transshipment port for ships and sup- plies headed north, with significant activity associated with the development of north slope oil and gas reserves from 1968 through 1975. Recent Population and Employment Prior to the 1970's, Unalaska's population varied within a rela- tively narrow band of 200 to 400 persons with the exception of the brief period of military presence during World War II. (2)(8)2/ After 1970, the 1/ See References at conclusion of report. Population (Thousonds) II-3 population of Unalaska increased to nearly 2,000 in 1981 and declined to approximately 1,500 in 1985 according to most sources (see Figure II-1 and Table A-1). These population statistics mirror the build-up and decline of the crab fishery from 1975 to 1985 and provide an indication of the magnitude to which significant economic activity can influence population swings in an area with a small population base. From 1970 to 1981, the population in Unalaska grew at an annual rate of nearly 17%; from 1981 to 1985, population declined over 6% annually. Monthly employment data for Unalaska during the years 1980 through 1985 was obtained from the Alaska Department of Labor (2) and the pattern of growth and decline is also seen in these statistics. Total private employment Unalaska Population Figure II-1 1970 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 Source: See Table A—1 II-4 peaked in September 1981 at 1,626 and, with government employment at approxi- mately 132, total employment in Unalaska peaked in 1981 at about 1,758 employ- ees (see Figure II-2 and Table A-1). Of this number, 1,357 persons, or 77% of total employment, were employed in seafood processing or a related activity (see Figure II-3 and Table A-1). By the summer of 1985, private employment had reached a new 4-year high of 1,292, government employment was at 131, and total employment was at 1,423. Of this number 1,026, or 72%, were employed in seafood processing. At the low employment peak of 1,165 private and 146 government (1,311 total employees) in the summer of 1983, only 753, or 58%, of employment was processing related. These numbers provide an indication both of the importance of fisheries activities in Unalaska and the relative health of employment in the area during the past two years despite a depressed shell- fish processing level. The indication of increased economic activity in Unalaska in the past two years is corroborated by recent statistics on sales and use tax re- ceipts by the City and from airport enplanements into the area. Sales and use tax revenues in Unalaska increased from $485,000 in 1977 to $1,310,000 in 1981, paralleling the rise of shellfish processing in the City (see Fig- ure II-4). Receipts declined to $706,000 in 1984 but increased to $1,124,852 in 1985. Unalaska enplanements increased from 7,227 in 1977 to 12,330 in 1980, then declined to 5,008 in 1983 (see Figure II-5). By 1985, enplanements had increased up to 12,561. Although the expansion of the airport and new jet service partially explain these increases, the numbers also indicate an in- crease in economic activity over the past two years. Persons Employed (Thousands) Persons Employed (Thousands) Unalaska Employment Total Private Monthly Employment Figure II-2 1.7 1.6 ws 1.4 1.3 1.2 7.1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 Source: See Table A—1 Unalaska Employment Monthly Employment by Fish Processors ey 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.2 tet 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 Source: See Table A—1 1985 1985 1986 Figure II-3 1986 II-5 nmnenniewwrannreoenwenneoeee i a #9 © *« @Qaerwown +A N © © Pa a ae eee ei ee) | ee at ee re eke eke eX ewreee ococ0oc0oecscd0dccdede @o (suomnm) i pturtosntot) s}ueweuo)du3 II-7 Economic Activity and Growth Potential: The Fisheries Industry As previously mentioned, economic activity in the City of Unalaska has been focused on fisheries and seafood processing activities over the past 30 years and there are strong indications that this activity is in the midst of a significant change of industry focus from shellfish processing to ground- fish processing. Economic activity in Unalaska over the past 10 years has been dependent on the shellfish processing industry, but this activity has decreased significantly since 1980. According to data from the U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service (11), approximately 75 million pounds of king crab and 46 million pounds of tanner crab were landed in Unalaska/Dutch Harbor in 1980 and, together, these two shellfish products constituted 88% of total landings (see Figure II1-6 and Table A-2). By 1985, king crab landings had de- clined to approximately 2 million pounds, tanner crab landings were 12 million pounds, and total shellfish landings constituted only 13% of total landings. But total landings in 1985 reached the highest level since 1980 and the difference has been made up by landings of various groundfish species, which grew from about 2 million pounds landed in 1981 to 86 million pounds landed in 1985, representing only 3% of 1981 landings and 83% of 1985 landings (see Figure II-6). Dutch Harbor Finfish and Shellfish Landings 1980 — 1985 II-8 Figure II-6 150 140 | 136.503 130 WW 2222272272) 120 110 100 a 8 90 57 28 80 $3 70 Se 2-60 a 50 ESRI ~ RSA 30 20 10 0 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 ZZ King Crab KN Tanner Crab BSSe Groundfish Dutch Harbor Finfish and Shellfish Ex—Vessel Value 1980 — 1985 100 $91,265 Ex—Vessel Value ($ x 1000) (Thousands) 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 Source: See Table A—2 ZZ King Crab SN Tanner Crab BS¥XJ_« Groundfish Figure II-7 II-9 The shift of the Unalaska fisheries industry basis from shellfish processing to groundfish processing has several important implications for the Unalaska economy. Whereas crab is among the highest value fish products on a per pound basis, groundfish is a much lower value product and has caused the value of the Unalaska fishery to decline from $91 million in 1980 to $20 mil- lion in 1985 (see Figure II-7 and Table A-2). Unlike the highly variable catch and seasonal nature of shellfish that has been witnessed in Alaska over the last decade, however, the groundfish fishery has remained quite stable and allows for near year-round fishing and processing. Thus, the diversification of the Unalaska fish processing industry from one based solely on shellfish to one based on both shellfish and groundfish should increase year-round employ- ment and provide a basis for more stable economic activity and growth. Groundfish, a generic term for many species of fish including Pacific cod, pollack, perch, sablefish, and flounder, is processed into a variety of products, including whole fish, fillets, fish meal, and surimi. Surimi is a tasteless protein binder manufactured in Alaska primarily from pollack and used in a variety of analog products, including imitation crab meat, Jlunchmeats, sauces and other products. Currently, the domestic ground- fish fishery is divided into three user groups: domestic short-based process- ing plants in Alaska, foreign processing vessels, and joint-venture processing fleets. The domestic annual harvest for the Bering Sea and Aleutian areas has increased from 180,168 metric tons in 1980 to 835,060 metric tons in 1985, in- dicating a 36% growth rate (11) (see Figure II-8 and Table A-2). The portion of this catch for shore-based processing has increased from 13,800 metric tons in 1980 to 137,210 metric tons in 1985, indicating a 58% annual growth rate. Preliminary data indicate that these growth rates have continued in 1986. Total Groundfish Harvest (Metric Tons) II-10 Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Figure I1-8 U.S. and Foreign Groundfish Yields (Millions) 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 Source: See Table A—2 ZZ) domestic (CQ Joint Venture Foreign Current indications are that the 2 million metric ton limit for Bering Sea and Aleutian Island areas is not reducing stocks and so it appears to be a sustainable fishing level (1). From interviews with knowledgeable personnel at both the Alaska Department of Fish and Game and the U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service, there is a general consensus that the trend towards greater U.S. involvement in the Alaskan groundfish fishery is highly probable as fish expertise increases and that Kodiak and Unalaska will become estab- lished as groundfish fishing centers. In addition, several U.S. floating processors are currently under construction with an anticipation of processing groundfish in Alaska. II-11 Two questions remain: how rapidly will U.S. processing facilities replace foreign processors, and what distribution between shore-based process- ing and sea-based processing will develop? Currently, shore-based processing constitutes a small portion of the total groundfish harvest in the Unalaska area. Although most sources suggest that offshore processing has an advantage in production of single-line products, a recent study of groundfish processing in Akutan suggests that shore-based processors have distinct advantages for producing multiple product forms (6). As such, it is likely that further development of groundfish processing will occur in Unalaska over the next decade, although the magnitude and specific nature of this development remains speculative. At a meeting of the North Pacific Fishery Management Council in December 1986 quotas for the 1987 groundfish harvest were all but totally allocated to domestic and joint-venture processors while foreign fishermen were virtually excluded from the 1987 allocations. This action supports the conclusion that groundfish processing in Unalaska is likely to increase signi- ficantly in the near future. As previously mentioned, the crab industry in Unalaska has stabil- ized at a depressed level compared with historic processing levels. Prelimi- nary results suggest that 1986 is proving to be a good year for tanner crab processing, but king crab processing remains at minimal levels. The current outlook suggests continued cyclical patterns in the shellfish stock status with little overall change in catch and processing requirements in coming years. The long-term outlook remains uncertain. II-12 Economic Development Potential: Other Areas In recent years, the marine supply and maintenance service industry has become well established in Unalaska. Unalaska, as the only deep-water port in the state west of Kodiak, has maintained a strong position in ship- ping, freight-forwarding, and bulk fuel storage for western Alaska. In addition, Unalaska was considered as a staging area for future petroleum development in the Bering Sea and some limited activity in this area was wit- nessed in recent years. The greatest growth potential for economic development in Unalaska other than fisheries are for those enterprises engaged in support services for fisheries and groundfish processing. As fishing and processing activities by U.S. fishing fleets increase, there is likely to be an increased demand for shipping, freight-forwarding, fuel supplies, warehousing, and other marine support services in Unalaska. In addition, there is the potential for in- creased freight-forwarding services if future development in western Alaska occurs, such as the Red Dog mining venture north of Kotzebue. At the present time, the importance of oil exploration activities on economic development in Unalaska appears to be minimal. Past feasibility studies suggest an oil price above $30 per barrel is prerequisite for any significant oil exploration and development in the Bering Sea. Given a 10- to 15-year lead time for petroleum development and a current oi] price of about $15 per barrel, little impact is foreseen from oi] exploration in the near future. SECTION III EXISTING POWER FACILITIES AND LOADS City of Unalaska Electric Utility The City of Unalaska, through the Electric Utility Division of the Department of Public Works, owns, operates and maintains an electric genera- tion and distribution system which provides electric service to the commu- nity. Presently, the City utility operates 4,095 kW of diesel powered genera- tion in a recently renovated powerhouse located near the airport. This new powerhouse, formerly a U.S. Navy powerhouse, was occupied by the utility in early 1986 after completion of the renovations. Prior to this, in July 1985, the utility completed and energized a 34.5-kV primary distribution system throughout the community. In October 1985, prior to relocation to the new powerhouse, the City utility's previous powerhouse was destroyed by fire. For a two and a half month period Pan Alaska Seafoods (now Alyeska Seafoods) supplied power to the community after emergency interconnections were made between the City utility and Pan Alaska. Approximately 600,000 kWh were sold to the City utility by Pan Alaska during this period at a cost of about 24¢ per kWh. In addition, much of the utility's power use records were destroyed in the fire. With the addition of a major industrial customer to the City in August 1986, the power load on the City utility has increased significantly. Concurrent with the new load a major restructuring of electric rates was also III-2 approved, which, in addition to lowering rates to existing customers, created an industrial rate class for customers over 100 kW of billing demand. The current rates for the industrial class, $10.00 per kW-month and 12¢ per kWh, appear to be attractive to several of the self-generating industries in the community. In the near future the utility expects to interconnect with several additional industries and will be discussed in detail in Section IV. Data Sources and Methodology Existing utility data sources were limited and were not differen- tiated according to customer classes. Prior to 1984, the City maintained electric utility data on a combined system basis and this data existed only back until 1982. Records prior to this could not be located by the City and, because of significant changes and additions to the system, were considered to have limited value for forecasting purposes. Beginning in March of 1984, monthly listings of customer usage and revenues for the City utility's approximately 350 accounts were available which, despite some irregularities and billing errors, provided a good record of usage from that date. With the assistance of City personnel, data for each month was disaggregated into residential, commercial and municipal accounts. Various amounts of funding were acquired through the Power Authority's Power Cost Equalization Program (PCE) for this entire time period and were applicable to all usage below 650 kWh per month until 1985 and 750 kWh per month there- after. This considerably reduced eligible consumers' effective rates as III-3 compared to the utility's nominal rates of 34¢ and 30¢ per kWh during these respective periods. In order to discern potential customer response to elec- tric rates (price elasticity), the residential usage data was further sepa- rated into those accounts with usage fully below the PCE assistance levels and those accounts above these levels. Data from the commercial and municipal classes were also separated for two commercial customers and the school which all consistently had usage above 10,000 kWh per month and their usage patterns were examined separately. Several accounts represented combined residential- commercial service for small business with usage below the PCE assistance limit and were classified with small residential users. A database of monthly historic electric usage from March 1984 to August 1986 was developed which isolated the loads for each customer class represented as small residential, large residential, small commercial, muni- cipal and three isolated large sales accounts (see Table A-3). For each of these groupings, estimates of usage per customer and average effective rates were developed. Several billing errors in the data were corrected so that the database effectively represented the actual rates and customers on the system. Also used in the forecasting analysis were total sales, generation and peak usage data for the utility from January 1982 through September 1985 and from July 1986 through September 1986 (see Table A-4). (Data from October 1985 through June 1986 correspond to the time between the powerhouse fire and the beginning of accurate readings at the new generation facilities.) Much of the generation data were irregular, indicating losses above 20% for some months and negative losses compared with system sales in other months and were III-4 considered by the City to be inaccurate. An overall loss factor of 7% was viewed to be typical for the utility and significant deviations from this were examined. On this basis, sales data for the system in 1984 were increased to compensate for likely billing errors at that point in time. Residential Usage Residential sales for the system increased rapidly between 1984 and 1986. Estimated sales to residential customers increased from 1,451 MWh in 1984 to an estimated 1,682 MWh in 1986, representing approximately a 7.7% annual growth rate. The number of residential accounts remained relatively stable over this time period at about 330 and the increase in sales was almost solely accountable to increased usage per customer, which increased from 4,465 kWh per year in 1984 to an estimated 5,112 kWh per year in 1986. During this same time period, the utility's nominal electric rates dropped from 34¢ per kWh to 30¢ per kWh. The effective average rates for residential sales including PCE assistance fell from about 23¢ per kWh in early 1984 to less than 10¢ per kWh in 1986 for customers fully covered by PCE. For residential customers above these levels, the effective average rate fell from 27¢ per kWh in early 1984 to around 18¢ per kWh in 1986. Because of these significant reductions in rates, it was viewed to be important to attempt to separate the increase in usage per customer due to price elasticity and lower rates from that resulting from other causes. Monthly Usage per Customer (kwh) IITI-5 Statistical models attempting to determine causal relationships between usage per customer and rates, economic growth and other factors were developed for three groups of residential customers: usage per residential customer fully covered by PCE assistance (small residential), usage per resi- dential customer with some usage above the PCE maximum (large residential), and usage for all residential customers (total residential) combined (see Figures III-1 to III-3 and Table A-3). As potential explanatory factors for residential usage per customer, Unalaska employment, electric rates, and heat- ing degree days were examined in addition to a general growth rate factor. Heating degree days was the most important variable in all models, potentially explaining more the seasonality of the monthly data than any specific weather sensitivity. Corrected for this factor, usage per small residential customer grew at about 5% annually over the 2-1/2 year period while usage per large Figure III-1 Unalaska Residential Usage Per Customer Customers with Full PCE Coverage 600 T 500 7 400 7 300 200 7 100 1 a 15—Mor—84 30-Mar-85 30—Mor—86 Source: See Table A-3 Monthly Usage per Customer (kwh) (Thousands) Monthly Usage per Customer (kwh) IlI-6 Figure III-2 Unalaska Residential Usage Per Customer Customers Above PCE Moximum 1.4 — Oy at 15—Mor—84 30-Mar-85 30—Mor—86 Source: See Table A-3 Figure III-3 Unalaska Residential Usage Per Customer All Residential Customers to 15-Mar-84 30-—Mor—85 30-Mar-86 Source: See Table A—3 III-7 residential customer grew at nearly 14% annually. Examination of rate sensi- tivity suggested a -.26 price elasticity for large residential customers com- pared with a less than -.20 price elasticity for small residential customers. On a combined residential basis, usage per customer grew at a 6.4% annual rate which accounted for a -.20 price elasticity factor. Unfortunately, statisti- cal difficulties associated with such a short period of historic data suggest that significant variability of these factors was likely to exist. Commercial Usage Sales to commercial customers grew from approximately 833 MWh in 1984 to an estimated 907 MWh in 1986. Loads for the two largest commercial customers, Alascom and Carl's Store, were separated to generate data for small commercial users and usage per customer patterns for each examined (see Fig- ures III-4 to III-6 and Table A-3). From March 1984 to August 1986, usage for the 18 smaller commercial customers grew at approximately a 1% annual rate from Figure III-4 Unalaska Commercial Usage Per Customer (Averoge Monthly Usage Below 10000 kwh) 2.8 2.6 2.4 é 2.2 z x rr 2 . e € 1.8 2 3 1.6 ef . 83 1.4 oc sc 1.2 5 1 > = 08 § = 0.6 0.4 0.2 ° 15—Mor—84 30-Mar-85 30-Mor—86 Source: See Table A-3 Monthly Soles (kwh) Monthly Sales (kwh) (Thousonds) (Thousands) III-8 Figure III-5 Unalaska Large Commercial —— Alascom Monthly Soles 40 — 15—Mor—84 30—Mor—85 30-—Mor—86 Source: See Table A-3 Figure III-6 Unalaska Large Commercial——Carl's Store Monthly Soles 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 ° Zam 15—Mor—84 30—Mor—85 30—Mor—86 Source: See Table A—3 — Estimated Usage + Actual Soles III-9 23,300 kWh to 23,800 kWh with little regular seasonality. Average rates for small commercial customers decreased from approximately 31¢ per kWh to 23¢ per kWh. Despite this significant drop in average rates, there was little price response by small commercial customers and no statistically significant price elasticity could be determined. Heating degree days and employment were also statistically insignificant in explaining the variation in usage per small commercial customer. Alascom's load was regular and seasonal over the 2-1/2 year period examined (see Figure III-5). Average annual usage increased from 238 MWh in 1984 to an estimated 265 MWh in 1986, but little significant growth or rate sensitivity was found through statistical analysis. The sales to Carl's Store were irregular due to a significant amount of self generation in 1985 and 1986. Assuming that Carl's store had used a steady load of 20 MWh per month in 1986, Carl's load would have increased from an average 154 MWh in 1984 to 238 MWh in 1986 (see Figure III-6). No attempt was made to analyze Carl's load because of the lack of data. Municipal Usage Sales to various City of Unalaska accounts showed the most signi- ficant growth over the past 2-1/2 years (see Figure III-7 and Table A-3). Municipal usage increased from approximately 679 MWh in 1984 to an estimated 1,016 MWh in 1986, a 50% increase over the 2-year period. Sales to the City school, which in 1984 constituted 246 MWh (35% of municipal usage), increased to an estimated 390 MWh in 1986 (see Figure III-8). Other significant growth areas included expansion of service to the airport, boat harbor, and city dock. Monthly Soles (kwh) (Thousands) Monthly Sales (kwh) (Thousonds) 80 Unalaska Municipal Usage City Accounts Excluding School III-10 Figure III-7 70 60 so 40 30 20 10 0 15—Mor—84 50 30—Mor—85 Source: See Table A-3 City of Unalaska School Monthly Sales 40 30 20 10 ° 15—Mor—84 30—Mar—85 Source: See Table A—3 30—Mar—86 Figure III-8 30—Mar—86 III-11 Statistical analysis of the municipal usage sales indicated a high- ly seasonal pattern with approximately a 20% annual growth rate. Rates for municipal usage have decreased in a similar pattern to the rates discussed for small residential customers discussed previously, declining from approximately 23¢ per kWh in 1984 to less than 10¢ per kWh in 1986. Despite this signifi- cant decrease in rates, the estimated price elasticity for municipal usage was only -.07 and showed a weak statistical correlation with sales growth, indi- cating little price responsiveness for the municipal load. Total Non-Industrial Load Prior to August 1986, no industrial loads existed on the City system and the majority of the City's power was sold to residential and small commercial customers. All customers were treated as a single class, although PCE assistance produced different rates depending on monthly usage. Combined system customer, sales and generation data were available back to January 1982 which provided a longer data base for analysis. For these reasons, the total historic load of the City utility was also analyzed so as to estimate both system growth and price elasticity. Records of the number of customers on the system dating back to January 1982 show a pattern of gradual growth mixed with significant additions to the system. For example, in the summer of 1983, 70 residential customers Number of Customers III-12 were added to the system at one time (see Figure III-9 and Table A-4). Since then, the number of customers on the system has remained relatively constant at about 350 customers. Monthly sales and generation for the system show similar seasonal patterns with a winter peak and steady growth throughout (see Figures III-10 and III-11 and Table A-4). From a statistical analysis of usage per customer in the total system, this pattern of seasonal variation and growth was verified. Overall usage per customer has grown at a rate of about 10% annually over the past three years, increasing from 8,544 kWh per customer in 1984 to an estimated 10,300 kWh in 1986. By including electric rates in the analysis, a high price elasticity of -.74 was estimated and growth was limited to 5% annually. This suggests that a considerably higher portion of overall growth has resulted from customer response to rate decreases than was indicated by the analyses of separated individual classes. Unalaska Electric Cutomers Figure III-9 Monthly Number of Total Customers 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 Jon—82 Jon—83 Jon—84 Jan—85 Jon—86 Source: See Table A—4 Monthly Soles (kwh) (Thousands) Monthly Generation (kwh) (Thousonds) III-13 Unalaska Electricity Sales Figure III-10 Estimated Monthly Soles 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 Jon—82 Jan—83 Jon—84 Jon—85 Jon—86 Source: See Toble A—4 Unalaska Generation Figure III-11 Estimated Monthly Generation 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 sO Jan—82 Jon—83 Jon—84 Jon-—85 Jon—86 Source: See Table A—4 III-14 Industrial Load As of July 1986, there were 10 large industrial users who generated their own power. Five of these were large fish processing facilities, four were engaged in marine services or transportation, and one was a mall and hotel complex. As very little historic information was available for these potential loads, each was surveyed as to their historic and existing load re- quirements and an assessment made of the likelihood of each becoming a custom- er of the City utility. The next section of this report presents the results of this survey and a power market analysis of these potential industrial customers. SECTION IV SURVEY OF EXISTING LARGE COMMERCIAL CUSTOMERS AND SELF-GENERATORS Overview There are several relatively large seafood processors and marine support companies (collectively the "Industries") in the Unalaska area that generate their own power. In August 1986 the City utility began serving power to two of these companies, UniSea and Greatland Seafoods, and has negotiated with other companies to begin supplying power in the near future. With a reliable and competitively priced source of power, the willingness of more of the Industries to purchase power from the City utility increases greatly. As a part of this study, we have visited the facilities of most of the Industries to determine the electricity requirements of each potential industrial customer. Additionally, the likelihood of each interconnecting with and purchasing power from the City utility was investigated primarily through the estimation of the cost to the Industries of generating their own power. Unfortunately, very little definitive data exists regarding these factors. None of the Industries meter their electricity usage (except for UniSea and Greatland since interconnection with the City utility in August 1986) nor do they regularly monitor the costs of generation or keep generation fuel usage records. On the whole, facility mechanics and maintenance people seem to be knowledgeable about the power demands of their respective plants. Further, most have a rough estimate of the generation costs of their self-gen- erated power, although we found most of these estimates to be rather dated and based more on educated guesses or “gut feel" than detailed analysis. IV-2 In regard to the likelihood of the Industries purchasing power from the City utility, it appears that most of the Industries do not monitor costs close enough to make the decision strictly on an economic basis. The cost of power is likely to affect their decisions in a major way but reliability and convenience also contribute significantly to the decision-making process. The rate structure offered by the utility must be easily understood with policies regarding interruptible and firm sales clearly defined. Above all the self- generating Industries require power supply that is readily available, reliable and competitively priced; most would be willing to pay premiums over their own costs of generation to have the utility supply power because of convenience. Even if they interconnect, however, most of the Industries would be likely to Maintain their generation plants as a backup. An important factor to consider is most of the Industries have owned their generation equipment for many years, capital costs of the equipment seem to have been long forgotten and the cost of self-generation to these companies is simply thought of in terms of fuel and maintenance costs. In the future, as replacement equipment is needed the concept of "cost of generation" will change for many of these Industries. Based on the results of our investigations we have prepared esti- mates of the electricity requirements of each of the Industries in Unalaska. Because of the lack of actual data many assumptions were required to effec- tively quantify these values. The irregularity of operation of many of the Industries and the random nature of the seafood processing business also makes the estimation of power requirements very difficult. Installed generation capacity and estimated power requirements of the Industries in 1986 are sum- marized in Table IV-1 and Table IV-2, respectively. Detailed descriptions of each company, their power usage and available generation follow. IV-3 Table IV-1 City of Unalaska Load Forecast Installed Generation Capacity of the Industries Total Generation Capacity Company Generation Units (kW) (kW) Seafood Processors: Aleutian Processors 2 @ 400, 1 @ 150, 1 @ 70, 1 @ 40 1,060 Alyeska Seafoods (1) 5 @ 600, 1 @ 1,500 4,500 East Point Seafood Co. 5 @ 60, 1 @ 100, 2 @ 250 on board 900 Great Land Seafoods (2) 2 @ 800 1,600 UniSea (2) 1 @ 800 & 2 @ 500 1 @ 850 and 1 @ 500 on board Vita 3,150 Marine Support and Other Services: American President Lines 1 @ 625, 1 @ 525, 1 @ 125 1,475 Crowley Maritime 2 @ 150 300 Northern Offshore (3) 1 @ 300 300 Pacific Pioneer 3 @ 100 300 Sea-Alaska Products 1 @ 300 300 Walenshek Industries 1 @ 150, 1 @ 135 285 Total 13,970 (1) Includes a new 1,500-kW diesel generator scheduled to be installed in early 1987. (2) Presently maintained but not in regular service. (3) Scheduled for initial normal operation in early 1987. Generator expected to serve only as backup. Seafood Processors Aleutian Processors Alyeska Seafoods- Existing Alyeska Seafoods- Surimi Eastpoint Seafoods Great Land Seafoods UniSea Subtotal New Processor (former UniS Unidentified New Processor Unidentified New Processor Unidentified New Processor Subtotal- Processors Marine and Other Services American President Lines Crowley Maritime Northern Offshore Pacific Pioneer Sea-Alaska Products InterSea Mall Walenshek Industries Subtotal Total- All Industries 100 350 350 350 100 125 300 120 100 110 City of Unalaska, Alaska TABLE IV-2 Iv-4 Large Commercial Customers and Self-Generators Assumptions and Basic Data Base Load Load factor Process stews e ewer eeeeee Peak Summer Winter (KW) 0.70 0.80 550 0.70 0.85 800 0.70 0.80 700 0.70 0.80 205 0.70 0.80 600 0.60 0.70 0 0.70 0.80 700 0.70 0.80 700 0.70 0.80 700 0.70 0.80 700 0.60 0.70 800 0.60 0.70 0 0.60 0.70 150 0.60 0.70 0 0.60 0.70 0 0.70 0.80 0 0.44 0.44 0 Summer (April-Sept) (Hour Winter (Oct-March) (Hours Maximum Process Time 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 1,310 4380 4380 22.5% 25.0% 40.0% 22.5% 40.0% 0.0% 40.0% 40.0% 40.0% 40.0% 9.7% 0.0% 15.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Estimated Basic Requirements Suneeeaeessss22ss2222s2222222225 Estm'd. Annual Energy (MWh) PERK oreo nen ccccccccecccccce Base Process Tota 125 710 o ©6710 450 1,710 200 1,910 90 510 0 510 120 680 0 = 680 100 660 0 = 660 110 © 420 0 = 420 gSusesss fassses scsssse sssssss 10,530 24,540 18,490 43,030 IV-5 Descriptions, Installed Generation Capacity and © Power Requirements of Individual Companies All of the industrial companies interviewed have generation equip- ment at their facilities and the total installed generation capacity of the Industries is summarized in Table IV-1. Power requirements described in the following paragraphs were derived from data gathered in the interviews with the company personnel. Further estimation of power requirements is made later in this section. Seafood Processors Alyeska Seafoods (Formerly Pan Alaska Seafoods) Alyeska Seafoods operates a large seafood processing plant in Unalaska. As available, crab, salt-cod, bait-cod, halibut and fresh frozen salmon are processed. Alyeska is also constructing a new plant at its facility to produce surimi. The surimi plant is scheduled to begin operation around the first of 1987. Alyeska has made a major commitment to upgrade its generation plant over the next two years partly in response to the needs of the new surimi plant. In addition to the processing plant, Alyeska maintains cold storage facilities and living quarters for its employees. Existing generation capacity of Alyeska totals 3,000 kW (5 units at 600 kW each) directly driven by diesel engines. An additional 1,500 kW engine generator set is scheduled for installation early in 1987. As a part of IV-6 Alyeska's generation plant upgrade in the near future, waste heat recovery systems will be installed on the diesel engines that, in total, are planned to provide approximately 70% of the building heat, process heat and hot water needs of Alyeska. Presently, process heat and hot water heat are supplied with diesel-fired boilers. Alyeska estimates its base load electricity requirements to be in the range of approximately 400 kW with minimum requirements at about 250 kW. When processing, power requirements reach approximately 1,200 kW. Although it is extremely difficult to define "typical" conditions, the amount of time that the plant is processing can be assumed to be between 20% and 30% of the total hours in a year. A new electric hydraulic system is scheduled to begin opera- tion in the processing plant before the end of 1986. This system is estimated to require 500 kW when operating. The new surimi plant will have an estimated total load of between 1,000 and 1,500 kW and the load factor should be rela- tively high because of the nature of surimi processing. According to Alyeska, the cost of generation is between 9¢ and 12¢ per kWh not including depreciation or capital repayment. With the implemen- tation of waste heat recovery systems it is estimated by Alyeska that approxi- mately 40% of the cost of generation will be saved through the offset of diesel fuel presently used for heating purposes. Accordingly, an estimated net operating cost of between 5.5¢ and 7.0¢ per kWh is estimated by Alyeska. IV-7 UniSea UniSea owns two shore-based seafood processing ships, warehousing facilities, employee living quarters, and a hotel and restaurant. The proc- essing plants were not operated in 1986 and no indication has been given that UniSea intends to operate the plants in the future. Presently, only the hotel and non-processing facilities are in operation. In August 1986 UniSea and Greatland Seafoods interconnected with the City utility and began purchasing power. Base load power requirements of the facility in its present condi- tion are approximately 460 kW peak and 300 kW average. Installed generation capacity totals 1,800 kW on the ship "UniSea" and 1,350 kW on the ship "Vita". This equipment is being maintained but is not operating. Greatland Seafoods Greatland Seafoods operates a surimi plant and living quarters for employees. Greatland shares common facilities and is electrically intercon- nected with UniSea. The two companies are commonly owned and purchase power from the City as a single entity. In August 1986, UniSea and Greatland interconnected with the City utility and began purchasing power from the utility under a contract of 500 kW firm and 1,000 kW interruptible. IV-8 Total electricity requirements of Greatland are estimated to be approximately 260 kW average base load increasing to 850 kW (950 kW peak) when the surimi plant is processing. Although the surimi plant does not operate regularly at the present time, it is anticipated by Greatland that processing time should approach 24 hours per day, 20 to 25 days a month, 10 months a year. Down time is anticipated to be May and June each year. For the purpose of this study it is assumed that the surimi plant will operate 18 hours per day and 200 days per year under normal conditions. Generation equipment at Greatland is being maintained but is not operating. Total installed capacity is 1,600 kW. Greatland uses surplus fish oil as fuel to heat its building. Aleutian Processors (Formerly Whitney-Fidalgo) Aleutian Processors operates a seafood processing plant located on the permanently moored ship, the Whitney. Employee living quarters are also located on the ship. Crab, salmon, cod and other seafoods are processed as available. Base load electricity requirements are estimated by Aleutian to be about 120 kW with the total load when processing ranging between 650 kW and 800 kW. Installed diesel-fueled generation capacity located on the ship is about 1,060 kW. Waste heat from the generator engines is used to heat the ship, but this heating process is considered less than desirable because of problems with regulating heat throughout the ship. If the ship were connected to City power, waste heat from non-processing boilers would be used for space heat. Aleutian does not have a firm estimate of the cost of power generation. East Point Seafoods East Point Seafoods operates a seafood processing plant, living quarters and a permanently moored ship. The base load of the facility is estimated to be 130 kW and peak load during processing reaches about 330 kW. Installed generation capacity consists of five 60-kW units, one 100-kW unit and two 250-kW units for a total of 900 kW. The two 250-kW units are located on the ship, the East Point, and are used primarily to supply power to the ship and cold storage compressors. All generation is driven by diesel engines and waste heat is not utilized except as space heat for immediate surround- ings. East Point also uses two 100-horsepower diesel engines to drive ammonia compressors that could conceivably be converted to electric motors if City power were purchased. East Point estimates that under "typical" conditions processing would take place about 2,000 hours per year. The cost of generation is not known by East Point. The age of their generation equipment necessitates frequent overhauls. Fuel consumption also appears to be relatively high compared to other facilities. In addition, a maintenance person is required to be on duty around-the-clock to monitor the generation plant when processing is underway. IV-10 Maritime Services American President Lines The American President Lines (APL) facility in Dutch Harbor in- cludes a dock, loading crane and a large yard for the storage of refrigerated container vans. The container vans, loaded with frozen seafood products, are stored on the APL lot until enough westbound containers are available to summon a passing ship to Dutch Harbor. During this storage period the cooling units on the vans are in operation continuously and account for the majority of the electrical load of the APL facility. APL does not meter its electricity usage. The use of electricity at any one time is largely dependent on the number of refrigerator vans being stored on the lot at that time. When operating, each refrigerator unit draws about 30 amps on APL's 230-volt system at about .85 power factor. APL esti- mates that typical base load is about 95 kW with peak demand reaching between 900 and 1,000 kW. Two weeks is typically the longest period of time that the vans are stored on the lot with 100 vans being a typical maximum stored at any one time. November through February is the slowest time of the year, coincid- ing with the down time for crab processing. Presently the APL facility uses three generator units totalling 1,275 kW as its power supply. The smallest of these, a 125-kW unit, is used to supply base load requirements. Maintenance and operation of the generation plant is handled by facility mechanics as only a portion of their duties. IV-11 APL estimates its cost of power generation to be in the range of 15¢ per kWh based on the results of an earlier evaluation. With the cost of fuel being substantially less at the present time, the cost of generation to APL should be closer to 8¢ per kWh excluding the capital cost of generation equipment. APL does not monitor the cost of generation. Pacific Pioneer (Formerly Chevron) Pacific Pioneer (formerly Chevron and Delta Western) operates a fuel storage facility and receiving and fueling dock. Additionally, a ware- house and three company residential houses are maintained. Pacific Pioneer does not meter its electrical usage. Electric power is used for various func- tions at the dock facility, tank farm and loading rack. The company warehouse and residences are also supplied power from company generation. Further, Pacific Pioneer sells a small amount of power to the FAA at the Dutch Harbor airport. Total electrical load of Pacific Pioneer is estimated to be a fairly constant 60 kW. Based on typical fuel usage records, annual energy usage would be approximately 525,000 kWh per year at present consumption levels. A new company warehouse was to be completed near the end of 1986 and includes an apartment and office space. It is estimated that electricity re- quirements of this new facility will be approximately 30 kW. Total electri- city requirements of Pacific Pioneer beginning in 1987 will be around 90 kW and 735,000 kWh annually (assumes an 80% load factor on the new warehouse). IV-12 Pacific Pioneer operates a generating facility located in the corner of its warehouse. Two 100-kW diesel generator units are rotated in and out of service. A portable 100-kW generator unit is also operated periodical- ly to run two 375-hp pump motors but this system is not interconnected with the Pacific Pioneer main power system and will probably remain an isolated system because of its physical location and the nature of the load. Very little monitoring of Pacific Pioneer's costs of generation is done. The equipment is maintained by Pacific Pioneer personnel and requires approximately one hour per day of time on average. Because of the nature of Pacific Pioneer's business, fuel costs are quite low, estimated at about 50¢ per gallon. A study conducted early in 1986 for the Pacific Pioneer facility estimated the cost of self generation to be 12.8¢ per kWh not including capital costs or depreciation. This estimate, based on fuel prices of $1.00 per gallon, would be closer to 8.4¢ per kWh based on a fuel price of $0.50 per gallon. Sea-Alaska Products Sea-Alaska Products provides dock facilities and supply services to marine traffic, primarily fishing vessels, in and out of Dutch Harbor. A warehouse is also maintained. Electric power is produced on-site by a diesel generator rated at 300 kW. In addition to its own facilities, Sea-Alaska Products provides power to Petro Marine, a fuel service located near the Sea-Alaska Products complex. Electricity requirements are fairly constant, IV-13 varying from about 90 kW in summer to around 120 kW in winter, according to Sea-Alaska Products. Electricity usage is not metered nor are costs moni- tored. The City utility has indicated that Sea-Alaska Products has expressed an interest to interconnect with the City system and purchase power. Crowley Maritime Crowley Maritime operates a fuel farm, warehouse and construction camp (leased by the Boatel Inn) on Captain's Bay about 4.5 miles outside of Unalaska. The power requirements of the facility are estimated by Crowley to be about 125 kW peak demand and 70-80 kW average demand. Two 150-kW diesel generator sets are located at the site to provide power. Each one of these generators is capable of supplying the full electrical requirements of the facility at any one time. Crowley estimates their cost of generation to be between 15¢ and 20¢ per kWh. Crowley is currently considering an agreement with the City to interconnect with the City utility and purchase power in the future. Northern Offshore Northern Offshore has operated marine support activities from non- permanent beach facilities in the Unalaska area for several years. Recently, Northern Offshore began construction of a permanent facility about one mile from the City proper. A contract for the purchase of 300 kW firm capacity from the City utility has been finalized and the City has begun installation of necessary lines and equipment to interconnect the new facility. Northern IV-14 Offshore expects to begin operation from the new facility in the spring of 1987. Estimated power requirements are around 300 kW initially with potential expansion up to 1,000 kW in the future as the facility develops and expands. The overall load factor is expected to be low for all demand above 300 kW. A 300-kW diesel generator will be located at the site to provide backup power. Walenshek Industries Walenshek Industries operates a marine repair facility and marine supply center. Recently the facility was interconnected with the City system and began purchasing power. Prior to interconnection, Walenshek generated its own power with diesel generators rated at 285 kW in total. The City utility indicates that electricity usage by Walenshek jis about 35,000 kWh per month and peak demand is about 110 kW. Power consumption varies day to day depend- ing on the type of repair activity being done and the number of vessels being repaired. Potential for Extending Power Market Presently the entire electric requirement of the Unalaska community is supplied by diesel generation. Greatland Seafoods, UniSea, the Inter-Sea Mall, and Walenshek Industries currently purchase all of their needs from the City utility. It is anticipated that in the next year Sea-Alaska Products and Northern Offshore will begin purchasing power from the City utility. The remainder of the Industries will continue to generate their own power. In the IV-15 future, several of these companies could agree to interconnect with and pur- chase power from the City utility. The criteria used by the Industries to de- termine if they would interconnect with the utility include electricity price and rate structure, reliability, availability, convenience and personal pref- erence. Except for Alyeska Seafoods which appears to be firmly committed to upgrading its power generation facility (at least in the near term), none of the non-interconnected Industries indicated that they were unwilling to con- sider interconnection with the City utility. Most indicated that they consid- er power generation a necessary inconvenience they would prefer to eliminate. Initially it was thought that simple economics would govern the Industries' choice between self-generation or purchasing power. From the industrial surveys it was evident, however, that most of the Industries do not monitor their cost of generation close enough to know when a financial cross- over point would occur and it would become more economical for them to pur- chase power. Additionally, the City utility's newly effective rate structure (beginning September 1, 1986) was not typically known or understood by most of the Industries. The City utility is in the process of familiarizing the Industries with the new rates and is receiving considerable interest. Most of the self-generating Industries have owned their generation equipment for several years and thus the capital costs of purchasing and in- stalling the equipment are not considered costs that need any further amorti- zation. Consequently, the cost of generation to the Industries is typically IV-16 thought of in terms of the variable costs of fuel, lube oi], regular mainte- nance and periodic overhauls. Several of the generators operated by the Industries around Unalaska consist of old equipment that is rebuilt as needed rather than replaced with new machinery. Also, installed diesel generators can be removed and shipped elsewhere or sold in the event of plant closure or modification, which partially explains the Industries' concept of the cost of generation being only variable costs. In the future, the addition of new facilities or major expansions will definitely require that the capital costs of generation be considered in the evaluation of alternative power costs. Most Industries will probably still retain backup generation on their respective sites, again implying that the capital cost of the equipment will be incurred whether or not they elect to purchase City utility power. The reliability and availability of the City utility's power could reach a high degree of acceptance such that backup gen- eration on-site is not considered essential. At that time it would be almost certain that any new loads in the area would be supplied by the City utility as long as its price of power to industrial customers was still comparable to variable diesel generation costs. At the present time it is difficult to accurately define the cost of generation to the Industries. Fuel usage records are typically not avail- able or detailed enough to differentiate between fuel used for generation and fuel used for other industrial purposes. Estimates of fuel consumption pro- vided by the Industries range from 6 to 12.5 kWh per gallon. Estimates of the cost of generation ranged from 6¢ to 20¢ per kWh with the lowest figure repre- senting an estimate by Alyeska Seafoods for its facility after an offset for IV-17 extensive waste heat recovery. An analysis prepared in February 1986 for Pacific Pioneer estimated the cost of generation to be 12.8¢ per kWh with fuel costs at $1.00 per gallon. At a current fuel cost of $0.60 per gallon, the cost of generation would be approximately 9.2¢ per kWh. This cost estimate included fuel, lubricating oil, maintenance and an allowance for periodic overhauls approximately every 15,000 hours of engine operation. This estimate is also based on a fuel usage factor of 11.2 kWh per gallon of fuel. If aver- age fuel usage efficiency were 9.0 kWh per gallon, the 9.2¢ per kWh generation cost figure would become 10.6¢ per kWh generated, representing a 15% increase in generation cost per kWh. Based on the foregoing estimates of the cost of generation and from discussions with each of the Industries, estimates of the amount of industrial load that the City utility could expect to serve at various City power rate levels have been developed. As shown in Table IV-3 and graphically in Fig- ure IV-1, all the Industries would become City utility customers at rates below an effective rate of 5¢ to 6¢ per kWh in today's dollars, adjusted for the effects of the demand charge in the City utility's rates. At effective rates above 25¢ per kWh, all of the Industries would find it cost effective to generate their own power. Currently, the utility's effective industrial rate is 14¢ to 15¢ per kWh. These estimates are based on rates at current world oil prices of approximately $15 per barrel. As oil prices increase or de- crease significantly from this level, it can be assumed that the cost of self-generation will increase or decrease proportionately, but that the City utility's rates would be likely to change similarly. Consequently, changes in world oil prices would not be expected to have major effect on the choice of electric power source by the Industries in the near future. Kilowatts (Thousands) 14 13 12 WW vi ®@n @ © 2 » n Ww City of Unalaska Load Forecast Figure IV-1 Industrial Load ot Current Rate Levels $.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 Cost of Power (cents/KWh) TABLE IV-3 CITY OF UNALASKA, ALASKA ANTICIPATED INDUSTRIAL LOADS ON THE CITY UTILITY SYSTEM AT VARIOUS CITY POWER COSTS (1) Seafood Processors Aleutian Processors Alyeska Seafoods- Existing Alyeska Seafoods- Surimi Eastpoint Seafoods Great Land Seafoods UniSea New Processor (former UniSea) Unidentified New Processor Unidentified New Processer Unidentified New Processor Marine and Other Services American President Lines Crowley Maritime InterSea Mall Northern Offshore Pacific Pioneer Sea-Alaska Products Walenshek Industries Total Estimated Load (KW) at Cost of Power (1986 cents/KWh) "5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 670 670 670 0 1,200 ° 0 0 1,050 0 0 0 355 355 0 0 950 950 950 0 460 460 460 0 800 800 800 0 1,050 1,050 1,050 o 1,050 1,050 1,050 0 1,050 1,050 1,050 0 900 900 0 0 125 125 0 0 100 100 100 100 450 450 450 450 90 90 0 0 120 120 120 0 110 110 110 110 10,530 8,280 6,810 660 Footnote: (1) Estimated City Utitlity load in 1986 at various rates in in 1986 dollars, assuming constant ofl prices. Iy-18 IV-19 The effect of lost waste heat recovery on the decision of the Industries to join the City utility's load was analyzed. Potentially, loss of waste heat recovery could impact the forecast in two ways, either by a re- quirement for additional load to operate oil-generated heat or by additional load for electric heat. Additionally, loss of waste heat recovery could significantly impact the evaluation of power cost alternatives. From our interviews, we discovered that waste heat recovery was not an important criteria in evaluating power cost alternatives. Although quantitative data was unavailable, most processors have ample waste heat from boilers used in their production process. Others plan to generate some power intermittently even after interconnecting to the City utility for firm requirements and this would provide sufficient waste heat recovery. Alyeska Seafoods is the excep- tion to this where waste heat recovery is considered significant enough to warrant continuous self-generation under most price scenarios. Overall, waste heat recovery is not a significant factor for most of the Industries and therefore it was concluded that it would not have a significant impact on the forecast results. SECTION V LOAD FORECAST SCENARIOS Demographic and Economic Assumptions With the further development of groundfish processing activity in the Bering Sea and in Unalaska, considerable economic growth for the Unalaska community seems likely. The nature and magnitude of this economic growth, however, will depend on how rapidly this development occurs and the distribu- tion of shore-based versus sea-based processing facilities. Based on inter- views with fisheries development personnel at the National Marine Fisheries Service, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, and the University of Alaska Marine Advisory Station in Kodiak, estimates of the number of Unalaska-based groundfish processing plants ranged between three and six as the most likely to occur over the period of the next five years, with one to eight processing facilities representing low and high cases. In 1987 there will be two surimi processing plants operating in Unalaska, so a likely case could see between one and four additional plants over the next five years. For our base case, we have assumed that economic growth in Unalaska will primarly result from development of groundfish processing in Unalaska, although other types of development could result in a similar growth pattern. For our base case analysis we assumed that there will be a total of four groundfish processors in Unalaska in 1991 and a total of seven plants by 2005. Of the two plants added over the next five years, we have assumed that one would be a conversion of an existing under-utilized facility and one would V-2 ‘be a new addition. A new groundfish processing plant would require between 100 and 150 employees depending on the product of the plant, and for a new processor and one conversion we estimate an additional 150 full-time permanent employees in Unalaska. Using an assumed 1.5 employment multiplier and a 2.0 population to employment ratio based on the historic relationship between population and employment, this groundfish processing development would result in an additional 225 employees and a population increase of 450 residents in Unalaska by the year 1992. These increases suggest significant growth in both population and employment at approximately 5% annually for the base case until 1992, assumed to decrease to half this rate thereafter. Estimates of population and employment growth for the low and high case scenarios are necessarily wide apart because of the uncertainty of devel- opment in Unalaska. Past studies have used high population growth rate esti- mates ranging from 8% to 13% annually based on various optimistic scenarios of groundfish processing development and oil exploration. On the low side, if there is no development in groundfish processing and oi] exploration and the crab fishery further deteriorates, a stable or declining population in Unalaska becomes a possibility. For our low forecast scenario, we have as- sumed little groundfish development but some growth in other areas (shellfish processing, shipping, etc.) and population growth of 1% annually over the 20- year period. For our high case scenario, we have assumed that six groundfish processors (three new facilities) are added in Unalaska by 1992, resulting in 300 processing jobs, 450 person increase in employment, and a population increase of 900 persons, or 9.6% annual population growth. In addition, two other processing facilities are projected for the years 1995 and 2000, result- ing in an estimated 5% population growth after 1992 in the high case scenario. V-3 ‘Base Case Forecast Assumptions The following assumptions were made for the base case scenario on the basis of the analyses described above and in Sections III and IV. A summary of specific load growth and utilization assumptions for the Industries is provided in Table V-1. 0 Population growth will occur at approximtely 5% annually until 1992 and at 2-1/2% annually thereafter. ° As in the past, many residential customers will be served by com- pany-provided housing and the load for these customers is included in new incremental industrial loads. Accordingly, residential customer growth is assumed to be half the rate of population growth. ° The number of commercial customers will grow at the rate of popula- tion growth. ° Residential usage per customer will be influenced by the recent drop in rates for large users from 30¢ per kWh to 20¢ per kWh and will increase at an average rate of 2% annually to a maximum of 6,500 kWh per customer annually. 0 Small commercial usage per customer will be influenced by the 30% drop in rates in 1986 and will grow at 2% annually for five years and 1% annually thereafter. Seafood Processors Aleutian Processors Alyeska Seafoods- Existing Alyeska Seafoods- Surimi Eastpoint Seafoods Great Land Seafoods UniSea On- Line Year Existing Existing 1987 Existing Existing Existing New Processor (former UniSea) 1988 Unidentified New Processor Unidentified New Processor Unidentified New Processor Marine and Other Services American President Lines Crowley Maritime Northern Offshore Pacific Pioneer Sea-Alaska Products InterSea Mall Walenshek Industries 1990 1995 2000 Existing Existing 1987 Existing Existing Existing Existing Table V-1 City of Unalaska, Alaska Large Commercial Customers and Self-Generators Forecast Assumptions Base (Medium) Case 1987-91 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% Estimated General Growth (%/year) Process Factor (% of max) 1992-06 1.5% 1.5% 0.0% 1.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Pd cad =. =® =? of of 0 ot UUUNuUuA = cad we 100.0% 100.0% 70.0% 100.0% 70.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 85.0% 100.0% 85.0% 0.0% 50.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0% 150.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 200.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% we V-5 The two large commercial customers -- Alascom and Carl's General Store -- will be full requirement customers of the system. Each will increase consumption at 1% annually for five years in response to lower rates and community growth and will remain constant there- after. Municipal usage will increase at the rate of population growth as new facilities are added or expanded. Existing seafood processors in the area will continue to operate in the future at levels thought of as typical. Existing plants proc- essing primarily crab and other products as available are assumed to be in production between 20% and 25% of the total hours in a year. Surimi and other new groundfish processors are assumed to operate normally at 40% of the hours in a year (10 months, 20 days per month, 18 hours per day). Existing marine support, transportation and other service companies will continue to operate and are assumed to grow at 4% annually until 1991 and at 1.5% thereafter to support additional activity. New groundfish processing plants will have power requirements similar to those of existing surimi plants. Base load energy requirements are derived using an assumed load factor of 70% applied to peak base load. V-6 ° The Greatland and Alyeska Seafoods surimi plants are assumed to operate at 70% of normal levels in 1987, 85% in 1988 and 100% in 1989 and thereafter. 0 New bottomfish processing plants will begin operation in 1988 (assumed to be conversion of UniSea plant), 1990, 1995 and 2000. Base Case Forecast The projected base case forecast jis presented in Tables V-2a through V-4b with two pages provided for each table. The number of the util- ity's non-industrial customers is projected to increase from about 352 custom- ers in 1985 to 483 customers in 2006, as shown on line 5 in Table V-2, with most of the increase resulting from new residential customers. Usage per customer estimates for each customer class are provided on lines 6 through 10 in Table _V-2 and correspond to the increases outlined in the above assump- tions. Average usage per customer is projected to increase 1.9% annually through 1991 and 1.2% annually until 2006. Projected sales for each customer class result from the product of customers and usage per customer estimates for each class and are provided on lines 11 to 15 in these tables. The utility's non-industrial sales are projected to increase from an estimated 3,605 MWh in 1986 to 6,279 MWh in 2006, for a compound growth rate of 2.8% annually over the 20-year period. Growth from 1986 to 1991, however, is projected at 4.5% annually. Total requirements for the non-industrial load (including an assumed 7% losses) and non-industrial peak usage (based on an assumed 60% load factor) are provided on lines 17 and 18 in Table V-2 and grow in line with the utility's sales projections. TABLE V-2a: CITY OF UNALASKA, ALASKA WON- INDUSTRIAL EWERGY REQUIREMENTS BASE CASE FORECAST euneseress: SSEStasseaesszesszess Historic Data 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 Wumber of customers 1 325 331 329 337 M6 354 363 372 37 382 386 391 2 Small Commercial 19 18 7 18 9 20 2 22 22 23 3 2% 3 Large Commercial (1) 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 Municipal Service (2) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 Total Non- Industrial Customers M7 352 uo 358 367 377 387 397 402 407 413 418 Usage per Customer (KWh 6 Residential 465 4,497 5,112 5,215 5,319 5,425 5,534 5,645 5,757 5,873 5,990 6,110 7 Small Commercial 23,129 23,765 24,240 24,725 25,219 «= 25,724 26,238 26,501 26, 766 27) 033 27,304 4 23,295 8 Large Commercial 195,888 260,070 251,500 254,015 256,555 259,121 261,712 264,329 264,329 264,329 264,329 264,329 9 Municipal Service 679,488 942,238 1,016,000 1,066,800 1,120,140 1, 176, 147 1,234, 1954 1,296,702 1,329,120 1,362,348 1,396,406 1,431,316 10 Average Usage per Customer 8,544 9,452 10,330 10,520 10,710 10,908 11,116 11,327 11,481 11,660 11,802 11,967 Non- Industrial Sales (am) 11 Residential 1,922,000 2,010,000 12. Small Commercial 496,000 532,000 13° Large Commercial 518,000 523,000 14 Municipal Service 1,067,000 1, 120,000 1, 176, 000 1,235,000 3,327,213 000 3,767,000 3,935,000 4,112,000 4,300,000 250,435 ‘mn, “000 284, 000 296,000 310, 000 326, 000 gunsuees oo SEEsens osassncss osxcsez=s sxseces= sssszs=2 2,170,000 2,241,000 2,314,000 2,390,000 000 610,000 632,000 654,000 529,000 529,000 529,000 0 1,329,000 1,362,000 1,396,000 1,431,000 i 58 15 Total Non- Industrial Sales 16 Losses (3) 0 4,617,000 4,742,000 4,871,000 5,004,000 +000 348,000 357,000 367,000 377,000 17 Total Non- Industrial Requirement (KWh) 3,188,088 3,577,648 3,876,000 4,051,000 4,231,000 4,422,000 4,624,000 4,834,000 4,965,000 5,099,000 5,238,000 5,381,000 18 Won- Industrial Peak Demand (KW) (4) 607 681 37 ™ 805 841 880 920 5 970 wT 1024 (1) Large Commercial class consists of Alascom and Carl's Store. (2) Municipal Service load includes school, streetlights, and all other city facilities. (3) Losses for the residential, commercial, and municipal service loads are assumed to be 7X. (4) Based on an assumed load factor of 60%. Loh TABLE V-2b: CITY OF UNALASKA, ALASKA WON- INDUSTRIAL ENERGY REQUIREMENTS BASE CASE . eussseseaszazanesssa520) 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Number of Customers 1 Residential 396 401 406 4 416 421 427 432 437 443 448 2 Small Commercial 25 25 26 26 27 28 28 2 30 vu xu 3 Large Commercial (1) 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 Municipal Service (2) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 Total Non-Industrial Customers 426 429 435 441 446 452 458 464 470 477 483 Usage per Customer oe 6 Residential 6,232 6,357 6,486 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,500 7 = Small Commercial 27,577 27,852 28,131 28,412 28,696 28,983 29,273 29,566 29,861 30,160 30,462 8 Large Commercial 264,329 264,329 264,329 264,329 264,329 264,329 264,329 264,329 264,329 264,329 264,329 9 Municipal Service 1,467,099 1,503, ‘777 1,561, ‘371 1,579,906 1,619,403 1,659,888 1,701,385 1, 763,920 1,787,518 1,832,206 1,878,011 10 Average Usage per Customer 12,135 12,309 §=12,485 12,557 12,618 12,679 12,739 12,803 12,870 12,935 13,003 Won- Inchstrial Sales (KWh) W Residential 12 Small Commercial 13 Large Commercial 14 Municipal Service 15 Total Non- Industrial Sales 5,161,000 5,283,000 5,429,000 5,532,000 5,632,000 5,734,000 5,837,000 5,944,000 6,054,000 6,165,000 6,279,000 16 Losses (3) 000 ©3986, 000 409,000 6, 424,000 432,000 439,000 447,000 456,000 464,000 473,000 17 Total Non-Industrial Requirement (KWh) 5,528,000 5,681,000 5,838,000 5,948,000 6,056,000 6,166,000 6,276,000 6,391,000 6,510,000 6,629,000 6,752,000 18 Non- Industrial Peak Demand (KW) (4) 1052 1081 Wt 1132 1152 1173 1194 1216 1239 1261 1285 Footnotes: (1) Large Commercial class consists of Alascom and Carl's Store. (2) Municipal Service load includes school, streetlights, and all other city facilities. (3) Losses for the residential, commercial, and municipal service loads are assumed to be 7%. (4) Based on an assumed load factor of 60%. Growth Rates (Compounded Annual Ly) 1986-91 1986-2006 2.5% 1.6% 5.0 3.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.6% 1.6% 2.0% 1.2% 2.0 1.2 1.0 0.2 5.0 3.1 1% 1.2% 4.5% 2.8% 7. 4.4 1.0 0.3 5.0 3.4 4.5% 2.8% 4.5 2.8 4.5% 2.8% 4.5% 2.8% 8-A TABLE V-3a: CITY OF UNALASKA, ALASKA TOTAL ESTIMATED COMMUNITY ENERGY REQUIREMENTS ezzzcszasces 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 Energy Requirements (MWH) soveemacens cccccccccccses Sececcncwvonssoceseshoasoosseesessee caeeeeeqeeeanae paeceseseaaaeasadediscassaascesceancesl 1 Non: Industrial Requirement (1) 3,876 4,051 4,231 4,422 4,624 4,834 4,965 5,099 5,238 5,381 5,528 Industries under Contract with City Utility in 1986 2 Great Land Seafoods 3,660 3,770 4,090 4,400 4,400 4,400 4,400 4,400 4,400 4,400 4,400 3 InterSea Mall 630 660 690 720 750 780 790 800 810 820 830 4 Northern Offshore 0 1,910 2,090 2,190 2,280 2,370 2,410 2,450 2,490 2,530 2,570 5 UniSea 2,620 2,620 2:620 2,620 «= 2,620 «= -2,620 2,620 2,620 2,620 2,620 2,620 6 Walenshek Industries 420 428 440 460 480 500 510 520 530 540 550 7 Subtotal 7,330 9,388 9,930 10,390 10,530 10,670 10,730 10,790 10,850 10,910 10,970 8 Projected Existing Customer Load (Line 1 + Line 7) 11,206 13,439 14,161 14,812 15,154 15,504 15,695 15,889 16,088 16,291 16,498 Anticipated Additional Industrial Load on City Utility 9 Aleutian Processors 0 0 1,890 1,890 1,890 1,890 1,920 1,950 1,980 2,010 2,040 10 Alyeska Seafoods- Existing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ww Alyeska Seafoods- Surimi 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 American President Lines 0 o 0 1,350 1,400 1,460 1,480 1,500 1,520 1,540 1,560 13 Crowley Maritime 0 0 740 770 800 830 840 850 860 870 880 1% Eastpoint Seafoods 0 0 1,390 1,390 1,390 1,390 1,410 1,430 1,450 1,470 1,490 15 Pacific Pioneer 0 0 530 550 570 590 600 610 620 630 640 16 Sea-Alaska Products 0 680 710 740 770 800 810 820 830 B40 850 7 New Processor (former UniSea) 0 Qo 1,890 3,110 3,110 3,110 3,110 3,110 3,110 3,110 3,110 18 Unidentified New Processor 0 0 Qo 0 4,750 4,750 4,750 4,750 4,750 4,750 4,750 19 Unidentified New Processor ° 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4,750 4,750 20 Unidentified New Processor 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 21 Subtotal 0 680 7150 9800 14680 14820 14920 15020 15120 19970 20070 22 Anticipated Load on Utility (Line 8 + Line 21) (2) 11,206 14,119 21,311 26,612 29,834 = 30,324 += 30,615 30,909 931,208 += 36,261 36,568 Self-Generating Industrial Loads 23 Aleutian Processors 1,890 9 0 9 0 0 0 0 ray Alyeska Seafoods- Existing 4,480 4,480 4,480 4,550 4,620 4,690 4,760 4,830 23 Alyeska Seafoods- Surimi 0 4,750 4,750 4,750 4,750 4,750 4,750 4,750 26 = American President Lines 1,250 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 27 Crowley Maritime 710 0 Qo 0 0 0 0 0 28 Eastpoint Seafoods 1,390 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 Pacific Pioneer 510 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 Sea-Alaska Products 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 31 Subtotal 10,230 9,230 9,230 9,300 9,370 9,440 9,510 9,580 32 Total Community Load (Line 22 + line 31) (3) 21,435 39,064 39,554 39,915 40,279 «40,648 + 45,771 46,148 Footnotes: (1) Represents the anticipated load on the City Utility if effective rates exceed 25 cents/kwh in 1986 dollars, assuming 1986 fuel prices. (2) Represents the anticipated load on the City Utility at current effective rates of 14-15 cents/kwh in 1986 dollars, assuming 1986 fuel prices. (3) Represents the anticipated load on the City Utility if effective rates decrease to 5 cents/kwh or less in 1986 dollars, assuming 1986 fuel prices. 6-A TABLE V-3b: CITY OF UNALASKA, ALASKA TOTAL ESTIMATED COMMUNITY ENERGY REQUIREMENTS BASE CASE FORECAST SERSTETEESSSESSS TEST SSS S ESS aseeeceeesscseess Growth Rates (Compounded Annual ly) 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 = 1986-91 1986-2006 Energy Requirements (MWH) ee ccccccccccecsccccccccs eeccece Seassan@essecshaseesesenccesessoceses eecaseceerwnsesseccocc-cscsccess seeee cecce 5,681 5,838 5,948 6,056 6,166 6,276 6,391 6,510 6,629 6,752 6.5% 2.8% Industries under Contract with City Utility in 1986 2 Great Land Seafoods 6,400 6,400 6,400 6,400 4,400 6,400 4,400 4,400 4,400 6,400 3 InterSea Mall 840 850 860 870 880 890 900 910 920 930 4 Northern Offshore 2,610 2,650 2,690 2,730 2,770 2,810 2,850 2,890 2,930 2,970 5 UniSea 2,620 2,620 2,620 2,620 2,620 2,620 2,620 2,620 2,620 2,620 . 6 Walenshek Industries 560 570 580 590 600 610 620 630 640 650 7 Subtotal 11,030 11,090 11,150 11,210 11,270 11,330 11,390 11,450 11,510 11,570 8 Projected Existing Customer Load (Line 1 + Line 7) 16,711 16,928 17,098 17,266 17,436 17,606 17,781 17,960 18,139 18,322 6.7% 2.5% Anticipated Additional Industrial Load on City Utility 9 Aleutian Processors 2,070 2,100 2,130 2,160 2,190 2,220 2,250 2,280 2,310 2,340 10 Alyeska Seafoods- Existing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W Alyeska Seafoods- Surimi 0 0 oO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 American President Lines 1,580 1,600 1,620 1,640 1,660 1,680 1,710 1,740 1,770 1,800 13 Crowley Maritime 890 900 910 920 930 940 950 960 970 980 14 Eastpoint Seafoods 1,510 1,530 1,550 1,570 1,590 1,610 1,630 1,650 1,670 1,700 15 Pacific Pioneer 650 660 670 680 690 700 710 720 730 740 16 Sea-Alaska Products 860 870 880 890 900 910 920 930 940 950 17 New Processor (former UniSea) 3,110 3,110 3,110 3,110 3,110 3,110 3,110 3,110 3,110 3,110 18 Unidentified New Processor 4,750 4,750 4,750 4,750 4,750 4,750 4,750 4,750 4,750 4,750 9 Unidentified New Processor 4,750 4,750 4,750 4,750 4,750 4,750 4,750 4,750 4,750 4,750 20 Unidentified New Processor 0 0 0 4,750 4,750 4,750 4,750 4,750 4,750 4,750 21 Subtotal 20170 20270 20370 25220 25320 25420 25530 25640 25750 25870 22 Anticipated Load on Utility (Line 8 + Line 21) (2) 36,881 37,198 37,468 42,486 42,756 43,026 43,311 43,600 43,889 44,192 22.0% 7.1% Self-Generating Industrial Loads 23 Aleutian Processors 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 Alyeska Seafoods- Existing 4,900 4,970 5,040 5,120 5,200 5,280 5,360 5,440 5,520 5,600 25 —Alyeska Seafoods- Surimi 4,750 4,750 4,750 4,750 = 4,750 = 750 = 750 = 4,750 = 4,750 4, 750 26 American President Lines 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 o 0 27 Crowley Maritime 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 Eastpoint Seafoods 0 0 oO 0 ° 0 0 0 0 0 29 Pacific Pioneer 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 Sea-Alaska Products 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 31 Subtotal 9,650 9,720 9,790 9,870 9,950 10,030 10,110 10,190 10,270 10,350 32 Total Community Load (Line 22 + line 31) (3) 46,531 46,918 47,258 52,356 52,706 53,056 53,421 53,790 54,159 54,542 13.0% 4.8% Footnotes: (1) Represen' he anticipated load on the City Utility if effective rates exceed 25 cents/kwh in 1986 dollars, assuming 1986 fuel prices. (2) Represents the anticipated load on the City Utility at current effective rates of 14-15 cents/kwh in 1986 dollars, assuming 1986 fuel prices. (3) Represents the anticipated load on the City Utility if effective rates decrease to 5 cents/kwh or less in 1986 dollars, assuming 1986 fuel prices. <= ' = Oo aoe TABLE V-4a: CITY OF UNALASKA, ALASKA TOTAL ESTIMATED COMMUNITY PEAK DEMANDS BASE CASE FORECAST 1986 1987 1988 (KW) . 1 Won- Industrial Peak (1) rB7 m7 805 Industries under Contract with City Utility in 1986 2 Great Land Seafoods 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 3 InterSea Mall 100 100 104 108 112 116 118 120 122 126 126 4 Northern Offshore . 0 470 540 620 640 670 680 690 700 710 720 5 UniSea 460 460 460 460 460 460 460 460 460 460 460 6 Walenshek Industries 110 110 114 119 124 129 131 133 135 137 139 7 = Subtotal 1,620 2,090 2,168 2,257 2,286 2,325 2,339 2,353 2,367 2,381 2,395 8 Projected Existing Customer Load (Line 1 + Line 7) 2,357 2,861 2,973 3,098 3,165 3,246 3,284 3,323 3,366 3,405 3,447 Anticipated Additional Industrial Load on City Utility 9 Aleutian Processors 0 0 670 670 670 670 680 690 700 710 720 10 Alyeska Seafoods- Existing 0 0 0 Qo o ° 0 0 o 0 0 W Alyeska Seafoods- Surimi 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Qo 0 0 0 12 American President Lines 0 0 0 1,020 1,060 1,100 1,120 1,140 1,160 1,180 1,200 13 Crowley Maritime 0 0 135 140 146 152 154 156 158 160 162 w Eastpoint Seafoods 0 0 360 360 360 360 370 380 390 400 410 15 Pacific Pioneer 0 0 % 98 102 106 108 110 112 114 116 16 Sea-Alaska Products 0 120 125 130 135 140 142 144 146 148 150 7 New Processor (former UniSea) 0 0 800 800 800 800 800 800 800 800 800 18 Unidentified New Processor ° 0 0 0 1,050 1,050 1,050 1,050 1,050 1,050 1,050 19 Unidentified New Processor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,050 1,050 20 Unidentified New Processor 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 ° o 0 21 Subtotal 0 120 2,186 3,218 4,323 4,378 4,426 4,470 4,516 5,612 5,658 22 Anticipated Peak for City Utility (Line 8 + Line 21) (2) 2,357 2,981 5,157 6,316 7,488 7,622 7,708 7,793 7,880 9,017 9,105 Self-Generating Industrial Loads 23 Aleutian Processors 670 670 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2% Alyeska Seafoods- Existing 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,220 1,240 1,260 1,280 1,300 25 Alyeska Seafoods- Surimi 0 1,050 1,050 1,050 1,050 1,050 1,050 1,050 1,050 1,050 1,050 26 American President Lines 940 , 940 980 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 27 Crowley Maritime 130 130 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 Eastpoint Seafoods 360 360 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 Pacific Pioneer 9 90 0 0 o ° o 0 0 0 0 30 Sea-Alaska Products 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 31 Subtotal 3,390 4,440 3,230 2,250 2,250 2,250 2,270 2,290 2,310 2,330 2,350 32 Total Community Peak (Line 22 + Line 31) (3) 5,747 7,421 8,387 8,566 9,738 9,872 9,978 10,083 10,190 11,347 11,455 Footnotes: (1) Represents the anticipated peak for the City Utility if effective rates exceed 25 cents/kwh in 1986 dollars, assuming 1986 fuel prices. (2) Represents the anticipated peak for the City Utility at current effective rates of 14-15 cents/kwh in 1986 dollars, assuming 1986 fuel prices. (3) Represents the anticipated peak for the City Utility if effective rates decrease to 5 cents/kwh or less in 1986 dollars, assuming 1986 fuel prices. LL-A TABLE V-4b: CITY OF UNALASKA, ALASKA TOTAL ESTIMATED COMMUNITY PEAK DEMANDS BASE CASE FORECAST Sansssesasaessazassueessersacesszecseseses Growth Rates (Compounded Annual ly) 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 = 1986-91 1986-2006 Peak Demand (kW) eccccccece Ste we ween ewww encee See eee ee eweewee rere Peretti tee eeewweeeesee Stew ween wseeeesee weeee ween 1 Won- Industrial Peak (1 1,081 1,111 1,132 1,152 1,173 1,19% 1,216 1,239 1,261 1,285 4.52% 2.81% Industries under Contract with City Utility in 1986 2 Great Land Seafoods 950 950 950 950 950 #0 950 950 950 950 3 InterSea Mall 128 130 132 134 136 138 140 142 146 146 4 Northern Offshore 730 740 750 760 770 780 790 800 810 820 5 UniSea 460 460 460 460 460 460 460 460 460 460 6 Walenshek Industries 161 143 145 47 49 151 153 155 157 159 . 7 Subtotal 2,409 2,423 2,437 2,451 2,465 2,479 2,493 2,507 2,521 2,535 8 Projected Existing Customer Load (Line 1 + Line 7) 3,490 3,534 3,569 3,603 3,638 3,673 3,709 3,746 3,782 3,820 6.60% 2.44% Anticipated Additional Industrial Load on City Utility 9 Aleutian Processors 730 740 750 760 770 780 790 800 810 820 10 Alyeska Seafoods- Existing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o Qo W Alyeska Seafoods- Surimi 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 American President Lines 1,220 1,240 1,260 1,280 1,300 1,320 1,340 1,360 1,380 1,400 13 Crowley Maritime 164 166 168 171 17% Ww 180 183 186 189 4 Eastpoint Seafoods 420 430 440 450 460 470 480 490 500 510 15 Pacific Pioneer 118 120 122 124 126 128 130 132 134 136 16 Sea-Alaska Products 152 154 156 158 160 162 164 166 168 171 17 New Processor (former UniSea) 800 800 800 800 800 800 800 800 800 800 18 Unidentified New Processor 1,050 1,050 1,050 1,050 1,050 1,050 1,050 1,050 1,050 1,050 19 Unidentified New Processor 1,050 1,050 1,050 1,050 1,050 1,050 1,050 1,050 1,050 1,050 20 Unidentified New Processor 0 0 0 1,050 1,050 1,050 1,050 1,050 1,050 1,050 21 Subtotal 5,704 5,750 5,796 6,893 6,940 6,987 7,034 7,081 7,128 7,176 22 Anticipated Peak for City Utility (Line 8+ Line 21) (2) 9,194 9,284 9,365 10,496 10,578 10,660 10,763 10,827 10,910 10,996 26.45% 8.00% Self-Generating Industrial Loads 23 Aleutian Processors 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 Alyeska Seafoods- Existing 1,320 1,340 1,360 1,380 1,400 1,420 1,440 1,460 1,480 1,500 25 Alyeska Seafoods- Surimi 1,050 1,050 1,050 1,050 1,050 1,050 1,050 1,050 1,050 1,050 26 American President Lines 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Qo 0 0 27 Crowley Maritime 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 Eastpoint Seafoods 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Pacific Pioneer 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 Sea-Alaska Products 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 31 Subtotal 2,370 2,390 2,410 2,430 2,450 2,470 2,490 2,510 2,530 2,550 32 Total Community Peak (Line 22 + line 31) (3) 11,564 11,674 = 11,775 12,926 = 113,028 = 13,130 13,233 13,337 = 13,440 = 113,546 11.43% 4.38% (1) Represents the anticipated peak for the City Utility if effective rates exceed 25 cents/kwh in 1986 dollars, assuming 1986 fuel prices. (2) Represents the anticipated peak for the City Utility at current effective rates of 14-15 cents/kwh in 1986 dollars, assuming 1986 fuel prices. (3) Represents the anticipated peak for the City Utility if effective rates decrease to 5 cents/kwh or less in 1986 dollars, assuming 1986 fuel prices. ZL-A V-13 In Tables V-3 and V-4 the projected energy requirements and peak demands are presented for each of the Industries based on the analysis pre- sented in Section IV above and assumptions provided on Table V-1]. As it is uncertain which Industries will become customers of the City, a matrix of alternative loads for each year is provided. On line 1 in Table V-3 is the community's projected non-industrial load as just discussed and represents the load on the City utility if none of the Industries were to be on the system. On line 8 is the projected load on the City utility including those Industries which have signed contracts by year-end 1986 with the City to purchase power. The 1986 estimates for the Industries under contract with the utility are an- nual load requirement estimates and do not represent actual purchases from the City utility in 1986 as all of these purchased power from the City for less than half the year. On line 32 is an estimate of the total community load in Unalaska including all existing and anticipated industrial loads. Assuming that existing rates are retained for the utility's power, the anticipated load on the City system is shown on line 22 in Table V-3. This anticipated load includes all the Industries under contract at year-end 1986 to purchase power from the utility plus the addition of various other Industries in successive years. All new processors are assumed to be interconnected with the City sys- tem. In addition, Aleutian Processors, Crowley Maritime, East Point Seafoods, Pacific Pioneer, and Sea-Alaska Products are assumed to commence purchasing power from the City system in 1987 or 1988 and American President Lines is added in 1989 as the advantages of purchasing power for non-economic reasons (reliability, convenience, etc.) come to outweigh the minimal cost savings of self-generating power. At existing rates, only Alyeska Seafoods would con- tinue to be a self-generator. Energy Requirements (Mwh) (Thousands) o V-14 By 1991, the non-industrial load is projected to reach 4,834 MWh. This figure represents the total forecasted load on the City system at rates higher than 20¢-25¢ per kWh in 1986 dollars, assuming constant fuel prices, which was discussed in Section IV as the level above which no industrial customers would buy City utility power (see Table IV-3 and Figure IV-1). In 1991 the total community load is projected to reach 39,554 MWh and represents the probable load on the City system at rates below 5¢ per kWh in 1986 dollars, assuming constant fuel prices, which represents the rate at which all Industries would be compelled to purchase power from the City utility. The anticipated load on the City utility in 1991 is 30,324 MWh which corresponds to the assumption that most of the Industries interconnect with the City sys- tem at effective rates for industrial customers of 14¢ to 15¢ per kWh in 1986 dollars. For the 20-year period, four alternative loads are shown in Fig- ure V-1 and peak demand growth is shown by the middle line in Figure V-5. CITY OF UNALASKA, ALASKA Energy Requirements——Bose Cose Forecast Figure V-1 Self—Generating Industria] Anticipated Total City Utility Load 20 Industrials Under Contract with City Utility 10 Non—Industria! Load Op a 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 2006 City Utility Load ot 1986 Rates > 25 ¢/kwh o = 14 — 15 ¢/kwh 4 < 5 ¢/kwh V-15 Low Case Scenario Assumptions The following alternative assumptions were made for the low case scenario. Additionally, the assumptions concerning the Industries are pre- sented in Table V-5. Where no change is indicated, the same assumptions as used in the base case scenario have been made. 0 Population growth in Unalaska will occur at 1% annually throughout the forecasted period. ° Residential customer growth will be at half the population growth rate, commercial customer growth will be at the population growth rate. 0 Usage per customer will grow at the same rates as in the base case except for municipal usage which will grow at 2% annually until 1991 and 1% annually thereafter. ° No new groundfish processing Industries are added to the system after 1987. ° The UniSea plant does not reopen and no new processing plants are developed. Seafood Processors Aleutian Processors Alyeska Seafoods- Existing Alyeska Seafoods- Surimi Eastpoint Seafoods Great Land Seafoods UniSea Subtotal New Processor (former UniSea) Unidentified New Processor Unidentified New Processor Unidentified New Processor Subtotal- Processors Marine and Other Services American President Lines Crowley Maritime Northern Offshore Pacific Pioneer Sea-Alaska Products InterSea Mall Walenshek Industries Table V-5 City of Unalaska, Alaska Large Commercial Customers and Self-Generators Forecast Assumptions Low Case Estimated General Growth (%/year) On-Line see Year 1987-91 1992-06 Existing 0.0% 0.0% Existing 0.0% 0.0% 1987 0.0% 0.0% Existing 0.0% 0.0% Existing 0.0% 0.0% Existing 0.0% 0.0% 2010 0.0% 0.0% 2010 0.0% 0.0% 2010 0.0% 0.0% 2010 0.0% 0.0% Existing 2.0% 0.0% Existing 2.0% 0.0% 1987 2.0% 0.0% Existing 2.0% 0.0% Existing 2.0% 0.0% Existing 2.0% 0.0% Existing 2.0% 0.0% Process Factor (% of max) 1987 1988 1989 > 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 70.0% 85.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 70.0% 85.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 150.0% 200.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% V-16 V-17 Low Case Scenario Forecast The projected low case scenario forecast is presented in Tables V-6a through V-8b, with two pages representing each of the non-indus- trial loads, matrixed industrial loads, and potential peak demands. In the low case scenario, non-industrial sales and generation are projected to in- crease at 2.0% annually through 1991 at 1.4% annually through 2006. Addition of the alternative industrial loads in Table V-7 indicates an anticipated load on the City system of 21,349 MWh in 1991 in the low case scenario, represent- ing 13.8% annual growth for the next five years and 3.5% annually from 1986 to 2006. A comparison of the low case scenario results with the base case and high scenario projections is provided graphically in Figures V-2 and V-5 for energy and peak demand. TABLE V-6a: CITY OF UNALASKA, ALASKA WON- INDUSTRIAL ENERGY REQUIREMENTS LOW CASE SCENARIO Historic Data 1904 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 199% 1995 Number of Customers 1 Residential 325 331 329 331 32 334 336 337 339 31 2 36 2 Small Commercial 9 18 7 7 7 18 18 18 18 18 18 9 3 Large Commercial (1) 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 Municipal Service (2) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 Total Non-Industrial Customers M7 352 ug 351 353 354 356 358 360 362 34 366 Usage per Customer | (kwh) 6 Residential 4,465 4,497 5,112 5,215 5,319 5,425 5,534 5,645 5,701 5,758 5,816 5,874 7 Small Commercial 23,295 23,129 23,765 24,260 24,725 25,219 25,7246 26,238 26,501 26, 766 27,033 27,306 8 Large Commercial 195,888 260,070 251,500 254,015 256, 555 259,121 261,712 264,329 264,329 264,329 264,329 264,329 9 Municipal Service 679,488 942,238 1,016,000 1,026,160 1,036,422 1,066,786 1,057,254 1,067,826 1,078,504 1,089,290 1,100,182 1,111,184 10 Average Usage per Customer (KWh) 8,544 9,452 10,330 10,473 = 10,620. 10,774 += 10,923 11,084 += 11,163 11,260 = 11,319 = 11,400 fton- Industrial Sales (kWh) W Residential 12 Small Commercial 13 Large Commercial 14 Municipal Service 1,682,000 1,724,000 404,000 ‘416,000 503,000 508,000 1,016,000 1, 026,000 1,812,000 442,000 se, 000 000 1,991,000 2,021,000 000 ‘498,000 "508,000 000 529,000 3,605,000 3,676,000 3,819,000 3,892,000 3,970,000 4,019,000 4,068,000 4,118,000 4, 169,000 271,000 277,000 287/000 293,000 299;,000 303,000 306,000 310,000 '314,000 15 Total Non-Industrial Sales 16 Losses (3) 17 Total Non- Industrial Requirement 3,876,000 3,951,000 4,027,000 4,106,000 4,185,000 4,269,000 4,322,000 4,374,000 4,428,000 4,483,000 18 Won- Industrial Peak Demand (KW) (4) 607 681 37 752 766 781 796 812 822 832 82 853 Footnotes: (1) Large Commercial class consiats of Alascom and Carl's Store. (2) Municipal Service load includes school, streetlights, and all other city facilities. (3) Losses for the residential, commercial, and municipal service loads are assumed to be 7%. (4) Based on an assumed load factor of 60%. 8L-A ill, TABLE V-6b: CITY OF UNALASKA, ALASKA WON- INDUSTRIAL ENERGY REQUIREMENTS LOW CASE SCENARIO Growth Rates (Compounded Annually) 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 seed 20% 2005 2006 1986-91 1986-2006 Number of Customers 1 Residential 346 348 9 351 353 355 356 358 360 362 364 0.5% 0.5% 2 Small Commercial 19 9 19 9 20 20 20 20 20 21 21 1.0 1.0 3 Large Commercial (1) 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0.0 0.0 4 Municipal Service (2) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.0 0.0 5 Total Non-Industrial Customers 368 370 371 373 375 377 379 381 383 385 387 0.5% 0.5% Customer (kwh) 6 Residential 5,933 5,992 6,052 6,112 6,173 6,235 6,297 6,360 6,426 2.0% 1.2% 7 = Small Commercial 27,577 27,852 28,131 28,412 28,696 28,983 29,273 29,566 29,861 2.0 1.2 8 Large Commercial 264, 329 266,329 264,329 264,329 264,329 264,329 264,329 264,329 264,329 1.0 0.2 9 Municipal Service 1,122,296 1,133,519 1,146,854 1,156,303 ner, 866 1,179,544 1,191,340 1,203,253 1,215,286 1, 1.0 1.0 10 Average Usage per Customer (KWh) 11,482 11,564 11,649 11,733 11,819 11,906 11,992 12,079 12,167 12,257 12,302 1.4% 0.9% Non-Industrial Sales (KWh) 11 Residential 2,052,000 2,082,000 2,114,000 2,146,000 2,178,000 2,211,000 2, 2.5% 1.7% 12° Small Commercial 528,000 539,000 550,000 561,000 3.0 2.3 13 Large Commercial 529,000 529,000 1.0 0.3 14 Municipal Service 1,134,000 1,145,000 1.0 1.0 15 Total Non-Industrial Sales 4,221,000 4,273,000 4,327,000 4, ‘381, 000 4,436,000 4,492,000 4, 548, 000 a 605, 000 4,663,000 4,722, 000 a 764,000 1% 1.6% 16 Losses (3) 318,000 322,000 326,000 330, 000 "334, 000 "338, 000 342,000 "x7, 000 "351, ‘000 ‘355,000 359,000 2.0 1.4 SEEEEEEE SEEEEEES EEEEESES EEEEEEES S2caEEEE SEESESEE EEEEESES EEEEEESE sesescss osxssszea =sx=szess 17 Total Non- Industrial Requirement 4,539,000 4,595,000 4,653,000 4,711,000 4,770,000 4,830,000 4,890,000 4,952,000 5,014,000 5,077,000 5,123,000 2.0% 1.4% 18 Won- Industrial Peak Demand (KW) (4) 864 874 885 8% 908 919 930 942 954 966 975 2.0% 1.4% Footnotes: (1) Large Commercial ieee consists of Alascom and Carl's Store. (2) Municipal Service load includes school, streetlights, and all other city facilities. (3) Losses for the residential, commercial, and municipal service loads are assumed to be 7%. (4) Based on an assumed load factor of 60%. <= ' = wo TABLE V-7a: CITY OF UNALASKA, ALASKA TOTAL ESTIMATED COMMUNITY ENERGY REQUIREMENTS LOW CASE SCENARIO 1 Non- Industrial Requirement (1) 3,876 3,951 4,027 4,106 4,185 4,269 4,322 4,37% 4,428 4,483 ‘; Industries under Contract with City Utility in 1986 2 Great Land Seafoods 3,660 3,770 4,090 4,400 4,400 4,400 4,400 4,400 4,400 4,400 4, 5 InterSea Mall 630 660 670 680 690 700 700 700 700 700 4 Northern Offshore 0 1,910 2,050 2,150 2,190 2,230 2,230 2,230 2,230 2,230 cB 5 UniSea 2,620 2,620 2,620 2,620 2,620 2,620 2,620 2,620 2,620 2,620 2, 6 Walenshek Industries 420 420 430 440 450 460 460 460 460 460 7 Subtotal 7,330 9,380 9,860 10,290 10,350 10,410 10,410 10,410 10,410 10,410 10, 8 Projected Existing Customer Load (Line 1 + Line 7) 11,206 13,331 13,887 14,396 14,535 14,679 16,732 4, 14,838 14, 16, 784 893 Anticipated Additional Industrial Load on City Utility 1,890 1,890 1,890 1,890 1,890 1,890 iF 0 9 Aleutian Processors 0 0 1,890 1,890 10 Alyeska Seafoods- Existing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ww Alyeska Seafoods: Surimi 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 American President Lines 0 0 0 1,340 1,370 1,370 1,370 1,370 1,370 1,370 1,370 13 Crowley Maritime 0 0 720 730 740 750 750 750 750 750 14 Eastpoint Seafoods 0 0 1,390 1,390 1,390 1,390 1,390 1,390 1,390 1,390 1,390 15 Pacific Pioneer 0 0 520 530 540 550 550 550 550 550 16 Sea-Alaska Products 0 680 690 700 710 720 720 720 720 720 7 New Processor (former UniSea) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 Unidentified New Processor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 Unidentified New Processor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 Unidentified New Processor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 Subtotal 0 680 5,210 6,580 6,640 6,670 6,670 6,670 6,670 6,670 22 Anticipated Load on Utility (Line 8 + Line 21) (2) 11,206 14,011 19,097 20,976 21,175 21,349 21,402 21,4546 21,508 21,563 21,619 Self-Generating Industrial Loads 3 Aleutian Processors 1,890 1,890 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 Alyeska Seafoods- Existing 4,480 4,480 4,480 4,480 4,480 4,480 4,480 4,480 4,480 4,480 4, 2 Alyeska Seafoods- Surimi 0 4,020 4,380 4,750 4,750 4,750 4,750 4,750 4,750 4,750 4, 26 American President Lines 1,250 1,280 1,310 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 27 Crowley Maritime 710 710 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 Eastpoint Seafoods 1,390 1,390 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 Pacific Pioneer 510 510 o 0 0 0 ° 0 o 0 30 Sea-Alaska Products 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 31 Subtotal 10,230 14,280 10,170 9,230 9,230 9,230 9,230 9,230 9,230 9,230 9, 32 Total Community Load (Line 22 + line 31) (3) 21,636 28,291 29,267 30,206 += 30,405 = 30,579 += 30,632 += 30,684 += 30,738 += 30,793 += 30, Footnotes: (1) Represents the anticipated load on the City Utility if effective rates exceed 25 cents/kwh in 1986 dollars, assuming 1986 fuel prices. (2) Represents the anticipated load on the City Utility at current effective rates of 14-15 cents/kwh in 1986 dollars, assuming 1986 fuel prices. (3) Represents the anticipated load on the City Utility if effective rates decrease to 5 cents/kwh or less in 1986 dollars, assuming 1986 fuel prices. ° O2-A TABLE V-7b: CITY OF UNALASKA, ALASKA TOTAL ESTIMATED COMMUNITY ENERGY REQUIREMENTS LOW CASE SCENARIO Growth Rates (Compounded Annual ly 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 = 1986-91 1986-2006 Energy Requirements (MWH) Ccccrcccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccece wecccccccccccscocccccccscoence ecccccccccccccccccccscesscccs § — cocce cosas 1 Won- Industrial Requirement (1) 4,595 4,653 4,711 4,770 4,830 4,890 4,952 5,016 5,077 5,123 2.0% 1.4% Industries under Contract with City Utility in 1986 2 Great Land Seafoods 4,400 4,400 4,400 4,400 4,400 4,400 4,400 4,400 4,400 4,400 5 InterSea Mall 700 700 700 700 700 700 700 700 700 700 4 Northern Offshore 2,230 2,230 2,230 2,230 2,230 2,230 2,230 2,230 2,230 2,230 5 UniSea 2,620 2,620 2,620 2,620 2,620 2,620 2,620 2,620 2,620 2,620 6 Walenshek Industries 460 460 460 460 460 460 460 460 460 460 7 = Subtotal 10,410 10,410 10,410 10,410 10,410 10,410 10,410 10,410 10,410 10,410 8 Projected Existing Customer Load (Line 1 + Line 7) 15,005 15,063 915,121 15,180) 15,240 = 15,300 15,362, 15,426 = 15,487 = -15,, 533 5.5% 1.6% Anticipated Additional Industrial Load on City Utility Aleutian Processors 1,890 1,890 1,890 1,890 1,890 1,890 1,890 1,890 1,890 1,890 10 Alyeska Seafoods- Existing 0 0 Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 "1 Alyeska Seafoods- Surimi 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 American President Lines 1,370 1,370 1,370 1,370 1,370 1,370 1,370 1,370 1,370 1,370 13 Crowley Maritime 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 4 Eastpoint Seafoods 1,390 1,390 1,390 1,390 1,390 1,390 1,390 1,390 1,390 1,390 15 Pacific Pioneer 550 550 550 550 550 550 550 550 550 550 16 Sea-Alaska Products 720 720 720 720 720 720 720 720 720 720 7 Wew Processor (former UniSea) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 Unidentified New Processor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 Unidentified New Processor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 Unidentified New Processor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21° Subtotal 6,670 6,670 6,670 6,670 6,670 6,670 6,670 6,670 6,670 6,670 22 Anticipated Load on Utility (Line 8 + Line 21) (2) 21,675 «21,733 21,791 = 21,850 921,910 = 21,970 = 22,032. 22,096 §=s 22,157 = 22, 203 13.8% 3.5% Self-Generating Industrial Loads 23 Aleutian Processors 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 Alyeska Seafoods- Existing 4,480 4,480 4,480 4,480 4,480 4,480 4,480 4,480 4,480 4,480 23 Alyeska Seafoods- Surimi 4,750 4,750 4,750 4,750 4,750 4,750 4,750 4,750 4,750 4,750 26 American President Lines 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 27 Crowley Maritime 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 Eastpoint Seafoods 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 Pacific Pioneer 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 Sea-Alaska Products 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 31 Subtotal 9,230 9,230 9,230 9,230 9,230 9,230 9,230 9,230 9,230 9,230 32 Total Community Load (Line 22 + line 31) (3) 30,905 30,963 31,021 = 31,080 §= 31,140 931,200 31,262 31,326 931,387 931,433 7.4% 1.9% Footnotes: (1) Represents the anticipated load on the City Utility if effective rates exceed 25 cents/kwh in 1986 dollars, assuming 1986 fuel prices. (2) Represents the anticipated load on the City Utility at current effective rates of 14-15 cents/kwh in 1986 dollars, assuming 1986 fuel prices. (3) Represents the anticipated load on the City Utility if effective rates decrease to 5 cents/kwh or less in 1986 dollars, assuming 1986 fuel prices. L2-A TABLE V-8a: CITY OF UNALASKA, ALASKA TOTAL ESTIMATED COMMUNITY PEAK DEMANDS LOW CASE SCENARIO SuRecccrsseressnsssessaesssseazassesss 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 199% 1995 1996 Peak Demand (KW) Sencaesessuccsmeeeccses tenses) ecceageedn ten sctccteredascscuetbescss site aeseesnad pansescccsteassassss eantaeecaces 1 Non- Industrial Peak (1) 37 752 766 781 7 B12 822 832 862 853 864 Industries under Contract with City Utility in 1986 153 V 2 Great Land Seafoods 950 so 4 ) 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 3 InterSea Malt *? 109 ie ee we me no ie ie 110 i 110 4 Northern Offshore, ae ) 630 630 sere narwiet Constructors 660 460 Nias <0 eh 00 ap 508 saa nae nee 6 Walenshek Industries 110 112 we BT ae —_ 120 120 120 120 120 120 7 Subtotal 1,620 2,084 2,158 2,262 gar 270 70 ah 2s 2,270 2,270 2,270 32,270 2,270 AA os 8 Projected Existing Customer Load (Line 1 + Line 7) 2,357 2,836 2,926 a 052 Ne .08 \ 3092 3,102 3,112, 3,123 3,134 Ly 30° Qo 4021 403) 41 oS! Anticipated Additional Industrial Load on City Utility 2 7 9 Aleutian Processors o © Yee o 670 670% = 670) 670 670 670 670 670 10 foods- Existing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 " ‘oods- Sur imi 0 0 ° 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 American President Lines cm 0 0 960 980 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 13 Crowley Maritime ie =? wae B7— 140 140 140 140 140 140 4 Eastpoint Seafoods 0 0 360% 360 360 360 360 360 360 360 360 15 Pacific Pioneer 0 0 % : 9% 98 100 100 100 100 100 100 16 Sea-Alaska Products DCltn Weslrn 0 122) 946, 126 126 129 %4O 132 132 132 132 132 132 17 New Processor (former UniSea) Ce 0 Ud 3% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 Unidentified New Processor | <y¢(< > 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 Unidentified New Processor + _ od 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 it amet cuiion 0 122 1,3 ° us 2, Py Q2,402 2 402 02 2 02 2 402 2 602 ota . , Te a . . as ? "ee 2 Sy a 2 ot 22 Anticipated Peak for City Utility (Line 8+ Line 21) (2) 2,357 2,958 ‘aA s; an” a 4o.\ \ 5-49 5,506 5,516 5,525 5,536 45) Self-Generating Industrial Loads AN aN “swt 5 a3 23 Aleutian Processors 670 670 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 Alyeska Seafoods- Existing 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 25° Alyeska Seafoods- Surimi 0 1,050 1,050 1,050 1,050 1,050 1,050 1,050 1,050 1,050 1,050 26 American President Lines 940 %0 940 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 27 Crowley Maritime 130 130 0 ° 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 Eastpoint Seafoods 360 360 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Pacific Pioneer 9 92 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 Sea-Alaska Products 0 0 0 ° 0 0 ° 0 0 0 0 31 Subtotal 2,250 2,250 2,250» 2,250 2,250 2,250» 2,250 2, 250 32 Total Community Peak (Line 22 + line 31) (3) 7,619 7,676 7,734 7,764 7,734 7,764 7,775 7,786 for City Y cents/kwh in 1986 dollars, assuming 1986 fuel prices. for tl Ss City Utility at current effective rates of 14-15 cents/kwh in 1986 dollars, assuming 1986 fuel prices. for the City Utility if “ae rates decrease to 5 Real or less in 1986 dollars, assuming 1986 fuel prices. Cows Sef hong “0. fe Fir — 9 ‘ " 3 _j eae gers Ute Lasice, oo C ~ : } eai-lete 2 ad ieee 7 Suge ‘ KS (1) Represent he anticipated (2) Represents the anticipated (3) Represents the anticipated Hit >/ re A-d7, #/¢ GA Peak Demand (KW) 1 Non- Industrial Peak (1) NOUsUn Industries under Contract with City Utility in 1986 Great Land Seafoods InterSea Mall Northern Offshore UniSea Walenshek Industries Subtotal 8 Projected Existing Customer Load (Line 1 + Line 7) 9 10 W 12 13 14 5 16 7 18 19 20 21 22 23 4 2 26 27 28 29 30 3 32 Anticipated Additional Industrial Load on City Utility Aleutian Processors Alyeska Seafoods- Existing Alyeska Seafoods- Surimi Mnerican President Lines Crowley Maritime Eastpoint Seafoods Pacific Pioneer Sea-Alaska Products New Processor (former UniSea) Unidentified New Processor Unidentified New Processor Unidentified New Processor Subtotal Anticipated Peak for City Utility (Line 8 + Line 21) (2) Self-Generating Industrial Loads Aleutian Processors Alyeska Seafoods- Existing Alyeska Seafoods- Surimi American President Lines Crowley Maritime Eastpoint Seafoods Pacific Pioneer Sea-Alaska Products Subtot Total Community Peak (Line 22 + Line 31) (3) TABLE V-8b: CITY OF UNALASKA, ALASKA TOTAL ESTIMATED COMMUNITY PEAK DEMANDS LOW CASE SCENARI 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Z. + 874 885 896 908 919 730 950 950 950 950 950 50 110 110 110 110 110 110 630 630 630 630 630 630 460 460 460 460 460 460 120 120 120 120 120 120 2,270 2,270 2,270 2,270 2,270 2,270 3,144 3,155, 3,166 3,178 3,189 3,200 HOW AY odd Anas ‘Ade 670 670 670 670 670 670 o 9 oO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 140 140 140 140 140 140 360 360 360 360 360 360 100 100 100 100 100 100 132 132 132 132 132 132 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,402 2,402 2,402 2,402 2,402 2,402 a420 5,546 5,557 5,568 5,580 5,591 5,602 San p> SAS 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,050 1,050 1,050 1,050 1,050 1,050 Qo Qo 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,250 2,250 2,250 2,250 2,250 2,250 7,7% 7,807 7,818 7,830 7,841 7,852 950 110 460 120 2,270 3,212 950 110 120 2,270 3,226 950 110 630 120 2,270 3,236 110 120 2,270 3,265 Growth Rates 2.0% 5.5% 18.4% 6.1% (2) Represents the anticipated peak for the City Utility at current effective rates of 14-15 cents/kwh in 1986 dollars, assuming 1986 fuel prices. (3) Represents the anticipated peak for the City Utility if effective rates decrease to 5 cents/kwh or less in 1986 dollars, assuming 1986 fuel prices. Annual ly Compounded 1986-91 1986-2006 1.46% 4.5% 1.6% €2-A V-24 High Case Scenario Assumptions scenario. The following alternative assumptions were made for the high case Additional assumptions concerning the projected Industries' loads are presented in Table V-9. Where no change has been indicated, the same assumptions as used in the base case scenario have been made. °O Population growth in Unalaska will occur at 9.6% annually through 1991 and 4.8% thereafter. Residential customer growth will be at 6.4% annually through 1991 and 3.2% thereafter; commercial customer growth will be at 9.6% annually through 1991 and 4.8% thereafter. Municipal usage will grow at the same rate as population growth, 9.6% annually through 1991 and 4.8% thereafter. One new groundfish processor is added to the industrial load in each year from 1988 to 1990, resulting in a total of six groundfish processors in Unalaska in 1991; a seventh is added in 1995 and an eighth is added in 2000. Power requirements for marine support and other service companies will increase at 6% per year between 1987 and 1991 and at 3% per year thereafter. Seafood Processors Aleutian Processors Alyeska Seafoods- Existing Alyeska Seafoods- Surimi Eastpoint Seafoods Great Land Seafoods UniSea New Processor (former UniSea) Unidentified New Processor Unidentified New Processor Unidentified New Processor Unidentified New Processor Unidentified New Processor Marine and Other Services American President Lines Crowley Maritime Northern Offshore Pacific Pioneer Sea-Alaska Products InterSea Mall Walenshek Industries Table v-9 City of Unalaska, Alaska Large Commercial Customers and Self-Generators Forecast Assumptions High Case Estimated General Growth (%/year) On-line ----cceeeen eens Year 1987-91 1992-06 Existing 0.0% 1.5% Existing 0.0% 1.5% 1987 0.0% 0.0% Existing 0.0% 1.5% Existing 0.0% 0.0% Existing 0.0% 0.0% 1988 0.0% 0.0% 1989 0.0% 0.0% 1990 0.0% 0.0% 1991 0.0% 0.0% 1995 0.0% 0.0% 2000 0.0% 0.0% Existing 4.0% 1.5% Existing 4.0% 1.5% 1987 4.0% 1.5% Existing 4.0% 1.5% Existing 4.0% 1.5% Existing 4.0% 1.5% Existing 4.0% 1.5% Process Factor (% of max) 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 70.0% 85.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 70.0% 85.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 150.0% 200.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% V-25 V-26 CITY OF UNALASKA, ALASKA Figure V-2 Energy Requirements——Low Case Scenario 70 7 60 = eS 50 4 z = 2 a on 53 40 c $3 23 20 s£& 30-4 ec Self—Generating Industrial Lood a 8 +—_0—_0—_0—_ +0 _ 00000 + o 20 Anticipated Total City Utility Lood Industrials Under Contract with City Utility 10 Non—Industrial City Utility Load | ° 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 2006 City Utility Load at 1986 Rates o > 25 ¢/kwh ° = 14 — 15 ¢/kwh 4 < 5 ¢/kwh CITY OF UNALASKA, ALASKA Figure V-3 Energy Requirements——High Case Scenario 70 7 co | 50 + Self—Generating ing 40 4 *—~*" Anticipated Total City Utility Load 30 4 Energy Requirements (Mwh) (Thousands) 20 Industrials Under Contract with City Utility 10 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 2006 City Utility Load ot 1986 Rates o > 25 ¢/kwh ° = 14 — 15 ¢/kwh 4 < 5 ¢/kwh V-27 High Case Scenario Forecast The projected high case scenario forecast is presented in Tables V-10a through V-12b, with two pages representing each of the non-indus- trial loads, matrixed industrial loads, and potential peak demands. In the high case scenario, non-industrial sales and generation are projected to in- crease at 8.3% annually through 1991 and 5.3% annually through 2006. Addition of the alternative industrial loads in Table V-11 indicates an anticipated load of the City system of 40,767 MWh in 1991, representing 29.5% annual growth for the next five years and 8.5% annually from 1986 to 2006. A com- parison of the high case scenario results with the base case and low case scenario projections is provided graphically in Figures V-4 and V-5 for energy requirements and peak demand. Monthly Load Distribution Based on an average of the City's monthly peak and energy loads of the past three years, a typical monthly distribution for the non-industrial loads has been prepared (see Table V-13) and this distribution is displayed graphically in Figure V-6 for energy requirements and Figure V-7 for peak de- mand. No precise data was available on monthly load shape for the Industries and so one was estimated based on historic employment data for seafood proc- essing, information gathered in interviews with the Industries, and from the monthly load shape obtained from a metered seafood processor in Kodiak. Pre- sented in Table V-14 are estimated monthly distributions for industrial loads and peak demand and this distribution is displayed graphically in Figure V-8. TABLE V-10a: CITY OF UNALASKA, ALASKA WON- INDUSTRIAL ENERGY REQUIREMENTS HIGH CASE SCENARIO 1906 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 199% 1995 Number of Customers 1 Residential 325 331 329 350 372 396 422 “9 463 478 493 509 2 Small Commercial 19 18 7 19 20 22 23 27 28 30 nu 32 3 Large Commercial (1) 2 2 2 - 2 2 2 2 a 2 2 2 4 Municipal Service (2) 1 1 A 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 Total Non-Industrial Customers 347 352 uo 372 396 422 449 479 49% 510 527 544 6 Residential 4,465 4,497 5,112 5,215 5,319 5,425 5,534 5,645 5,757 5,873 5,990 6,110 7 ~~ Small Commercial 23,295 23,129 23,765 26,240 24,725 25,219 25,724 26,238 26,501 26,766 27,033 27,304 8 Large Commercial 195,888 240,070 251,500 254,015 256,555 259,121 261,712 264,329 264,329 264,329 264,329 264,329 9 Municipal Service 679,488 962,238 1,016,000 1,113,536 1, 220, = 1, 337, 597 1, 466, 007 1, 606; 743 1, 683; 867 1,764,693 1,849,398 1,938,169 10 Average Usage per Customer (KWh) 8,544 9,452 10,330 10,490 10,657 10,838 = 11,027, 11,228 = 11,385 11,541 11,705 11,870 Non: Industrial Sales cam) 11 Residential 1,451,044 1,488,506 1,825,000 1,981,000 2,150,000 2,666,000 2,806,000 2,954,000 3,109,000 12 Small Commercial 442,614 416,329 452,000 505,000 564,000 747,000 790,000 837,000 885,000 13 Large Commercial 391,776 480,140 508,000 513,000 518,000 529,000 529,000 529,000 529,000 16 Municipal Service 679,488 942,238 1,116,000 1,220,000 1,338 1 1,684,000 1,765,000 1,849,000 1,938,000 15 Total Non-Industrial Sales 2,964,922 3,327,213 3, 899,000 4,219,000 4, ‘570, 000 4, 1953, 000 5,373,000 5,626,000 5,890,000 6,169,000 6,461,000 16 Losses (3) 223,166 250,435 293,000 °318,000 "344,000 "373,000 ‘404,000 423,000 ‘443,000 464,000 "486,000 samzsess | sasesess SEESEENE (ESEEEEES SESEEESS SEEESESS SEEESEEE SESESEES SeescEsE ssustecs szsszss5 17 Total Non-Industrial Requirement 3,188,088 3,577,648 3,876,000 4,192,000 4,537,000 4,914,000 5,326,000 5,777,000 6,049,000 6,333,000 6,633,000 6,947,000 18 Non- Industriel Peak Demand (KW) (4) 607 681 737 798 863 935 1013 1099 1151 1205 1262 1322 consists of Alascom and Carl's Store. (2) Municipal Service load includes school, streetlights, and all other city facilities. (3) Losses for the residential, commercial, and municipal service loads are assumed to be 7%. (4) Based on an assumed load factor of 60%. 82-A 1 Residential 2 Small Commercial 3 Large Commercial (1) 4 Municipal Service (2) 5 Total Non-Industrial Customers Usage per Customer (KWh) 6 7 = Small Commercial 8 Large Comercial 9 Municipal Service 10 Average Usage per Customer (KWh) 11 Residential 12 Small Commercial 13 Large Commercial 14 Municipal Service 15 Total Non-Industrial Sales 16 Losses (3) 17 Total Non- Industrial Requirement 18 Won- Industriel Peak Demand (KW) (4) Footnotes: TABLE V-10b: CITY OF UNALASKA, ALASKA WON- INDUSTRIAL ENERGY REQUIREMENTS HIGH CASE SCENARIO 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 525 542 559 577 596 615 634 655 % 3% 37 39 ai 43 45 47 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 562 581 600 619 640 661 682 705 6,500 28,412 12,063 12,220 12,402 12,481 3,273,000 3,445,000 3,627,000 3,752,000 3,872,000 3,996,000 4,124,000 4,256,000 937,000 992,000 1,050,000 1,111,000 1,176,000 1,245,000 1,318,000 1,395,000 529,000 529,000 529,000 529,000 529,000 529,000 529,000 529,000 2,031,000 2,129,000 2,231,000 2,338,000 2,450,000 2,568,000 2,691,000 2,820,000 2 2 6,770,000 7,095,000 7,437,000 7,730,000 8,027,000 8,338,000 8,662,000 9,000,000 510,000 534,000 560,000 582,000 604,000 628,000 652,000 677,000 7,280,000 7,629,000 7,997,000 8,312,000 8,631,000 8,966,000 9,314,000 9,677,000 10,058,000 10,453,000 10,868,000 1385 1451 1521 1581 1642 1706 1772 1841 (1) Large Commercial class consists of Alascom and Carl's Store. Growth Rates (Compounded Annually) 2004 2005 2006 1986-91 1986-2006 676 697 720 6.4% 4.0% 49 52 54 9.6 6.0 2 2 2 0.0 0.0 1 1 1 0.0 0.0 728 752 7 6.5% 4.1% 6,500 6,500 2.0% 1.2% 30,160 30,462 2.0 1.2 264,329 264,329 1.0 0.2 3,097,451 3,246,129 9.6 6.0 12,925 13,009 1.7% 1.2% 4,392,000 4,532,000 4,677,000 8.5% 5.2% 1,477,000 1,563,000 1,655,000 11.8 7.3 529,000 529,000 529,000 1.0 0.3 2,956,000 3,097,000 3,246,000 9.6 6.0 9,354,000 9,721,000 10,107,000 8.3% 5.3% 704,000 732,000 761,000 8.3 5.3 eemezess oo eazzcaza 96 saszzzze 8.3% 5.3% 19146 1989 2068 8.3% 5.3% (2) Municipal Service load includes school, streetlights, and all other city facilities. (3) Losses for the residential, commercial, and municipal service loads are assumed to be 7%. (4) Based on an assumed load factor of 60%. 62-A TABLE V-11a: CITY OF UNALASKA, ALASKA TOTAL ESTIMATED COMMUNITY ENERGY REQUIREMENTS HIGH CASE SCENARIO 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 199% 1995 1996 Requirements (MWh) 1 Non- Industrial Requirement (1) 3,876 4,192 4,537 4,916 5,326 5,777 6,049 6,333 6,633 6,967 7,280 Industries under Contract with City Utility in 1986 2 Great Land Seafoods 3,660 3,770 4,090 4,400 6,400 4,400 4,400 6,400 4,400 6,400 6,400 3 InterSea Mall 630 660 690 720 750 780 790 800 810 820 830 4 Northern Offshore 0 1,910 2,090 2,190 2,280 2,370 2,410 2,450 2,490 2,530 2,570 5 UniSea 2,620 2,620 2,620 2,620 2,620 2,620 2,620 2,620 2,620 2,620 2, 620 6 Walenshek Industries 420 430 440 460 480 500 510 520 530 540 550 7 Subtotal 7,330 9,390 9,930 10,390 10,530 10,670 10,730 10,790 10,850 10,910 10,970 8 Projected Existing Customer Load (Line 1 + Line 7) 11,206 13,582 14,467 15,304 15,856 16,447 16,779 17,123 17,483 17,857 = 18,250 5 Anticipated Additional Industrial Load on City Utility Aleutian Processors 0 0 1,890 1,890 1,890 1,890 1,920 1,950 1,980 2,010 2,040 10 Alyeska Seafoods- Existing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 " Alyeska Seafoods- Surimi 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 American President Lines 0 0 0 1,350 1,400 1,460 1,480 1,500 1,520 1,540 1,560 13 Crowley Maritime 0 0 740 770 800 830 840 850 860 870 880 6 Eastpoint Seafoods 0 0 1,390 1,390 1,390 1,390 1,410 1,430 1,450 1,470 1,490 15 Pacific Pioneer 0 0 530 550 570 590 600 610 620 630 640 16 Sea-Alaska Products 0 680 710 740 770 800 810 820 830 840 850 17 New Processor (former UniSea) 0 0 1,890 3,110 3,110 3,110 3,110 3,110 3,110 3,110 3,110 18 Unidentified New Processor 0 0 0 4,750 4,750 4,750 4,750 4,750 4,750 4,750 4,750 Ww Unidentified New Processor 0 0 0 0 4,750 4,750 4,750 4,750 4,750 4,750 4,750 20 Unidentified New Processor 0 0 0 0 0 4,750 4,750 4,750 4,750 4,750 4,750 2 Unidentified New Processor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4,750 4,750 22 Unidentified New Processor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 Subtotal 0 680 7,150 14,550 19,430 26,320 246,420 26,520 246,620 29,470 29,570 24 Anticipated Load on Utility (Line 8 + Line 21) (2) 11,206 14,262 21,617 29,856 35,286 40,767 = 41,199 41,643 = 42,103 47,327 = 47,820 Self-Generating Industrial Loads 25 Aleutian Processors 1,890 1,890 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 Alyeska Seafoods- Existing 4,480 4,480 4,480 4,480 4,480 4,480 4,550 4,620 4,690 4,760 4,830 27 Alyeska Seafoods- Surimi 0 4,020 4,380 4,750 4,750 4,750 4,750 4,750 4,750 4,750 4,750 28 American President Lines 1,250 1,250 1,300 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Crowley Maritime 710 710 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 30 Eastpoint Seafoods 1,390 1,390 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 x Pacific Pioneer 510 520 0 o 0 0 0 ° 0 0 0 32 Sea-Alaska Products 0 0 0 o 0 0 ° 0 0 0 0 33 = Subtotal 10,230 14,260 10,160 9,230 9,230 9,230 9,300 9,370 9,440 9,510 9,580 3% Total Community Load (Line 26 + line 33) (3) 21,436 28,522 31,777 = 39,086 = 44,516 49,997 = 50,499 51,013 51,543 56,837 = 57,400 Footnotes: (1) Represents the anticipated load on the City Utility if effective rates exceed 25 cents/kwh in 1986 dollars, assuming 1986 fuel prices. (2) Represents the anticipated load on the City Utility at current effective rates of 14-15 cents/kwh in 1986 dollars, assuming 1986 fuel prices. (3) Represents the anticipated load on the City Utility if effective rates decrease to 5 cents/kwh or less in 1986 dollars, assuming 1986 fuel prices. OE-A TABLE V-11b: CITY OF UNALASKA, ALASKA TOTAL ESTIMATED COMMUNITY ENERGY REQUIREMENTS HIGH CASE SCENARIO maxcarsesasseseasssssasasesssesesssesssesssss Growth Rates (Compounded Annual ly) 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 = 1986-91 1986: 2005 Ener; sean eoeee 1 Won- Industrial Requirement (1) 7,629 7,97 8,312 6,631 8,966 9,316 9,677 10,058 10,453 10,868 8.3% 5.3% Industries under Contract with City Utility in 1986 2 Great Land Seafoods 4,400 6,400 4,400» 4,400,400 400 4,400 4,400,400 4,400 s InterSea Mall 840 850 860 870 880 890 900 910 920 930 4 Northern Offshore 2,610 2,650 2,690 2,730 2,770 2,810 2,850 2,890 2,930 2,970 5 UniSea 2,620 2,620 2,620 2,620 2,620 2,620 2,620 2,620 2,620 2,620 6 Walenshek Industries 560 570 580 590 600 610 620 630 640 650 . 7 Subtotal 11,030 11,090 11,150 11,210 11,270 11,330 11,390 11,450 11,510 11,570 8 Projected Existing Customer Load (Line 1 + Line 7) 18,659 19,087 19,462 19,841 20,236 20,644 21,067 = 21,508 += 21,963 22,438 8.0% 3.5% Anticipated Additional Industrial Load on City Utility 9 Aleutian Processors 2,070 2,100 2,130 2,160 2,190 2,220 2,250 2,280 2,310 2,340 10 Alyeska Seafoods- Existing 0 0 ° 0 0 ° 0 ° ° ° W Alyeska Seafoods- Surimi 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 American President Lines 1,580 1,600 1,620 1,660 1,660 1,680 1,700 1,740 1,770 1,800 13 Crowley Maritime 890 900 910 920 930 %0 950 960 970 980 14 Eastpoint Seafoods 1,510 1,530 1,550 1,570 1,590 1,610 1,630 1,650 1,670 1,700 15 Pacific Pioneer 650 660 670 680 690 700 710 720 730 740 16 Sea-Alaska Products 860 870 880 890 900 910 920 930 940 950 7 New Processor (former UniSea) 3,110 3,110 3,110 3,110 3,110 3,110 3,110 3,110 3,110 3,110 18 Unidentified New Processor 4,750 4,750 4,750 4,750 4,750 4,750 4,750 4,750 4,750 4,750 9 Unidentified New Processor 4,750 4,750 4,750 4,750 4,750 4,750 4,750 4,750 4,750 4,750 20 Unidentified New Processor 4,750 4,750 4,750 4,750 4,750 4,750 4,750 4,750 4,750 4,750 21 Unidentified New Processor 4,750 4,750 4,750 4,750 4,750 4,750 4,750 4,750 4,750 4,750 22 Unidentified New Processor 0 0 0 4,750 4,750 4,750 4,750 4,750 4,750 4,750 23 = Subtotal 29,670 29,770 29,870 34,720 34,820 = 34, 920 35,020 35,140 35,250 35,370 24 Anticipated Load on Utility (Line 8 + Line 21) (2) 48,329 48,857 49,332 54,561 55,056 55,564 56,087 56,668 57,213 57,808 29.5% 8.5% Self-Generating Industrial Loads 2 Aleutian Processors 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 Alyeska Seafoods- Existing 4,970 5,040 5,120 5,200 5,280 5,360 5,440 5,520 5,600 5,600 27 Alyeska Seafoods- Surimi 4,750 4,750 4,750 4,750 4,750 4,750 4,750 4,750 4,750 . 4,750 28 American President Lines 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Crowley Maritime 0 0 0 0 0 Qo 0 0 0 0 30 Eastpoint Seafoods 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 nv Pacific Pioneer 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 32 Sea-Alaska Products 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 33 = Subtotal 9,720 9,790 9,870 9,950 10,030 10,110 10,190 10,270 10,350 10,350 3% Total Community Load (Line 24 + Line 33) (3) 58,049 58,647 59,202 64,511 65,086 65,674 66,277 «966,918 += 67,563 68,158 18.5% 6.0% Footnotes: (1) Represents the enticipeted load on the City Utility if effective rates exceed 25 cents/kwh in 1986 dollars, assuming 1986 fuel prices. (2) Represents the anticipated load on the City Utility at current effective rates of 14-15 cents/kwh in 1986 dollars, assuming 1986 fuel prices. (3) Represents the anticipated load on the City Utility if effective rates decrease to 5 cents/kwh or less in 1986 dollars, assuming 1966 fuel prices. LE-A TABLE V-12a: CITY OF UNALASKA, ALASKA TOTAL ESTIMATED COMMUNITY PEAK DEMANDS HIGH CASE SCENARIO 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 199% 1995 1996 Peak Demand (WM) si‘ ll pete m mer cc rococo ccccce eee eww eeeeeeee Peete ewe e een enn neon essnweseneee SOOM e mete e ewe n enn ene ew nasa sae eseeeeeeeeae 1 Non- Industrial Requirement (1) T37 798 863 935 1,013 1,099 1,151 1,205 1,262 1,322 1,385 Industries under Contract with City Utility in 1986 2 Great Land Seafoods 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 5 InterSea Mall 100 104 108 112 116 121 123 125 127 129 131 4 Northern Offshore 0 470 540 620 640 670 680 690 700 710 720 5 UniSea 460 460 460 460 460 460 460 460 460 460 460 6 Walenshek Industries 110 114 119 126 129 136 136 138 140 142 146 7 Subtotal 1,620 2,098 2,177 2,266 = 2,295 = 2,335 2,349 2, 363 2,377 2,391 2,405 8 Projected Existing Customer Load (Line 1 + Line 7) 2,357 2,896 3,040 3,201 3,308 3,434 3,500 3,568 3,639 3,713 3,790 Anticipated Additional Industrial Load on City Utility 9 Aleutian Processors 0 0 670 670 670 670 680 690 700 710 720 10 Alyeska Seafoods- Existing 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W Alyeska Seafoods- Surimi 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 american President Lines 0 0 0 1,020 1,060 1,100 1,120 1,140 1,160 1,180 1,200 13 Crowley Maritime 0 0 135 140 146 152 154 156 158 160 162 4 Eastpoint Seafoods 0 0 360 360 360 360 370 380 390 400 410 5 Pacific Pioneer oO 0 98 102 106 110 112 116 116 118 120 16 Sea-Alaska Products 0 125 130 135 140 146 148 150 152 154 156 7 New Processor (former UniSea) 0 0 800 800 800 800 800 800 800 800 800 18 Unidentified New Processor 0 0 1,050 1,050 1,050 1,050 1,050 1,050 1,050 1,050 1,050 19: Unidentified New Processor 0 0 0 1,050 1,050 1,050 1,050 1,050 1,050 1,050 1,050 20 Unidentified New Processor o 0 0 0 1,050 1,050 1,050 1,050 1,050 1,050 1,050 21 Unidentified New Processor 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 ° 1,050 1,050 1,050 22 Unidentified New Processor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23° Subtotal 0 125 3,263 5,327 6,432 6,488 6,534 6,580 7,676 7,722 7,768 24 Anticipated Load on Utility (Line 8 + Line 21) (2) 2,357 3,021 6,283 8,528 9,760 9,922 10,036 10,148 11,315 11,435 11,558 Self-Generating Industrial Loads 23 Aleutian Processors 670 670 0 o 0 0 0 0 o 0 Qo 26 ~—Alyeska Seafoods- Existing 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,220 1,240 1,260 1,280 1,300 27 Alyeska Seafoods- Surimi 0 1,050 1,050 1,050 1,050 1,050 1,050 1,050 1,050 1,050 1,050 28 American President Lines 940 960 980 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 Crowley Maritime 130 130 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 Eastpoint Seafoods 360 360 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 Pacific Pioneer 9 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 32 Sea-Alaska Products 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 33° Subtotal 3,390 4,464 3,230 2,250 2,250 2,250 2,270 2,290 2,310 2,330 2,350 34 Total Community Load (Line 24 + line 33) (3) 5,747 7,485 9,513 10,778 = 11,990 12,172 12,306 = 12,438 = 13,625 13,765 13, 908 Footnotes: (1) Represents the anticipated peak for the City Utility if effective rates exceed 25 cents/kwh in 1986 dollars, assuming 1986 fuel prices. (2) Represents the anticipated peak for the City Utility at current effective rates of 14-15 cents/kwh in 1986 dollars, assuming 1986 fuel prices. (3) Represents the anticipated peak for the City Utility if effective rates decrease to 5 cents/kwh or less in 1986 dollars, assuming 1986 fuel prices. cf-A Peak Demand (KW) 1 Non- Industr Requirement (1) Industries under Contract with City Utility in 1986 2 Great Land Seafoods 3 InterSea Mall 4 Northern Offshore 5 UniSea 6 Walenshek Industries 7 Subtotal 8 Projected Existing Customer Load (Line 1 + Line 7) 9 10 W 12 13 4 15 16 7 18 19 20 21 22 23 Anticipated Additional Industrial Load on City Utility Aleutian Processors Alyeska Seafoods- Existing Alyeska Seafoods: Surimi American President Lines Crowley Maritime Eastpoint Seafoods Pacific Pioneer Sea-Alaska Products New Processor (former UniSea) Unidentified New Processor Unidentified New Processor Unidentified New Processor Unidentified New Processor Unidentified New Processor Subtotal 26 Anticipated Load on Utility (Line 8 + Line 21) (2) Self-Generating Industrial Loads Aleutian Processors Alyeska Seafoods- Existing Alyeska Seafoods- Surimi American President Lines Crowley Maritime Eastpoint Seafoods Pacific Pioneer Sea-Alaska Products Subtotal 3% Total Community Load (Line 24 + Line 33) (3) TABLE V-12b: CITY OF UNALASKA, ALASKA TOTAL ESTIMATED COMMUNITY PEAK DEMANDS HIGH CASE SCENARIO 950 950 950 950 137 139 141 143 750 760 770 780 460 460 460 460 150 152 154 156 2,667 2,461 2,475, 689 4,028 =, 1034, 1814, 261 750 760 770 780 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,260 1,280» 1,300 ~—‘1,320 168 171 17% 17 460 450 460 470 126 128 130 132 162 164 166 168 800 800 800 800 1,050 1,050 1,050 1,050 1,050 1,050» 1,050 «1.050 1,050 1,050 += 1,050,050 1,050 1,050» 1,050 «1,050 0 1,050 1,050 ~— 1,050 7,906 9,003 9,050 9097 11,936 13,106 13,231 13,358 0 0 0 0 1,360 1,380 1,400 1,420 1,050 © 1,050» «1,050 = ‘1,050 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14,344 15,536 15,681 15,828 = S3233857885..3 ~ x BG omen wu 8 = ae = a 950 149 810 162 2,531 4,520 (1) Represents the anticipated peak for the City Utility if effective rates exceed 25 cents/kwh in 1986 dollars, assuming 1986 fuel prices. (2) Represents the anticipated peak for the City Utility at current effective rates of 14-15 cents/kwh in 1986 dollars, assuming 1986 fuel prices. (3) Represents the anticipated peak for the City Utility if effective rates decrease to 5 cents/kwh or less in 1986 dollars, assuming 1986 fuel prices. Growth Rates (Compounded Annual ly) 1986-91 1986-2006 et n EE-A Energy Requirements (Mwh) (Thousands) Peak Demond (MW) (Thousonds) CITY OF UNALASKA, ALASKA Three Energy Requirement Scenarios 70 60 50 40 High Case Scenario 30 Base Case Scenario Figure V-4 20 Low Case Scenario 10 1986 1990 1994 1998 Source: See Tables V-1, V—2, and V-3 CITY OF UNALASKA, ALASKA Three Peak Demand Scenarios a" 2002 2006 Figure V-5 High Cose Scenario Bose Case Scenario Low Cose Scenario 1986 1990 1994 1998 Source: See Tables V-1, V-2, ond V-3 2002 2006 V-34 “ V-35 Table V-13 City of Unalaska Monthly Distribution of Peak Demand and Energy Requirements for Non-Industrial Loads Monthly Peak Demand as Percent of Annual Peak Percent of Annual Energy Sold in Each Month January 95% 9.1% February 100% 9.2 March 93% 9.5 April 89% 9.3 May 80% 8.6 June 71% 7.0 July 68% 7.0 August 69% 6.5 September 81% 6.7 October 87% 8.3 November 94% 9.3 December 94% 9.5 Table V-14 City of Unalaska Estimated Monthly Distribution of Peak Demand and Energy Requirements for Industrial Loads Monthly Peak Demand as Percent of Annual Peak Percent of Annual Energy Sold in Each Month January 73% 7.7% February 68% Tee March 72% 76 April 98% 10.4 May 83% 8.8 June 75% 8.0 July . 95% 10.1 August 100% 10.6 September 74% 7.8 October 71% 7.5 November 67% 7.1 December 68% Tee Percent of Annual Energy Percent of Annual Peak Lood 10.0% 9.0% 8.0% 7.0% 6.0% 5.0% 100% 98% 96% 94% 92% 90% 88% 86% 84% 82% 80% 78% 76% 74% 72% 70% 68% 66% City of Unalaska Figure V-6 Non-industrio! Energy Distribution Jon Feb Mor Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec City of Unalaska Figure V-7 Non-industrial Peak Load Distribution Jon Feb Mor Apr Moy Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec V-36 V-37 Figure V-8 City of Unalaska Load Forecast Energy Distribution — Toto! Industries — . z Sao = 5 3 7.0% = c & 6.0% 3 ~ 50% c 8 gE 4.0% a 3.0% 2.0% 1.0% oox 4 ——, —-y a ; Jon Feb Mor Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Summary of Forecast Results A matrix of potential loads for the City utility has been developed for each of base case, low, and high scenario assumptions both for energy requirements and peak demand. The loads identified as non-industrial in each scenario represent the forecasted loads on the City system at effective elec- tric rates higher than a level of 25¢ per kWh in 1986 dollars and at current oil prices. The requirements identified as the anticipated load and peak demand at current rates reflect the decision of most of the Industries to become City utility customers at effective rates equal to the current 14¢ to 15¢ per kWh which reflects the City utility's combined energy and demand charge for industrial customers. The loads identified as total community reflect the potential energy requirement and peak demand of the City system V-38 were effective rates to drop below a level of 5¢ per kWh in 1986 dollars, assuming current oi] prices. It should be noted that these effective indus- trial rates are reflective of current conditions which could change signifi- cantly over the coming years as the City utility's load changes rapidly, an analysis of which was beyond the scope of the study. The effective load growth rates in the various scenarios reflect the assumptions which underlie each scenario. Rapid load growth is forecasted in the next five years for the City utility due primarily to the assumptions that several of the large Industries will become customers of the utility and that groundfish processing in Unalaska will continue to develop. Energy requirements growth under alternative low, base case, and high scenario as- sumptions is foreseen ranging between 13.8% and 29.5% over the next five years and then stabilizing at between 0.3% and 2.5% thereafter. Non-industrial growth should provide solid growth of approximately 4.5% annually over the next five years and 2.3% annually thereafter. With most of the Industries projected to interconnect with the City system in the next two to three years, growth is likely to be approximately 22% annually until 1991, increasing the existing load on the system from an estimated 11,206 MWhs in 1986 to 30,324 MWhs in 1991. Thereafter, growth is seen moderating to a 2.5% annual level, with the anticipated total requirement on the utility increasing to 44,192 MWhs in the year 2006. 10. 11. References Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Commercial Fisheries, 1986. Westward Region Shellfish Report to the Alaska Board of Fisheries. Alaska Department of Labor, Administrative Services Division, Research and Analysis Section, 1982-1983. Alaska population overview, 1982-1983. Alaska Power Authority, 1985. Unalaska/Dutch Harbor Reconnaissance Study Findings and Recommendation. Arthur Young, 1984. Draft for City of Unalaska's Electrical Rate and Load Projection Study. Dames and Moore, 1982. Aleutian regional airport, project documentation, report for the City of Unalaska. Hilderbrand, Kenneth S., Jr., 1986. Model White Fish Project: Trident Seafood, Akutan, Alaska, 1982/1985. R. W. Beck and Associates, Inc., 1985. Electric Rate Study for the City of Unalaska, Alaska. Tryck, Nyman & Hayes, 1985. A Revised Water System Master Plan prepared for the City of Unalaska, Alaska. Unwin Scheben Korynta Huettl, 1982. Unalaska Airport Master Plan 1982-2000. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census, 1831-1980. Census of population, Vol. 1, characteristics of population. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administra- tion, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1976-1986. Fisheries of the United States. as APPENDIX Table A-1: City of Unalaska, Alaska Historic Demographic and Economic Data Year Population Year Enplanements Year Sales and Use Taxes q1) (2) (3) 1970 336 1974 510 1975 510 1976 510 1977 510 1977 tant 1977 464846 1978 510 i 1978 8565 1978 805280 1979 619 1979 11666 1979 1124201 1980 1322 1980 12330 1980 1117654 1981 1944 1981 10962 1981 1310311 1982 1922 1982 7316 1982 1096023 1983 1677 1983 5008 1983 775790 1984 1630 1984 9900 1984 706375 1985 1500 1985 12561 1985 1124852 Increase in tax to 2% except for fish. 1980 1986 1980 1981 1982 1984 1986 January 512 869 January 391 553 366 475 367 681 February 920 983 February 787 640 546 424 541 478 785 March 1,137 1,102 March W7 1,054 781 657 620 569 878 April 1,197 April 1,064 += 1,093 799 723 647 632 May 1,213 May 1,072 1,150 802 786 762 620 June 1,151 dune 998 1,303 837 768 764 719 July 1,067 duly 914 1,215 975 508 927 1,000 August 904 August 714 1,116 817 742 830 1,026 September 1,154 September 980 1,357 99 753 547 874 October 1,378 October 1,180 1,150 557 608 415 512 November 1,272 November 1,076 958 406 496 387 432 December 1,115 December 928 602 308 456 262 373 Average 1,085 739 Average 925 1,016 679 600 598 634 781 Fish Emp. as % of 85.3% 82.5% 74.5% 66.3% 72.4% 74.2% 105.8% Tot. Emp. (1) State of Alaska, Department of Labor and Department of Community & Regional Affairs (2) U.S. Federal Aviation Administration Airports Division, Unalaska Enplanements from "Airport Activities Statistics of Certified Air Carriers", 1985 and earlier years (3) City of Unalaska, Unalaska Sales and Use Taxes (4) State of Alaska, Department of Labor (5) State of Alaska, Department of Labor (SIC 209 Data) env Table A-2: Dutch Harbor Finfish and Shellfish Landings (Thousand Pounds) King Crab Tanner Crab Other Shellfish Total Salmon Other Finfish Total Groundfish Year (KC) ce) (0S) (SA) (OF) (GF) Total 1980 75,542 45,705 2,265 11,815, 1,169 7 136,503 1981 19,064 48,466 4,359 0 190 907 72,986 1982 4,930 24,663 870 4,351 5,709 6,442 46,965 1983 7,569 25,361 849 110 8,058 7,000 48,946 1984 3,746 10,175 548 9,988 7,156 14, 686 46,297 1985 1,589 11,700 72 3,479 18 88,475 105,333 Source: Dutch Harbor Landing Reports, State of Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Kodiak, 1985 and earlier years. Dutch Harbor Finfish and Shellfish Ex-Vessel Value (Thousand Dol lars) King Crab Tanner Crab Other Shellfish Total Salmon Other Finfish Total Groundfish Year (KC) (Te) cos) (SA) (OF) (GF) Total 1980 $68,385 $17,023 $529 $4,363 $964 $1 $91, 265 1981 36,314 18,731 2,214 0 171 185 57,615 1982 17,079 18,651 426 677 1,110 800 38,743 1983 20,657 12,557 721 47 1,565, 900 36,447 1984 10,614 3,249 763 2,616 749 2,307 20,297 1985 3,606 4,810 115 305 4 11,737 20,577 Source: Dutch Harbor Landing Reports, State of Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Kodiak, 1985 and earlier years. Optimum Yield, Domestic Annual Harvest, and Foreign Allocations for Eastern Bering Sea and Aleutian Island Groundfish Year oy DAP JvP RES TALFF 1977 1,346,500 0 0 0 1,346,500 1978 1,467,700 0 0 600 1,467, 100 1979 1,407,400 0 0 2,100 1,405,300 1980 1,006,750 5,700 22,080 0 978,970 1981 1,579,226 16,900 85,717 0 1,476,609 1982 1,579,226 42,800 78,740 0 1,457,686 1983 1,006,750 11,150 114,880 0 880,720 1984 2,000,000 111,105 431,210 0 1,457,685 1985 2,000,000 137,210 697,850 1,345 1,163,595 OY - Optimum Yield Res - Reserve DAP - Domestic Annual Processing TALFF - Total Allowable Level of Foreign Fishing JvP - Joint Venture Processing Source: Fisheries of the United States, 1985 and earlier years, National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce e-V Residential -1 (Full PCE Coverage) TABLE A-3: _ os CITY OF UNALASKA ELECTRIC DEPARTMENT MONTHLY OPERATING RESULTS (1984 - 1986) Residential -2 (Above PCE Maximum) Residential -Total Unalaska Municipal Usage Small Commercial TRUC UNCUS1 UNSAL1 UNREV1 SCCUS1 SCSAL1 SCREV1 SCUC1 409 14 42,496 $9,770 22 43,369 $13,292 1,971 442 13 36,435 8,376 19 38,749 11,745 2,039 356 13 36,697 7,961 19 34,319 10,413 1,806 340 12 33,766 7,758 20 37,268 11,350 1,863 297 12 27,433 6,307 15 31,631 9,764 2,109 324 11 25,583 5,882 17 32,791 10,027 1,929 332 13 30,866 7,135 23 37,982 11,400 1,651 414 12 38,261 6,792 14 33,346 9,238 2,382 451 13 37,781 6,710 21 39,185 10,223 1,866 482 14 41,331 6,563 23 44,296 12,293 1,926 332 10 38,524 6,842 17 31,743 8,722 1,867 421 16 44,427 7,890 21 37,935 10,340 1,806 448 14 47,432 8,922 22 42,654 10,785 1,939 397 14 65,671 11,509 18 40,501 11,968 2,250 393 12 45,806 8,135 16 35,033 9,962 2,190 316 10 37,399 4,908 14 28,287 7,509 2,021 379 12 49,961 6,955 18 37,673 9,855 2,093 286 13 43,667 4,330 17 28,653 8,490 1,685 309 11 40,857 4,053 17 34,156 7,687 2,009 445 13 56,909 5,645 18 37,229 8,579 2,068 492 14 49,098 4,822 18 36,018 8,095 2,001 459 11 55,527 5,479 18 26,447 6,694 1,469 478 12 68,481 6,499 21 39,029 8,478 1,859 513 13, 55,657 5,282 19 27,269 8,659 1,962 508 14 54,219 5,145 18 36,275 8,114 2,015 451 14 72,239 6,855 17 33,122 7,321 1,948 475 10 39,3746 3,983 16 41,432 9,968 2,590 426 10 42,085 3,994 14 27,668 6,147 1,976 395 11. 41,504 3,939 14 25,460 5,743 1,819 367 12 50,056 9,566 15 30,366 7,885 2,024 City -Total Sm. Comm. -Total Total Average Total Averag Total Total 4600 13 433560 19 442614 23217 4676 12 575258 18 416329 23399 5319 12 626006 17 404471 23740 1.6% -2.9% 32.7% -7.6% -5.9% 0.8% 13.7% -2.7% 8.8% -6.1% -2.8% 1.5% 7.5% -2.8% 20.2% -6.8% -4.4% 1.1% Date RCUS1 RSAL1 RREV1 RUC1 RCUS2 RSAL2 RREV2 RUC2 TRCUS TRSAL TOTCUS TRREV 15-Mar-84 235 62,561 $32,323 266 67 60,877 $16,290 909 302. 123,438 341 $48,613 15-Apr-84 239 65,029 31,444 272 70 71,672 19,744 1,024 309 136,701 344 51,189 15-May-84 259 61,184 30,563 236 55 50,530 13,547 919 3144 «111,714 349 44,110 15-Jun-84 266 63,583 29,442 239 53 44,986 11,794 849 319 = 108,569 354 41,236 1S-Jul-84 297 71,842 30,697 242 2.3, 114 6,622 866 326 96,953 356 «37,319 15-Aug-84 270 66,867 29,680 248 40 33,603 8,783 840 310 100,470 341 38,463 28-Sep-84 239 67,080 30,820 281 51 44,675 12,300 876 337 111,756 329 27,890 31-Oct-84 256 72,713 40,326 284 70 62,262 14,348 889 326 = 134,975 355 54,674 30-Nov-84 227 61,030 40,385 269 84 79,183 16,995 943 311 140,213 348 = (57,381 30-Dec-84 215 60,473 41,317 281 95 89,027 19,041 937 310 = 149,500 350 660,358 30-Jan-85 286 73,076 41,611 256 29 31,369 7,133 1,082 315 = 104,445 345 48,745 28-Feb-85 269 81,369 43,535 302 45 50,941 11,839 1,132 314 = 132,310 352 55,374 30-Mar-85 253 80,184 52,801 317 54 57,400 12,939 1,063 307 137,584 346 65,740 30-Apr-85 286 86,983 46,610 304 41 42,797 9,557 1,044 327 = 129,780 362 56,167 30-May-85 286 89,760 43,538 314 35 36,319 8,086 1,038 321 126,079 352 51,624 30-Jun-85 306 78,798 41,506 258 26 26,08 4,954 1,003 332 104,884 359 46,460 30-Jul-85 281 84,405 47,662 300 35 35,382 6,759 1,011 316 = 119,787 349 54,421 30-Aug-85 288 59,802 41,651 208 30 31,090 4,809 1,036 318 90,892 351 46,460 30-Sep-85 287 65,548 43,655 228 33° (33,284 5,015 1,009 320 98,832 351 48,670 30-Oct-85 269 85,795 52,549 319 48 55,112 9,305 1,148 317 = 140,907 351 61,854 30-Nov-85 258 89,567 9,139 347 65 69,469 11,003 1,069 323. 159,036 358 820,142 30-Dec-85 268 95,546 9,072 357 46 48,424 7,451 1,053 314 = 143,970 346 16,523 30-Jan-86 241 69,703 7,081 289 71 79,473 12,929 1,119 312 149,176 348 = =20,010 28-Feb-86 244 81,194 Z,vi2 3% 63 76,328 13,207 1,212 307 = 157,522 342 «20,919 30-Mar-86 243 75,817 7,239 312 65 80,764 14,230 1,243 308 156,581 343 21,469 30-Apr-86 259 79,451 7,676 307 47 58,572 10,341 1,246 306 138,023 340 «(18,017 30-May-86 260 85,181 8,966 328 47 60,789 11,007 1,293 307 = =145,970 336 19,972 30-Jun-86 284 87,768 9,803 309 42 51,018 8,845 1,215 326 138,786 353 18,647 30-Jul-86 299 94,654 10,450 317 33° 36,525 5,881 1,107 332 = 131,179 360 16,331 30-Aug-86 299 84,675 16,346 283 32 36,960 8,474 1,155 331 121,635 361 24,821 Residential -1 Residential -2 Residential -Total Annual: Averag Total Total Averag Total Total Average Total 1984 250 806807 3176 61 644236 11265 316 = 1451044 347 1985 278 970833 3509 = 41517673 12687 89319 = 1488506 = 352 1986 266 994899 3728 = 50 686718 13868 86316 «61681617 349 Growth Rates: *G1 11.1% 20.3% 10.5%-33.9% -19.6% 12.6% 0.7% 2.6% 1.5% G2 -4.3% 2.5% 6.2% 23.2% 32.7% 9.3% -0.8% 13.0% -0.8% G3 3.1% 11.0% 8.3% -9.8% 3.2% 11.0% -0.0% 7.7% 0.3% NOTES:R - RESIDENTIAL UN - UNALASKA LC - LARGE COMMERCIAL TR - TOTAL RESIDENTIAL Source: SC - SMALL COMMERCIAL TOT - TOTAL SYSTEM CUS = CUSTOMERS TC - TOTAL COMMERCIAL City of Unalaska Electric Department Billing Records. SAL = SALES(KWH) v-V Large Commercial Total Commercial Total System (Alascom) (School) (Carl's Store) LCSAL3. —- LCSAL3. Date LCSAL1 LCREV1 LCSAL2 LCREV2 Est. Actual LCREV3 TCCUS TCSAL TCREV TOTCUS TOTSAL TOTREV TUC 15-Mar-84 25,920 $8,747 17,760 $5,972 11,760 11760 $3,932 25 98,809 $31,944 341 264,743 $90,326 776 15-Apr-84 25,080 8,461 18,880 6,353 10,680 10680 3,565 22 «93,389 30,125 344 266,525 89,690 775 15-May-84 19,320 6,503 17,280 5,809 11,280 11280 3,769 22 82,199 26,494 349 =230,610 78,565 661 15-Jun-84 13,920 4,667 16,000 5,374 13,320 13320 4,463 23. 80,508 25,853 354 222,823 74,847 629 15-Jul-84 12,720 4,259 9,280 3,089 12,960 12960 4,340 18 66,591 21,452 356 46190,977 65,077 536 15-Aug-84 12,840 4,300 7,120 2,355 13,680 13680 4,585 20 66,431 21,266 341 192,484 65,610 564 28-Sep-84 13,356 4,486 16,968 5,714 14,280 14280 4,800 26 =©82,586 26,400 329 225,208 76,655 685 31-Oct-84 13,680 4,529 17,520 5,835 12,960 12960 4,285 17 77,506 23,887 355 250,722 85,353 706 30-Nov-84 27,600 9,262 20,720 6,923 12,600 12600 4,162 24 100,105 30,570 348 278,099 94,660 799 30-Dec-84 22,560 7,549 36,000 12,118 11,280 11280 3,713 26 114,136 35,673 350 304,967 102,594 871 30-Jan-85 25,320 8,487 37,080 12,485 14,040 14040 4,652 20 108,183 34,346 345 251,152 89,933 728 28-Feb-85 25,680 8,609 31,320 10,527 14,940 14940 4,958 24 109,875 34,434 352 286,612 97,699 814 30-Mar-85 34,320 11,547 18,000 5,998 16,380 16380 5,447 25 111,354 33,777 346 296,370 108,439 857 30-Apr-85 28,080 9,425 33,900 11,404 15,300 15300 5,080 21 (117,781 37,878 362 313,232 105,554 865 30-May-85 16,320 5,427 41,360 13,941 18,180 18180 6,059 19 110,893 35,389 352 282,778 95,148 803 30-Jun-85 13,440 4,419 19,920 6,622 17,460 17460 5,786 17 79,107 24,336 359 221,390 75,704 617 30-Jul-85 13,440 4,419 15,360 5,072 20,700 20700 6,887 21 87,173 26,234 349 256,921 87,609 736 30-Aug-85 12,120 3,485 20,080 5,873 18,540 18540 5,411 20 «79,393 23,260 351 213,932 74,050 609 30-Sep-85 12,720 3,665 30,240 8,921 18,360 18360 5,357 20 95,476 25,631 351 235,165 78,354 670 30-Oct-85 25,800 7,589 37,040 10,961 20,000 34020 5,800 21 120,069 32,929 351 317,885 100,429 906 30-Nov-85 25,000 7,157 41,680 12,353 20,000 0 5,800 21° 122,698 33,405 358 330,832 97,324 924 30-Dec-85 34,000 9,959 41,000 12,044 20,000 1620 5,800 21° 121,447 34,496 346 = 339,324 101,592 981 30-Jan-86 34,440 10,178 41,040 12,158 20,000 2160 5,800 24 134,509 36,615 348 370,006 106,838 1,063 28-Feb-86 28,320 8,342 40,080 11,870 20,000 0 5,800 22 125,669 34,671 342 338,848 101,189 991 30-Mar-86 27,000 7,946 44,400 13,166 20,000 180 5,800 21 127,675 35,026 343 358,475 100,993 1,045 30-Apr-86 24,360 7,154 38,800 11,486 20,000 0 5,800 20 116,282 31,762 340 326,544 97,694 960 30-May-86 15,840 4,598 40,000 11,846 20,000 10980 5,800 19 117,272 32,213 336 311,625 94,060 927 30-Jun-86 12,720 3,662 15,040 4,358 20,000 0 5,800 17 75,428 19,967 353 256,299 76,918 726 30-Jul-86 12,480 3,590 10,000 2,834 20,000 0 5,800 17 67,940 17,967 360 240,623 72,215 668 30-Aug-86 12,360 3,626 10,560 3,086 20,000 QO 5,800 18 73,286 20,397 361 244,977 73,458 679 Comm. -Total Combined Total Annual: Total Total Total Averag Total Average Total Total 1984 237996 245928 153780 22 1080318 347 = 2964922 8546 1985 266240 366980 213900 21 1263449 352 © 3345593 9510 1986 265040 389880 238360 20 1297751 348 3670603 10541 Growth Rat G1 11.9% 49.2% 39.1% 6.6% 17.0% 1.5% 12.8% 11.3% G2 -0.5% 6.2% 11.4% “5.2% 2.% “1.1% 9.7% 10.8% G3 5.5% 25.9% 24.5% “5.9% 9.6% 0.2% 11.3% 11.1% REV = REVENUES($) UC = USAGE PER CUSTOMER (KWH) S-V A-6 Table A-4: City of Unalaska Electric Department Estimated Sales, Generation, and Customers from 1982 - 1986 Estimated Estimated Possible Estimated Nominal Unalask DATE Sales Generation Peak Customers Rate HDD Jan-82 259131 281,664 499.2 222 0.34 1083 } Feb-82 264253 287,232 547.2 222 0.34 1056 Mar-82 224686 244,224 503.0 226 0.34 956 Apr-82 252242 274,176 480.0 224 0.34 871 May-82 246589 268,032 422.4 a25 0.34 754 Jun-82 194304 211,200 399.4 225 0.34 528 Jul-82 185825 201,984 345.6 225 0.34 464 Aug-82 193597 210,432 364.8 230 0.34 409 Sep-82 197484 214,656 460.8 230 0.34 557 Oct-82 223361 231,936 464.6 230 0.34 ta Nov-82 249769 271,488 499.2 230 0.34 802 Dec-82 235284 255,744 518.4 230 0.34 962 Jan-83 270259 293,760 522.2 253 0.34 1144 Feb-83 234578 254,976 518.4 255 0.34 934 Mar-83 229985 249,984 499.2 250 0.34 1000 Apr-83 235638 256,128 472.3 256 0.34 814 May-83 222920 242,304 422.4 as5 0.34 Cae Jun-83 182292 198,144 384.0 255 0.34 514 Jul-83 228616 248,496 384.0 324 0.34 403 Aug-83 203325 221,016 368.6 328 0.34 299 Sep-83 223825 243,288 430.1 327 0.34 469 Oct-83 240510 261,424 499.2 aa2 0.34 705 Nov-83 291818 34i7, 202 522.2 255 0.34 907 Dec-83 288799 31379122 499.2 453 0.34 876 Jan-84 282798 307,389 499.0 360 0.34 1028 Feb-84 291782 317,154 537.6 339 0.34 1204 Mar-84 287868 312,900 483.8 341 0.34 983 Apr-84 290391 315,642 480.0 344 0.34 995 May-84 259310 2867,,859 441.6 349 0.34 794 Jun-84 225497 245,105 364.8 354 0.34 504 Jul-84 204767 222,073 357.1 356 0.34 388 Aug-84 191811 208,490 380.2 341 0.34 256 Sep-84 212520 231,000 403.2 329 0.34 425 Oct-84 270658 294,194 429.7 355 0.34 700 Nov-84 300654 326,798 480.0 348 0.34 818 Dec-84 320043 347,873 495.4 350 0.34 781 A-7 Table A-4: City of Unalaska Electric Department Estimated Sales, Generation, and Customers from 1982 - 1986 Estimated Estimated Possible Estimated Nominal Unalask DATE Sales Generation Peak Customers Rate HDD Jan-85 251152 268,520 503.0 345 0.34 870 Feb-85 286612 287,769 495.0 352 0.34 1033 Mar-85 296370 302; 293 499.0 346 0.34 1109 Apr-85 313232 320,492 508.0 362 0.34 1140 May-85 282778 291,006 464.0 3a 0.34 785 Jun-85 221390 239,310 500 359 0.34 578 Jul-85 256921 270,804 500 349 0.34 450 Aug-85 213932 319213 500 382i 0.30 457 Sep-85 235165 332,256 500 383 0.30 455 Oct-85 317885 343,316 500 332 0.30 732 Nov-85 330832 357,299 800 358 0.30 725 Dec-85 339324 366,470 800 346 0.30 905 Jan-86 370006 399,606 800 348 0.30 1201 Feb-86 338848 365,956 800 342 0.30 1052 Mar-86 358475 387,153 800 343 0.30 1096 Apr-86 326544 352,668 500 340 0.30 886 May-86 311625 336,555 500 336 0.30 746 Jun-86 256299 276,803 500 353. - 0.30 596 \ Jul-86 240623 259,873 500 360 0.30 476 Aug-86 244977 264,575 500 361 0.30 357 anual Totals 1982 2716547 2952768 547 227 0.34 9173 1983 2852575 3100625 522 294 0.34 8776 1984 3138099 3410977 538 347 0.34 8876 1985 3345593 3696387 800 352 0.32 9259 1986 3670603 4041529 800 349 0.30 9277 Growth Rate 1982-86 7.82% 8.16% 9.96% 11.41% -3.08% 0.28%